The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.
Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact,
P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?
It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome.
It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics. The idea that the parties are supposed to work together to support society is not a familiar concept. They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side. They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.
Who are you refering to as they? The populace and the society as whole is not technically relevent (other then the original vote). Your winning and losing way of thinking is practiced much more by and applies more to the people actively serving as elected officials more then it does to the general populace.
You took the words right out of Noam Chomsky's [wikiquote.org] mouth:
"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people
Trust us! We're the government! (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.
Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact,
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's already the case. Pretty mu
Re:Trust us! We're the government! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics. The idea that the parties are supposed to work together to support society is not a familiar concept. They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side. They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who are you refering to as they? The populace and the society as whole is not technically relevent (other then the original vote). Your winning and losing way of thinking is practiced much more by and applies more to the people actively serving as elected officials more then it does to the general populace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
<Joe Blow>What are these 'sums' of which you speak?</Joe Blow>
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think "zero" pretty much sums up politics.
Re: zero (Score:2)
I see a need for negative numbers when giving scores to politics and piliticians. Zero is ussualy too good score fot it/them.
Re: (Score:2)
Scary! (Score:4, Funny)
And that, my fellow slashdotters, is a VERY scary thought. Most US citizens think that football is a game played using your hands.
;p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the Vorlon said, understanding is a three-edged sword.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people
Re: (Score:1)
Well actually, I think most of the world understands football better than politics...