Furthermore, those infringements you mentioned were not secret. They were above board and public, whether or not they were right or wrong. We don't really know the full extent of the Bush calumny because of the layers of secrecy, and we won't know unless Congress can put together a proper investigation.
A lot depends on the November election. If the Dems can gain control of the House, perhaps we'll get some answers.
For the record, I've opposed Bush since the 2000 election. I was a McCain man, and I was truly disturbed and disgusted by the campaign Bush ran. Fast forward to 9/11 and I supported our president. I wasn't alone in getting behind him. The invasion of Iraq: I originally supported this, but I had trepidation about how the reconstruction would unfold. Also, even though I supported the war, it became clear to me early on that the Administration had manipulated intelligence as a pretext for war. Anyway, it also became quickly apparent that the Administration's plan and execution of the reconstruction was completely inadequate to the point of incompetency.
And don't even get me started on domestic issues. (I long for the good old days of the Clinton Administration's fiscal responsibility.)
Long story short, I believe that the GOP has been taken over by a gang of crooks, and I welcome other Republicans to this view if we are to have any hope of salvaging our party. There's still a few good Republicans in Congress that I am not ashamed of.
. . . puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue . ..
I think you watch too many movies.
2) . . . 3) . . . 4) . . .
Put American service members and civilians at risk by interfering with legitimate intelligence operations.
Overly broad, and you're ignoring that persons on US soil have Constitutional protections, regardless of whether or not the end result is criminal prosecution. If you're going to engage in domestic spying, you need effective oversight from the other two branches of government. If the executive branch deceives the other branches, then the American people's only recourse is thru oversight by the press.
Basically, you're just using a smoke screen. Why not take it to the extreme? How many service members' lives could we save if we lived in a complete police state where the executive could do whatever it wished?
You're basically saying, "In theory", and I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for your "In theory, lives could be put at risk".
5) The only ACTUAL disclosure of an agent's identity, and you say conveniently say that her ID was no longer relevant. Meanwhile, anyone she had contact with could be in danger, regardless of whether or not she was their case officer. Innocent people might come to harm, let alone filed agents. And what sort of effect does this sort of disclosure have on field agents, knowing that your bosses will hang you out to dry, not merely for political expedience, but to attack political critics!
Basically, you can apologize all you want for the Bush administration, but as far as this Republican is concerned, your apology is no longer accepted.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch, so they're not really the ideal people for performing oversight.
But I think it speaks volumes when the Administration, while claiming that it has it's own "rigorous" oversight procedures in place, effectively destroys that oversight.
There are such incredible volumes of smoke coming off of this administration that there is no way that there is no fire.
Please don't lump the Bush operatives and true believers with patriotic conservatives who oppose this Imperial Presidency. It's become increasingly obvious to those not brainwashed that the President and his men, as well as many in the formerly great GOP, are power mad and corrupt.
Negative, Sir!! We can't have these reporters finding out about conditions at Gitmo, Sir! I suggest we house them in the secret Eastern European torture prisons, instead, Sir!
This is the exact sort of spin and parsing of words that were the Clintonites' downfall. So long as Scooter is willing to take the fall for obstructing justice, and absent any other avenues we might not know about, the cover up has succeeded.
It's gone past partisan politics. I'm a conservative, a registered Republican, and I am sickened by the actions of the Bush Administration. How can there be a more pressing issue than a political leader overturning the same Constitution he is sworn to uphold?
When the secret activity is illegal activity, then the oath no longer holds legal force. In fact, not breaking an oath might be seen as illegal, as it is engaging in a cover up of an illegal act. If there had been proper judicial and congressional oversight of the activity, we could then have some confidence that the activity was not illegal. Since the Bush Administration has intentionally hid these activities from oversight, it's not unreasonable to doubt their legality.
Thank you, brother Republican. If our party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will be because a few of us recognize that Bush and his followers have betrayed this nation.
Frankly, if it is true that the administration is monitoring the calls of reporters, the mind boggles (and yes, the irony increases the boggle). It's insane and stupid that they'd do this at this time. I once thought that Clinton was the epitome of arrogance during the Lewinsky scandal, but this is so much worse. What are they thinking?
Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}
Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!
There's basically three things you can do with an invention:
1) Keep it a secret 2) Release it to the public domain 3) File a patent.
By filing the patent, you are actually releasing the info to the public, but in a special way that gives you a monopoly on your invention for a period of time.
To release an invention to the public domain, you basically don't do 1) Keep it a secret. Publishing is the most efficient way of doing this.
I actually did RTFA. =) Sorry if my urging you to learn more sounded negative. It wasn't meant to be.
Uh, by discussing the technology (in interviews and such), he's putting it out there into the public. He's publishing his idea. Thus there is the record of prior art if anyone tries to patent it.
You really owe it to yourself to understand what patents are all about, even if you never ever plan on applying for one.
That five (or six, as you count it) years of Windows stagnation is a real lost opportunity for Linux on the Desktop. Even with a severely limited Vista due out next year, I get the feeling that MS is going to deliver on their promise to fold in those missing features as they become ready.
Instead of "being as good as windows", OS X should have been the target (or model) for desktop developers.
However, probably the biggest hurdle to Linux as a desktop is not from UI design, but from driver support. The GPL, while guaranteeing freedom, is also a usability obstacle.
Second point: The founding fathers were conservative? Please describe for me how they were cautious?
Unless you are a liberal heathen revisionist (who hates America and loves the terrorists), the fact that founding fathers were conservative should be as self-evident as the fact that Jesus would have been a Republican, had the GOP existed in his day.
But apparently that isn't good enough for you, Mr. Smarty-Pants Skeptic. Well, try this on for size: In the early days, the founding fathers were very big on having the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution strictly. They weren't in favor of activist liberal judges, and they didn't appoint any.
It's par for the course here at slashdot. If it's not a clean lift from TFA, then chances are it's going to be incomprehensible. Writing skills on slashdot are that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, those infringements you mentioned were not secret. They were above board and public, whether or not they were right or wrong. We don't really know the full extent of the Bush calumny because of the layers of secrecy, and we won't know unless Congress can put together a proper investigation.
A lot depends on the November election. If the Dems can gain control of the House, perhaps we'll get some answers.
about your sig . . .
The post-Modern Conservative knows there is no "moral" justification for selfishness.
For the record, I've opposed Bush since the 2000 election. I was a McCain man, and I was truly disturbed and disgusted by the campaign Bush ran. Fast forward to 9/11 and I supported our president. I wasn't alone in getting behind him. The invasion of Iraq: I originally supported this, but I had trepidation about how the reconstruction would unfold. Also, even though I supported the war, it became clear to me early on that the Administration had manipulated intelligence as a pretext for war. Anyway, it also became quickly apparent that the Administration's plan and execution of the reconstruction was completely inadequate to the point of incompetency.
And don't even get me started on domestic issues. (I long for the good old days of the Clinton Administration's fiscal responsibility.)
Long story short, I believe that the GOP has been taken over by a gang of crooks, and I welcome other Republicans to this view if we are to have any hope of salvaging our party. There's still a few good Republicans in Congress that I am not ashamed of.
1) . . .
.
Put agents *actually* in the field at risk
How? How does it put individual agents at risk?
. . . puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue . .
I think you watch too many movies.
2) . . . 3) . . . 4) . . .
Put American service members and civilians at risk by interfering with legitimate intelligence operations.
Overly broad, and you're ignoring that persons on US soil have Constitutional protections, regardless of whether or not the end result is criminal prosecution. If you're going to engage in domestic spying, you need effective oversight from the other two branches of government. If the executive branch deceives the other branches, then the American people's only recourse is thru oversight by the press.
Basically, you're just using a smoke screen. Why not take it to the extreme? How many service members' lives could we save if we lived in a complete police state where the executive could do whatever it wished?
You're basically saying, "In theory", and I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for your "In theory, lives could be put at risk".
5) The only ACTUAL disclosure of an agent's identity, and you say conveniently say that her ID was no longer relevant. Meanwhile, anyone she had contact with could be in danger, regardless of whether or not she was their case officer. Innocent people might come to harm, let alone filed agents. And what sort of effect does this sort of disclosure have on field agents, knowing that your bosses will hang you out to dry, not merely for political expedience, but to attack political critics!
Basically, you can apologize all you want for the Bush administration, but as far as this Republican is concerned, your apology is no longer accepted.
That reminds me of the Blue Dress with the semen stain on it.
I guess it's a little funny that both Bush and Clinton will go down in history as "leakers".
Just to clarify.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch, so they're not really the ideal people for performing oversight.
But I think it speaks volumes when the Administration, while claiming that it has it's own "rigorous" oversight procedures in place, effectively destroys that oversight.
There are such incredible volumes of smoke coming off of this administration that there is no way that there is no fire.
Please don't lump the Bush operatives and true believers with patriotic conservatives who oppose this Imperial Presidency. It's become increasingly obvious to those not brainwashed that the President and his men, as well as many in the formerly great GOP, are power mad and corrupt.
Negative, Sir!! We can't have these reporters finding out about conditions at Gitmo, Sir! I suggest we house them in the secret Eastern European torture prisons, instead, Sir!
I find only small comfort is government disclaimers about what is actually being monitored.
You aren't troubled by the fact that each revelation makes the previous disclaimer/assurance untrue? How can you find any comfort at all?
This is the exact sort of spin and parsing of words that were the Clintonites' downfall. So long as Scooter is willing to take the fall for obstructing justice, and absent any other avenues we might not know about, the cover up has succeeded.
You've crossed the line from engaging in debate to spreading misinformation.
Are you really such a true believer, or are you getting paid to astroturf?
They're paid GOP astroturfers.
It's gone past partisan politics. I'm a conservative, a registered Republican, and I am sickened by the actions of the Bush Administration. How can there be a more pressing issue than a political leader overturning the same Constitution he is sworn to uphold?
You're still not getting the underlying concept.
When the secret activity is illegal activity, then the oath no longer holds legal force. In fact, not breaking an oath might be seen as illegal, as it is engaging in a cover up of an illegal act. If there had been proper judicial and congressional oversight of the activity, we could then have some confidence that the activity was not illegal. Since the Bush Administration has intentionally hid these activities from oversight, it's not unreasonable to doubt their legality.
Thank you, brother Republican. If our party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will be because a few of us recognize that Bush and his followers have betrayed this nation.
Frankly, if it is true that the administration is monitoring the calls of reporters, the mind boggles (and yes, the irony increases the boggle). It's insane and stupid that they'd do this at this time. I once thought that Clinton was the epitome of arrogance during the Lewinsky scandal, but this is so much worse. What are they thinking?
Which of the following leaks have put exposed field agents and put them at potential risk?
1) Secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe
2) Warrantless taps on calls going into and out of the US by the NSA
3) Database of American call records assembled by the NSA
4) Monitoring of reporters phone calls by as yet unnamed federal agency
5) Identifying CIA case officer to scare a whistle blower
So far, Novak is the only "journalist" who has put anyone in potential danger, and we know the leak came out of the Vice President's office.
Don't tell me the reporters have gotten to you already, Phil!
Shades of Ferris Fremont, don't you think?
The intent is not to punish the journalist
Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}
Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!
That's because you're looking in the grocery store, not the morgue, silly!
There's basically three things you can do with an invention:
1) Keep it a secret
2) Release it to the public domain
3) File a patent.
By filing the patent, you are actually releasing the info to the public, but in a special way that gives you a monopoly on your invention for a period of time.
To release an invention to the public domain, you basically don't do 1) Keep it a secret. Publishing is the most efficient way of doing this.
I actually did RTFA. =) Sorry if my urging you to learn more sounded negative. It wasn't meant to be.
Uh, by discussing the technology (in interviews and such), he's putting it out there into the public. He's publishing his idea. Thus there is the record of prior art if anyone tries to patent it.
You really owe it to yourself to understand what patents are all about, even if you never ever plan on applying for one.
That five (or six, as you count it) years of Windows stagnation is a real lost opportunity for Linux on the Desktop. Even with a severely limited Vista due out next year, I get the feeling that MS is going to deliver on their promise to fold in those missing features as they become ready.
Instead of "being as good as windows", OS X should have been the target (or model) for desktop developers.
However, probably the biggest hurdle to Linux as a desktop is not from UI design, but from driver support. The GPL, while guaranteeing freedom, is also a usability obstacle.
they probably log every call made even if not for billing.
That's pretty far fetched!
Second point: The founding fathers were conservative? Please describe for me how they were cautious?
Unless you are a liberal heathen revisionist (who hates America and loves the terrorists), the fact that founding fathers were conservative should be as self-evident as the fact that Jesus would have been a Republican, had the GOP existed in his day.
But apparently that isn't good enough for you, Mr. Smarty-Pants Skeptic. Well, try this on for size: In the early days, the founding fathers were very big on having the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution strictly. They weren't in favor of activist liberal judges, and they didn't appoint any.
It's par for the course here at slashdot. If it's not a clean lift from TFA, then chances are it's going to be incomprehensible. Writing skills on slashdot are that bad.