Bush Backed Spying On Americans 1092
jb.hl.com writes "President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the U.S. without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported. The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S. When asked about the programme on U.S. TV, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"
Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.
First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore (not that we ever did, right? I mean, I'm sure the folks at those secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe were Geneva Convention poster boys). Then the PATRIOT act gets blocked so they have to go deal with those darn activist judges to get warrants again. Now, people are acting like the President can't override statute with an executive order! Next thing you know, people will actually want leaders who follow the Constitution. Heck, this keeps up and nobody'll want to be President of the United States anymore - we're just takin' all the fun out of it.
I personally look forward to the day when the GOP has something to do with, you know, conservatism again. "Spend responsibly" rolls off the tounge better than "constant wanton abuse of power". Still, at least it was just violation of the basic agreement that forms the basis of our government and not, you know, a blowjob. Otherwise the nation might have to sit through another impeachment.
do something (Score:2, Insightful)
But the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS... (Score:3, Insightful)
But is it still legal when the steps are combined? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Sounds strangely familiar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm...wasn't there another president who got in trouble for spying on other americans? Watershed...waterfall...waterbed...definitely water-something...
Oh yeah! Here [wikipedia.org] it is!
And this is just the latest of Dubya and Company's shocking assaults against their own nation...sadly, an offence that would have been considered grounds for immediate impeachment (not to mention additional criminal prosecution) thirty years ago hardly raises an eyebrow today. Apparently, we're used to this sort of thing by now.
I'm pretty sure that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they fought and died so that we might have a nation free from tyranny.
President acted lawfully (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy is Shilling his book (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what she means is: "Since the president defines what is legal, then what the president does, is, by definition, legal." Very much in keeping with the administration's claims of "Presidential Infalibility".
Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Gonzales should be quickly tried and promptly executed as a deterrent to our future officials who might think that they can use power for their own purposes rather than as servants of the electorate. We need to put our so-called leaders in permanent mortal fear of even getting close to violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Until then, they will continue to think that they can rule us rather than represent us.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that if you believe that Bush does habitually abuse his power, you would be especially supportive of a law that prevents him from using the military in that way.
One day the military are brought in during an emergency to serve as a temporary police force without following proper legal procedure, the next day they're brought in during an "emergency" to "gaurd" polling places.
The particular law governing the use of the military as a police force has been around since Lincoln, and for good reason.
a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
how is anyone surprised?
BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.
And this guy [capitolhillblue.com] broke the story.
It sounds worse than it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that it appears to be passing unvetoably, the Pentagon has simply changed the manual. [nytimes.com]
And declared the new version classified.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't think that didn't happen with the presidents "offical" aproval? Let's not get out of hand here.
But we already know what will happen, the Dems will take the presidents office in 2008 maybe and the same crap will be pulled but instead we'll just have the other half saving the same thing...
Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party. If we don't get motivated to throw another party into the mix and force parties to do more than lie and smile we're just going to have the same thing again and again, a new Waco, a new 9/11, a new Watergate, a new infringement somewhere somehow and the finger pointing will continue and so will business as usual.
You don't seriously think a Democrat is any more forthright than a Republican? Hell, they feed off each other and at the same time use each other as crutches. They know and accept this business deal. They know people accept them as the only game in town.
Re:This guy is Shilling his book (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, why would it matter if he had written about it in his book. Wonton abuse of power is still news worthy, even if it is reported multiple times.
If this is lawful then we need new laws! (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is true, it only shows how corrupt our laws have become. No serious person could think that Jefferson, Franklin and the other Constitution authors would ever think it's OK for a president to do something like this.
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:4, Insightful)
No Democrat would deny Senator Lieberman the right to say or do anything that he likes; but if he's going to insist on taking a position contrary to what the majority of his party believes in, he will not get the support of, or access to, the resouces of the party - plain and simple.
The Republicans coined a term for this kind of politician as they also have a few mavericks who refuse to toe the party line...they call 'em RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have a DINO in Mr. Lieberman.
Third agency in 48 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the question becomes: which of Bush's TLAs [die.net] is not illegally spying on us?
But the saddest thing of all (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the calls to impeach Bush over his bloody lies?
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise, the Democrats have been the party of at least financial responsibility for quite some time. Military Responsibility too, unfortunately -- at least the Democrats haven't sent people off to war with no plan other than "sit tight for a few years, we'll think of something."
What I don't get is why the people in the Republican party who really do have morals and ethics don't speak out against the path that Bush, Rove, and Cheney are taking their party down. It's clearly a complete 180 from where they're claiming to be. An ethical person coming out and saying "Ok, I don't care what Bush says, he's NOT a Republican, we're disowning him" would solve so many problems...
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:2, Insightful)
Lieberman is more than a Democrat, he's a Jewish democrat, and if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.
Personally I think that's crap and indicative of the Democratic Party's utter lack of courage and direction. The only thing more disturbing than this administration's rampant abuse of authority, as evidenced yet again by our sitting President ordering wiretaps without court orders, is the Democrats' failure to capitalize on this malfeasance, politically or otherwise. They seem perfectly content to sit back and wait for polls to tell them what to say, when any rational set of humman beings would have stood up long ago and put an end to this nonsense. I mean if you can't stand up to a dope like George Bush, who can you stand up to?
What a mess.
Re:Support the President! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like it there are plenty of places you can go to where they see things more your way. I suggest Faux News, or redstate.org. Or you can continue to bitch about it and along the way, support this "liberal and generally useless" website with every page view and comment you make.
Me, I'd rather you left.
-one coward to another
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because this holy "third party" will be so far detached from the two parties we currently have that none of this bullshit will go on, right? Oooh, you are thinking that we're going to get rid of ALL of those in office that are part of the "two party" system and replace them *all* with members from the "third party".
Technically, the New-aged GOP is exactly that, a "third party" that no one has ever seen in America before. One where ignorance, blatant disregard for everything the US stands for, and religious beliefs take precedence over everything else.
BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.
Re:THX 1138 (Score:1, Insightful)
TOO LATE. We already live in that world.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme see, the Iranian President has claimed that the Holocaust never happened. It was entirely made up by the media to gain support the Jews. He also states that Israel should be wiped off the map and moved to Europe or Alaska. In short, the guy is nuts [payvand.com].
A commentator wrote an article in the Chicago Sun Times this morning that pretty well covered how it's going to go down:
1. The US has used up its "attack bad country" card for the time being, so they won't do anything.
2. Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities.
3. The UN will make more pointless resolutions condemning Israel.
Sound about right?
No accountability, it's damage control for '06. (Score:1, Insightful)
He let New Orleans drown, bungled the rescue/recovery, tried to blame everyone else, and then finally approves $3.1B to rebuild and repair the levees.
This week he's been the 'close the barn door after the horse has gotten out' president. But don't be fooled, he's not mending his ways. With the GOP being rocked by scandal after scandal, things are looking grim for Republicans in the 2006 elections-- and they know it. From now until election day there's going to be a tremendous snow job loosed on the people of this country to distract them from Plamegate, DeLay, etc, in the hopes that they'll just go to the polls and blindly vote Republican again.
Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ease up. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.
No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
If we started calling for Bush to die from old age, will the Secret Service really have a case against us? Is the President immune from being indicted and tried for crimes that carry the ultimate penalty? What ARE you saying, exactly?
I disagree with the OP about ONE thing, however. As a clear enemy to the people of the United States, upon Bush's indictment for war crimes, he should be held in prison before seeing trial for the exact number of days that he has held Jose Padilla (who is on his third year and counting).
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole "but he did it first" argument seems to be all the defenders of the slime heap that both the Republicans and the Democrats have become can pull out in their defense any more. Ever wonder why our country is going to hell in a handbasket? Because both parties are aiming pathetically low. What do you expect from a country who re-elects perverts and liars to the presidency?
You feel that? That feeling is the weight of responsibility being lifted from my shoulders. No longer do I need to worry about how citizens of the best country on Earth should comport themselves, because we're plummeting fast. Best military? Please. In the 24 hours after hurricane Katrina, the US military managed to land 2000 troops across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In the 24 hours of D-Day, Canada managed to land at least five times as many on a single beach, against German fire. Canada. Feel that?
Meanwhile, our president and vice president waste their breath defending an interrogation technique that has been discredited for centuries. So much for human rights. I have to wonder how many of the "credible threats" that never panned out ended with "... now PLEASE take this stick out of my ass!" How many millions of dollars have been wasted so that some sadists could get their jollies? Wait, what was the excuse of the year for invading Iraq? Oh right, it was to remove such a horrible despot from power, because only horrible people torture other peo... oopsie, did I say that? My load seems to be getting lighter still.
We're being lied to on an unprecedented scale. Defrauded by the people we put into power. But it's ok, because the people we elect don't need to be any better than the guy before them. Every election, we slide farther down into hasbeen status.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.
The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.
Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.
I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.
Re:But the saddest thing of all (Score:2, Insightful)
Politicians lie all the time - this is nothing new. A sitting President lying under oath was new.
And he was impeached... it wasn't "nearly".
Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think it took so long to release papers from Kennedy's time? National security?
Lies. Everyone has secrets to hide.
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you."
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one. However, it has to be one that the majority of the USA cares about. Killings, kidnappings, torture? The average American doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to them. Now if Bush was caught getting a blowjob, it would be a different matter altogether.
Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
Did he really say that? Has it been reported by anyone other than Doug Thompson? Who is Doug Thompson, anyway? I'd actually like to pass this around to some people, but I need to know that it's for real.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
So the question is how many people do you have to kill and torture before you get the death penalty? I say one death is too many but hey what do I know, I am not a republican.
Re:Ease up. (Score:5, Insightful)
no, the author comes out looking like instead of writing an article about it and letting it devolve into the standard fox/nyt fight back and forth, he chose to sit back and research the shit out of it, then publish something that cannot be brushed away, something thorough and well reasoned.
until we know the exact circumstances of the editorial decision not to print a year ago, it would be inappropriate to label the move opportunistic, well, any more opportunistic than a republican criticisng a liberal for sleazy business practices.
They said that they delayed a year to do more research. DOESNT IT SEEM LIKELY THAT A YEAR'S WORTH OF RESEARCH MIGHT PRODUCE ENOUGH MATERIAL FOR A BOOK!!??? I for one, think it just might.
And another thing, the NYT article very gingerly mentioned that the white house asked them not to publish. doesnt it seem likely that such a request, from the executive branch of the federal govt might make a paper a little hesitant to rush off and go shouting that the pres. had been violating the constitution and his oath of office? It would make ME slow down and do some research, that's for fucking sure.
Gettting a full book's worth of info and then putting that out there is a much less easily dismissed statement than a few articles. Given the Bush administration's ability to talk its way out of immediate criticism of gross misconduct, I'd say that the NYT's actions were the only reasonable response to white house pressure not to publish.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some medieval mathematician was trying to figure out the relationship between regular shapes and circles. He saw that every time you added a side to a regular shape it came closer to approximating a circle. A triangle becomes a square becomes a pentagon becomes a hexagon and so forth, until you reach an n-sided shape that is very very close to being a circle as perceived by the eye. Then the mathematician realized that contrary to becoming more like a circle, by adding sides he was in fact moving further away from approximating a circle: a circle has no sides, whereas he was moving towards more and more and more sides.
What's needed is not a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, n-th party. What's needed is no parties. Parties are essentially money-laundering organizations. What's money-laundering? "To conceal the source of money as by channeling it through an intermediary." That's their function: concealing the big money interests purchasing votes in Congress and purchasing influence throughout the government. Adding more parties just adds more avenues for the corrupt to practice their quasi-legitimized venality.
What need to happen is not some goofball third party candidate. We need to see politicians get put in jail. In significant numbers. Set up an FBI whiteroom and have a group of Mormon agents set up sting operations. Prosecute the hell out of them with independent prosecutors. It's the only way to scare them straight.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank God for fallacyfiles.org. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for playing. Don't forget your gift basket on the way out.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
A person's communications are his effects, even if they are not papers. Paper was the only external data recording and transmission medium available to the Founders. They would surely have included electronic communications today.
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. He called it a myth, claiming that not nearly as many people were killed as is commonly claimed (which is a common position to take in Iran). Not that Ahmadinejad isn't a rather disturbing character. It shows how poorly the "Domino Theory" for the middle east went, when someone like Khatami was replaced by someone like Ahmadinejad. The guy is frightening even to many Iranian hardliners because he's a follower of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a supporter of the Hojjatieh movement with close ties to the Haqqani theological school. The movement is based on the goal of bringing about the return of the 12th Imam by creating chaos on Earth, and was used by the Shah to try to wipe out the Bahai faith. I sincerely hope that he's not a member of the Hojjatieh movement. At least Ahmadinejad has stressed the importance of development and justice to bring about the Imam's return.
What a disturbing inverse-domino-theory this turned out to be
Tighten it up a bit... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree in general that the Democratic party is just as guilty as the GOP regarding dirty tricks and corruption, etc., I think the current administration takes the all-out hands-down prize-winning cake for being corrupt and for abusing power. I would think so if they were Dems or libertarians or pastafarians. They have made such a mockery of our system of government that it is insulting to those of us who lead law-abiding lives.
As for 2008, unless things change I don't see a Democratic president. Their front-runner is Hillary, who is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in American politics. Whether that's earned or not is rather irrelevant. She's going to have to do some serious image work between now and then to make a realistic show of it in the 2008 election. There are better, more presidential and electable people who could make a run for it who haven't announced, don't have any money or both. Bill Richardson(gov. NM) strikes me as one who could make a serious challenge if the party supported him.
On the GOP side they are only suffering from having too deep a bench. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Bill Frist (though current legal troubles may end that), Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, and even Condi Rice are all being bantered about as being serious potential candidates. Personally, I think Condi would be more divisive than Hillary, and I think all the others are going to have a tough time competing with either Rudy or Sen. McCain.
But the Democrats are in a serious hurt as far as the '08 presidential race goes. They're in a better position for the mid-terms coming up; but even that could get jacked up if they don't start doing some serious strategy work and putting forth some real candidates.
The Republicans have put them in this spot by stealing their lines. The GOP is now the party of the God-fearing folk. They are now the party of the little man, protecting said peasant from the tyranny of the Ivy Leage Elitist, etc. There has been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to come up with a message. The truth is, they need to take their message back from the people who stole it if they are to have any election successes in the near term.
Personally, I'd be okay with either Rudy or McCain. The rest in my earlier list turn my stomach; but so does Hillary. It's a tough time to be a centrist and to watch the GOP turning ultra-conservative, and the Dems put Hillary out as the answer. Fortunately, the two most moderate GOP frontrunners are still in fact running in front. I hope it stays that way.
Re:The real criminals (Score:1, Insightful)
This used to upset me, but I've changed my mind since then. Every dipshit statement from every dipshit wing nut convinces me a little bit more that you assholes are getting exactly what you've earned. You people don't deserve freedom.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I seem to recall that there were several very serious [wikipedia.org] and prominant instances [wikipedia.org] of questionable constitutional rights violations [wikipedia.org] by the federal government under Clinton.
Stop accepting their groupthink. Stop being a Democrat or a Republican and start being a human being.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:W "Its only a GD piece of paper" Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Actually, 52 in favor (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet another impeachment count ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another impeachment count if the Democrats can find the spine to win the 2006 elections.
If you're not concerned about the president creating a US KGB, then you're a fascist and you don't deserve to be an American. You're an American hater because you hate the Constitution of the United States.
Flying flags does not represent patriotism. Nor does sporting yellow magnetic stickers made in China. Belief and upholding the CONSTITUTION makes you an American.
GW Bush is NOT an American. He is a demonic usurpur. He'd be far more comfortable living in Saudia Arabia.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Insightful)
I never really understood this aspect of the American political system, perhaps it is because I am Canadian, and I have so many parties to choose from - especially in the upcoming election we are about to have...
If you are in the U.S. it seems to me that you can choose either the left, or the right. There is no middle ground. Indeed, the terminology in the states only supports "left" or "right" no "up, down" or anything else. It is my feeling that a whole host of problems result from this aspect of the system. Yes, I am biased, but IMO, the 2 party system is horrifically broken. IIRC there were other parties in the U.S. earlier, I think that the Moose party was one, but I have not looked into U.S. political history in some time.
I guess I just feel that if I had a choice of Repulican, or Democrat, and I did not like either I would not even bother to vote. To me, it represents a lack of choice, and therefore a lack of freedom. But then again, I live in a society that has multiple party freedom.
Re:Of course you are right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But the saddest thing of all (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. You should only be able to get away with your lies if you speak them outright (in, for instance, an address to the citizens of your country). You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.
Fighting for our freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Support the President! (Score:1, Insightful)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he did? There's a lot of money to be made in war, especially a war against a concept.
War on "terror"... how do you win? When you take over terror and govern it?
Re:No Dispute? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to present a new term "Faulty judgement".
Which in my opinion is more acurate. There wasn't anything wrong with the intellegence. People conviently forget the organizations questioning the "intelligence" before the war because they wern't mainstream news outlets which were all busy being a mouthpiece for the administration. The Powell speech before the UN just proves this. It didn't convince anyone at the UN because all the "intelligence" they presented was either hearsay, or renderings of what "could be". Not a single hard fact in the whole thing. In fact I didn't see a single hard fact during the whole "discussion" supporting the white houses position. On the other hand, there was quite a lot of hard evidence that there wern't any weapons, and the logical problems with the "give us your weapons, or we will attack you" argument was a joke. I saw and read letters from numerious _EXPERTS_ saying things like weapon x Sadam had during GF1 has a shelf life of x years, and has long since become inert, and other similar testimonies. Where were these guys on the news? Being covered up thats where.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:2, Insightful)
How any rational human being can consider what Clinton did worse than what Bush has done and is doing is beyond me.
But legislative branch was informed! RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone ever hear of FISA [fas.org]? Since the calls and email were international communications, it is within the purview of the CIA to intercept them.
The article also mentions that the government still has to get warrants for domestic taps.
If you don't like it... get FISA repealed!
Why bother reporting this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.
I could go on, but as I said, why bother? Anyone who doesn't already see the darkness is never going to be swayed by words.
And before you say it: No, I'm not particularly left-leaning. I think conservatism has a lot of good things to offer. If only it were actually being practiced.
Wear red, walk in a straight line (Score:1, Insightful)
But it reminds me of an old Bill Cosby joke popular on one of his LP (!!) records I think in the sixties. It's about the "rules of warfare" Cosby style, which is that the rules are decided by a coin toss. The winner of the coin toss gets to decide the rule. (For the purposes of this joke there's only one rule per conflict. Hit "agree" to continue.) In one of several skits the Colonials in the War of Independence win the coin toss against Great Britain, so the Colonists decide the rule. It is this:
"The colonists can go anywhere they want to, wear whatever they want, shoot from behind trees and run away anywhere. The British must wear red and march in a straight line."
As I remember, it got quite a laugh. There was another one about Custer where the Indians won the coin toss. You get the idea.
Now we're involved in a struggle against people who want to destroy as many of us as possible. If Kerry had won, they would still want to destroy us. If some sort of socialist party rose to power, they would still want to destroy us. This is not a "Bush thing" and if you think so, I gotta tell ya, you're crazy. yes, you with long hair and the smirk on your face who drives a Prius and recycles like a good boy. You are a target, fella. Got it so far? Okay.
But we tend to put our government between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand "they" are expected and held accountable for being prescient about everything. They KNEW about 9/11. (Some bright souls even say they DID 9/11.) But they didn't save those innocent lives, therefore they failed. It was an "intelligence failure." (I don't disagree with this, by the way. It quite clearly was an intelligence failure. All the dots: no lines.
But they must be prescient only within certain narrowly defined guidelines, and always with a warrant. So, we have a group of people who have a suitcase atomic bomb in a New York City apartment. If it goes off, it will kill several million people and disrupt the economy of the entire world for decades. So we kind of know it's there. We've got lots of dots and very few lines. What do we do?
Well, we catch a guy. But he has RIGHTS!!! All we can do is politely ask him if he wouldn't mind telling us all about that little bomb, where it is, and how to disarm it, and, of course, we'll wait right here while he discusses it with his lawyer, furnish him with all the information and how we found out through the 'discovery' process and make sure he has plenty of money for his defense.
Now, somehow we find out where this little suitcase is, kind of generally, but not specifically enough to know the details, like for a warrant. But these guys have RIGHTS!!!! So we call them up and tell them we know about their little bomb, and we'll be over to see it next Thursday or so. We just didn't want to violate their rights by sneaking around spying on them, and, oh, by the way, that giraffe that wandered by your apartment yesterday? That's an atomic-bomb sniffing giraffe, just in case you see him again.
This is asymmetrical warfare folks. Group hugs don't cut it. If we insist our government wears red and walks in a straight line, we lose.
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not one to speculate on figures-- what do the numbers matter anyway? What difference does it make if it were five hunderd thousand, six million, or fifteen million? The horrors of the death camps were systematic and independant of the number of those that lost their lives there.
The concentration camps were an integral part of the Nazi political machine. They were used to threaten those they wanted to join the party. They were used to get rid of dissidents. They were used to suppress any possible alternative political voice and so every nationalist organization unafilliated with the Nazis was generally banned by Himmler (examples included the Guido von List Gesselshaft, the Armanenshaft, and many others, some of which have survived to this day). Such bans were in effect regardless of whether the group opposed the Nazis or not. Indeed, I believe that the strategy was to use ethnic minorities (most notably Jews and Gypsies) as examples which could be used to threaten or intimidate the other citizens of the Reich into fearful loyalty to the Nazi party. In many ways, this is more horrifying than if it were simply a matter of racial hatred.
We should not forget so easily that genocidal programs were in effect in the US, and that some of the same ethnic groups that were targetted in the Third Reich were targetted here (most notably the Roma/Gypsies), mostly through forced sterilization. Such practices were common in the US, Canada, and the UK. Sure we didn't kill these people in mass numbers, but this doesn't make these actions any less evil. Similarly, a large number of techniques were employed to destroy the Native Americans as a cohesive social unit. These incldued some forced sterilizations, but also systematic attacks on native languages and culture. The institutional focus on the destruction of native languages and culture have remained in effect in this country through at least the early Clinton years (I do not know if anything has changed since 1994-- I believe it has but I have seen no concrete evidence that this is true).
Gain is nice but not the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: Should the government have been given the authority to spy on Americans without warrants after the 9/11 attacks?
Answer: 69% no, 31% yes.
A third of the US thinks establishing a secret police force with no judicial oversight is a real good idea.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Clinton: for selling nuclear tech to China
Bush: for encroaching inalienable rights outlined in the Constitution
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Too late) (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm glad you're paying attention, the right to bribe a police officer, judge, juror, or any other public official is not free speech, nor should it be. Why should bribing a Senator/Congressman be?
With respect to private property, not sure if you're talking about the recent eminent domain ruling, but absolutely agree there. I was real sorry to see that one, and I hope the SC will have the good sense to reverse itself shortly.
Re:Ease up. (Score:2, Insightful)
For any credible news agency in a free democracy I would think this would be incentive to do exactly that.
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm pretty sure what they are actually thinking is, "Damn it, if those pinko Democrats would just let Dirty Harry and Rambo go after those raghead bastards and stop pesterin' 'em with all their RULES and their REGULATIONS, hell, we'd kick some ass and get unleaded down to $.50 a gallon by Christmas!"
Re:Ease up. (Score:3, Insightful)
When the story you're about to report concerns how the executive branch has seriously ignored the constitutional guarantee of due process and ordered domestic spying without judicial oversight, would you really feel entirely sure of your constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press? or would you perhaps take a step back and make sure that your claims were as rock-solid as possible, and present the public not with a simple article, but with a solidly-researched and exhaustively explained record of events?
were I the editor of the NYT, I would also have have been very circumspect in approaching the presentation of this story.
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Look at their wars:
Cliton got us into Kosovo.
"Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can."
Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.
Yes, politicians are power-hungry and corruptable. However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Politicans aren't all the same. Bush is *much* worse than Clinton.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Paperwork?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Paperwork? Paperwork? Paperwork?! That "paperwork" you casually mention is the rule of law that separates us from the land of police-state Do-As-You-Please. There's a difference between being accused of a crime and convicted of one; no matter what the crime, it is never sensible to treat the former group as the latter.
I'm aghast. Are you bloody serious? By you, arresting and holding someone with neither charges nor a warrant is just a paperwork problem? Look at what you've become! If standing behind your president means a casual dismissal of the thin but so, so vital line separating us from rule-by-Kingly fiat... shouldn't that set off some kind of warning sign?
Re:Great quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to Ted Kennedy. [washingtonpost.com]
--ryan.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:1, Insightful)