What does Bin Laden Intel have to do with anything since it was BushCo that took down the towers on 9-11 with controlled demolitions. Sheesh! Hasn't anyone seen "Loose Change?"
(It's a shame that I have to point out that this is sarcasm because there are so many serious posts just like all over the web)
And when the Democrat President orders the NSA to record a call by Pres Candidate Jeb Bush to a Saudi guy and then puts the phone call out of context in a political ad 5 days before election time, remember..... I warned you.
See: Clinton's abuse of the FBI files..........
I agree 100%. That's abuse of the information given. Trust me, the second this gets used for anything other than to stop a terrorist attack, I'll be more against it than you guys. But I'm not going to assume abuse just because the potential is there. Hell, the potential has been there and no one has said a peep until now. The problem is the gov't's inability to gather thousands of warrants to cover every disposable cell phone sold in this country.
OK, how's this: Bush is a frickin asshole and is ruining this country.
There, I said it publicly here, for free, no wire tap needed. I'm waiting... waiting... waiting...
Nope, no brown-shirts kicking the door down. No Men in Black torturing my wife... nothing. No effect. As I've said stuff like that before, I have not been placed on any "no-fly" list.
1. Why exactly should the federal executive branch of the government be exempt from oversight and checks & balances, when every other branch and level is constrained? I never said that the Prez should have absolute power without any oversight. What I did say is that the executive branch should be able listen to phone calls that are made overseas. I could even settle on limiting the bill to say something like cell phones or disposable cell phones. The problem is that the gov't has no idea which phones the terrorists are going to use to call their masters overseas without listening in. That's all this is. Listening to select calls made to suspected terrorists areas, probably by a machine looking for key words. This is not an all out espianage effort on all Americans. So, unless you call Pakistan, you have nothing to worry about. By the way, Congress granted the oversight you are asking for today.
2. How exactly does that make us safer? Going off what I said above, and now your presumptions to question 1: If this helps us break up a single terror cell in the US and/or prevents a single attack, it will make us safer.
3. How exactly does exempting the executive branch of the government from the rules embodied in the Constitution, show to the rest of the world that we are in fact a country of laws? Can you tell me where "privacy" is mentioned in the constitution. I see "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" but I see no mention of privacy in there. Can you show me where that's at? I can't find it. Now I understand that judges in the past have said that the fourth amendment implies privacy, but judges have also said that slavery was legal at one point as well. It can also be argued that since the founders had no concept of phones, they could not spell out wire-tapping. I say that the founders could talk, and there is no mention eavesdropping being forbidden. What the founders were attempting to prevent, in my opinion, was federal troops kicking down the opposition's door every day and thrashing the place looking for gnomes or whatever as a method of harrassment. I don't see eavesdropping as harrassment. Finally, to answer your question. Congress gave authority today, so rest assured, we are still a nation of laws.
4. How exactly does declaring the use of torture against our "enemies" proper, but it's use by our enemies an obscenety, not make us the two faced hypocrites most of these terrorists/the world already think we are? While this has nothing to do with the topic, I'll bite anyway. First of all, no one has declared the use of torture against our "enemies" proper. Second, what you, me, and our "enemies" define as torture probably differs greatly. In my opinion, being forced to stand all night is not torture. If it is, then every fast food and retail job I've ever held could be considered torture. Loud music, air conditioning, strong language, and sleep deprevation are not torture either. If this is what you mean by torture, then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Fact is, prisoners at Guantanimo eat and are treated better than I am. No one is making me special Ramadan meals next month. I don't get time to pray five times a day or even get five breaks a day. And these guys are supposed to be the worst of the worst! Trust me, they are getting much better treatment from us than they would from their native countries and many of them fight extradition because they know it.
The military does not prevent the police from taking over a city. The act would be done long before the military could mobilize a response. What keeps it from happening in a coup like fasion your quote implies is the certain knowledge of what would happen afterwords. The things that help minimize the possibility of more manipulative takeovers are oversight, internal affairs, checks & balances, etc. Uh...
And quite the willingness to use it. Remind me again what Saddam had to do with Al Queida? Not to mention the "If you don't support our military actions you're a terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric. No one said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, exept for Zarqoui being harbored there. Iraq was not about Al Qaeda or 9-11. However, 9-11 opened our eyes to what a rag-tag bunch of terrorists could do with little support. Imagine what terrorist could do with the backing of the Iraqi government! Iraq did actively support terrorists. Who said that if you don't support the military that your are a terrorist sympathizer? I never said that. I heard the "if you are not with us, you are against us" bit, but that was meant to countries that knowingly harbor terrorist, like the Taliban for example.
--"You mean having a government?"
Labeling small-government advocates as terroists is more like it. Spinning every attempt to _reduce the expansion_ of government (not even reduce the size, simply reduce the expansion) as "wanting the terrorists to win". That kind of thing. The argument here is wether or not the GWB administration is fascist or not. As a small gov't advocate myself, I've heard no one calling libertarians terrorists.
--"I'd say we are going the other way on this one."
More socialism than communism. However, the rhetoric hasn't changed... Either way, it does not make the US fascist.
--"I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet."
So it's not a problem until it hits mass execution levels? Might be a little late to fight it if you wait that long. I never said that, but according to what I read here: Wiretapping=Fascist Gov't=Totalitarian Gov't=Liberals rounded up and thrown in gas chambers. My point was that we have laws that limit liberty today. I can't pray in school, yell fire in a crowded theater or take a gun into a bar, yet we are not totalitarian and not headed that way.
From your wiki link: Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.
Every government in existence fits this description.
Another Wiki link: Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
The "right to life" was mentioned before "liberty and persuit of happiness" in the US's Declaration of Independence. Without life, there is no liberty, thus making life a primary political value of Liberalism. A dead liberal has no rights.
Your entire response seems to be a matter of:
(1) "So is everyone else" on each point, or (2) misappropriating/misunderstanding terms and political philosophies in contradistinction to which fascism is defined
Regarding (1), the point of the aforementioned construction of fascism was the coincidence of all or most of the listed criteria (which the U.S. meets), not just any one of them. That is why it is not telling to pick a single point to the exclusion of the others and list non-fascist nations that meet the single criterion as a basis for illustration.
Regarding (2), all I can say is that if you don't understand the terms in opposition to which fascism is defined, then you also likely don't have a clear understanding of fascism, and thus are hardly in a position to claim that Nation X does not tend toward it.
The point I was making in with my "So is everyone else" points is to prove that the GWB administration is no more fascist than "everyone else". Every government by definition is anti-anacharnism. Every government on earth shares all of these qualities to some degree (with the exception of the Communist countries being anti-communist... but the people in Cuba/China/N.Korea can't argue about wire-tapping because they have not rights. So anti-communist is pro libertarian to some extent). That does not make the entire world fascist any more than it makes the GWB administration a fascist regime.
And to say I don't understand the terms when my definitions meet what you linked to on Wikipedia is a bit wrong, don't you think? After all, I used Wiki's definitions to shoot down your assumption that the GWB is somehow more fascists than the President's who preceded him and that the US is somehow more fascist than other governments in the world, including the truly fascist governments of the 1940's!
And finally, your argument stating that this law will lead us to authoritarianism: And for how much longer is precisely the point of this story and this debate. It is what is at issue: some of us want to stop yet another criterion from being met. Can be made against speed limits, drug laws or any other law that is on our books. Just because laws have been passed does not mean that we are on the way to totalitariansism.
Dude! Have you even been here? You are way off base on every point.
Radical? Absolutely, breaking with tradition and global consensus on nearly every issue and decision. What does this have to do with our form of government? The US and Brittain broke with "global consensus" when they stood up to Nazi Germany. Did that make them Fascists? The USSR did the same from the 1950's to the mid 80's. I had no idea they were fascists either!
Corporatist? They let major corporations sit in on policy authorship. The revolving door between the military-industrial aristocracy and government authority is at record levels. Assuming this were true, how is this is unique to the Bush administration? Oil companies pretty much rule Saudi Arabia via Saudi royalty, are they fascists too?
Authoritarian? See bills referenced here and consider it a nascent, but rapidly growing, authoritarianism with a strong will to power. Again, that fact that we are having this converstaion via servers based on the US disproves your point.
Nationalism? You've got to be kidding me, you dispute this? This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag. Again, if true, how is this unique to the Bush administration? Also, how is having a cabinet more divers than any other administration make this one racists? Isn't flagwaving a prerequisite for the job of the Presidency? Nazi Germany was God-appropriating? (and) GWB is more so than, say, Jimmy Carter? Finally, I work at a major (really big) computer manufacturer here in the US. I work with a guy that has a red star tatoo and wears shirts with Castro's picture or some other sort of communist propaganda on it every day. How was he able to get his job, his car loan, his mortgage and everything else he has or does with that sort of thing if he was unwilling to sing the praises of Bush and wrap himself in the flag.
Militarism? Well, let's see. A war in Afghanistan, a unilateral war against Iraq just for amusement, third front in Iran almost a given within the next year, with noises about Syria, North Korea, and China if they continue to annoy Taiwan. An almost continuous preoccupation in the policy infrastructure and public discourse with war, the portrayal of war, the policy of war, or the conditions of war. This entire nation is a military. Again, how is this different than a war in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Japan, Iwo Jima, Burma, North Africa and everywhere else we fought in WWII? Were Roosevelt and Churchill Fascists? As to the entire nation being "a military", I have not seen a tank roll down a public street since... well, never. I have never seen a military checkpoint outside a military base anywhere in the US. For that matter, it was quite a shock to see armed military in our airports after 9-11.
Anti-anarchism? Anarchism being libertarian leftism, this country has less patience for anarchism than almost anything else. I thought anarchy was the lack of government. I had no idea that "liberal leftism" was really anarchism. There are some lefty liberals on the Democratic ticket that are going to be surprised to learn that they are anarchists. Still, they are allowed to be on the ticket and even win sometimes, which again, disproves your point.
Anti-communism? Except discussions about to communism, socialism, Marxism, or U.S. economic imperialism. See my point about the Castro guy I work with above. Does he need to watch out for government snipers? Code Pink and ANSWER are both communist organizations, and yet they are not banned and their memebers are not arrested. Why is that?
Anti-liberalism? Liberalism being the general enlightenment-centric approach to individual liberty, market freedom, etc. The U.S. is ex
The idea of rights as absolute in a society is essentially incoherent. It's simply a logical impossibility, as the "rights" of one person will intrude on the rights of another. No one believes in such a thing, so it's essentially a straw man. It does not follow that therefore any infringements on one's rights is acceptable, as you seem to imply.
My original statement was in response to a post by someone else that said the following:
Meanwhile, us true patriots will stay here and fight the REAL terrorists -- the cowards and the fascists who have taken over our country and are busily destroying all our rights and freedoms and everything that made America great over the last 200 years. I refuse to surrender even a single liberty in the face of the fear
(It got modded informative and underrated, by the way. When I say love it or leave it like he did, I get modded -1 Troll. But that's another story) My point was that rights are not absolute and even rights, as holy as they are, need to have limits. But to say that you will "not surrender even a single liberty out of fear" is saying that liberties are absolute. I stated that the freedom of speech does not include the right to burn down the IRS building. It does not include the right to scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre. "Unreasonable search and seizure" does not protect you from being able to board a plane without being molested or drive a car without it being inspected or licensed. Even liberties have limits, and this guy is not willing to give a single one. All I said was that he already had and didn't know it yet. Much like tapping phone calls overseas. If you don't know it happens, have you lost a liberty?
As to the rest of your post, very well said. Granted, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are slim, but if we do nothing, those odds will rise. The odds of dying in a drunk driving accident are slim too, but driving while intoxicated is still illegal, and it should be. The odds of dying from Polio were pretty slim, yet we received vaccinations for years. We make many sacrifices in life to protect ourselves, even if they odds of any danger are not that great. To me, the chance that my phone calls to Pakistan might be monitored is an extremely small price to pay for that little extra bit of security. Especially since it makes no difference in my life whatsoever. You commute to DC. Would you feel your rights are being violated if the gov't set up a camera somewhere between your house and subway station? I'm sure that camera is already there. Have your rights been violated? Now that you know that the camera is there, are you suddenly living in a totalitarian state? What has changed?
Your Patrick Henry quote:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
I agree with this 100%, but we are not talking about the "chains and slavery" here. We are talking about a computer that monitors phone calls made to known terrorist hot-spots overseas looking for key words. Hardly "chains and slavery". Before you claim a slippery slope, keep in mind that rights are not absolute and are limited already. To assume that tapping overseas phone calls today is equal to some sort of authoritarian government control is hyperbole. Saying I want to give the government a bit more control when it comes to national security does not mean that I want to live in China. The bottom line for me is: I don't see how tapping phone conversations that I make overseas impeads on my freedoms in the slightest. It does not prevent me from doing anything at all. Effect on my life = 0% (even if I did make calls overseas)
Comparisons between fascism and Bushism are not merely coincidental and No, they are not. They are an attempt at baseless attacks meant to associate GWB with Nazi's.
Let's see the definition again:
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Radical polical ideology GWB, and Republicans in general, are not radical. Radical would be internment camps for everyone named Mohammed and martial law for the rest of us. A relatively conservative form of gov't is not radical.
corporatism Somewhat. But Enron and Worldcom are out of business. The auto industry is beholden to unions. Corporations don't rule this country and they never will.
authoritarianism Nope, not here. I see our government attacked daily from within and there have been no arrests made.
nationalism Nothing wrong with patriotism. GWB and the US is not unique here. Any country with a national anthem could fit here.
militarism We have a military, yes, but it does not patrol our streets or have anything else to do with the citizens of the US.
anti-anarchism You mean having a government? Hell, the Constitution itself is anti-anarchism!
anti-communism We are lot more communism friendly today than we were just 20 years ago. I'd say we are going the other way on this one.
anti-liberalism to the extent that we are not UBER-liberal, yes. I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet. The fact that we can have this discussion alone I think proves that the US is not anti-liberal, just not as liberal as you might like.
Associating with someone doesn't mean anything really. So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really? I think associations mean quite a bit here. Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said. For that matter, I don't even think that government should even approach Achmed in this case unless some sort of attack is being planned. But my whole point is, how is the gov't supposed to know what is being planned unless they listen in? Achmed may be calling buy some goats for his grandmother who lives in Pakistan, but unless the gov't knows that, he's going to be on a watch list just for making the call. People can be cleared just as easily as they can be implicated with this. But to NOT even listen because he might be buying goats is a bit naive. That's like saying the guy wearing the ski mask in the bank might just be cold.
>>There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided.
I guess if you don't think denying people their rights is evil, than sure. I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again:
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Nope, no there. Is it in a white font or something?
>>The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people.
Really? The brown shirts were good people? The Jews were happy living in Germany during this time? I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people? And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
I don't believe that the systems that limit the scope of the surveillance are sufficiently accurate to only select calls of interest. I think they're casting a wide net, and keeping as much data as possible.
Actually, these are limited to calls overseas. While that is a wide net, it is still limited. And I don't think you have a bank of NSA employees with recorders, pencil and paper listening to every overseas call made. I'm sure the system is automated with a machine listening for keywords and watching for calls made to "hot" areas where terrorists are known to exist.
And if by "stopping a terrorist attack", that means "erroneously break into your house, zip tie you and your family, and deport you to Syria", is that still OK?
Absolutely not! Breaking into your house, zip tieing my family and so on effects my life and the life of my family. Listening to calls to Pakistan has no effect on my life whatsoever. Hell, I don't even know if they are listening, how can it have any effect?
What's more important, the Constitution or the People?
I say the people. Here's my logic: Without the people, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Granted, it lists our rights and provides the framework for a country and form of government, without the people to form that country, it's worthless. There are many people in the world who get along just fine without the US Constitution. Are they worthless?
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
At the risk of burning Karma.....
There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided. The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people. It was the attempted conquest of Europe, the rape and pillage attitude of the military, and the killing of all those jews that Nazi Germany evil. It wasn't fascims that made Nazis evil, but the other way around.
Hence, a warrant so that a judge can decide if the tap has merit. Your argument, like many preceding it, assumes that once they have the information there is any way of stopping them from doing anything with it. The floodgates are open at that point.. it's too late. The information is out in the open and can go anywhere.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused. The police is a prime example. What is to stop the police chief from taking over a city? The military? OK, what's to stop Rumsfield from taking over? The potential for abuse exists, should we do away with the police and the military? Of course not. This can be said for anything. A hammer can be abused, should they be banned? It's not the tool I have a problem with, it's the abuse. So until I see an abuse taking place, I have no problem with it. While I have not seen the gov't abuse us the data they have already retrieved, I have the terrorist abuse the rights we all have. While I'm not saying we should do away with our rights, there are some adjustments that should be made. I'm willing to give up the asumption of a private phone call overseas for security.
Umm... by using traditional investigating techniques to identify potential suspects, and then requesting warrants for those individuals based on the evidence you have.
Or are you under the rather silly impression that phone tapping is being used to actually *find* the terrorists?
OK, you've identified a terrorist. How do you know which phone the he is using? While you can get a warrant to tap his home phone quite easily, getting a warrant to tap every disposable cell phone that he might use is a different matter entirely.
I refuse to surrender even a single liberty in the face of the fear.
I'm afraid you already have. Go ahead and exercise your freedom of speech at the nearest biker bar and see what happens. Why don't you exercise your right to bare arms on an airplane? For that matter, go to the airport and talk about your bomb collection or even yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
No rights are absolute. While you can burn a flag as a gesture of free speech, you can't burn down your local IRS office, even if it is the perfect dispaly of your displeasure. While you won't let the government listen in on your calls to Tora Bora to save your own life, it is the government's job to protect the rest of us. I'm sorry to say that my and my family's right to life is greater than your right to a secure phone call overseas!
As has been said over and over and over - warrants could already be gotten retroactively, and most of the 4th amendment restrictions have already been broadened over the last 4 decades. If the gov't wants to tap someone, they can already.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
I agree, mostly. The problem is: How do you know which calls to listen in on? When a call to Pakistan is made from a disposable phone purchased at Walmart 15 minutes ago, how do you know if you should listen in on it. Granted, you can get the warrant later, but you really can't go to a judge and ask for 1500 warrants a day when only one call you listened to this week had any valuable information? Do you just ask a single warrant for the one call that had good intel? What about the other 1499 calls a day? When a phone is used for a single phone call before being thrown away, you don't know which phone to bug without actually listening in.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key word is shown in bold. I think if you are calling a disposable phone located in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan from a disposable phone, listening in is not that unreasonable to me.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me. Do they stop a terrorists attack, I'm all for it. Do that publish what they learned or try to use it in court, I have a problem with that. It's not the gathering of information that is dangerous, it's what they decide to do with that info.
"Defeat Democrats and UBL will give up since his only hope for victory lies in destroying our will to fight."
You actually believe this? I would say your blind hatred of Democrats is overwhelming all other considerations. So, when would you like the "War on Democrats" to start?
"I'm NOT saying all Democrats are knowingly in league with UBL."
By even mentioning this, though, you are implying that some Democrats are in league with UBL.
Well, I hate to admit it, but many democrats hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden. Hell, for that matter, most Slashdotters hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden. Harry Belafonte, Shehan (who was a Democrats guest at the State of the Union speech), CodePink, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore (who had box seats at the Dem Convention), Martin Sheen and many many more all think that Bush is "The Biggest Terrorist on Earth". That means they think that Bush is more dangerous than the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Venesuela, N. Korea, Russia, Sadam Hussein and yes, even BinLaden. While I know these people are not elected, they are held in high regard among elected Democrats. How often do you see Tim Robins, Susan Surandon (sp?), Harry Belafonte, Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore as a guest of honor or sharing the stage with a Democrat currently serving in an elected office?
So, given what I mentioned above: While Democrats are not in league with UBL, they would rather be with him than GWB! Now that's fucked up!
Slashdot Mirror
She bleeds all the time! Maybe this will help with that "not so fresh feeling".
Invisible Plane?
I build one of these things years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it since its first test flight.
What does Bin Laden Intel have to do with anything since it was BushCo that took down the towers on 9-11 with controlled demolitions. Sheesh! Hasn't anyone seen "Loose Change?"
(It's a shame that I have to point out that this is sarcasm because there are so many serious posts just like all over the web)
And when the Democrat President orders the NSA to record a call by Pres Candidate Jeb Bush to a Saudi guy and then puts the phone call out of context in a political ad 5 days before election time, remember..... I warned you.
See: Clinton's abuse of the FBI files..........
I agree 100%. That's abuse of the information given. Trust me, the second this gets used for anything other than to stop a terrorist attack, I'll be more against it than you guys. But I'm not going to assume abuse just because the potential is there. Hell, the potential has been there and no one has said a peep until now. The problem is the gov't's inability to gather thousands of warrants to cover every disposable cell phone sold in this country.
OK, how's this:
Bush is a frickin asshole and is ruining this country.
There, I said it publicly here, for free, no wire tap needed. I'm waiting... waiting... waiting...
Nope, no brown-shirts kicking the door down. No Men in Black torturing my wife... nothing. No effect. As I've said stuff like that before, I have not been placed on any "no-fly" list.
That's what the administration says and we know there record on telling the truth.
OK, what's to stop the administration from doing this anyway without oversight?
1. Why exactly should the federal executive branch of the government be exempt from oversight and checks & balances, when every other branch and level is constrained?
I never said that the Prez should have absolute power without any oversight. What I did say is that the executive branch should be able listen to phone calls that are made overseas. I could even settle on limiting the bill to say something like cell phones or disposable cell phones. The problem is that the gov't has no idea which phones the terrorists are going to use to call their masters overseas without listening in. That's all this is. Listening to select calls made to suspected terrorists areas, probably by a machine looking for key words. This is not an all out espianage effort on all Americans. So, unless you call Pakistan, you have nothing to worry about.
By the way, Congress granted the oversight you are asking for today.
2. How exactly does that make us safer?
Going off what I said above, and now your presumptions to question 1:
If this helps us break up a single terror cell in the US and/or prevents a single attack, it will make us safer.
3. How exactly does exempting the executive branch of the government from the rules embodied in the Constitution, show to the rest of the world that we are in fact a country of laws?
Can you tell me where "privacy" is mentioned in the constitution. I see "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" but I see no mention of privacy in there. Can you show me where that's at? I can't find it. Now I understand that judges in the past have said that the fourth amendment implies privacy, but judges have also said that slavery was legal at one point as well. It can also be argued that since the founders had no concept of phones, they could not spell out wire-tapping. I say that the founders could talk, and there is no mention eavesdropping being forbidden. What the founders were attempting to prevent, in my opinion, was federal troops kicking down the opposition's door every day and thrashing the place looking for gnomes or whatever as a method of harrassment. I don't see eavesdropping as harrassment.
Finally, to answer your question. Congress gave authority today, so rest assured, we are still a nation of laws.
4. How exactly does declaring the use of torture against our "enemies" proper, but it's use by our enemies an obscenety, not make us the two faced hypocrites most of these terrorists/the world already think we are?
While this has nothing to do with the topic, I'll bite anyway.
First of all, no one has declared the use of torture against our "enemies" proper. Second, what you, me, and our "enemies" define as torture probably differs greatly. In my opinion, being forced to stand all night is not torture. If it is, then every fast food and retail job I've ever held could be considered torture. Loud music, air conditioning, strong language, and sleep deprevation are not torture either. If this is what you mean by torture, then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Fact is, prisoners at Guantanimo eat and are treated better than I am. No one is making me special Ramadan meals next month. I don't get time to pray five times a day or even get five breaks a day. And these guys are supposed to be the worst of the worst! Trust me, they are getting much better treatment from us than they would from their native countries and many of them fight extradition because they know it.
The military does not prevent the police from taking over a city. The act would be done long before the military could mobilize a response. What keeps it from happening in a coup like fasion your quote implies is the certain knowledge of what would happen afterwords. The things that help minimize the possibility of more manipulative takeovers are oversight, internal affairs, checks & balances, etc.
Uh...
--"We have a military, yes"
And quite the willingness to use it. Remind me again what Saddam had to do with Al Queida? Not to mention the "If you don't support our military actions you're a terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric.
No one said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, exept for Zarqoui being harbored there. Iraq was not about Al Qaeda or 9-11. However, 9-11 opened our eyes to what a rag-tag bunch of terrorists could do with little support. Imagine what terrorist could do with the backing of the Iraqi government! Iraq did actively support terrorists.
Who said that if you don't support the military that your are a terrorist sympathizer? I never said that. I heard the "if you are not with us, you are against us" bit, but that was meant to countries that knowingly harbor terrorist, like the Taliban for example.
--"You mean having a government?"
Labeling small-government advocates as terroists is more like it. Spinning every attempt to _reduce the expansion_ of government (not even reduce the size, simply reduce the expansion) as "wanting the terrorists to win". That kind of thing.
The argument here is wether or not the GWB administration is fascist or not. As a small gov't advocate myself, I've heard no one calling libertarians terrorists.
--"I'd say we are going the other way on this one."
More socialism than communism. However, the rhetoric hasn't changed...
Either way, it does not make the US fascist.
--"I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet."
So it's not a problem until it hits mass execution levels? Might be a little late to fight it if you wait that long.
I never said that, but according to what I read here: Wiretapping=Fascist Gov't=Totalitarian Gov't=Liberals rounded up and thrown in gas chambers.
My point was that we have laws that limit liberty today. I can't pray in school, yell fire in a crowded theater or take a gun into a bar, yet we are not totalitarian and not headed that way.
From your wiki link:
Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.
Every government in existence fits this description.
Another Wiki link:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
The "right to life" was mentioned before "liberty and persuit of happiness" in the US's Declaration of Independence. Without life, there is no liberty, thus making life a primary political value of Liberalism. A dead liberal has no rights.
Your entire response seems to be a matter of:
(1) "So is everyone else" on each point, or
(2) misappropriating/misunderstanding terms and political philosophies in contradistinction to which fascism is defined
Regarding (1), the point of the aforementioned construction of fascism was the coincidence of all or most of the listed criteria (which the U.S. meets), not just any one of them. That is why it is not telling to pick a single point to the exclusion of the others and list non-fascist nations that meet the single criterion as a basis for illustration.
Regarding (2), all I can say is that if you don't understand the terms in opposition to which fascism is defined, then you also likely don't have a clear understanding of fascism, and thus are hardly in a position to claim that Nation X does not tend toward it.
The point I was making in with my "So is everyone else" points is to prove that the GWB administration is no more fascist than "everyone else". Every government by definition is anti-anacharnism. Every government on earth shares all of these qualities to some degree (with the exception of the Communist countries being anti-communist... but the people in Cuba/China/N.Korea can't argue about wire-tapping because they have not rights. So anti-communist is pro libertarian to some extent). That does not make the entire world fascist any more than it makes the GWB administration a fascist regime.
And to say I don't understand the terms when my definitions meet what you linked to on Wikipedia is a bit wrong, don't you think? After all, I used Wiki's definitions to shoot down your assumption that the GWB is somehow more fascists than the President's who preceded him and that the US is somehow more fascist than other governments in the world, including the truly fascist governments of the 1940's!
And finally, your argument stating that this law will lead us to authoritarianism:
And for how much longer is precisely the point of this story and this debate. It is what is at issue: some of us want to stop yet another criterion from being met.
Can be made against speed limits, drug laws or any other law that is on our books. Just because laws have been passed does not mean that we are on the way to totalitariansism.
Dude! Have you even been here? You are way off base on every point.
Radical?
Absolutely, breaking with tradition and global consensus on nearly every issue and decision.
What does this have to do with our form of government? The US and Brittain broke with "global consensus" when they stood up to Nazi Germany. Did that make them Fascists? The USSR did the same from the 1950's to the mid 80's. I had no idea they were fascists either!
Corporatist?
They let major corporations sit in on policy authorship. The revolving door between the military-industrial aristocracy and government authority is at record levels.
Assuming this were true, how is this is unique to the Bush administration? Oil companies pretty much rule Saudi Arabia via Saudi royalty, are they fascists too?
Authoritarian?
See bills referenced here and consider it a nascent, but rapidly growing, authoritarianism with a strong will to power.
Again, that fact that we are having this converstaion via servers based on the US disproves your point.
Nationalism?
You've got to be kidding me, you dispute this? This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag.
Again, if true, how is this unique to the Bush administration?
Also, how is having a cabinet more divers than any other administration make this one racists? Isn't flagwaving a prerequisite for the job of the Presidency? Nazi Germany was God-appropriating? (and) GWB is more so than, say, Jimmy Carter? Finally, I work at a major (really big) computer manufacturer here in the US. I work with a guy that has a red star tatoo and wears shirts with Castro's picture or some other sort of communist propaganda on it every day. How was he able to get his job, his car loan, his mortgage and everything else he has or does with that sort of thing if he was unwilling to sing the praises of Bush and wrap himself in the flag.
Militarism?
Well, let's see. A war in Afghanistan, a unilateral war against Iraq just for amusement, third front in Iran almost a given within the next year, with noises about Syria, North Korea, and China if they continue to annoy Taiwan. An almost continuous preoccupation in the policy infrastructure and public discourse with war, the portrayal of war, the policy of war, or the conditions of war. This entire nation is a military.
Again, how is this different than a war in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Japan, Iwo Jima, Burma, North Africa and everywhere else we fought in WWII? Were Roosevelt and Churchill Fascists? As to the entire nation being "a military", I have not seen a tank roll down a public street since... well, never. I have never seen a military checkpoint outside a military base anywhere in the US. For that matter, it was quite a shock to see armed military in our airports after 9-11.
Anti-anarchism?
Anarchism being libertarian leftism, this country has less patience for anarchism than almost anything else.
I thought anarchy was the lack of government. I had no idea that "liberal leftism" was really anarchism. There are some lefty liberals on the Democratic ticket that are going to be surprised to learn that they are anarchists. Still, they are allowed to be on the ticket and even win sometimes, which again, disproves your point.
Anti-communism?
Except discussions about to communism, socialism, Marxism, or U.S. economic imperialism.
See my point about the Castro guy I work with above. Does he need to watch out for government snipers? Code Pink and ANSWER are both communist organizations, and yet they are not banned and their memebers are not arrested. Why is that?
Anti-liberalism?
Liberalism being the general enlightenment-centric approach to individual liberty, market freedom, etc. The U.S. is ex
My original statement was in response to a post by someone else that said the following:
(It got modded informative and underrated, by the way. When I say love it or leave it like he did, I get modded -1 Troll. But that's another story)
My point was that rights are not absolute and even rights, as holy as they are, need to have limits. But to say that you will "not surrender even a single liberty out of fear" is saying that liberties are absolute. I stated that the freedom of speech does not include the right to burn down the IRS building. It does not include the right to scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre. "Unreasonable search and seizure" does not protect you from being able to board a plane without being molested or drive a car without it being inspected or licensed. Even liberties have limits, and this guy is not willing to give a single one. All I said was that he already had and didn't know it yet. Much like tapping phone calls overseas. If you don't know it happens, have you lost a liberty?
As to the rest of your post, very well said. Granted, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are slim, but if we do nothing, those odds will rise. The odds of dying in a drunk driving accident are slim too, but driving while intoxicated is still illegal, and it should be. The odds of dying from Polio were pretty slim, yet we received vaccinations for years. We make many sacrifices in life to protect ourselves, even if they odds of any danger are not that great. To me, the chance that my phone calls to Pakistan might be monitored is an extremely small price to pay for that little extra bit of security. Especially since it makes no difference in my life whatsoever. You commute to DC. Would you feel your rights are being violated if the gov't set up a camera somewhere between your house and subway station? I'm sure that camera is already there. Have your rights been violated? Now that you know that the camera is there, are you suddenly living in a totalitarian state? What has changed?
Your Patrick Henry quote:
I agree with this 100%, but we are not talking about the "chains and slavery" here. We are talking about a computer that monitors phone calls made to known terrorist hot-spots overseas looking for key words. Hardly "chains and slavery". Before you claim a slippery slope, keep in mind that rights are not absolute and are limited already. To assume that tapping overseas phone calls today is equal to some sort of authoritarian government control is hyperbole. Saying I want to give the government a bit more control when it comes to national security does not mean that I want to live in China.
The bottom line for me is:
I don't see how tapping phone conversations that I make overseas impeads on my freedoms in the slightest. It does not prevent me from doing anything at all.
Effect on my life = 0% (even if I did make calls overseas)
No, they are not. They are an attempt at baseless attacks meant to associate GWB with Nazi's.
Let's see the definition again:
Radical polical ideology
GWB, and Republicans in general, are not radical. Radical would be internment camps for everyone named Mohammed and martial law for the rest of us. A relatively conservative form of gov't is not radical.
corporatism
Somewhat. But Enron and Worldcom are out of business. The auto industry is beholden to unions. Corporations don't rule this country and they never will.
authoritarianism
Nope, not here. I see our government attacked daily from within and there have been no arrests made.
nationalism
Nothing wrong with patriotism. GWB and the US is not unique here. Any country with a national anthem could fit here.
militarism
We have a military, yes, but it does not patrol our streets or have anything else to do with the citizens of the US.
anti-anarchism
You mean having a government? Hell, the Constitution itself is anti-anarchism!
anti-communism
We are lot more communism friendly today than we were just 20 years ago. I'd say we are going the other way on this one.
anti-liberalism
to the extent that we are not UBER-liberal, yes. I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet. The fact that we can have this discussion alone I think proves that the US is not anti-liberal, just not as liberal as you might like.
Associating with someone doesn't mean anything really.
So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really? I think associations mean quite a bit here. Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said. For that matter, I don't even think that government should even approach Achmed in this case unless some sort of attack is being planned. But my whole point is, how is the gov't supposed to know what is being planned unless they listen in? Achmed may be calling buy some goats for his grandmother who lives in Pakistan, but unless the gov't knows that, he's going to be on a watch list just for making the call. People can be cleared just as easily as they can be implicated with this. But to NOT even listen because he might be buying goats is a bit naive. That's like saying the guy wearing the ski mask in the bank might just be cold.
I guess if you don't think denying people their rights is evil, than sure.
I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again:
Nope, no there. Is it in a white font or something?
>>The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people.
Really? The brown shirts were good people? The Jews were happy living in Germany during this time?
I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people? And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
I don't believe that the systems that limit the scope of the surveillance are sufficiently accurate to only select calls of interest. I think they're casting a wide net, and keeping as much data as possible.
Actually, these are limited to calls overseas. While that is a wide net, it is still limited. And I don't think you have a bank of NSA employees with recorders, pencil and paper listening to every overseas call made. I'm sure the system is automated with a machine listening for keywords and watching for calls made to "hot" areas where terrorists are known to exist.
And if by "stopping a terrorist attack", that means "erroneously break into your house, zip tie you and your family, and deport you to Syria", is that still OK?
Absolutely not! Breaking into your house, zip tieing my family and so on effects my life and the life of my family. Listening to calls to Pakistan has no effect on my life whatsoever. Hell, I don't even know if they are listening, how can it have any effect?
What's more important, the Constitution or the People?
I say the people. Here's my logic:
Without the people, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Granted, it lists our rights and provides the framework for a country and form of government, without the people to form that country, it's worthless. There are many people in the world who get along just fine without the US Constitution. Are they worthless?
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
At the risk of burning Karma.....
There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided. The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people. It was the attempted conquest of Europe, the rape and pillage attitude of the military, and the killing of all those jews that Nazi Germany evil. It wasn't fascims that made Nazis evil, but the other way around.
Actually, Article II Section 1 makes it pretty clear that the
president's job is to protect and defend the Constitution.
I recommend you read it.
And the first three words in the Constitution are:
We the People
and it's the people the Prez must defend first.
Have you made it past the first three words or did you start and finish with Article II, Section 1?
Unreasonable -> without reason -> without merit
Hence, a warrant so that a judge can decide if the tap has merit. Your argument, like many preceding it, assumes that once they have the information there is any way of stopping them from doing anything with it. The floodgates are open at that point.. it's too late. The information is out in the open and can go anywhere.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused. The police is a prime example. What is to stop the police chief from taking over a city? The military? OK, what's to stop Rumsfield from taking over? The potential for abuse exists, should we do away with the police and the military? Of course not. This can be said for anything. A hammer can be abused, should they be banned? It's not the tool I have a problem with, it's the abuse. So until I see an abuse taking place, I have no problem with it. While I have not seen the gov't abuse us the data they have already retrieved, I have the terrorist abuse the rights we all have. While I'm not saying we should do away with our rights, there are some adjustments that should be made. I'm willing to give up the asumption of a private phone call overseas for security.
>>How do you know which calls to listen in on?
Umm... by using traditional investigating techniques to identify potential suspects, and then requesting warrants for those individuals based on the evidence you have.
Or are you under the rather silly impression that phone tapping is being used to actually *find* the terrorists?
OK, you've identified a terrorist. How do you know which phone the he is using? While you can get a warrant to tap his home phone quite easily, getting a warrant to tap every disposable cell phone that he might use is a different matter entirely.
I refuse to surrender even a single liberty in the face of the fear.
I'm afraid you already have. Go ahead and exercise your freedom of speech at the nearest biker bar and see what happens. Why don't you exercise your right to bare arms on an airplane? For that matter, go to the airport and talk about your bomb collection or even yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
No rights are absolute. While you can burn a flag as a gesture of free speech, you can't burn down your local IRS office, even if it is the perfect dispaly of your displeasure. While you won't let the government listen in on your calls to Tora Bora to save your own life, it is the government's job to protect the rest of us. I'm sorry to say that my and my family's right to life is greater than your right to a secure phone call overseas!
As has been said over and over and over - warrants could already be gotten retroactively, and most of the 4th amendment restrictions have already been broadened over the last 4 decades. If the gov't wants to tap someone, they can already.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
I agree, mostly. The problem is: How do you know which calls to listen in on? When a call to Pakistan is made from a disposable phone purchased at Walmart 15 minutes ago, how do you know if you should listen in on it. Granted, you can get the warrant later, but you really can't go to a judge and ask for 1500 warrants a day when only one call you listened to this week had any valuable information? Do you just ask a single warrant for the one call that had good intel? What about the other 1499 calls a day? When a phone is used for a single phone call before being thrown away, you don't know which phone to bug without actually listening in.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key word is shown in bold. I think if you are calling a disposable phone located in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan from a disposable phone, listening in is not that unreasonable to me.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me. Do they stop a terrorists attack, I'm all for it. Do that publish what they learned or try to use it in court, I have a problem with that. It's not the gathering of information that is dangerous, it's what they decide to do with that info.
>> most Slashdotters hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden
Ironically I probably count. Bush has had a far more negative impact on my life than Bin Laden.
I rest my case.
Further, they both rely on archaic superstitions and irrational beliefs and attack people that disagree with them. I see little real difference.
Here's a difference: You disagree with Bush. Has he ordered any planes hijacked and flown into your place of work?
"Defeat Democrats and UBL will give up since his only hope for victory lies in destroying our will to fight."
You actually believe this? I would say your blind hatred of Democrats is overwhelming all other considerations. So, when would you like the "War on Democrats" to start?
"I'm NOT saying all Democrats are knowingly in league with UBL."
By even mentioning this, though, you are implying that some Democrats are in league with UBL.
Well, I hate to admit it, but many democrats hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden. Hell, for that matter, most Slashdotters hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden. Harry Belafonte, Shehan (who was a Democrats guest at the State of the Union speech), CodePink, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore (who had box seats at the Dem Convention), Martin Sheen and many many more all think that Bush is "The Biggest Terrorist on Earth". That means they think that Bush is more dangerous than the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Venesuela, N. Korea, Russia, Sadam Hussein and yes, even BinLaden. While I know these people are not elected, they are held in high regard among elected Democrats. How often do you see Tim Robins, Susan Surandon (sp?), Harry Belafonte, Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore as a guest of honor or sharing the stage with a Democrat currently serving in an elected office?
So, given what I mentioned above: While Democrats are not in league with UBL, they would rather be with him than GWB! Now that's fucked up!