Okay, even assuming the IG investigation is independent and beyond reproach, it still remains that the executive can override IG recommendations. An independent investigation sponsored by Congress has a better chance of accomplishing reform by virtue of being outside of George W. Bush's influence.
The issue is, "Who did the publishing?" Arguably, its the daughter who did the initial publication by putting up the story on her Bebo page. If the newspapers attributed their facts to the initial source, then they're arguably not at fault, since they had no reason to believe they weren't publishing the truth.
Consider all of the highly improbable events that had to line up in just the right sequence, in just the right time in order for life to appear on earth. Using Occam's razor, ID seems to be the simplest explanation.
That's like saying, "Its highly improbable for any one person to win the Powerball, so no one can win the Powerball."
The universe is an enormous place. If Earth hadn't been in the right place to sustain life, then, most likely some other planet would have.
The Constitution protects the rights of American citizens.
That's a side effect. The role of the Constitution is to enumerate the powers of the federal government and to serve as a check on those powers. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the the Executive exceeds its Constitutionally granted power against US citizens, or someone else. All that matters is that the executive has exceeded its granted powers.
As I said in response to roystgnr I can not see how voting yes on this bill helps Obama in any way, shape or form.
It may not help Obama with his core supporters, but it does help shield him from Republican criticism later on. He can point to this vote and say that he voted to "increase security" and "fight terrorists". If he had not voted against this bill he would have been hit hard with it later on.
Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain.
Except for the fact that, y'know, Clinton didn't vote on the bill (in this case, that's equivalent to a "no" vote).
Why do you assume people won't be held accountable?
Perhaps because the Senate just voted explicitly to shield the telecoms from accountability.
That's the purpose of the IG inspections.
The IG is still a part of the department he or she is investigating. If this were applied to the justice system as a whole, we'd have judges receiving their pay from the police department.
The only way to annihilate the idea is either to 1) annihilate all the people capable of holding the idea, or 2) to convince the people holding the idea that the idea is wrong.
However, neither of these options are feasible for the military to accomplish. The military is not trained to spy and distinguish those that are capable of terrorism from those that are not. That's a job suited for the CIA.
Neither can the military convince a people that terrorism is wrong. Military forces (and the US military in particular) are rather poor for conducting "hearts and minds" initiatives. After all, the specialty of any military is breaking things and killing enemies - not building up ideas in the hearts and minds of an occupied populace.
Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
This point hints at a broader philosophical misconception of yours'. You seem to think that the Constitution enumerates the rights of US citizens, and, therefore, those that are not US citizens do not enjoy constitutional protection.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the citizens, it enumerates the powers of the government, and the limits on said power. The Bill of Rights serves to further check the government's power by enumerating rights that the government may not take away under any condition.
Indeed, none of us are covered by the US Constitution, since the Constitution applies to the government, not the people.
Now, getting back to your point about surveillance, I'd argue that it doesn't matter who the government is listening to unconstitutionally. If an act is unconstitutional when applied to a US citizen, it is unconstitutional when applied to a foreign citizen, because, again, the Constitution acts as a leash on the government, not a shield for the people.
Every time I see this discussed online, there are people who say things like "the telecoms shouldn't be punished for doing as the government asked", ignoring the illegality, that Qwest didn't go along, etc.
My response to that is always, "If a police officer asked you to go in a lift a candy bar from a store, would you do it?"
The religious right isn't running the Republican party
I disagree. I think the religious right has far more influence now than it did in Reagan's era. Their consistent support, combined with their ability to turn out the vote on election day was a significant factor in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, increasing their influence considerably. This influence was solidified by their alliance with the neo-conservatives over the war in Iraq.
kooks on the far left are running the Democrat party.
Again, I beg to differ. The Democratic party of today is far more centrist, both on economic and social matters than it was before. Today, more than ever, you see Democrats that are questioning of issues that, in the past, would have been core Democratic principles. Issues like corporate tax breaks, pro-choice abortion stances, and affirmative action, to name a few.
The way I see it, its the Republican party that has become more extremist, while the Democrats have moderated many of their opinions.
Obama is being hammered for changing his views. Bush is hammered for NOT changing his views. They are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
The problem with that statement is that it relies on the unspoken assumption that all views are equal, and that one should be equally stubborn on all of his or her view.
Besides, its not like Bush has been especially stubborn on his views either. After all, didn't he promise to balance the budget by cutting spending?
Basically it seems that to him it was more important to prevent future abuse then to vote for the power to punish past abuse.
Which would make sense, if this bill actually had measures to prevent future abuse. However, all this bill does is loosen restrictions and increase loopholes, making it more difficult to find and prosecute future abuse.
One of the President's most important tools is the bully pulpit. In order to effectively use the bully pulpit, the President must be persuasive. If Obama can't even persuade the Senators of his own party, how can he persuade all of Congress if he comes into power?
This lack of persuasion, combined with the lack of backbone in voting against this bill, casts serious doubts about Obama's fitness to lead.
Not that John "Hundred-year occupation" McCain is any better, mind you.
Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law.
How? As far as I can tell, the new FISA bill the same or worse in every respect. It loosens restrictions on government spying, creates loopholes that could be used to have unconstitutionally broad spying programs, reduces judicial oversight, and, finally, adds immunity for past wrongs (effectively turning this into an ex post facto law).
Yeah, let's see... it's been 63 years since Hitler died ending the Nazi party. 63 years since Mussolini died ending the National Fascist Party. 38 years since Salazar died which ended the New State party 4 years later. 33 years since Franco died putting the lid on the Falangists party.
And its been about 5 years since Britain started installing CCTV cameras on every street corner, and about a week since Sweden approved a domestic spying programme far broader than even the one approved of by the new FISA bill.
Totalitarianism with a veneer of political correctness is still totalitarianism.
Have you or anybody in your field considered that humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources?
Have you considered the fact that humans who have longer lifespans tend to have lower birthrates? I'm not suggesting causation, of course, but I am pointing out the fact that birthrates decrease as poverty and disease are ameliorated.
I used to like Yahoo's mail. It was a pretty simple, basic web based mailbox. It didn't have much AJAX or other dynamic elements, but it was pretty easy to use and it was functional across many browsers.
Then they replaced it with their Mail 2.0 abomination. Slow, clunky, prone to mysterious errors - it was like GMail's evil twin. After they introduced that atrocity of a UI, I've been using Gmail exclusively.
Most people will never need to do long division with symbols in their entire life. Heck, I'm a geek with a real interest in math, and I've still never found the ability to factor a polynomial useful even once in real life.
It all depends on how you define "real life", I guess. Does college count? I know that having the ability to quickly work out the factors of a polynomial via long division would have been of immense help to me in college.
The argument, "Well, I'll never use this on the job," is somewhat of a straw man, since you'll need to get a college degree to get that job. And, in college it is useful to be able to do algebra and basic calculus in your head quickly.
After memorizing the tables, you have this pile of pretty much useless facts, sort of jumbled together...
Except that no one learns like that. Learning is not "just like" throwing objects into a box. Study after study has shown that humans learn by taking facts and drawing connections between those facts and other facts that they already know. In this sense, the more facts you have, the more connections you're able to make.
If you instead memorize only some basic facts and several basic rules, you will have something that I would liken to a clean table with just few objects on it, with plenty of space to draw connections.
And you miss all of the connections that could be created by having a proper library of facts to draw from.
This view of teaching (simple facts + basic principles) is very attractive as a theoretical model, but there's very little data to support any view of that being the way people actually learn.
Slashdot Mirror
But, all the same, if something is not observable, is it real? And, if it is real, does it matter if we can't observe it?
In other words, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? And if it does, does it matter? ;)
Okay, even assuming the IG investigation is independent and beyond reproach, it still remains that the executive can override IG recommendations. An independent investigation sponsored by Congress has a better chance of accomplishing reform by virtue of being outside of George W. Bush's influence.
The issue is, "Who did the publishing?" Arguably, its the daughter who did the initial publication by putting up the story on her Bebo page. If the newspapers attributed their facts to the initial source, then they're arguably not at fault, since they had no reason to believe they weren't publishing the truth.
Ah. My mistake - it seems I was looking at the wrong bill.
Consider all of the highly improbable events that had to line up in just the right sequence, in just the right time in order for life to appear on earth. Using Occam's razor, ID seems to be the simplest explanation.
That's like saying, "Its highly improbable for any one person to win the Powerball, so no one can win the Powerball."
The universe is an enormous place. If Earth hadn't been in the right place to sustain life, then, most likely some other planet would have.
Nothing about faith means believing in something absurd.
Faith requires you to believe in something without questioning it and without seeing any evidence of that thing being true or actually existing.
I find that absurd.
The Constitution protects the rights of American citizens.
That's a side effect. The role of the Constitution is to enumerate the powers of the federal government and to serve as a check on those powers. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the the Executive exceeds its Constitutionally granted power against US citizens, or someone else. All that matters is that the executive has exceeded its granted powers.
As I said in response to roystgnr I can not see how voting yes on this bill helps Obama in any way, shape or form.
It may not help Obama with his core supporters, but it does help shield him from Republican criticism later on. He can point to this vote and say that he voted to "increase security" and "fight terrorists". If he had not voted against this bill he would have been hit hard with it later on.
Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain.
Except for the fact that, y'know, Clinton didn't vote on the bill (in this case, that's equivalent to a "no" vote).
Why do you assume people won't be held accountable?
Perhaps because the Senate just voted explicitly to shield the telecoms from accountability.
That's the purpose of the IG inspections.
The IG is still a part of the department he or she is investigating. If this were applied to the justice system as a whole, we'd have judges receiving their pay from the police department.
The ideas must be annihilated.
The only way to annihilate the idea is either to 1) annihilate all the people capable of holding the idea, or 2) to convince the people holding the idea that the idea is wrong.
However, neither of these options are feasible for the military to accomplish. The military is not trained to spy and distinguish those that are capable of terrorism from those that are not. That's a job suited for the CIA.
Neither can the military convince a people that terrorism is wrong. Military forces (and the US military in particular) are rather poor for conducting "hearts and minds" initiatives. After all, the specialty of any military is breaking things and killing enemies - not building up ideas in the hearts and minds of an occupied populace.
Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
This point hints at a broader philosophical misconception of yours'. You seem to think that the Constitution enumerates the rights of US citizens, and, therefore, those that are not US citizens do not enjoy constitutional protection.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the citizens, it enumerates the powers of the government, and the limits on said power. The Bill of Rights serves to further check the government's power by enumerating rights that the government may not take away under any condition.
Indeed, none of us are covered by the US Constitution, since the Constitution applies to the government, not the people.
Now, getting back to your point about surveillance, I'd argue that it doesn't matter who the government is listening to unconstitutionally. If an act is unconstitutional when applied to a US citizen, it is unconstitutional when applied to a foreign citizen, because, again, the Constitution acts as a leash on the government, not a shield for the people.
Every time I see this discussed online, there are people who say things like "the telecoms shouldn't be punished for doing as the government asked", ignoring the illegality, that Qwest didn't go along, etc.
My response to that is always, "If a police officer asked you to go in a lift a candy bar from a store, would you do it?"
The religious right isn't running the Republican party
I disagree. I think the religious right has far more influence now than it did in Reagan's era. Their consistent support, combined with their ability to turn out the vote on election day was a significant factor in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, increasing their influence considerably. This influence was solidified by their alliance with the neo-conservatives over the war in Iraq.
kooks on the far left are running the Democrat party.
Again, I beg to differ. The Democratic party of today is far more centrist, both on economic and social matters than it was before. Today, more than ever, you see Democrats that are questioning of issues that, in the past, would have been core Democratic principles. Issues like corporate tax breaks, pro-choice abortion stances, and affirmative action, to name a few.
The way I see it, its the Republican party that has become more extremist, while the Democrats have moderated many of their opinions.
Obama is being hammered for changing his views. Bush is hammered for NOT changing his views. They are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
The problem with that statement is that it relies on the unspoken assumption that all views are equal, and that one should be equally stubborn on all of his or her view.
Besides, its not like Bush has been especially stubborn on his views either. After all, didn't he promise to balance the budget by cutting spending?
Basically it seems that to him it was more important to prevent future abuse then to vote for the power to punish past abuse.
Which would make sense, if this bill actually had measures to prevent future abuse. However, all this bill does is loosen restrictions and increase loopholes, making it more difficult to find and prosecute future abuse.
One of the President's most important tools is the bully pulpit. In order to effectively use the bully pulpit, the President must be persuasive. If Obama can't even persuade the Senators of his own party, how can he persuade all of Congress if he comes into power?
This lack of persuasion, combined with the lack of backbone in voting against this bill, casts serious doubts about Obama's fitness to lead.
Not that John "Hundred-year occupation" McCain is any better, mind you.
Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law.
How? As far as I can tell, the new FISA bill the same or worse in every respect. It loosens restrictions on government spying, creates loopholes that could be used to have unconstitutionally broad spying programs, reduces judicial oversight, and, finally, adds immunity for past wrongs (effectively turning this into an ex post facto law).
Tell me again, how is this law an improvement?
But, you have to remember, most of the world considers the UK to be part of Europe, British opinions aside.
Yeah, let's see... it's been 63 years since Hitler died ending the Nazi party. 63 years since Mussolini died ending the National Fascist Party. 38 years since Salazar died which ended the New State party 4 years later. 33 years since Franco died putting the lid on the Falangists party.
And its been about 5 years since Britain started installing CCTV cameras on every street corner, and about a week since Sweden approved a domestic spying programme far broader than even the one approved of by the new FISA bill.
Totalitarianism with a veneer of political correctness is still totalitarianism.
Have you or anybody in your field considered that humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources?
Have you considered the fact that humans who have longer lifespans tend to have lower birthrates? I'm not suggesting causation, of course, but I am pointing out the fact that birthrates decrease as poverty and disease are ameliorated.
Well, as long as we are exchanging anecdotes...
I used to like Yahoo's mail. It was a pretty simple, basic web based mailbox. It didn't have much AJAX or other dynamic elements, but it was pretty easy to use and it was functional across many browsers.
Then they replaced it with their Mail 2.0 abomination. Slow, clunky, prone to mysterious errors - it was like GMail's evil twin. After they introduced that atrocity of a UI, I've been using Gmail exclusively.
Hey! Good to see another SG player here on Slashdot. I'm quanticletwo on Atlantis in MP.
Most people will never need to do long division with symbols in their entire life. Heck, I'm a geek with a real interest in math, and I've still never found the ability to factor a polynomial useful even once in real life.
It all depends on how you define "real life", I guess. Does college count? I know that having the ability to quickly work out the factors of a polynomial via long division would have been of immense help to me in college.
The argument, "Well, I'll never use this on the job," is somewhat of a straw man, since you'll need to get a college degree to get that job. And, in college it is useful to be able to do algebra and basic calculus in your head quickly.
After memorizing the tables, you have this pile of pretty much useless facts, sort of jumbled together...
Except that no one learns like that. Learning is not "just like" throwing objects into a box. Study after study has shown that humans learn by taking facts and drawing connections between those facts and other facts that they already know. In this sense, the more facts you have, the more connections you're able to make.
If you instead memorize only some basic facts and several basic rules, you will have something that I would liken to a clean table with just few objects on it, with plenty of space to draw connections.
And you miss all of the connections that could be created by having a proper library of facts to draw from.
This view of teaching (simple facts + basic principles) is very attractive as a theoretical model, but there's very little data to support any view of that being the way people actually learn.