You are putting too much effort into this. We are, after all, discussing the policies of the Bush Administration. They have given America a whole new meaning for the concept, 'Intelligence Brief", and early in Mr. Bush's first term, gave us a brand spanking new oxymoron, 'National Security"
In that light, the thought processes from which their concerns were distilled, become crystal clear.
If Snort were to be owned by a foreign company;
the Herculean mental efforts,
and the monumental capital flows,
which have thus far been poured into winning The Global War on Evil Dewars,
may well have been all for naught.
You are of course, correct in my lumping the National Security Agency with members of the National Security Council. My trying to be cute, and some contemporary reading subjects are to blame.
Recently I have been reading the Walsh Iran/Contra Report, as well as some other related reading, and it seems that I confused the president's Naional security Advisor (NSA - a the time of the Reagan ongoing criminal enterprise it was Robert McFarlane) as someone who is a part of, and holds great policy control over the NSA.
If you visit, don't just read Dewey's silly condensed history of the Monroe Doctrine and run. Ziggy Brzezinski's interview is quite illuminating, especially when taken in context with his Le Nouvel Observateur Interview in Paris, January 15-21, 1998, which has been translated and published by that incorrigible lefty for life muckraking journo, Alexander Cockburn. For a more contemporary flavoring of the ties that grind there are also interviews by: Condi Rice, Richard Perle, and the long-term Machinator of US policy, John Negroponte; Part One and Part Two.
NeocCons, who presently hold great sway in the NSA, don't trust the CIA, and have attempted to disparage them, as well as DeGoss their upper management.
The CIA doesn't trust the NSA, and views them as being political. they also see the FBI as pussies.
The FBI views the NSA and the CIA as immoral and unlawful actors, and holds them at arms length when dealing with them.
If the present NSA is shopping for their own Intel software tools, their inherent paranoia will preclude their usage of In_Q_Tel's enabled tech.
What records does the Postal Service keep? What records of public telephone usage are available. What about cash withdrawals from banks, or POS cash transactions from retailers. The list could go on and on.
According to military sources familiar with the Able Danger legal side, the effort stepped over the line when LIWA contractors purchased photographic collections of people entering and exiting mosques in the United States and overseas. One source says that LIWA contractors dealt with a questionable source of photographs in California, either a white supremacy group or some other anti-Islamic organization.
Connections will be found, but their actual credibility will remain in doubt, and there will be no such thing as an individual's privacy.
All because of a government so arrogant, self-centered and incompetent, they didn't see 911 coming.
"The NSA is made up of very smart and capable folks. Give them a budget and incentives, and they can probably do a pretty good job of sticking their noses into the public's affairs.
The NSA's motivations are political.
Bright they may be, but the NSA is primarily a politically motivated org that answers to the president. It would be more appropriately know as the NSC (Non-Suborned by the Constitution).
Full faith and credit should also be given the NSA for their integral role in the creation of al Qaeda.
Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, should get his notice as the originator of the plan to trick the Soviet into their own Vietnam, and to use the radical Arab fundamentalists as a blade to bleed them. Reagan's NSA should get their proper attribution for expanding upon this sanguineous plan.
"Under President Reagan, the NSC staff assumed a role beyond that of an advisory or coordinating body: It at times became operational, taking on primary responsibility for the execution of the Iran and contra covert operations."
And who can forget the words of the ole gimper himself:
"These Islamic fighters in a faraway land have given new meaning to the words 'courage,' 'determination,' and 'strength.' They have set the standard for those who value freedom and independence everywhere in the world."
On a more contemporary note, GW Bush's NSA has been alleged to have pulled an end-around the CIA station chief in Rome, violating the logical protocols which were in place at the time, accepting the dubious Niger Yellowcake to Iraq story from the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI, first hand, and then sourcing it into the prewar claims.
(The Italian paper "La Repubblica", ran a good 3-part expose. There is a good English translation available: 1 - 2 - 3 - (decent mirror starts here.)
The NSA was left unscathed by the Silberman/Robb Commission, that one hit wonder recognized for their top 40 silver bullet, "Blaming it all on the CIA".
When actors, orgs and/or segments of the US government, in the dispatch of their official duties, act covertly and extra-Constitutionally, they are rogue, and a criminal enterprise. They should be identified as such, their intelligence, and their stated altruistic rationalizations notwithstanding.
That public men publish falsehoods Is nothing new. That America must accept Like the historical republics corruption and empire Has been known for years.
Be angry at the sun for setting If these things anger you. Watch the wheel slope and turn, They are all bound on the wheel, these people, those warriors. This republic, Europe, Asia.
Observe them gesticulating, Observe them going down. The gang serves lies, the passionate Man plays his part; the cold passion for truth Hunts in no pack.
"Look, Yahoo and Google can do whatever the hell they want. If there is a country that allows corporations to place babies on spikes and plant them in the ground, and these corporations do it, so be it. We don't have a legal right to stop them, here, in America."
Tell that to the Treasury Department, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc, the parent of Sheraton:
["
Cuba and Mexico on Monday condemned the U.S.-ordered eviction of 16 Cuban officials from an American-owned hotel in Mexico City during a conference with U.S. energy companies.
The Cuban officials, including a vice minister, were told to leave the Sheraton hotel on Friday during a conference organized by the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association, which opposes the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
The Cuban government said the action showed that the 45-year-old embargo was an international blockade that infringed the rights of third countries, contrary to the U.S. position, which says the embargo is a bilateral affair.
[. ..]
Nadeen Ayala, spokeswoman for Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc, which owns Sheraton hotels, said the company had been asked by the U.S. Treasury Department to tell the Cuban officials to leave the hotel.
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces the embargo against Cuba, insists it is illegal to provide services to Cuban nationals and entities in third countries.
"It was an order that we had to comply with" because Starwood is a U.S. company," she said at the company headquarters in White Plains, New York. "We were working in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Treasury office to remove the Cubans."
A Reflexion Upon Contemporary Conservatism's Moral Relativism:
No Real Conservative would ever ground justifcations for their deeds in the acts, words, or thoughts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet this is precisely what they do when rationalising the theft of habeas corpus and due process rights from the "detainees" of the Bush Farce Upon Terror. This sans-a-spine tyranny, the reprehensible thievery of natural liberty, is an act more befitting trotskyites than conservatives.
I am astounded by your reference to a pope's preascendent pontification vituperating moral relativism, whose own youthful history could be construed as an exemplary case study of situationalism past. Do you have a url for this readily at hand? Don't provide it if your conception of the creative is connected to him though. It amuses, may be used in future heterodoxical musing, and I am a proficient searchengine tech user. Does the XVI signify fifteen prior Pope Benedicts?
I am not decidedly antipapist though; I question Luther and Calvin too.
From the Dreamtime:
"...shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson; letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
Volume 6; pp 256-262
Over to the dilemma of the atheist:
"God is the solitude of men. There was only me:
I alone decided to commit Evil; alone,
I invented Good.
I am the one who cheated,
I am the one who performed miracles,
I am the one accusing myself today,
I alone can absolve myself;
me, the man."
To cleave to the self-evident; that all humans are politically equal, and endowed by that which they perceive as the creative with inalienable rights...
This walkabout declines to wax hyperbolic, believing it would be preaching to the choir, but liberty and justice (including due process of law) to all goes one hell of a long way down a proper path to peace,
while depriving humans of the benefits of Trial by Jury, and transporting them beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences, can only lead to violent reactions. Tis as true today as was true two hundred thirty years hence.
Ironic that the madman past and present are both Georges though. Incongruously, archaic Vegas casino worker slang defines a george as someone who tips exceedingly well.
btw, a wink and a nod for the passé handling of the Jeffers riff; a mite unexpected on \. Jeffers mentioned Carthage at least once in his work, but I felt the cite given was more appropriate. Also, since i suspect you've been to the site currently referenced as this user's, I offer many of its inner anchors, suitable for direct linking of citations, as well as a current project, nearing completion: Authorization of Force.
It is an immoral act for the aggressor to revise the cause for war after engaging.
Revisionisms by the Intelligence Brief:
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the
final days of decision. For more than a decade, the
United States and other nations have pursued patient and
honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without
war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its
weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending
the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
[. ..]
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain
time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security
Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the
years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by
Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and
systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the
Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we
are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass
destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's
people."
"Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the
decade showed they had a weapons program. I am
absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they
did have a weapons program. The credibility of this
country is based upon our strong desire to make the
world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful
after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free
nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more
secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the
Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of
freedom and the responsibilities that come with
freedom."
"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not
support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often
come from principled motives. But let us be candid about
the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report
identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related
program activities and significant amounts of equipment
that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we
failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass
destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we
failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq
would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the
United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators
around the world."
Just when did Conservatives become concerned that UN Security Council resolutions might be revealed as "empty threats"? Did anyone inform John Bolton of this?
"The American people are being lied to and they simply accept it."
Way to prove yourself Leftist. Seems all the Left can do recently is create their own realities.
The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.
One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.
Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.
Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe there are people out there that want to kill American citizens? Pre-emption is the only way to stop some of them.
Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions against them? You solution for this is 10 eyes for an eye?
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
--Luke 6:39
Just the government's unecessary collection of data, anywhere, from anyplace, whether it directly exposes personal ID or not, should be considered to be potentially invasive.
It may seem to be innocuous in and of itself, but connect it to other 'anonymous' data runs that the government has covertly and/or overtly acquired; rebuild and repeat; again and again and again. It's called data-mining, and huge data sets coupled with tremendous computing capacity will yield new connections within the data.
Meanwhile; back at the GWOT; America's true enemy, bin Laden, issues a new video claiming that America is once again being targeted. Cheney and Chertoff wave it off, saying it doesn't warrant an extra bump in the current color-coordinated threat-level.
It will remain hued as it is presently:
A brilliant Chickenhawk Yellow Pastel
Tastefully Combined With
A Two-Inch Blanched Lily-Liver Creme Border.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It' would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine ; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices. .
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. Some, however, were established by that board. One of these was, that a machine of which we were possessed, might be applied by every man to any use of which it is susceptible, and that this right ought not to be taken from him and given to a monopolist, because the first perhaps had occasion so to apply it. Thus a screw for crushing plaster might be employed for crushing corn-cobs. And a chain-pump for raising water might be used for raising wheat : this being merely a change of application. Another rule was that a change of material should riot give title to a patent. As the making a ploughshare of cast rather than of wrought iron ;
"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"
Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?
If the answer to the previous question is yes:
Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.
An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.
As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.
This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.
And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property".
I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.
Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:
Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...
What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them: It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.
Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:
Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.
Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."
Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement
Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain
Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor
Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:
The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.
The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p
Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.
Coleman is worthless.
The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.
If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:
If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.
Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:
"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."
You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.
The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...
Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.
Coleman the chickenhawk
Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.
"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.
[...]
The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."
Quickly on a few points, because I do tend to throw a tremendous quantity of words, and feel the need to express myself here.
The Clarridge/Monroe Doctrine was meant to be an example of the secret services gone awry. You are aware of Dewey Clarridge, aren't you? He represents to a large degree the failures and dangers of covert action. The interview was also to show you just what arrogance was involved with this fear of Soviet intervention. He readily admits that Nicaragua would have fallen with a breath of an American attack, and then goes on to make unsubstantiated claims about the inherent dangers to the region. I am not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, and unlike so many of the contemporary American conservatives, I've never been a socialist, trotskyite, newlefty, etc. The hive mentality is offensive.
Our equivocating Pakistani policies are to a very large degree, the source of their ills. Zbigniev's great game, and the absolute regancomic insanity. It all boils down to the omlette analogy, which is always offered as an excuse for acts of evil by persons whose heads are not being cracked upon the side of the bowel, contents being drained into the batter.
The Afghanistan war ended up being unnecessary; the cardboard bear was already crumbling trying to support itself with legs made from the inferior paper product manufactured by state run industries. Some Russian have even begaun to vocalise their belief that the Fist of the Kremlin was actually extended by the US intervention into Afghanistan. The CIA lied to the gimper, just to make the ole man happy.
Do not speak of expediency when rationalising the alliance with Uzbekistan. Karimov's inhumane acts should have precluded our association, regardless of the short-term gain, and Bush did not immediately jump upon the international investigation bandwagon after Andijon, the first official words were equivocations and cautionary advice to a people whose military had "shot at them like rabbits". This from an administration which had by this time revised their cause for War Upon Iraq as the freeing of an opressed people from a tyrannical ruler. Bush rendered persons to the Karimov government, knowing full well what the likely result of this would be. Cowardly, and unworthy acts from the head of a civilised nation. The piper will have to be paid for this in the future, just as the price for the reagan comedy came due on September 11, 2001 (as well as the bills of Carter, Bush the first and Clinton to lesser degrees)
An unqualified support for democracy is disturbing? It is nothing other than a strict constitutional constructionism, and an application of the founders original intent. You insult me by comparing what you see as my unqualified support for democratic process to Mr. Bush's lip service. No matter what he has said, Bush is not a supporter of democratic processes. This is a laughable assertion.
General JohnBoy got jilted by his election date, He was loser to a dead man in the 'Show-Me' State.
JohnBoy got revenge with his appointment to AG
from a president selected on less than a plurality.
Actually, I place very strong qualifications on the democratic process. I value liberty above democracy. This is American at its core. There must always be restrictions placed upon democratic institutions to protect the liberty of minorities. Without limiting the reach of the mob, the guillotine becomes a likely probability. This is why a just government must provide due process of law to all humans.
I cannot see anything within the Constitution that limits the universality of due process of law. Please illuminate me, and not with the equivocations of nine old f**ks with fetishes for black satin moo moos. Ground it within the Constitution itself.
I am walkabout, remember? I speak truth from the dreamtime. It is self-evident: all humans are created equal and endowed by what they perceive as their creator with inalienable rights. That
First, I appreciate your understanding that my post wasn't "flame bait", but fervent dissent. That has been an unusual response to me in many places, both web and real over the last few years. Generally, people would rather pass me off as a "leftist" than respond rationally, which confuses and bemuses me, since my views are often what once was defined as "conservative", and now the politiquechic call paleoconservative.
Second, I did a bit of light browsing of links you graciously provided. Based on this, I am now making many assumptions about your personal knowledge.
Third, my past experiences with wikipedia have caused me to be very distrustful of any topic current, political or socially divisive. Maybe we can discuss the whys another time.
Fourth, The modding down of my previous post could be viewed as favourable, since it decreases the noise to signal.
The USA's desire to affect the leadership of other countries does predate the Cold War. Most notably in the willingness to overthrow Central and South American leaders that were viewed as antithetical to the wishes of American business which had interests in the region. It wasn't a lack of will that kept the government form acting this way before that, it was a lack of ability. Duane Clarridge's take on the History of the Monroe Doctrine is illustrative from multiple viewpoints. The whole interview of Clarridge is brightly illuminative upon the dangers and ills of covert action. Here is a man who still arrogantly believes that America's secret services have a right and a duty to act extra-constitutionally to effectuate a US President's unlawful desires.
I am an absolutist when it comes to the constitution's delineation of the rights of humans, and the limitations placed upon the government. Anything else is tyranny. This is not hyperbole, nor is it negotiable. "No person shall be held", and "In all criminal prosecutions" are not rights the government has conferred upon its citizens. They are rights all humans naturally possess, and a just government will not infringe upon these rights. The concept; "Unlawful Combatants", is an unconstitutional obscenity. This practise needs to be terminated with extreme predjudice. Once again, I will never negotiate this, for to do so is to betray the Dreamtime, and means the end of what little faith I still posess.
In almost all instances, when a country picks a leftist as a leader in a verifiably fair democratic process, America would be much better off not trying to upset the result, and instead look to the next election, helping insure that there will be one. It is a blatant lack of faith in America to think that, over the long run, citizenry in other countries will not see the truth, and choose properly in the elections of their leaders. All too often American intervention has either cemented the power of leaders the US government opposed or led to an undemocratic and brutal right-wing military regime. I believe a very good example of the first case is Cuba and Castro. His power has been greatly aided by our providing causes he could point a finger of blame at, when it was his failures of policy which were truly to blame. Cuba is definitely a case where the Christian path recommended by Paul should have been chosen:
"if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" --Romans 12:20
The problem would have been solved years ago this way.
In the case of Karimov, there be no equivocations. Our alliance, for whatever reasons offered, was wrong.
Former UK Uzbek Ambassaor Murray is correct in his analysis, and it is shameful that mainstream American media has for the most part ignored what he has said about Karimov and Uzbekistan. He clearly stated the issues
The U.S. is pro-democracy, but only insofar as democracy is a means to guarantee a liberal and limited government. The UN is anything but, because of its member states, who are far more willing (indeed eager) to regulate, limit, and filter the internet. Other nations already have a voice--they just don't have ultimate control. And that's a good thing.
The U.S. is pro-democracy? - only insofar as it serves their intentions by giving it lip service. Historically the USA has been for Democracy only when the democratic process results in a government they find pliant or tolerable.
Our current pretender, Mr. Bush is allied with Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government. The Bush Admin has expended great efforts stretching the truth about N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, while hiding the truth about Pakistan's exportation of nuclear tech to other countries. Up until recently the Bush Administration was happy to ally with one of the world's present day devils, Uzbekistan's Karimov, and even after last May's Uzbek government's Andijon massacre of their protesting citzenry, which was described by one of the protestors with "They shot at us like rabbits", equivocated before supporting the EU demand for an International Inquiry. While this was going on, they had actively tried to destablize Chavez in Venezuela, who won his election. Then there is the Abdullah love pecks.
Are these allies of ours liberal and limited governments? The only reason the Bush Admin presently loudly touts democracy, is that it's the only even half-assed rationale left for Bush's War Upon Iraq. It certainly wasn't waged to get our real enemy, the 911 perps, many of whom have licked their wounds received from Afghanistan battles up in Pakistan.
And this is only our present Administration. The Pro Democracy spin is hype. The American Government is comprised of powermongering control freaks, the truth notwithstanding.
Yeah, so The USA is better than the Dynastic Maoposeur gang's Great Firewall of China, and mainliand's i-net policy of Hu owns Yu; so all your posts are belong to the People's Republic, but the US government is still insidious, and still without a clue. I was spooked to see how a weird-assed robot with a dot mil DNS resolution made a jump across two web domains on a previously invisible thread, in the temporary weblogs, only to have both providers(1 UK and 1 US based) erase its tracks on the permannent logs. Especially since the pages had nothing whatsover to do with "terrorism". One was a satire about Mike Savage's and Alan Ginsburg's frolicking relationship from the past, and the other some political cartoons.
The great terrorist hunters of the Naval War College, investigating adolescent humour poking fun at right-wing homophobia in their herculean attempts to probe and root out the evil doers. They aren't called Rear Admirals for nothing; In The Navy...
The USA politicians want control of the internet only for the sake of control, and for the advantages they can then provide to their cronies.
"For the one millionth time. The Bush Administration is just being strict on federal funding for embryonic stem cells researcg.
Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.
If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?"
The Bush Admin is repugnant in their placing more value on a zygote than an Iraqi citizen, in their fixing the facts and evidence around the policy of War Upon Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
You are putting too much effort into this. We are, after all, discussing the policies of the Bush Administration. They have given America a whole new meaning for the concept, 'Intelligence Brief", and early in Mr. Bush's first term, gave us a brand spanking new oxymoron, 'National Security"
In that light, the thought processes from which their concerns were distilled, become crystal clear.
You are of course, correct in my lumping the National Security Agency with members of the National Security Council. My trying to be cute, and some contemporary reading subjects are to blame.
Recently I have been reading the Walsh Iran/Contra Report, as well as some other related reading, and it seems that I confused the president's Naional security Advisor (NSA - a the time of the Reagan ongoing criminal enterprise it was Robert McFarlane) as someone who is a part of, and holds great policy control over the NSA.
It didn't help that some of the other reading I've been doing are transcripts of the NSA archive's interviews for the CNN series: The Cold War Experience. The direct Iran/Contra link being Duane Clarridge's Interview.
If you visit, don't just read Dewey's silly condensed history of the Monroe Doctrine and run. Ziggy Brzezinski's interview is quite illuminating, especially when taken in context with his Le Nouvel Observateur Interview in Paris, January 15-21, 1998, which has been translated and published by that incorrigible lefty for life muckraking journo, Alexander Cockburn. For a more contemporary flavoring of the ties that grind there are also interviews by: Condi Rice, Richard Perle, and the long-term Machinator of US policy, John Negroponte; Part One and Part Two.
NeocCons, who presently hold great sway in the NSA, don't trust the CIA, and have attempted to disparage them, as well as DeGoss their upper management.
The CIA doesn't trust the NSA, and views them as being political. they also see the FBI as pussies.
The FBI views the NSA and the CIA as immoral and unlawful actors, and holds them at arms length when dealing with them.
If the present NSA is shopping for their own Intel software tools, their inherent paranoia will preclude their usage of In_Q_Tel's enabled tech.
What records does the Postal Service keep? What records of public telephone usage are available. What about cash withdrawals from banks, or POS cash transactions from retailers. The list could go on and on.
Then there are going to be DB's bought on the black market. The Wahington Post's blogger, William Arkin discussed one of Able Danger's mad forays into that market:
Connections will be found, but their actual credibility will remain in doubt, and there will be no such thing as an individual's privacy.
All because of a government so arrogant, self-centered and incompetent, they didn't see 911 coming.
The NSA's motivations are political.
Bright they may be, but the NSA is primarily a politically motivated org that answers to the president. It would be more appropriately know as the NSC (Non-Suborned by the Constitution).
Full faith and credit should also be given the NSA for their integral role in the creation of al Qaeda.
Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, should get his notice as the originator of the plan to trick the Soviet into their own Vietnam, and to use the radical Arab fundamentalists as a blade to bleed them. Reagan's NSA should get their proper attribution for expanding upon this sanguineous plan.
And who can forget the words of the ole gimper himself:
On a more contemporary note, GW Bush's NSA has been alleged to have pulled an end-around the CIA station chief in Rome, violating the logical protocols which were in place at the time, accepting the dubious Niger Yellowcake to Iraq story from the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI, first hand, and then sourcing it into the prewar claims.
(The Italian paper "La Repubblica", ran a good 3-part expose. There is a good English translation available: 1 - 2 - 3 - (decent mirror starts here.)
The NSA was left unscathed by the Silberman/Robb Commission, that one hit wonder recognized for their top 40 silver bullet, "Blaming it all on the CIA".
When actors, orgs and/or segments of the US government, in the dispatch of their official duties, act covertly and extra-Constitutionally, they are rogue, and a criminal enterprise. They should be identified as such, their intelligence, and their stated altruistic rationalizations notwithstanding.
or;
i've got the klein bottle blues, mama
just another trek into the periphery,
a walk about the never ending
and this one is imperative
the binary is a dead-end;
from uncertainty's recognition
machine intelligence will arise
forget about your emerald slippers mr engineer;
you can never return to your precious can's ass again:
those warm but fuzzy digital simulations
because along with every 0 or 1
a third way is dawning.
the maybe
surf's up
last one to catch the wave
is a dimensionally impaired flatworlder
Tell that to the Treasury Department, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc, the parent of Sheraton:
["
"]
A Reflexion Upon Contemporary Conservatism's Moral Relativism:
No Real Conservative would ever ground justifcations for their deeds in the acts, words, or thoughts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet this is precisely what they do when rationalising the theft of habeas corpus and due process rights from the "detainees" of the Bush Farce Upon Terror. This sans-a-spine tyranny, the reprehensible thievery of natural liberty, is an act more befitting trotskyites than conservatives.
I am astounded by your reference to a pope's preascendent pontification vituperating moral relativism, whose own youthful history could be construed as an exemplary case study of situationalism past. Do you have a url for this readily at hand? Don't provide it if your conception of the creative is connected to him though. It amuses, may be used in future heterodoxical musing, and I am a proficient searchengine tech user. Does the XVI signify fifteen prior Pope Benedicts?
I am not decidedly antipapist though; I question Luther and Calvin too.
From the Dreamtime:
Over to the dilemma of the atheist:
Also, is your given email pointer just a spam vacuum?
There is a fourth path: to live the Dreamtime.
To cleave to the self-evident; that all humans are politically equal, and endowed by that which they perceive as the creative with inalienable rights...
This walkabout declines to wax hyperbolic, believing it would be preaching to the choir, but liberty and justice (including due process of law) to all goes one hell of a long way down a proper path to peace, while depriving humans of the benefits of Trial by Jury, and transporting them beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences, can only lead to violent reactions. Tis as true today as was true two hundred thirty years hence.
Ironic that the madman past and present are both Georges though. Incongruously, archaic Vegas casino worker slang defines a george as someone who tips exceedingly well.
btw, a wink and a nod for the passé handling of the Jeffers riff; a mite unexpected on \. Jeffers mentioned Carthage at least once in his work, but I felt the cite given was more appropriate. Also, since i suspect you've been to the site currently referenced as this user's, I offer many of its inner anchors, suitable for direct linking of citations, as well as a current project, nearing completion: Authorization of Force.
Two wars, and they breed a third.
Now guard the beaches,Fortress America may yet for a long time stand,
between the east and the west, like Byzantium.
--As for me:
It is a foolish businessOne should watch and not speak.
And patriotismhas run the world through so many blood-lakes:
and we always fall in.
"So many Blood Lakes" -- Robinson Jeffers
It is an immoral act for the aggressor to revise the cause for war after engaging.
Revisionisms by the Intelligence Brief:
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
[. . .]
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."
--GW Bush - March 17, 2003
"Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom."
--GW Bush June 9, 2003
"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world."
--GW Bush, January 29, 2004 State of the Uninon Address
Just when did Conservatives become concerned that UN Security Council resolutions might be revealed as "empty threats"? Did anyone inform John Bolton of this?
For your archives(the article is disappearing with time's passage):
Speaking of Duplicity
My only comment here is that Henry S. Rowen was one of GW Bush's picks to the "nonpartisan" Silberman/Robb Committee.
You seem bright enough to handle this.
The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.
One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.
Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.
Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions against them? You solution for this is 10 eyes for an eye?
And he spake a parable unto them,
Can the blind lead the blind?
shall they not both fall into the ditch?
--Luke 6:39
wikipediculous - Adj.
def.: an ends-testing style of authorship
in open-source knowledge bases
Etymology
the suffix is from the latin pediculous;
lice infested, or lousy
==
wikipaedarchy - N.
def.: an early methodology of oversight
in open-source knowledge bases
Etymology - the suffix is from the latin, paedarchy:
government by children
Just the government's unecessary collection of data, anywhere, from anyplace, whether it directly exposes personal ID or not, should be considered to be potentially invasive.
It may seem to be innocuous in and of itself, but connect it to other 'anonymous' data runs that the government has covertly and/or overtly acquired; rebuild and repeat; again and again and again. It's called data-mining, and huge data sets coupled with tremendous computing capacity will yield new connections within the data.
Meanwhile; back at the GWOT; America's true enemy, bin Laden, issues a new video claiming that America is once again being targeted. Cheney and Chertoff wave it off, saying it doesn't warrant an extra bump in the current color-coordinated threat-level.
It will remain hued as it is presently:
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It' would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine ; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices. .
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. Some, however, were established by that board. One of these was, that a machine of which we were possessed, might be applied by every man to any use of which it is susceptible, and that this right ought not to be taken from him and given to a monopolist, because the first perhaps had occasion so to apply it. Thus a screw for crushing plaster might be employed for crushing corn-cobs. And a chain-pump for raising water might be used for raising wheat : this being merely a change of application. Another rule was that a change of material should riot give title to a patent. As the making a ploughshare of cast rather than of wrought iron ;
Geomon,
not many would acted thoughtfully
in the face of the previous challenge.
i am impressed,
for many reasons,
from multiple perspectives.
may the Libertarian Party
withstand temptations and corruption.
my belief that Cato may be lost is transparent.
Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?
If the answer to the previous question is yes:
Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:
This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.
And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.
Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:
Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...
What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.
Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:
Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement
The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository
Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:
Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.
Coleman is worthless.
The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.
If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:
If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.
Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:
Quickly on a few points, because I do tend to throw a tremendous quantity of words, and feel the need to express myself here.
The Clarridge/Monroe Doctrine was meant to be an example of the secret services gone awry. You are aware of Dewey Clarridge, aren't you? He represents to a large degree the failures and dangers of covert action. The interview was also to show you just what arrogance was involved with this fear of Soviet intervention. He readily admits that Nicaragua would have fallen with a breath of an American attack, and then goes on to make unsubstantiated claims about the inherent dangers to the region. I am not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, and unlike so many of the contemporary American conservatives, I've never been a socialist, trotskyite, newlefty, etc. The hive mentality is offensive.
Our equivocating Pakistani policies are to a very large degree, the source of their ills. Zbigniev's great game, and the absolute regancomic insanity. It all boils down to the omlette analogy, which is always offered as an excuse for acts of evil by persons whose heads are not being cracked upon the side of the bowel, contents being drained into the batter.
The Afghanistan war ended up being unnecessary; the cardboard bear was already crumbling trying to support itself with legs made from the inferior paper product manufactured by state run industries. Some Russian have even begaun to vocalise their belief that the Fist of the Kremlin was actually extended by the US intervention into Afghanistan. The CIA lied to the gimper, just to make the ole man happy.
Do not speak of expediency when rationalising the alliance with Uzbekistan. Karimov's inhumane acts should have precluded our association, regardless of the short-term gain, and Bush did not immediately jump upon the international investigation bandwagon after Andijon, the first official words were equivocations and cautionary advice to a people whose military had "shot at them like rabbits". This from an administration which had by this time revised their cause for War Upon Iraq as the freeing of an opressed people from a tyrannical ruler. Bush rendered persons to the Karimov government, knowing full well what the likely result of this would be. Cowardly, and unworthy acts from the head of a civilised nation. The piper will have to be paid for this in the future, just as the price for the reagan comedy came due on September 11, 2001 (as well as the bills of Carter, Bush the first and Clinton to lesser degrees)
An unqualified support for democracy is disturbing? It is nothing other than a strict constitutional constructionism, and an application of the founders original intent. You insult me by comparing what you see as my unqualified support for democratic process to Mr. Bush's lip service. No matter what he has said, Bush is not a supporter of democratic processes. This is a laughable assertion.
Actually, I place very strong qualifications on the democratic process. I value liberty above democracy. This is American at its core. There must always be restrictions placed upon democratic institutions to protect the liberty of minorities. Without limiting the reach of the mob, the guillotine becomes a likely probability. This is why a just government must provide due process of law to all humans.
I cannot see anything within the Constitution that limits the universality of due process of law. Please illuminate me, and not with the equivocations of nine old f**ks with fetishes for black satin moo moos. Ground it within the Constitution itself.
I am walkabout, remember? I speak truth from the dreamtime. It is self-evident: all humans are created equal and endowed by what they perceive as their creator with inalienable rights. That
The USA's desire to affect the leadership of other countries does predate the Cold War. Most notably in the willingness to overthrow Central and South American leaders that were viewed as antithetical to the wishes of American business which had interests in the region. It wasn't a lack of will that kept the government form acting this way before that, it was a lack of ability. Duane Clarridge's take on the History of the Monroe Doctrine is illustrative from multiple viewpoints. The whole interview of Clarridge is brightly illuminative upon the dangers and ills of covert action. Here is a man who still arrogantly believes that America's secret services have a right and a duty to act extra-constitutionally to effectuate a US President's unlawful desires.
I am an absolutist when it comes to the constitution's delineation of the rights of humans, and the limitations placed upon the government. Anything else is tyranny. This is not hyperbole, nor is it negotiable. "No person shall be held", and "In all criminal prosecutions" are not rights the government has conferred upon its citizens. They are rights all humans naturally possess, and a just government will not infringe upon these rights. The concept; "Unlawful Combatants" , is an unconstitutional obscenity. This practise needs to be terminated with extreme predjudice. Once again, I will never negotiate this, for to do so is to betray the Dreamtime, and means the end of what little faith I still posess.
In almost all instances, when a country picks a leftist as a leader in a verifiably fair democratic process, America would be much better off not trying to upset the result, and instead look to the next election, helping insure that there will be one. It is a blatant lack of faith in America to think that, over the long run, citizenry in other countries will not see the truth, and choose properly in the elections of their leaders. All too often American intervention has either cemented the power of leaders the US government opposed or led to an undemocratic and brutal right-wing military regime. I believe a very good example of the first case is Cuba and Castro. His power has been greatly aided by our providing causes he could point a finger of blame at, when it was his failures of policy which were truly to blame. Cuba is definitely a case where the Christian path recommended by Paul should have been chosen:
The problem would have been solved years ago this way.
In the case of Karimov, there be no equivocations. Our alliance, for whatever reasons offered, was wrong. Former UK Uzbek Ambassaor Murray is correct in his analysis, and it is shameful that mainstream American media has for the most part ignored what he has said about Karimov and Uzbekistan. He clearly stated the issues
The U.S. is pro-democracy? - only insofar as it serves their intentions by giving it lip service. Historically the USA has been for Democracy only when the democratic process results in a government they find pliant or tolerable.
Our current pretender, Mr. Bush is allied with Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government. The Bush Admin has expended great efforts stretching the truth about N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, while hiding the truth about Pakistan's exportation of nuclear tech to other countries. Up until recently the Bush Administration was happy to ally with one of the world's present day devils, Uzbekistan's Karimov, and even after last May's Uzbek government's Andijon massacre of their protesting citzenry, which was described by one of the protestors with "They shot at us like rabbits", equivocated before supporting the EU demand for an International Inquiry. While this was going on, they had actively tried to destablize Chavez in Venezuela, who won his election. Then there is the Abdullah love pecks.
Are these allies of ours liberal and limited governments? The only reason the Bush Admin presently loudly touts democracy, is that it's the only even half-assed rationale left for Bush's War Upon Iraq. It certainly wasn't waged to get our real enemy, the 911 perps, many of whom have licked their wounds received from Afghanistan battles up in Pakistan.
And this is only our present Administration. The Pro Democracy spin is hype. The American Government is comprised of powermongering control freaks, the truth notwithstanding.
Yeah, so The USA is better than the Dynastic Maoposeur gang's Great Firewall of China, and mainliand's i-net policy of Hu owns Yu; so all your posts are belong to the People's Republic, but the US government is still insidious, and still without a clue. I was spooked to see how a weird-assed robot with a dot mil DNS resolution made a jump across two web domains on a previously invisible thread, in the temporary weblogs, only to have both providers(1 UK and 1 US based) erase its tracks on the permannent logs. Especially since the pages had nothing whatsover to do with "terrorism". One was a satire about Mike Savage's and Alan Ginsburg's frolicking relationship from the past, and the other some political cartoons.
The great terrorist hunters of the Naval War College , investigating adolescent humour poking fun at right-wing homophobia in their herculean attempts to probe and root out the evil doers. They aren't called Rear Admirals for nothing; In The Navy...
The USA politicians want control of the internet only for the sake of control, and for the advantages they can then provide to their cronies.
The Bush Admin is repugnant in their placing more value on a zygote than an Iraqi citizen, in their fixing the facts and evidence around the policy of War Upon Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Maybe Mr. Bush should explain his "morals and ethics" to Specialist Tomas Young.
It seems that taxpayers aren't the choosers either