What if it's very, very expensive and time-consuming to "think of" something? This can be true in the case of drugs, with research and certification (or whatever the term is) costs potentially very high for new drugs. If a drug company knew that as soon as they brought a drug to market it would be copied and sold as generic, why would they ever invest in making it in the first place? In other words, why would there be any such thing as a drug research company?
I believe the the big ISP and email provider's goal is to ultimately collect 'postage' on each piece of email that comes through their system.
Maybe long term (maybe). But I hope they see that short-term (meaning the next several years) it's utterly impractical. There's no viable worldwide micropayment system, so there's no way at all to charge me, say,.2 cent to send a single email to a single AOL subscriber. And if I have to pay so much that it's worth using a macropayment system such as PayPal, I simply won't send email to any such addresses. I suspect millions of others agree with me, and so if AOL tried such a thing, their subscribers would basically stop getting email. There's no use paying for an email service that doesn't deliver any email, ergo... no customers. So the short version is that's not going to happen in the near future, but certainly is possible much later.
If they don't, the large number of false positives would cost them customers. Adoption of a 'certified mail plan' would enable the ISPs to tighten filters and explain to customers that this was all in their best interest.
Even with the new plan, they don't want a significant number of false positives from the spam filters, right? Wouldn't that still piss off customers just as much?
I would be less critical of this if it didn't seem so obvious that this is just big corporate America trying to squeeze an extra buck out of it's customer base.
But they're not. They're squeezing an extra buck out of people who want to send mail to their customers.
You seem to be saying that there will be two categories of email, those that are paid for and delivered, and those that aren't paid for and are blocked. In reality, anything that makes it to your inbox now would continue hitting your inbox in the future. The only way this plan could reduce the amount of email you get is this situation:
- There's someone who successfully gets email to you now, whether desired or not
- This person decides to go with the certified mail plan, and send to a smaller list
- You fall off the list and no longer get the email
What are the chances of such emails being anything you would actually want to get?
Fair enough. Seems strange though because it defines the two in terms of what they want compared to what exists now. By some of those definitions, someone advocating changing our laws to be simpler, with smaller government and less regulation would be considered liberal (favoring reform and progress), and those on the opposite side conservative (resistant to change). However, I think that's the opposite of how people think of themselves - that is, those favoring such reforms generally consider themselves conservative. It also implies that if a liberal gets all the reforms they want, they either start looking for new reforms to push for, or they then become conservative because then they don't want further change. Likewise, a conservative would become a liberal if the status quo changes and they no longer favor existing laws, because then they would start trying to change things. I guess I don't care for those definitions much, but maybe I'm in a minority.
So... the laws we have now are perfect, and you wouldn't want anybody in office who would ever want to change any of them? And only liberals try to change laws? And you're smoking what?
Even if we all agree that they have a right to set whatever policy they want, and even if we all agree that they acted in accordance with their policies (neither of which is probably true), we could still argue about whether the policies are ethical or wise.
Locks don't keep anybody honest. A closed door is sufficient for honest people; for dishonest people you need a lock that is difficult to bypass. A casual dishonest person can bypass a doorknob lock fairly easily. A deadbolt is much harder to bypass without a key, particularly without attracting attention, so it's effective at deterring more determined criminals. That's exactly who you want to deter most, so why would you not throw the deadbolt? This analogy breaks down somewhat because the deadbolt is just as easy to use as the other lock. However, you can imagine that it's more difficult, like maybe you have to throw the deadbolt and then walk to the other side of the house and push a button to arm it. Lazy security is using the easy but ineffective lock, good security is the deadbolt.
As for somebody jiggling the doorknob, what does it matter? If you use the deadbolt, the door is still locked and they won't be able to open it. If they're able and willing to get past the deadbolt, then being able to jiggle the doorknob won't make a lick of difference. To go back to the other side of the analogy, if someone can get past your firewalls, etc and straight into your network and read files off your servers, what difference does it make what filenames you use? The attacker is obviously determined and effective, and a little misdirection won't do you any good. The most you'll end up doing is cause inconvenience for your own people and foster a false sense of security.
"Security through obscurity" doesn't mean "keeping things secret." Keeping passwords secret is obviously not STO. The same holds true of keeping usernames secret. It's just basic security practice, or at least it should be. You both have valid points. Changing things in a superficial way really will have a chance of reducing your vulnerability to some problems. However, it also has a chance of making some people think you're no longer vulnerable, and pay less attention to real security. My take is, if something is worth securing, it's worth securing properly. If it's only worth taking steps like you mention, then don't even bother - whatever it is you're securing isn't worth any effort. If you choose to do real security, then STO is just a waste of time - it won't add anything to what you've already done.
Just like I tell my wife when she locks the doorknob lock after locking the deadbolt. If you're going to lock the door, use the deadbolt. If you lock the deadbolt, the other lock isn't going to make the door any harder to open for someone without a key, only for someone with legitimate access. So don't bother.
Isn't it possible there's something else besides sugar in that glass? Like, say... saliva? Or if you have small children, anything from graham crackers to cheddar cheese to boogers.
Do you feel the US Green Party is fairly represented by their published platform at www.gp.org? If so...
"Government regulation of speech" vs. "We demand re-enforcement of our civil liberties of speech, assembly, association and petition. Citizens may not be denied the right to public, non-violent protest. Citizens who engage in protest may not be intimidated by government surveillance, repression or retaliation." and "Constitutionally protected rights - fought for by American patriots - are rights the Green Party patriotically holds in the highest regard."
"nationalization of all broadcast media." does that refer to "All viable candidates at the state and federal levels should have free and equal radio and television time and print press coverage." or something else?
By "Government control/funding of health care, education, and the arts." do you mean "We support a rich milieu of art, culture, and significant (yet modestly funded) programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities." and "Programs must ensure that children, who are among the most vulnerable members of society, receive basic nutritional, educational, and medical necessities. The Green Party supports and seeks to expand Head Start and Pre- and neo-natal programs." and "A universal, federally funded childcare program for pre-school and young schoolchildren should be developed." and "We call for equitable state and national funding for education and the creation of schools controlled by parent-teacher governing bodies. We oppose vouchers, or any scheme that will transfer money out of the public school system. That course only leads to a separate and unequal educational system. We also oppose charter schools or the administration of public schools by private, for-profit entities."?
By "Government control over prices and wages." do you mean "Corporations receiving public subsidies must provide jobs that pay a living wage, observe basic workers' rights, and agree to affirmative action policies." or " We support the enactment of living wage laws that apply to all workers. " or something else?
Unfortunately I have to go right now and don't have time to read more, but if you have references to their platform I will read them tomorrow. Or if you think they don't really adhere to their platform tell me about that. I've never voted Green so I don't have a vested interest here, but at first glance your characterization seems exaggerated.
BUT... on the original topic of my question and your answer to it, I understand what you're saying now. I'm not sure that the terms have been co-opted to the extent you see it, though.
I'm not sure these chimeras you mention would disprove evolution, as they could potentially be explained by convergent evolution. Also, birds are warm-blooded.
So the thing to do is live somewhere guns, including concealed ones, are freely available, but don't have one. That way you get the benefit of reduced crime without the increased risk of a gun accident. And don't try to tell me only stupid people have gun accidents. If there's a gun in your home, the risk of a gun accident goes from zero to non-zero.
Yes, people pay tuition for private schools. Because if they don't, their kids don't get to go there. People pay admission fees, because if they don't, they don't get to go in. People pay tolls, because if they don't, they don't get to drive on the road. Do you want all schools to be private, all spaces to charge admission, and all roads to be tolled? Maybe you do, I don't know. Or maybe you think that charitable organizations are willing and able to raise enough money to cover all the programs I mentioned. I don't think it's possible. I don't think there are enough people willing to give enough money voluntarily to cover expenses that they'll benefit from whether they pay or not. The fire department thing sounds interesting, but potentially problematic to apply to a densely populated district. What do you do when someone refuses to pay? Take them to court, I assume. Then you have to raise the fees to cover the court costs for the freeloaders, which leads to more people choosing not to pay... Besides which depending on the size of the fee, it might make sense not to pay given how unlikely a fire is in a newer home inhabited by non-smokers. So, problematic but very interesting.
you could repeal the federal income tax, and every state income and sales tax and still not have to cut any military, police, or court budgets. (existing federal excise and state property taxes would cover it.)
That might be true if you leave out the military. Given that "defense" gets more than all other federal spending combined, I doubt you could fund it with just the taxes you mentioned. Of course the enormous size of the defense budget is a completely separate topic.
Whether a charitable giving system could fund everything we need is of course pure speculation. You seem to think it would work; I lean towards the opposite view. One problem is that it seems as charities get bigger, they become more likely to be corrupt or at a bare minimum spend more and more of their money on administration. A bigger problem is that there would be no guarantees. Take roads for an example. Right now the rancher knows the county is in charge of maintaining the road that goes by his ranch, and the county isn't going anywhere. Budgets go up and down, etc etc, but the bottom line is that responsibility will remain. Take away that government responsibility, and now maybe there will be a charity interested in paving the road, and maybe there won't. And if there is such a charity, maybe it can get enough donations to fund the road project, and maybe it can't. You could counter that he could start a charity if one didn't exist, but he's a rancher for a reason - he doesn't want to run a charity, he wants to run a ranch. The whole reason we form governments is to take care of matters of public interest so that we don't have to do it on our own.
I'll gladly pay for roads, for schools, for libraries, for social programs that benefit everyone (like truly universal healthcare, not of this half-assed system we have now).
The problem is the majority of people who, given the choice, would not support any of those things. Without involuntary taxation, you would not have a military, law enforcement*, fire protection, road maintenance, public education, low-income health care and other services, public parks/libraries/museums, and so on. Is that really the place where you want to live, or are you imagining somewhere that people would volutarily give their money to the government? Because be assured that that place is imaginary.
* police, border patrol, enforcement of regulations on safety, environment, unfair business practices, etc., a court system...
I'm wondering how many of these people will get a cell phone after there aren't any pay phones anymore. It seems inevitable that phone companies won't want to spend the money on pay phones when 90% of people have a cell phone and the pay phones would sit unused. And as the older generation dies out (sorry to sound insensitive) penetration rates will reach that level and maybe higher.
Read the whole message before you start thinking out loud.
Let's try to be polite here. I did read the whole thing.
There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.
"Intentionally vague" is not the same thing as "the President can do whatever he wants".
The president didn't break any laws.
That's the administration's position, but there is no consensus on that matter. Keep in mind also that Bush's primary justification for all this is Congress' authorization of the use of military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Does this look like a use of military force?
The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order.
Executive orders cannot controvert statute or the Constitution.
The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers"
Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry.:-)
It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.
But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.
If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case.
Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.
Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret?
No, but the President should. There are procedures for such things.
People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.
Not a good analogy unless your puppy speaks English.
Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death?
And what good is life without liberty?
Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.
I benefit from the liberties this nation provides every day, and so do you, whether you realize it or not.
It is implied that the president can do whatever he wants provided that it is in the best interests of the citizens, and that it meets the approval of congress, the judicial branch and/or public opinion.
Implied? That seems like an awfully weak defense.
in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
So in order to execute the laws faithfully the President has to break them? Which ones are supposed to be executed and which ones broken? As for the declared emergency, who declares it and how?
All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew.What if the President decided that the best way to protect the US is to intern all US residents of Middle-Eastern descent or appearance? Would that be OK even though it clearly violates the Constitution, beacause of this executive authority he has?
it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it.
The fact that somethung has been done before does not justify it.
Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy,
Yeah that's what Bush says too: it's shameful that someone exposed his violation of the law. Ridiculous.
instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
What if it's very, very expensive and time-consuming to "think of" something? This can be true in the case of drugs, with research and certification (or whatever the term is) costs potentially very high for new drugs. If a drug company knew that as soon as they brought a drug to market it would be copied and sold as generic, why would they ever invest in making it in the first place? In other words, why would there be any such thing as a drug research company?
Are you saying companies and people should not be permitted to make proprietary software?
Maybe long term (maybe). But I hope they see that short-term (meaning the next several years) it's utterly impractical. There's no viable worldwide micropayment system, so there's no way at all to charge me, say, .2 cent to send a single email to a single AOL subscriber. And if I have to pay so much that it's worth using a macropayment system such as PayPal, I simply won't send email to any such addresses. I suspect millions of others agree with me, and so if AOL tried such a thing, their subscribers would basically stop getting email. There's no use paying for an email service that doesn't deliver any email, ergo... no customers. So the short version is that's not going to happen in the near future, but certainly is possible much later.
If they don't, the large number of false positives would cost them customers. Adoption of a 'certified mail plan' would enable the ISPs to tighten filters and explain to customers that this was all in their best interest.
Even with the new plan, they don't want a significant number of false positives from the spam filters, right? Wouldn't that still piss off customers just as much?
I would be less critical of this if it didn't seem so obvious that this is just big corporate America trying to squeeze an extra buck out of it's customer base.
But they're not. They're squeezing an extra buck out of people who want to send mail to their customers.
You seem to be saying that there will be two categories of email, those that are paid for and delivered, and those that aren't paid for and are blocked. In reality, anything that makes it to your inbox now would continue hitting your inbox in the future. The only way this plan could reduce the amount of email you get is this situation: - There's someone who successfully gets email to you now, whether desired or not - This person decides to go with the certified mail plan, and send to a smaller list - You fall off the list and no longer get the email What are the chances of such emails being anything you would actually want to get?
Fair enough. Seems strange though because it defines the two in terms of what they want compared to what exists now. By some of those definitions, someone advocating changing our laws to be simpler, with smaller government and less regulation would be considered liberal (favoring reform and progress), and those on the opposite side conservative (resistant to change). However, I think that's the opposite of how people think of themselves - that is, those favoring such reforms generally consider themselves conservative. It also implies that if a liberal gets all the reforms they want, they either start looking for new reforms to push for, or they then become conservative because then they don't want further change. Likewise, a conservative would become a liberal if the status quo changes and they no longer favor existing laws, because then they would start trying to change things. I guess I don't care for those definitions much, but maybe I'm in a minority.
Where are you getting these definitions?
AFAIK most or all cell phone voicemail can be checked from any landline.
You would only have to pay to listen to voicemail from the mobile phone. Listening to a cell phone's voicemail from a landline is free.
It's funny what competitions can work. "I just put your baby brother to bed and I'll bet he can go to sleep before you." "No he won't!" *snore*
So... the laws we have now are perfect, and you wouldn't want anybody in office who would ever want to change any of them? And only liberals try to change laws? And you're smoking what?
Even if we all agree that they have a right to set whatever policy they want, and even if we all agree that they acted in accordance with their policies (neither of which is probably true), we could still argue about whether the policies are ethical or wise.
Locks don't keep anybody honest. A closed door is sufficient for honest people; for dishonest people you need a lock that is difficult to bypass. A casual dishonest person can bypass a doorknob lock fairly easily. A deadbolt is much harder to bypass without a key, particularly without attracting attention, so it's effective at deterring more determined criminals. That's exactly who you want to deter most, so why would you not throw the deadbolt? This analogy breaks down somewhat because the deadbolt is just as easy to use as the other lock. However, you can imagine that it's more difficult, like maybe you have to throw the deadbolt and then walk to the other side of the house and push a button to arm it. Lazy security is using the easy but ineffective lock, good security is the deadbolt.
As for somebody jiggling the doorknob, what does it matter? If you use the deadbolt, the door is still locked and they won't be able to open it. If they're able and willing to get past the deadbolt, then being able to jiggle the doorknob won't make a lick of difference. To go back to the other side of the analogy, if someone can get past your firewalls, etc and straight into your network and read files off your servers, what difference does it make what filenames you use? The attacker is obviously determined and effective, and a little misdirection won't do you any good. The most you'll end up doing is cause inconvenience for your own people and foster a false sense of security.
"Security through obscurity" doesn't mean "keeping things secret." Keeping passwords secret is obviously not STO. The same holds true of keeping usernames secret. It's just basic security practice, or at least it should be. You both have valid points. Changing things in a superficial way really will have a chance of reducing your vulnerability to some problems. However, it also has a chance of making some people think you're no longer vulnerable, and pay less attention to real security. My take is, if something is worth securing, it's worth securing properly. If it's only worth taking steps like you mention, then don't even bother - whatever it is you're securing isn't worth any effort. If you choose to do real security, then STO is just a waste of time - it won't add anything to what you've already done.
Just like I tell my wife when she locks the doorknob lock after locking the deadbolt. If you're going to lock the door, use the deadbolt. If you lock the deadbolt, the other lock isn't going to make the door any harder to open for someone without a key, only for someone with legitimate access. So don't bother.
Isn't it possible there's something else besides sugar in that glass? Like, say... saliva? Or if you have small children, anything from graham crackers to cheddar cheese to boogers.
Do you feel the US Green Party is fairly represented by their published platform at www.gp.org? If so...
"Government regulation of speech" vs. "We demand re-enforcement of our civil liberties of speech, assembly, association and petition. Citizens may not be denied the right to public, non-violent protest. Citizens who engage in protest may not be intimidated by government surveillance, repression or retaliation." and "Constitutionally protected rights - fought for by American patriots - are rights the Green Party patriotically holds in the highest regard."
"nationalization of all broadcast media." does that refer to "All viable candidates at the state and federal levels should have free and equal radio and television time and print press coverage." or something else?
By "Government control/funding of health care, education, and the arts." do you mean "We support a rich milieu of art, culture, and significant (yet modestly funded) programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities." and "Programs must ensure that children, who are among the most vulnerable members of society, receive basic nutritional, educational, and medical necessities. The Green Party supports and seeks to expand Head Start and Pre- and neo-natal programs." and "A universal, federally funded childcare program for pre-school and young schoolchildren should be developed." and "We call for equitable state and national funding for education and the creation of schools controlled by parent-teacher governing bodies. We oppose vouchers, or any scheme that will transfer money out of the public school system. That course only leads to a separate and unequal educational system. We also oppose charter schools or the administration of public schools by private, for-profit entities."?
By "Government control over prices and wages." do you mean "Corporations receiving public subsidies must provide jobs that pay a living wage, observe basic workers' rights, and agree to affirmative action policies." or " We support the enactment of living wage laws that apply to all workers. " or something else?
Unfortunately I have to go right now and don't have time to read more, but if you have references to their platform I will read them tomorrow. Or if you think they don't really adhere to their platform tell me about that. I've never voted Green so I don't have a vested interest here, but at first glance your characterization seems exaggerated.
BUT... on the original topic of my question and your answer to it, I understand what you're saying now. I'm not sure that the terms have been co-opted to the extent you see it, though.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that environmentalism = complete government control and regulation of every aspect of life?
I'm not sure these chimeras you mention would disprove evolution, as they could potentially be explained by convergent evolution. Also, birds are warm-blooded.
You can get the IMAX documentary from Netflix.
I like my Zealots with Leg Enhancements and fully-upgraded energy blades. "I long for combat!"
So the thing to do is live somewhere guns, including concealed ones, are freely available, but don't have one. That way you get the benefit of reduced crime without the increased risk of a gun accident. And don't try to tell me only stupid people have gun accidents. If there's a gun in your home, the risk of a gun accident goes from zero to non-zero.
you could repeal the federal income tax, and every state income and sales tax and still not have to cut any military, police, or court budgets. (existing federal excise and state property taxes would cover it.)
That might be true if you leave out the military. Given that "defense" gets more than all other federal spending combined, I doubt you could fund it with just the taxes you mentioned. Of course the enormous size of the defense budget is a completely separate topic.
Whether a charitable giving system could fund everything we need is of course pure speculation. You seem to think it would work; I lean towards the opposite view. One problem is that it seems as charities get bigger, they become more likely to be corrupt or at a bare minimum spend more and more of their money on administration. A bigger problem is that there would be no guarantees. Take roads for an example. Right now the rancher knows the county is in charge of maintaining the road that goes by his ranch, and the county isn't going anywhere. Budgets go up and down, etc etc, but the bottom line is that responsibility will remain. Take away that government responsibility, and now maybe there will be a charity interested in paving the road, and maybe there won't. And if there is such a charity, maybe it can get enough donations to fund the road project, and maybe it can't. You could counter that he could start a charity if one didn't exist, but he's a rancher for a reason - he doesn't want to run a charity, he wants to run a ranch. The whole reason we form governments is to take care of matters of public interest so that we don't have to do it on our own.
The problem is the majority of people who, given the choice, would not support any of those things. Without involuntary taxation, you would not have a military, law enforcement*, fire protection, road maintenance, public education, low-income health care and other services, public parks/libraries/museums, and so on. Is that really the place where you want to live, or are you imagining somewhere that people would volutarily give their money to the government? Because be assured that that place is imaginary.
* police, border patrol, enforcement of regulations on safety, environment, unfair business practices, etc., a court system...
I'm wondering how many of these people will get a cell phone after there aren't any pay phones anymore. It seems inevitable that phone companies won't want to spend the money on pay phones when 90% of people have a cell phone and the pay phones would sit unused. And as the older generation dies out (sorry to sound insensitive) penetration rates will reach that level and maybe higher.
Let's try to be polite here. I did read the whole thing.
There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.
"Intentionally vague" is not the same thing as "the President can do whatever he wants".
The president didn't break any laws.
That's the administration's position, but there is no consensus on that matter. Keep in mind also that Bush's primary justification for all this is Congress' authorization of the use of military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Does this look like a use of military force?
The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order.
Executive orders cannot controvert statute or the Constitution.
The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers"
Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)
It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.
But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.
If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case.
Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.
Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret?
No, but the President should. There are procedures for such things.
People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.
Not a good analogy unless your puppy speaks English.
Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death?
And what good is life without liberty?
Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.
I benefit from the liberties this nation provides every day, and so do you, whether you realize it or not.
Implied? That seems like an awfully weak defense.
in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
So in order to execute the laws faithfully the President has to break them? Which ones are supposed to be executed and which ones broken? As for the declared emergency, who declares it and how?
All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew.What if the President decided that the best way to protect the US is to intern all US residents of Middle-Eastern descent or appearance? Would that be OK even though it clearly violates the Constitution, beacause of this executive authority he has?
it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it.
The fact that somethung has been done before does not justify it.
Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy,
Yeah that's what Bush says too: it's shameful that someone exposed his violation of the law. Ridiculous.
instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.
I'd rather risk losing my safety than my liberty.