| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Spying On Americans/Dissent |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The New York Times: December 15, 2005 On Thursday, the New York Times released a story revealing that after the September 11th, 2001 attacks, President Bush secretly allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans in the pursuit to hunt down terrorist grouos and influences, without the approval of the courts. In addition, the New York Times admitted to holding back release of this story for a year by request of the White House. MSNBC: December 13, 2005 Just two days before this story was released, an MSNBC story reveals that NBC News collected 8 pages of a 400-page secret Defense Department document, which reveals nearly four-dozen anti-war meetings or protests being monitored, anti-recruitment protests, and peace groups, including one at the Lake Worth, Florida Quaker Meeting House, listed as a "threat" and one of 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country in a ten-month span. Reuters: December 17, 2005 The New York Times story served as deep influence in the Senate in the consideration of renewing the USA Patriot Act, which Democrats and a few Republicans are currently filibustering the act, with sponsers Russ Feingold and Larry David insisting they believe the law is essential, but would like to see the Patriot Act modified to ensure protections of civil liberties until it is to be approved (The USA Patriot Act was originally overwhelmingly approved, with virtually no public comment and media attention, and has been a controversial act in that some provisions have allowed any employee of the federal executive branch to monitor the electronic communications of any individual or group that is relevant to any federal case, and doesn't have to concern terrorism, as well as permitting unauthorized searches of library checkouts and records, the permission of certain unauthorized searches, and the inability for the public to go to court to challenge many particular government illegalities under this law.) The Associated Press: December 17, 2005 Today, in responding to the Patriot Act vote and slamming the Senate for it, Bush admitted in a rare video-taped version of his weekly radio address that he personally authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S more than 30 times since the 9/11 attacks, lashed out at those revealing information about the program, and that he will continue re-authorizing the program. * Questions: 1) Does the fact the New York Times held back a story like this ring to your ears as utmost betrayal to the American public; that when the White House asks "Pretty please, can you not let the people know we're violating their First and Fourth Amendment rights?", they say, "Sure?" 2) Why would the Department of Defense consider the Lake Worth meeting and like gatherings a "threat"? * Is this simply deja vu all over again? Have we already forgotten the lessons we learned from the Vietnam era? "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-17-2005 05:23 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
For a moment here I want to add another important point. I expect within the next few weeks to months that many will be arguing in response to that the President has likely violated the Constitution at least thirty times and that this could serve as grounds for legal action against the administration, that, sure, the President may have well been over the law, but it was all "legal" or "lawful". And what will be meant by that it was "legal" or "lawful" is that Bush got a note from his lawyer in 2001 saying it was all OK. LA Times: December 12, 2005 We can also expect to begin hearing across the media landscape one name in particular; John Yoo. John Yoo's Legal Memo: (September 25, 2001) According to this legal memo published by John Yoo on September 25, 2001, two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, it suggests to a extent that during war, the President can do almost whatever he wants in the name of finding terrorist suspects, so long as he "suspected" that person was a terrorist. It seems to me this same memo also has influenced Bush and the administration in believing that it was legal for him to order the NSA to spy on Americans he suspected were tied to terrorists, even invading Iraq on the mere suspicion that Iraq was linked to terrorists. In other words, the John Yoo Memo appears to me to be the legal blueprint for every unconstitutional action committed since 9/11. Remarkable indeed too how this memo is virtually unknown throughout the media and public landscape. A memo that almost seems to suggest that the Constitution does not apply to the President so long as there is terrorism in the world. * The bottom line is just because the president had a legal memo to guide his actions, it does not make those particular actions of the president "legal" or "lawful". * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, you are taking the Times story and everything theysay as gospel and then weaving your comments around it. Actually, the fellow who wrote the story has a book being released (what a surprise). Critics of the Times story claim that the reason the Times sat on the story for a year was that they wanted it to coincide with the release of the book. Does that sound impossible to you? Also, Bush notified Congress in reports over a dozen times exactly what he was doing and what the progress reports were.....these reports went to the same congressmen who are now voicing shock and outrage. This is nothing new...neither, I'm aftaid, is your taking a one-sided view and calling it gospel if puts Bush in a bad light... By all means, let's be sure the prisoners are comfortable and well-treated and let's not do anything sneaky at all, like invading their privacy, to people considered a threat to our security. Let them have their way.....and then let's show our own shock and outrage at the next 9-11 and wonder how it was possible. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
btw, Noah, your Reuters link is actually the msnbc link duplicated. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Thanks Balladeer! I was copying and pasting the HTML Code and must have accidentally forgot to replace the existing URL with the Reuters one! I'm still new at the HTML Linking game and still trying to memorize the code! (giggles) Love, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Cleaning our society of terrorist influences and defending our nation from such threats is one thing which we can bilaterally agree is essential to our protection. When something as important as our civil liberties and constitutional rights are being violated or sidestepped, that is another thing, and is simply the abuse of power and going too far. Our civil rights are all-American gospel. Can you imagine someone like our very own Ford (ice) who happens to be of Quaker descent and blood being undeservedly monitored and being considered a threat to America? Can you imagine something as peaceful and non-political as the Gandhi Institute being monitored and considered a "threat" to America? This is a concern that's not only resonating on my side of the aisle, it's sounding from both sides. Even senators who voted in support of ending cloture and debate on the Patriot Act this week are now concerned over these new headlines, like Arlen Specter and John McCain, for they believe wholeheartedly, as a vast majority of Americans like you and I do, that we must have a strong defense and anti-terror policy in place, but that our liberties must also never be taken for granted. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
but that our liberties must also never be taken for granted. Exactly, Noah..... |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Is this the same NY Times that purposefully sat on the story about Lewinsky's dress and tried to bury it (the story, not sure about the dress)? Thank goodness Matthew Drudge broke the silence or President Clinton may never have been called to task for his actions. A year ago, this would've been news. A year after the story was researched, it's not. Instead it's a successful piece of propaganda which manipulated fence-sitting federal lawmakers in torpedoing an extension of the Patriot Act. As for the shock and outrage of those Congressmen and women who sat on those oversight committes for National Security and Intelligence, those same ones who apporpriated funds for the NSA, who received comprehensive reports about the NSA's activities and findings....it's all hooey, posing for the camera and trying to wash their hands clean for their constituents who might just have some hard questions for their respective legislators during the break. I don't have any issues with the content of those articles and stories, just with the timing. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't have any issues with the content of those articles and stories, just with the timing. What would good timing be? At least within a month of the story first breaking out or until every last terrorist intent has been dismantled across the world? I'm thankful this story even got out there to begin with. With The New York Times blatantly holding it to themselves for a year is inappropriate and a betrayal to the American public in my mind. The American public have a right to know about this, and I'd certainly say better late than never any day. CNN: December 17, 2005 Bush has now come out today to blast the New York Times for revealing that he allowed wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11 and accusing them of jeopardizing national security. Many have found this sort of response surprising, but I certainly don't, as I believe many of us can recall President Nixon's response to the Ellsberg Pentagon Papers in 1971 when the Times printed them, when he told the Secretary of State Kissinger, "People have gotta be put to the torch for this sort of thing." Must be deja vu all over again. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Obviously within a relatively short time after breaking of the story. That's why it's called 'breaking news'. Sitting on it for a year and then putting it in papers when an extension vote on a controversial piece of legislation is eminent? Pure political manipulation. |
||
|
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
in the words of eddie izzard: " perjury 1 is saying there was no holocuast when 10 million people died in it perjury 2^100 is when you say you didn't shag somebody but you did." as for this eaves dropping business. i will say what i always say: what happened to liberty or death. without that conviction america is nothing. -majnu -------------------------------------- Timid thoughts be not afraid. I am a Poet. [This message has been edited by Ron (12-18-2005 05:34 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's some hope gleaming from this and other recent troubling disclosures like that of posible secret prisons; Congress may finally be working together again and encouraging more administration oversight, something they've failed to do in much recent memory. MSNBC: December 17, 2005 Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
 hohumdedumdumbdumb dumbWell, it actually surprises me that anyone would even act surprised? as it's simply one of many ominous REVELATIONS about how this "democracy" of ours functions. Hoping it's not another stick of dynamite added to the growing mountain which will no doubt ignite us all eventually in a gigantic KABOOM....when those who already hate us help us celebrate the 4th of July in a new way. Impeach the SLOB and be done with it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I bow to such stirring oratorical prowess  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't think we can expect Bush to be impeached for anything; at least possibly until 2007. As I've mentioned before, I believe Bush has committed several impeachable offenses to this day already as it is, but with his party owning the trifecta, it's all but certainly unlikely he'll be charged for any such thing. What I will remind here, however, is Nixon's ground for impeachment, where in his case, he was charged with wiretapping 17 people. Take a look at this transcript for Nixon's impeachment case, particularly at Count 2: * Specification of Charges (Bill of Particulars) Supporting All Articles 1. Conspiracy. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, John Mitchell, Herbert Kalmbach, and Maurice Stans, in concert with and abetted by others, conspired together to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to commit various crimes against numerous citizens of the United States who opposed the policies of Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon and his coconspirators thereby conspired to commit burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; violated federal statutes making it a crime to wiretap, section 2510 et seq. of the United States Criminal Code (Title 18, U.S.C.); conspired to deprive citizens of civil rights in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code; conspired to violate other federal statutes (e.g., the wiretap statute) in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code; violated the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, article 11, section 3; violated the First amendment rights of persons to freedom of speech, and violated the Fourth amendment rights of persons to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 1, President Nixon and his co-conspirators: 2: Illegal Wiretaps. Caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of seventeen persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code. 3: Conspiracy to Suppress Free Speech. Caused harassment, by means of tax audits and other acts by the Internal Revenue Service, of named persons designated as political "enemies" of President Nixon for the purpose of inhibiting or preventing their exercise of First amendment rights, in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code. 4: Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Other Crimes. Caused the creation and adoption of a so called "domestic intelligence plan" for securing information about American citizens, under which plan it was intended to commit unlawful acts of burglary, wiretapping, bugging and the opening of mail; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. * Indeed there's some striking familiarities here. Both performed these wiretaps without a court approval. And where Nixon was accused for wiretapping seventeen, Bush has now admitted authorizing wiretaps on thousands of people. It's incredible. Anyway, I'm glad that a bi-lateral investigation is coming together to fathom these grave matters, and that Congress may finally begin to do their job more effectively. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
 at your reply, MikeNoah, I know it will never happen. He's a lame duck anyway. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
OK... I was going to stay out of this, however the blatant disrespect (as is required by the piptalk guidelines as I recall) and the fact that I agree with very little that was said, and... well, geez... when have I ever let Noah say anything without giving the other side? lol Now, for Noah and Midnitesun, I have a scenario for you, and then a question that I would like you to both answer: You were inaugurated your country's leader last February (the name of your country doesn't matter this is a "ficticious scenario, afterall). Just last month, you are reading a story to a bunch of school kids for a photo-op while trying to bolster support for your educational program, when your personal bodyguards pull you out of the room and tell you some terrorists from another country, who were in your country illegally, attacked your country's military power center, two of it's major financial centers, and an empty field in the middle of nowhere. The total amount of your citizens that died was estimated at almost 5,000. Your country's main economic centers are shut down for almost a week, and the plummiting economy that you inherited from your predicessor is taking a HUGE hit, and might not recover for quite a long time. Intelligence tells you that there are up to 1,000 more of these terrorists in the country, and your country is screaming for you to protect them. Your intelligence agencies, and your top advisors are telling you that these other terrorists want to one up their dead brothers in both damage and body count. You are afraid, and being told that another attack like the one you just lived through will completely decimate the country's economy. And, oh by the way, the attack on your military power center was SUPPOSED to actually destroy your house while your wife and kids were home. The government and the country at large are looking for you to bring in the rest of the terrorists that are living in the country, and to protect them , and to keep another attack from happening. Question: What do you do? How are you going to keep your country safe, and find the terrorists that are at large? For this little exercise, I want you to be as brutally honest with yourself as is possible. Decide what you would do to find these people, and to protect the "honest" and "law-abiding" citizens of your country from the threat. Decide how your actions will affect the people of your country, and if they are going to be safer for you taking the actions you decide on, or will they cme to more harm from the terrorists. Once you have decided on everything, look at what you are willing to do as the leader, and then look at what you are not accepting from your leader now. How close are they? How far off of your personal standards now did you wander? Now the last question: Are you sleeping at night because of the actions you are taking? "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Since I opened my yap, I might as well take issue with a few of the other things you mentioned, Noah... You brought up the fact that you felt the Administration had violated American's First and Fourth Amendment rights... With the evidence that you provided, it never happened. Did the present Administration arrest anyone for meeting peacfully for legal purposes?? Did the White House deny anyone the right to believe in whatever G-d they chose to believe in, or deny them the right to worship their idea of the Absolute in any lawful manner they chose? Did the government bust into the NY Times office building and confiscate all of the computers, discs, and files to prevent them from informing the American public of ANYTHING??? Well... looking at all of the links you provided, I found absolutely NO evidence of any of that happening at all. The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. They asked the NY Times not to publish. The editors were free to publish the article had they chosen to. My personal guess is (and I have no evidence to back it up) if they had wanted to publish the article of August of last year, just in time to affect the November elections, it would have been on the front page... regardless of what the White House asked them to do. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Isn't it strange that their "additional reporting" happened to conclude right about the time that the reporter has a book coming out? I can see the headlines now... "New York Times Reporter Tops the Best Seller List" Nope... no additional publicity there. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted. The New York Times has admitted that they are not giving the American public the entire truth... they are (in your words) violating the Americans First Amendment rights. Where is your protest at that? It is acceptable for the admittedly liberal leader of the American press to do it; however the admittedly concervative Administration cannot? Oh, Puh-leez After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said. OK... there it is... the Congressional leaders were told. And yet it is ONLY the Administration that is being hounded. If it is such a huge deal, then where were the Democrats screaming about the unfairness of it then? Where was their loyalty to their constituents when they were told that the President was doing "illegal" things to the poor citizens of their great state (whatever it was)? Where are the outcries for THEIR culpability in (as you put it) denying everyone's Constitutional rights? IN the Great land of the United States of America, having knowledge of a crime and not telling anyone makes you an accessory, and puts you in jail right beside the actual doer. Yet no one seems to care about the Democratic leaders who knew about such "illegal" activities. In all fairness, Sen Rockefeller DID write a letter... however, since he did not inform the proper legal authorities, he is an accessory to the "crime" and should be impeaced, tried, and removed from office. You also ask if we have "already forgotten the lessons we learned from the Vietnam Era?" Well, it is very possible. One lesson that we learned was that when the country is within a few months of winning a war (yes, Vietnam was THAT close) a Democrat will turn tail and run, and cause the war to be lost, cause the American fighting man to be dishonored, and cause the Uniteds States to lose face in the world market that will not be recovered for 16 years. Today's Democratic party (most of themembers, anyhow) seem to have forgotten that. Another lesson we learned was by listening to the protesters who don't know anything except what they are being told by others (no, not all... the vast majority, though) will allow the enemy to do anything they want to our troops and will tell the entire world that they are peace-loving and do not want us there. They will also not allow ourtroops to do anything that will eventually lead to winning the war. In Afghanistan, the Americans have a 90% approval rate, and in Iraq it is not too far behind. One last lesson we learned is that if you scream loudly enough about the evils that are being done by the American troops, and about how they are not effective, and how they are being killed without being able to fight back, then the American people will not find out that the troops have the highest morale possible, and do NOT regret being there, and the good that is being done, and their successes will not be reported, which will then lead to the American population screaming louder and the troops morale will then begin to drop because they realize that no one at home appreciates their sacrifice... I'll let you decide how well that lesson is being remembered. Midnightsun- I have never complained about any individual on these pages speaking their opinions. My other "adversary" in this thread will be the first to agree with me on that. He and I almost never agree on anything, however I have never begrudged him the ability to voice his views... the only thing I have ever asked is that the participants in our discussions/debates/whatever be respectful to all parties concerned. You obviously do not like the sitting Administration, and/or any of the things that it is doing, and that is perfectly wintin your right...although I do not agree with your opinions, I will give you the right to have them. I am, however, going to reserve my right to not accept anyone using offensive language in my presence. Questioning our leaders is our responsibility. Using language towards them that would cause us great distress were it used against us is just plain putting yourself into their world. By not finding a way to voice your opinions respectfully (as is a requirement on the Blue Pages, is it not?) then you are showing yourself to be no better than the person you are speaking against. While he does not have your respect as President, he does deserve your respect as a human being, and the office of President deserves more respect that you showed in your post... then again, that is just my opinion. "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
this spying or eavesdropping comes as no surprise...do you all believe that this hasen't or wasn't done before Bush? I can't say as I like it, but in the same, I'd more so like to know, that they are keeping watch... what I find so darned hard to digetst is the fact that they know, these terrorists are living here, setting up camp here, coming across the Mexican/US boarder and they don't do anything about that. They complain about the money it would cost to fence the border in, but do not take into account, the money illegal emigrants are costing the tax payers...billions of dollars. They don't have to pay taxes, they can purchase homes and cars, have free health care...and the chance always exists that they are or could be terrorists.... I mean, they know there are terrorists camps right here in the states?????? numerous cells active and ready to strick? I really have, over the period of my life, become immune to the fact that Big Brother has been listening in for years... What I find rather ironic, is the fact that they don't go to the source of the problem and fix it... Spy, yes, in this world it's practically inevidable....wouldn't you agree? If I had been president after 911 I would have made it my personal vendita to clean up this country of it's illegals, and make it such, that becoming a citizen of the US is not only a must, but a privilege, only allowing several in at a time, under strict supervision.... Anyone else here illegally, would be shipped home and have to enter this country under new immagration laws that work and are most certainly upheld. Maybe then, it wouldn't be necessary to spy. and please let me add, again, it should be a priviledge to be a US citizen....so, spy, what other alternative do they have, if they are not going to clean up the corruption in our systems. Sincerely Lee J. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I think you ought to answer my question first before I go on answering your question, Ringo! LOL! * Can you imagine someone like our very own Ford (ice) who happens to be of Quaker descent and blood being undeservedly monitored and being considered a threat to America? Can you imagine something as peaceful and non-political as the Gandhi Institute being monitored and considered a "threat" to America? * Anyway, I try not to be a procrastinator, LOL, so I'll certainly get right to this homework anyway, LOL! I'd also like to hear your own theoretical response, by the way, as I'm sure your intent in responding in this way is to try and expect me to be silent or vague in my ideal response, and I'm sure the most honest answer for the average American would be that living an experience would be far more convincing than envisioning an experience, so there's no "ideal" answer! * As I mentioned before, from what I had seen of Bush in the first few weeks following 9/11, I supported him and believed he was doing a great job trying to help the country mend and unite the country. What I wasn't aware of was how he was thinking and behaving outside the public eye; he was exploiting the tragedy for political and wartime excuses, largely because of the John Yoo memo; he was lead to believe because his lawyer gave him permission to do anything he wants in wartime, that was just it. I would indeed be deeply concerned of the realness of the threat and of possible future patterns of attacks like that, but I'd also be mindful and ethical in my demeanor to in protecting the American public. I would be reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin in my next parade of decisions: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." * And again, mind you that this is only a generalized version of how I'd respond, as you could write a book on the detail-by-detail scenario of how you'd truly respond, LOL, but I would encourage the Pentagon to boost defense spending. By that I mean not funding of F-16 nuclear-capable fighter jets and C-130J cargo planes that can't even hold large quantities of cargo or fly under cool weather conditions, but the strengthening of technology and tools that are credible and proven effective to respond to all outcoming threats. I'd recognize that the purpose of our military is to defend OUR country, defend OUR freedom. Under the most critical of circumstances when tyrants are abusing their people and such, I would deploy a reasonable number of personnel to capture and apprehend the guilty consciences and bring them to justice without resorting to war, but recognize their main purpose is to defend our soils and would have them well-trained and prepared to respond to potential threats while also abiding by the Posse Comitatus Act. In terms of domestic security, I would hold an equal degree of concern while also keeping my nose above cynicism. I'd encourage a more sophisicated neighborhood watch program, where anyone from the public can respond to any suspicious credible threat, and indeed because many neighborhoods would have a nut, the police and other law-serving institutions would have access to a database of acknowledged and suspected criminals, and ethical guidelines would be implemented to respond to all those particular listed nuisances. My general behavior would be that I should serve a great role in protecting the American public, but that I should also not be over the law and would make decisions within the law so as to not encourage younger generations that it's OK to promote an attitude of lawlessness. In contrast to Bush, I'd also be more open with the public and less secretive, as I believe that indeed there's some knowledge that terrorists should not have access to, but being heavily secretive to your own people is also incredibly dangerous and should have the right to know more of what's happening. I'd push an anti-terror legislation like the USA Patriot Act that would effectively respond to terrorist threats here at home without such provisions that exploit the average American citizen's rights of privacy and civil liberties (as under Sections 206, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 411, 412, 505, and 802.) When handed information in that it is suggested that al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein were behind the attacks, I'd most certainly condemn their actions, but remain true to my nature and recognize the philosophy I share with H.G Wells as written in his publication "Things To Come": "If we don't end war, war will end us" I'd do everything within the law in an ethical and flexible manner to respond and capture the proponents of terrorism in all lines of domestic defense, while also remaining defiant to considering war as an option to stopping them; because intervention historically has only brooded more tension and conflict. In economic terms, I'd respond to the tragedy under the belief that strengthening the American family strengthens America. While giving a sensible amount to the Pentagon to help build our defense infrastructure, rather than spending billions and billions on overseas war campaigns like the Bush Administration has and unnecessary Pentagon military weapons technology, I would reverse the extraordinary trend over the last few decades in weapons spending and use that money in beginning to work towards seeing America finally becoming a country with universalized health care, expanding the food stamp policy, and responding to the long-overdue minimum wage crisis by increasing it, and depending on economic trends over the span of a few months, boosting it to a living wage standard. My main domestic economic motto would be "A stronger American family makes a stronger America". In terms of foreign policy, I'd operate in considering the four particular motivations to war: the willingness for humans to kill other humans, the belief that resorting to armed conflict is sometimes justified, the absence or fracturing of effective antiwar cornerstones, and the fact that weapons and arms are in existence. The central message I'd make to the world is though humans are capable of violence, they were also capable of other heinous acts which now are condemned by popular worldwide opinion in modern times, including slavery and cannibalism. Therefore, there’s reason to believe and have optimism in that if mankind has learned lessons in that slavery and cannibalism are wrong, it isn’t hopeless to believe someday mankind can finally stop and reflect on that wars continue to happen yet they don’t tame the scars that afflict families, children, cultures, the environment, and the world in general. All that needs to be done is to follow the examples of the pioneers who persuaded the world that slavery and cannibalism are crimes against humanity and convince the world to rise up and take to the grandest philanthropic mission the world has witnessed yet. I'd think each foreign policy decision with something along the line of what Louis Kriesberg, a Social Conflict professor from Syracuse University, said: "Competition is continuous and impersonal, conflict is intermittent and personal.” The first step always begins with you, its origin resonates from your very individual heart; let peace begin with you, then let this peace come to your family and friends, then make baby steps from there. In following this example, we would put a human face on the other, which is the first step toward persuading peaceful dialogue between one another. Which would also bring me to how I'd respond to terrorism in the world. I'd consider some of the root causes of terror worldwide; social inequality, poverty, inavailability of resources, etc. My main approach in responding to these types of threats would be adopting cooperative management processes in preparing and remedying conflict, which include opening forums for all related joint negotiations, behaving ambiguously to other interests in enhanching management, collaboration in the process, and strengthening the negotiation skills of the world’s less powerful interests. In following this sort of approach, third parties can develop which can serve as mediators between the conflicting interests of the major parties, as well as facillitate a most democratic, public forum where cooperation can be fulfilled. In terms of conflict in general, I believe there to be a triangular model in peacemaking and conflict resolution in general; efforts to prevent conflicts related directly to the environment, attempts to initiate and maintain dialogue between parties in conflict, and initiatives to create a sustainable basis for peace. I would act under the influence that all three components are essential in completing the peacemaking process and to ensure all the cavities among each conflicted party are filled, for if you were only to focus on the prevention of environmental conflict in its physical form, then we tend to discount the relational aspect of conflicted parties, the marginalizing, social inequality and injustice that instigates much social conflict in general, and moreover if you engage parties through dialogue but struggle to come up with a bilateral sustainability measure, the conflicted parties technically remain in nothing better than a ceasefire, which would only leave a lose-lose situation behind. In the more extreme of circumstances, which I recognize do happen, where indeed there are dictators and troublemakers who abuse their own people and such, I would order secret units and such to go and capture such individuals and have them most severely penalized under the International Criminal Court, under fullest respect of the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and international law in general. And finally, I would always let the general public, which I expect those like yourself, have the fullest right to publicly dissent and disagree with me in that you feel I'm not doing everything I can to ensure your protection, and would never resort to demonizing or polarizing you and other opponents with "either you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric or "you're advocating a policy that makes our nation weaker" language. I'd say I am understanding of your concerns, and politely disagree with you while also allowing you to be heard. * Again, that's the generalized version of what I'd do and how I'd react, and I expect you'll probably disagree with much of it. I just happen to believe acting above the law, imposing a more Big Brother-ish operation in trying to secure our nation and engaging in an epic war in the Middle East in the false hope to bring an absolute end to terrorism only hurts us all in the long run, and further isolates us from the international community. I really hate to make such talk like this political, but I can't possibly begin to believe allowing secret prisons overseas, monitoring on voices of dissent, and some in our administration even advocating torture, improves our image as a nation to the rest of the world. * OK, there I go! You may criticize me as you wish, but I also am interested in hearing how YOU'D respond! Love, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
OK... I was going to stay out of this, however the blatant disrespect (as is required by the piptalk guidelines as I recall) and the fact that I agree with very little that was said, and... well, geez... when have I ever let Noah say anything without giving the other side? lol I have done nothing here as to violate the creed of Passions in Poetry, and certainly don't believe I am being "blatantly disrespectful" as you suggest in that I'm just saying my argument as it is. Also, you never have to earn permission from me or anyone here to provide your own side of the story; just follow your intuition and post it as you please! * "One lesson that we learned was that when the country is within a few months of winning a war (yes, Vietnam was THAT close) a Democrat will turn tail and run, and cause the war to be lost, cause the American fighting man to be dishonored, and cause the Uniteds States to lose face in the world market that will not be recovered for 16 years. Today's Democratic party (most of the members, anyhow) seem to have forgotten that." If this is what you mean by "blatant disrespect" as you suggested earlier, I would say you are acting no different to the Democratic Party and the United Nations in general as I may or may not be towards President Bush. You and Balladeer in particular are guilty of the exact same problem in that you just demonize the party in whole and the UN in whole in every periodical post, and here is just more evidence of the former. I don't consider myself a Democrat and disagree with much of what they do, but I do believe that men and women from both of our parties have done great things as individuals nonetheless. As for your point regarding Vietnam, you can continue to suggest in your opinion that Vietnam was a "Good War", but clearly approximately 52,000 U.S casualties, hundreds of thousands more of Vietnam civilians, over $200 billion spent and untold ecological damage that'll forever scar their country and hurt their health and ecosystems spells pure loss to me. I only wish the war hadn't gone on as long as it did, perhaps Eugene McCarthy would have even been elected to stop the crescendo, for I believe his personality and poetry still ring to many's ears to this day. * "Another lesson we learned was by listening to the protesters who don't know anything except what they are being told by others (no, not all... the vast majority, though) will allow the enemy to do anything they want to our troops and will tell the entire world that they are peace-loving and do not want us there. They will also not allow ourtroops to do anything that will eventually lead to winning the war. In Afghanistan, the Americans have a 90% approval rate, and in Iraq it is not too far behind." Again, you seem to be making that same mistake of "blatant disrespect" in assuming the "vast majority" of protesters are the same and demonizing them for what they believed in. I've previously agreed that some of the protesters were nuts, like Jane Fonda, but many of them were merely concerned, socially-conscious youth and even military veterans who recognized that war was only bringing out the worst of us as a nation and doesn't solve the gravest of social problems, not that the U.S is evil and want us to fail, etc. By the way, would you mind sharing the source of that 90% figure? I actually believe that percentage would certainly be accurate, as all nations worldwide, despite their disapproval of Bush and their foreign policy strategy, it doesn't affect their views that America is a great nation whose leaders just aren't living to the nation's fullest promise is all. I'm most encouraged and blessed by that. The only thing you failed to add to that percentage result is that a vast majority of Iraqis want our forces out of Iraq, and disapprove of the occupation, and I'll provide the sources if you'd like. * "One last lesson we learned is that if you scream loudly enough about the evils that are being done by the American troops, and about how they are not effective, and how they are being killed without being able to fight back, then the American people will not find out that the troops have the highest morale possible, and do NOT regret being there, and the good that is being done, and their successes will not be reported, which will then lead to the American population screaming louder and the troops morale will then begin to drop because they realize that no one at home appreciates their sacrifice... I'll let you decide how well that lesson is being remembered." It is most unfortunate that when many of our troops came back, they were shown vast gestures of disrespect; spitting in their faces, slaps across their cheeks, noses turned up with their backs turned on them, etc. Our troops certainly never deserved this. Any propaganda that would suggest it's our troops that are carrying out evil on others, whether it be from the few nuts in protest crowds to other outlets of propaganda, is truly insane and I wholeheartedly find it disgusting when that gets in the way of the purity of social consciousness. It isn't our young men and women in uniforms' fault that such atrocities and war crimes happened in Vietnam. It is simply the fault of the government leaders at the time who deployed them to war and failed to take responsibility for their own actions and exploit the tragedies and intelligence on a routine basis. They're the ones who deserved all the saliva on their faces, which unfortunately was directed toward the wrong cheeks. * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Noah- I know that you were not being disrespectful.. you, in my opinion, are not capable of such. It was directed at another. I thought I had made that clear later in my post, and I apologize if you thought otherwise. My ideal response from you is not silence... it is actually answering the question. AS for my answer, I can think of not much that I would do diffeently. I thought about this because I knew that you would challenge me to answer. lol About the only thing that I can honestly say I would have done is gone back tro the court AFTER the wire taps were done and told them about it. According to the regs, the Administration has 3 days to do so and to get after the fact permission. As for your question, I do not know Ford, really, at all. I am not sayinig that =he would. I am simply saying that I cannot answer that question any more fairly than if you asked me about your favorite teacher from grade school. My initial and my gut instinct is no, however As I do not know him, I respectfully decline to answer the question. The only challenge I have with the enforcement agencies having the database that you suggest is that the attackers of 9/11 were NOT in anyone's radar. They were forgotten, and had slipped out of sight. Without hitting each of your foreign/terrorist policies individually, I will simply reply to them all as a group with a phrase that I have used before: I firmly believe that you are just simply to naive and wishful to make the tough calls. That is not an insult, and in a "perfect" world it would be a great thing to have our leaders with such attitudes. Terrorists do not want equality and peace. It just is not what they are interested in. Treating them like your crazy uncle or as an unruly child is going to do nothing to make them stop. They want what any other tyrant, and any other school bully wants: Power. Being nice to them is not going to do the first thing to stop them, and even though I firmly support the President with his support of a Middle East Democracy, I very highly doubt that it is going to stop the terrorists. Unfortunately, I really feel that the next few years is going to prove me right on the one time I want to be wrong. And sending them to the World Court is like threatening a drug cartel leader with jail time... all it is going to do is to produce laughter. I do not believe that every Democrat feels the same way. There are still Democrats in Congress and in the Senate who fully support the War and what our troops are doing. I am simply pointing out that so far, going back to Lyndon Johnson EVERY Democratic president (well... all 3 of them) has cut and run, and has pretty much not had the courage to maintain the tough course of action. During Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson would start an offensive and then cut and run when election time came around or when the public started protesting. I have done much research for various reason into the US military conflict of the 60's and 70's and have seen in too many sources to disbelieve that America was within 6-8 months of actually breaking the Communists back in South East ASia. When President Johnson backed off (repeatedly) the Communists realized that we were not going to do anything to actually win the war, and started on the public reaction front. President Carter "talked" with the Iranian collegte students that had our captives for a year, and when we tried to go in and get them and had a challenge, he backed out and decided to "wait them out", and refused to go back in. (for the record, my next door neighbor was on the C-130 and another neighbor was a hostage. Between the 2, I got the scoop) President Clinton decided that we were going to help the Somalis and then we were going to take out the people who were in charge. One one fateful day, we got into a spot of trouble, and had a kill ratio of almost 500-1. Instead of making the place a parking lot, he cut and ran, and the African nations know not to count on us for ANYTHING because we are cowards, and we are weak because a few backwards villiagers defeated the US Military. With the current conflict, we are winning, and again, it is 90% of the Democratic party that is screaming for us to cut and run before the job is done. It was ONLY after the polls were showing how P-O's the country was getting at their rhetoric that the Democratic Nation Congress changed it's words. No, it is not all of them... just the very vast majority. Once again, the blatant disrespect I mentioned was aimed at another post in this thread. I might make, according to you, generalizations, however I have never resorted to being disrespectful. I voice my opinions, and my disapproval in no uncertain terms, however I do not lower myself to name-calling, and disrespectful attitudes... I simply do what you do... present the facts as I see them. and in the part of the post that you used to accuse me of this, there were NO disrespectful statements made. Just the plain truth spoken without the flowers or fertilizer. I never... and I mean NEVER said that Vietnam wasa a "good war". Even though I support the actions in the Middle East, I do not believe that any war is good... they are, however, occasionally needed. I do not know if Vietnam was truly needed, or if it was something that President Kennedy screwed up that we couldn't walk away from. I do know, that it was not a "good war" and that we should still be undefeated with 1 tie. Again, Noah, I did not speak of ALL protestors... only the ones that knew ONLY what they heard from their more radical friends and took it as the absolute gospel, and get highly militant about it. To put another face on it, I am referring to the "Black Panther-style" protestors rather than the "Dr. King-style". And again, I made no disrespectful comments. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the militant protestors (both this war and the other one we are discussing) continue to scream at the top of their lungs about all of the atrocities that the Americans are committiing, however seem to forget that the enemy were not snow white virgins with unicorns for pets, and the purest of intentions towards their fellow man. I am talking about the protestors who "forget" that the same peace-loving Iraqis who do not want us there were torturing, killing, and keeping their fellow citizens in poverty. IF you will look around you, and at the people that you know, there are too many people who simply spout the popular rhetoric without doing the research themselves.. and that is, indeed, on both sides of the issues. Again, there were no disrespectful words or phrases used... just a simple telling of the facts. Yes, Noah, the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans to go home... AFTER the job is finished. They do not want us gone until they are able to do things for themselves. And right now, the Irqaqi people are well aware that their own troops are not ready. There is only one batallion of Iraqi soldiers that are autonomous at this momnet. UNtil theya re all able to be, there is no sense in leaving them alone. That is like giving someone with a learner's permit permission to drive a big rig. It will only cause disaster. As for the sources, I would have to go back and check them... It was a poll that I was reading about somewhere about a week ago. Anyhow... those are just my thoughts on the subjects, and the facts as I have seen them. "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
"Noah- I know that you were not being disrespectful.. you, in my opinion, are not capable of such. It was directed at another. I thought I had made that clear later in my post, and I apologize if you thought otherwise."  Awwwwwwww Bradly, I apologize if I had misunderstood where you were going with that disrespect comment. And I certainly believe your criticisms and commentary here is 100% respectful of Passions guidelines too. We truly are a most wonderful, tolerant family and very rarely here have lines been crossed, yay! "As for your question, I do not know Ford, really, at all. I am not sayinig that =he would. I am simply saying that I cannot answer that question any more fairly than if you asked me about your favorite teacher from grade school. My initial and my gut instinct is no, however As I do not know him, I respectfully decline to answer the question." That's OK. I actually predicted that would be your kind of answer, and it is a most honest, respectful answer. My point in the question was simply to suggest the gravity of the situation if people like our very own Passions members were subject to this sort of monitoring. Make no mistake about it that I believe the Democrats have played a pivotal role in encouraging violent forms of foreign policy to this day, and I believe them to very much be part of the obsession to war in our nation among leaders today. In other words, I certainly don't even see the Democrats as a "cut-and-run party" that you suggest them as; they're part of the problem too. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the one who officially commenced the U.S-Saudi Royal Family relationship, a deeply ironic relationship in that Roosevelt and the U-S represented democracy and the Saudi Empire represented otherwise, which still endures to this day. Jimmy Carter was responsible for, obviously, the Carter Doctrine, which is truly the origin of the attitude that "any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and, as such, would be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." It was truly Carter that has influenced, to this day, the behavior that our young men and women are almost being treated like a natural resource police force, and anyone that threatens to disrupt the flow of resources will be warred at. I have no clue where that "90% of the Democratic party that is screaming for us to cut and run before the job is done." statistic is coming from, as that's clearly not true as every vote on withdrawal has shown a divided Democratic party, including the very last one over the weekend where half of the Democrats are still for the occupation, but about half of Democrats in fact are eye to eye with Bush on this war, including 2008 presidential hopefuls Hilary Clinton and Joseph Biden. I never... and I mean NEVER said that Vietnam wasa a "good war". Even though I support the actions in the Middle East, I do not believe that any war is good... they are, however, occasionally needed. I do not know if Vietnam was truly needed, or if it was something that President Kennedy screwed up that we couldn't walk away from. I do know, that it was not a "good war" and that we should still be undefeated with 1 tie." And I wholeheartedly apologize if I misunderstood you there. I said what I said because I remember in a previous thread, the American Legion one I think it was, where you quoted from a book titled "The Good War" which was about Vietnam, and it seemed to me as though you were mirroring the author's thoughts there. Anyway, I apologize for that misunderstanding, and only add that I, unlike you, believe war shouldn't be necessary, and also don't like to gauge actions on "wins" and "losses", but rather by lessons. "Again, Noah, I did not speak of ALL protestors... only the ones that knew ONLY what they heard from their more radical friends and took it as the absolute gospel, and get highly militant about it. To put another face on it, I am referring to the "Black Panther-style" protestors rather than the "Dr. King-style". And again, I made no disrespectful comments. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the militant protestors (both this war and the other one we are discussing) continue to scream at the top of their lungs about all of the atrocities that the Americans are committiing, however seem to forget that the enemy were not snow white virgins with unicorns for pets, and the purest of intentions towards their fellow man. I am talking about the protestors who "forget" that the same peace-loving Iraqis who do not want us there were torturing, killing, and keeping their fellow citizens in poverty. IF you will look around you, and at the people that you know, there are too many people who simply spout the popular rhetoric without doing the research themselves.. and that is, indeed, on both sides of the issues. Again, there were no disrespectful words or phrases used... just a simple telling of the facts." And I would agree with you here, too, about the Black Panthers, as well as those who carried out the ideas of Malcolm X in forms of violent demonstration. Those types of protesters were truly troublemakers. But I certainly dismiss your suggestion that MOST protesters were affliated with the Black Panther and like movements. They were clearly the minority, and unfortunate as it was that their influence tainted some of the best, purest protests, a majority of the protesters were clearly concerned youth, students, families, eventually military veterans, who simply believed this war was wrong and it would be devastating for it to reel on. And I absolutely not only disagree with, but condemn those types of protesters who defend the actions of what truly were violent, criminal individuals and suggest that the U.S and U.S alone was the enemy, just like I feel about those protesters in LA last week who weren't there to protest capital punishment, but were actually there to say Stanley Tookie Williams was a hero and an icon for nonviolence and such. I have no sympathy for those type of protesters, and whenever I'm on the streets and see the Tualatin Skinheads or people carrying signs that have the words "fascist" or such on them, I walk away. It's a minority group of protesters that simply has spoiled and amalgamated the larger, purer form of protests, and there's a whole other form of propaganda that continues to be proliferated to this day across the media landscape that these views of this lunatic minority are shared by the views of the crowds in general. Whenever you hear about protests to the war in the media, seldomly as they are, whenever they do make the headlines, they always seem to be addressed in a negative fashion, focusing on the rowdiest of the bunch and not the central message echoing from the heart of the crowd. The lunatic fringe is what's making it in the press. * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Yes, the book was entitled "The Good War" .. however the author was not saying that it was a good war, rather that it was not as bad as history is showing it to be... not that war isn't bad, however since the victors write histroy, the protesters wrote the history... and they wrote all of the bad things, and none of the "truth".... That is what is meant by it being a "good war". "...and as we drift along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises..." |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
SLOB? lame duck? offensive? Ringo, I'm very sorry if those words offend you, but I think that's a funny reaction, considering some of the remarks that have been made on these blue pages regarding many other well known social and political figures. I'm not saying you personally made any such remarks, but SLOB is pretty darn mild compared to what I've heard him called on the streets. or was it the lame duck comment? Virtually all Presidents are lame ducks in their second terms, since that's all they are allowed nowadays. It's a very well established and acceptable term. And your assumption is correct. I do NOT respect this particular President's Administration. How does that reflect upon Pips rules of respect? Where have I disrespected anyone here at Pips? As for all the rest of this thread, and your request for the game playing? I'll decline, thank you, for my own personal need at this time to dis-engage in politics. Too bad I had to venture into this thread, as it goes nowhere but around in the same old circles as always. Sorry, Noah, for disrupting your thread. I'll stay out of here after this; but don't think for one moment that I am silently letting this President get away with his deadly games. And as for respect? It doesn't just automatically go with the title. MHO |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
they wrote all of the bad things, and none of the "truth".... does it mention truths like what really happened at the gulf of tonkin? or truths like the mi lai? there's one truth that people seriously need to take heed of, the old saying 'those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them' [This message has been edited by Aenimal (12-19-2005 10:41 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Noah for President! Seriously, I find your comments very well researched, Noah, and I would agree with you. They are kind of utopian; but why not! Our foreign policy is primarily what has brought terroists to us. Years and years of butting into places where we shouldn't have made us a lot of enemies....and the reasons for the butting in. Geez, if it had only been to distribute aid, that would have been fine. But no, we had to try and change whole cultures. It is not our responsibility to change the world; it is our business to be responsible for ourselves. I think WE have been overlooked. When I hear of people still living in tents in Biloxi and bodies still not discovered in New Orleans, it sickens me to think of what this war in Iraq has cost this nation. As a birth-right Quaker myself (as well as many other things, lol), I find myself very aggrieved that our children are growing up as either well-synthesized little business people, warriors, or just plain criminals (I know there are exceptions, of course, I am speaking in terms of the majority). No wonder there are events such as Colombine. The culture in the U.S. which used to be one of the finest places in the world to get an education is now being assaulted full front and center. When our children grow up with no culture (unless they're of a privelged class and can afford private school), then the whole nation loses. Where will the diplomats of the future come from and what will they know besides how to lie? Where will the Condi Rice's come from or the Rumi's? They will only come from the privileged. This used to be a nation where anyone could grow up to become President....that ended about a century ago, but there was still the dream. What is happening to the dreams of children today? They dream of so little. In my view, the Best Teacher I've ever been acquainted with, once said something like, and I paraphrase: pluck the moot out of your own eye first, before you pluck it out of your neighbor's. Okay, it's too late to do that, the damage being already done, but can't we start working on our own eyes a little bit? There are serious domestic problems here. We have controlled news, communicaiton is under surveillance, there are many homeless, there are many jobless, there are many emotionally unstable, there are many loney, there are many just looking for some kind of future....and there just doesn't seem to be much of a future for many. Shall I go on? Don't we have enough problems to solve ourself that we need to borrow more trouble? One must ask themselves, what is the true motivation behind our international policy. It certainly seems one of economic convenience to me and protecting what we perceive as vital raw material, strategic and economic interests....oh yeah, we have China to worry about there. Why can't we fix ourself first? Just blowing off steam, folks. I apologize if anyone takes offense. The truth is that we only know what we are permitted to know. That is pretty much the way it has always been done by the aristocracy. So, I vote for looking after ourselves and our families and our fellow American citizens, and definitely will not be pleased when the current administration moves on into Iran or Syria next...or, who knows, maybe China's on the back burner, too. As to Viet Nam.....you talk to any vet who was there for any length of time and really saw combat and they will most likely tell you that war is not the answer.  ) 'Course my 16-year-old son would disagree, saying "War is nature's way of keeping down the population just like floods, famine, pestilence, etc." And, guess where he learned that thinking!--right here in Bush country Houston public school. Hopefully, this is just his youth speaking, too. I'm telling you, the culture, the only culture that we can boast now in this country is A Culture of Desensitization. !!!!Kacy, if you read this thread, I hope you know I totally agree with you and you have the right to say what you believe, as I do, as long as we don't step on the rights of others. I do not believe you stepped on anyone's rights by expressing your own thoughts. I do not intend to post anything else to this thread, Noah, but I will probably follow it. I hope it stays on top for awhile because so many people are blind to what is going on. Even if Bush (and his administration) were legitimately trying to do the right thing (which I personally question but do understand other's perception), it has set unusal precident and prepared the stage for a dictatorial government....that is what is so dangerous that most people just don't get! There needs to be accountability this time!!!! [This message has been edited by iliana (12-20-2005 02:43 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
The "people" are blind thing often gets me. No offense and speaking only to your statement, iliana, but how is it that one person can "see," but everyone else (who just happens to be those who disagree with [you]) can't? It never ceases to amaze me at the breadth and depth of the supposed conspiracies that we are surrounded by on a constant and daily basis... that we never see! Why, some conspiracies would require more people involved IN the conspiracy, than those not! One lesson I've managed to learn in my short life is that it is much more likely for the sun to fail to rise in the morning than it is for more than a handful of people to manage to keep their mouth shut on anything even remotely labeled a "secret." In regard to this whole wire-tap thing, which I don't consider is classified as a conspiracy, but rather common-sense defense, hey - I'd do the same thing in Ringo's scenario. I don't often agree with much of that side of the spectrum - I believe President Bush has a lot to answer for yet, and many of the answers he's provided leave a lot to be desired in regards to accuracy and forthrightness, but at the end of the day, he is responsible for ensuring our security at this time in history. Regardless of whether we "caused" this to come about (as you suggested iliana) by our past actions, the fact of life is that we are dealing with it now and there is no ready solution. I heard an expert on NPR say "If we pull out our troops now, there will be civil war in Iraq. If we pull them out in ten years, there will be civil war in Iraq." For the flip side, someone last night said, "Conditions in Iraq are terrible... but it's better than it's ever been." My point being that there's no easy answer. You can listen to one biased report or another and get two wholly separate answers that "represent the optimum solution to our problem with [fill in the blank]." As Ron said in another thread, complex problems require complex solutions. Until you find that unsatisfying "magic wand," complex problems will continue to require complex solutions. Part of the complex solution to our current, complex problems is to find methods to ensure security for home and country. This whole wire tap thing is just one of many that are in place to help safeguard our homeland. If listening in on phone conversations between potential terrorists without a lengthy approval process can help prevent another attack on American soil, then I support Bush's decision to authorize it wholeheartedly. If that means that some of my conversations may be listened in on, then by all means, they can hear my wife telling me to stop at 7-Eleven on the way home to pick up milk and cigarettes; there's a balance to be drawn in this situation between security and privacy - to be reasonable, I'll err on the side of security rather than the side of privacy any time. I recognize that I haven't addressed the abuse of power issue yet and don't have time to, but I will summarize by saying that until such a time as it clearly interferes with my freedoms without a recognizable return of good for the populace as a whole, then I will still stand behind it. When we wrote our constitution, it was after fighting for that freedom in the cost of lives. How then can you balk at the cost of a private conversation? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
And Noah, have you ever considered not centering your text? It makes it a little challenging to read any of the longer posts. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Has Bush flip-flopped again? * White House Press Release: April 19, 2004, Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, PA "For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example." * White House Press Release: April 20, 2004, Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, NY "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." * White House Press Release: June 9, 2005, Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy, Columbus, OH "One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses." * White House Press Release: June 20, 2005, Port of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD "The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States." * White House Press Release: President's Radio Address, December 10, 2005 "The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all our people. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Under the act, law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone or search his property. Congress also oversees our use of the Patriot Act. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate. * * Two White House fact sheets also make clear the following: * White House Press Release: Fact Sheet, June 9, 2005 "The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone." * White House Press Release: Fact Sheet, June 20, 2005 "The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse." * Exactly, Mr. Bush...exactly. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And 'illegal' wiretaps helped bring down a terrorist ring bent on either bringing airplanes down over the Atlantic Ocean from Britain, or over American cities. Shame on the NSA! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Or, in other words, Ali, the end justifies the means? That's certainly not a new argument. Here's another one of similar ilk. The most efficient form of government, bar none, is a beneficial dictatorship. Anyone you care to nominate for the role?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Those evil Brits!!! How dare they violate the rights of citizens like that??? Wiretapping? Computer monitoring? I'm surprised our ACLU leaders aren't on planes right now to get over there and form protests denouncing such diabolical tactics. Ted Kennedy should be standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park demanding the assination of Tony Blair and the dismemberment of MI5. Stopping terrorists from blowing up 22 planes is a good thing but not if civil liberties of terrorists are violated in such a manner. It's a good thing Britain doesn't have the strict ACLU that we have... NOT! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
They actually could have saved a lot of time and expense, Mike. If they just rounded up all English citizens of Arab descent and shot them, the end effect would have been exactly the same. And since the end effect is the only thing that matters . . . Added thought: I find it interesting that the people most strident in their claims that illegal immigration is, by definition, wrong simply because it's illegal are so forgiving when other laws are broken? [This message has been edited by Ron (08-12-2006 11:35 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I find it interesting that the people most strident in their claims that illegal immigration is, by definition, wrong simply because it's illegal are so forgiving when other laws are broken? Well, I would have to know what other broken laws you are referring to, Ron. If you are referring to Bush monitoring movements or communications by suspected terrorists, I have not seen anyone call it illegal. Sure, the Democrats tried to get mileage out of it by referring to "abuse of power" and by trying to scare 80 year old Grandma Jones into believing the government is watching her every move but I haven't seen Bush brought up on charges for breaking the law. All of the rhetoric was nothing but another failed political manuever by the Democrats in another one of many smear campaigns against the administration. You want to know what should be illegal? Having the resources to be able to uncover terrorist plots and not using them. As I said, thank God England doesn't have our ACLU or Teddy K, both of whom I'm sure are not that happy right now. Do you hear any screaming from Blair's opposing party condemning him for such tactics? Do you see the British newspapers screaming about loss of rights and privacy? No - they are all actually PLEASED that the plot was uncovered by intelligent investigative means......a far cry from left-wing tactics. They actually could have saved a lot of time and expense, Mike. If they just rounded up all English citizens of Arab descent and shot them, the end effect would have been exactly the same. And since the end effect is the only thing that matters . . . hmmm....so would that be sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek? Yes, I agree that if you consider monitoring a suspect's phone calls and bank movements the same as shooting all Arab-Englishmen, then you would be right. Fortunately, i don't have the mind that could follow such logic. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You'd have to ask Ali, Mike. He's the one who said illegal wiretaps helped bring down a terrorist, in what I took to be an obvious reference to the recent England incident. I'm afraid I was taking his word for it. I'm not even sure it matters whether it's true or not. What matters, I think, is the implication that the end justifies the means. quote: Neither. It was a very honest analogy, Mike. quote: I know. There have been other Americans, however, who believed personal liberty was more important than their lives. They would have followed the logic just fine, I think, and agreed that one was no less dangerous than the other. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see. Then it must be concluded that I don't value personal liberty because i have no problem with being checked as long as the same procedures can save lives and keep planes from being blown up with thousands of people on board. So be it. I can live with that...and so can they. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
At what point do you stop yeilding personal liberty for safety Mike? Where is your boundary? All things can be done, after all, in the name of national security. Sorry Mike -- you've had too many ice-cream sandwiches today. You're placing the nation at risk from terrorism since the added risk of diabetes and subsequent medicare dollars could have gone toward finding Osama-Bin Laden's great grandchildren. -- we can't allow you to study poetry in school -- there is a war on terror. All available resources have to be diverted toward educational goals that can fight the Islamist terror machine. We're enrolling you in Arabic instead. -- we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience of not allowing fans to attend baseball games in person any more -- you will be able to watch the programs at home on your television - the threat of terrorism is too costly to provide for the security of the fans... -- Someone in the city left a suitcase with a bomb at the airport. No travel will be allowed into or out of the city until every occupant and visitor has been fingerprinted and had DNA samples made to determine who the guilty person is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
At what point do you stop yeilding personal liberty for safety Mike? Where is your boundary? Everyone has a boundary, LR. Your examples are ridiculous, and I don;t mean that as a personal insult...but you know they are overboard. We don;t live in that world and you know it. When the boundaries are reached, I assure you I'll be at the front of the line to scream. For the life of me, I cannot understand either you or Ron and your comparisons and I cannot understand how you can be against sound, intelligent methods of uncovering terrorist activities....almost to the point of saying it's better for thousands of people to die rather than invade privacy. You come up with the most incredible examples as if they are the norm. Ron has just compared shooting all Arab-born men to checking on suspected terrorist's phone and e-mail messages. My God, gentlemen, what's that all about? Do you really feel that our rights are being so violated? Because the government is checking on suspected terrorist's bank account movements and phone records,do you feel that the average American is suffering from that? That we are now in a police state with all freedoms taken away? You want to tell me that your argument is not political? I won't believe you. I;'ll go so far as to say that if a terrorist plot we uncovered by a President you did favor, you would applaud his using available resources to achieve such a favorable outcome. I can assure you the Democrats would be trumpeting it to the high heavens. Create the doomsday scenario if you wish but we are not there and I don't even see us moving in that direction. We are taking proper precautions a nation should take at a time there are people out there vowing its destruction....and actively trying to bring it about. No one is being carted off to jail in the middle of the night. No one's rights are being trampled on and the terrorists are the only ones with a valid right to complain. I can understand that many Democratic faces are frowning today because millions of people both here and in England are grateful for using the tactics they tried to condemn Bush with. Too bad..... How easy is it to claim Bush-bashing, Ron? As I said....easy, when it's so obvious. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Whatever Democrats would or wouldn't do is far from the issue -- partisans are partisans. What you're saying here is that because you like/trust Bush you're willing to allow him to violate the Constitution. But -- the very reason for the Constitution is that we are a nation of laws and not of men. The power to make personal judgments 'for the good of the people' is too dangerous in any person's hands -- which is why we have a system of checks and balances. According to folk legend -- the frogs don't realize they're being cooked when the heat is being turned up slowly. I've personally never tried that experiment. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, LR, what I'm saying here is that I have not seen this violation of the Constitution you refer to. Nor have I seen all the law-breaking Ron refers to. When do the impeachment proceedings begin? If you areally ARE interested in violations of the Constitution, we can go back to Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt and a host of others who willingly did so.....and we are all still here and all with our freedoms intact. The Constitution is stronger than one man. Personally, I think that if the founders of the Constitution were to look down and see this hubbub over using surveilliance to protect the country and see people protesting against it, they would say, "ARE YOU NUTS???" ...but that's just my opinion. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Are they? Perhaps I can actually compliment Bush here. He was my wake up call. Who will be yours? I am told that certain parts of the constitution no longer apply (I was told this here). People here believe that safety is more important than freedom (as defined by the constitution). Cruel and unusual punishment is acceptable by people here as along as it produces results. You tell me, are you sure your constitutional freedoms are intact, are you sure you're as free as you were twenty years ago? Because I don't see it. The constitution is ultimately only a piece of paper with black marks on it. It only takes one man to tear it up but I agree, it didn't start with the current guy. He's just the one who made me see it clearly. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You tell me, are you sure your constitutional freedoms are intact, are you sure you're as free as you were twenty years ago? As free as twenty years ago? No, we are not and the people twenty years ago were not as free as the people twenty years before them. That's life. Twenty years ago no one had to go through metal detectors to see a concert or board a plane. Does that then mean we have lost that freedom? Twenty years ago schools did not have "drug dogs" sniffing out substances in school lockers. Have the students then lost their freedom? As the world progresses and millions of more humans inhabit this floating rock we call Earth there will always be more restrictions and controls to keep the world moving as smoothly as possible. The 49'ers had basically no restrictions at all...that's why it was the Wild West. As cities grew from frontier towns to major metropolises, the same personal "anything goes" freedoms were curtailed. People twenty years from now will not have the same freedoms we have. The question is - do the restrictions of freedom destroy our basic rights as citizens of this country? I say no...at least not at this time. Should the time come they do, I will be protesting and ranting with the rest. I have no problem with the TSA - in fact, I appreciate the fact the the government created it and has it running. I can handle the inconvenience much easier that I can handle the worry about a weapon or bomb being on my plane. If they want to restrict my rights to insure my safety in this case I say be my guest. Do I have a problem with the government conducting surveillance procedures on individuals or groups they consider to be "high risk"? Not at all. Let leftists try to use scare tactics to convince the entire country that all of their mail and bank accounts is being monitored,if they wish. Intelligent people know better. Am I trading safety for freedom? Again, I do not see it having reached that point and I do not see the average American's freedoms being violated in any significant way. Terrorists? Criminals? They have much more to worry about with these controls than I have. I watched an old charlie Chan movie last night and it made me smile comparing the scenario to the current world. Charlie had seven people in the living room and stated that one of them was the murderer. He said all would be questioned, no one would be allowed to leave the room and all would be searched. it made me smile because I had spent time on this thread earlier and I could hear the people screaming, "You can't do that, Chan! We have rights! You can't forbid us to leave! You have no right to search us! You are violating our basic rights! I can see people here screaming the same things, making the same challenges. Go, Charlie!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, historically, from the American Revolution to our Civil War to the more recent Civil Rights movement right up to the current war in Iraq, I've yet to see freedom won solely at the cost of a little hoarseness. I wish it could be so. The liberties you surrender today open the door for abuse and, as sure as the sun will set tonight, sooner or later someone is going to walk through that open door. It probably won't be Bush, it may not be a Republican or even a Democrat, but it's as inevitable as night following day. When it happens, screaming about it probably isn't going to help very much. Our freedoms, including the freedom from illegal search and seizure, were paid for in blood, Mike, not with invectives, and I rather strongly suspect they will only be reclaimed with payment in kind. Someone someday is going to have to die to get back what was so easily relinquished today. The frustrating thing is that it's all so incredibly unnecessary. No one is denying the need for wire-taps and surveillance. They're useful tools, but they are NOT solely the prerogative of the Executive branch. Constitutionally, they can only be authorized by the Judicial branch. Checks and balances. Due process. It makes sure someone is always standing at that open door to look for abuse, in large part because our Founding Fathers understood that such abuse is inevitable. The confusion, I think, comes from too many people who are convinced that it's the President's job to protect this country. Nope. That job belongs to the government, not to just one man, not to just one branch of the government. Our system of trias politica, of course, isn't perfect. Our current administration claims it is too slow, for example. Okay, fine. Fix it. Expedite the process, if necessary, don't dissolve it in the name of expediency. Does anyone really believe we can't have a whole cadre of federal judges standing by to authorize wire-taps? One has to wonder, I think, if perhaps the real problem isn't one born of frustration. It must be incredibly discouraging to believe a wire-tap is vital and then be told, no, sorry, there isn't sufficient justification to warrant that invasion of privacy. Yea, part of the Executive branch's job is to find and provide that justification, but wouldn't it be so much easier, so much less frustrating, to just eliminate that step entirely? Especially when you know you're right? No one, after all, honestly doubts the intentions of our elected officials. They mean well. Some of us, though, still remember what was used to pave the road to Hell. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
There have been numerous time throughout our history that some freedoms had to be given up in order to preserve those more important, especially our right to be Americans. During WWII, we lost the right to buy new cars, tires and gasoline. Hell, we couldn't even by all the cigarettes we wanted. I barely remember my mother having to smoke a corncob pipe. Why all this? These items were needed for the good of the country, in hopes of preserving our more important right: not to be Nazi subjects. Nearly half a million of our young men lost the right to live, for the same reason. They were drafted and sent to war for the good of the country. That many of them never came home. Were thos infringements on our freedom worthwhile? Make your own choice. Would you rather be a Nazi? If those and how many others rights had not been infringed during those times, you quite likely would be speaking German today. Now, admittedly, German is a fine language but I am much happier speaking English. I'm with Mike. I don't mind standing in lines at the airport. I don't mind having to go through a metal detector. I don't mind if the gov't looks at my phone or bank records if they have reason to believe I am a terrorist. I don't think I have anything to worry about regarding those latter transgressions. It would be a real stretch to suspect me of terrorism. Actually, I do mind, of course. But I would still rather suffer these inconveniences, call them loss of freedom if you want, than having to learn arabic and start worshiping Allah. If we don't do everything reasonably possible to stop the current Islamic Fascism, it is a strong probability that would be the final outcome. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There was a period in our history when there was an entire class of people who had no rights at all. That doesn't mean that if we face an economic crisis we should consider a return to slavery. (ah but, that is another subject -- on immigrant workers isn't it?) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Pete, I think you're making the same mistake Mike made in his earlier post. In hopes of maintaining focus, I let that one slip by, but since it seems to be multiplying ... I don't think you're going to find freedom to buy cigarettes listed in the Constitution, Pete. It's not a freedom, it's a privilege, and privileges can indeed be revoked as needed. You also won't find freedom from conscription in the Constitution (unfortunate though that might be). In my opinion, that, too, is a privilege, though most would probably argue it is a duty. Don't confuse inconveniences or even sacrifices with personal liberties, Pete. I'm not arguing that nothing should change. I'm arguing that the Constitution that defines who we are shouldn't be changed (at least, absent due process). One comment Mike made that did almost evoke a response was the one about loss of freedom in our schools. Personally, I think it's unfortunate that very few of our American liberties are extended to our children. It sets a very poor example, I think, and deprives them of an opportunity to experience the importance of being free. I certainly hope people aren't dying, on both sides of the fence, just so we can avoid learning a new language. All of us, I'm sure, will agree there's a bit more to it than that? If we have to give up who we are to win this fight, when push comes to shove, language may end up being the ONLY distinction between them and us. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Ron, you surely don't think I am against learning a new language. I voluntarily learned a little Spanish in high school and a lot of German in college. Can't speak either today and that truly is a shame. I really wish I could but can't seem to take the time to relearn. I do not, however, want to be forced to learn arabic just so I can read the Koran. I don't want to be forced to Islam. And I don't believe you really think the terrorists will just leave us alone if we be nice to them or even let them have Israel. Of course there is a diference between the privilege to buy cigarettes and freedom of speach. I don't see my comments any more radical than those posted here from the other side (no names but you know who you are). Maybe that's the whole point. It is impossible for us to discuss such a subject here since all we seem able to do is argue our own viewpoint. Not a single one is listening to the other. Instead we just crank up the rhetoric in response to the other guy's comments. Hyperbole flies in all directions and the arguments quickly become ridiculous. Ron, I think you, Mike, Reb and Brad are probably the best debators I have ever experienced. I certainly can't compete on that level. But the wild claims and accusations make it really difficult to maintain interest in these discussions. Since I tend to side with Mike more often than not, and he is certainly in the minority here, I'll give him a bit of a pass on this one. Also, to be fair, I should say that Brad rarely resorts to such tactics. Thanks for listening to my ramblings. Pete |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
All right, I had to come back since I left out a point above. I already admitted to not being much of an orator  Ron, you made the distinction between privileges and constitutionally guaranteed rights. I don't think that is the real point of this discussion. quote: There is a whole hell of a lot more implied in those few revered words than just those few things it later prohibits the government from doing to us, those limited things you refer to as rights. This implies the right to enjoy many privileges, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of our fellow citizens. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, I have reiterated this point many times already in this and in previous threads related to the NSA/FISA topic, and it is that, realistically, we do need this program, that there is a legal way and an illegal way in carrying out eavesdropping in our nation, about performing eavesdroppings that can crucially intercept and foil potential threats on our homeland. The latest excuse that the President is making is that these warrantless wiretaps are exactly what foiled the London airlines plot last week. My response to that is that Britain has different approaches to terrorism currently than we do. In fact, the U.K under current law actually allows warrantless wiretapping unconditionally unlike we currently do, as well as have lots of security cameras installed in many city sites, and it has been done so under both governmental and public approval. I may critique how invasive such a security scope could be, but nonetheless I acknowledge and respect how these security endeavors were enacted without compromising the process of the law. The British intelligence did terrific work last week, and largely because it seemed natural and even sort of old-fashioned, where they first recognized this plot in July of last year, ran some surveillance tests, sat on it, then last week, with patience and resolve, worked into the night to foil this plot after receiving that tip from a Muslim living in Britain, as well as from a Pakistani. And I think the reaching out to the Muslim community certainly proved a most important part in providing great teamwork against the alleged plot. * Again, I believe some are missing the central concern or point being raised here; it's not about whether we should even have a wiretapping program or not (I believe a vast majority of Americans agree eavesdropping is necessary in times of crisis)........this is about our President willfully breaking the law.......and continuing to make lame, changing excuses about why he did it. I've been speaking out to begin with on this issue because I believe the president chose to walk around the law and go about these wiretaps the unconstitutional way. Even during a state of war, the law still exists, the law doesn't dissolve, and Bush must have believed he has the right to disobey any established law during wartime, as the John Yoo memo may suggest. Mind you that it isn't always a requirement to obtain a warrant within 72 hours to begin a wiretap. FISA also allows provisions for emergency situations. When war is declared, FISA allows warrantless wiretapping for 15 days, then Congress must be consulted after that period of time. These safeguards have been violated, and in result it also leaves our Separation of Powers and the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution very vulnerable, which reads, "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." And while the Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within our country, hundreds of thousands of Americans are being monitored, with reports suggesting approximately an additional 500 added each day since 9/11. Bush has had every right to question the effectiveness of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from the beginning, as I believe times have changed since the Carter Era. If he truly felt that FISA was insufficient, he could have went to seek legislative amendment. That's part of what makes our democracy and checks and balances system so great; the President and citizens always have the ability to discuss, debate, and seek and change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that in a democracy like this, the President can't go violating laws just because he finds them obsolete or trivial. * THAT'S what the issue has been to me from the beginning; it's not about whether we should even have a wiretapping program or not, this is about both preserving our law and values and securing our nation in times of conflict, and I fear that there is a sort of executive power grab effect currently taking place that can undermine our checks and balances system in years to come should it continue to be encouraged. Judge Diggs Taylor's Decision: August 17, 2006 With that said, here's a review of Judge Diggs Taylor's decision, ruling that the warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. The Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement calling the program "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror." White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." "United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives," he said. "The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist." The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected. ACLU executive director Anthony Romero called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror." There's your bottom line...the nail in the Bush coffin. Forget the part about stopping terrorist attacks and saving American lives. That's immaterial. The object is Bush's coffin and Democratic power brokers and the ACLU would accept the deaths if it meant getting George. We deserve whatever will happen to us..... By the way, before anyone jumps up and says it not the program but the way Bush handled it alone without Congressional approval first, Please re-read the paragraph where the ACLU gives their reasons. It IS the program they object to, regardless of who approves it. When the first incident that this program could have prevented happens, they can all give each other high-fives. Go, ACLU!!....somewhere else! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Noah, I hadn't seen your entry before putting in mine...sorry. At any rate, I'll point out once again that the ACLU's complaint was NOT that Bush did it on his own but that the program exists at all. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The headlines I've been reading don't suggest that the program in its entirety is unconstitutional; it's simply that a warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. I myself believe that the NSA's program generally speaking is a necessary tool, and any ACLU plaintiff or civil libertarian or New York Times reporter or activist who believes everything about the program is wrong, I would strongly disagree with and believe they're not being realistic in that we need to pinpoint and detect these specific threats to our ways of life which could otherwise go by unnoticed or undetected. But we have also have to be understanding that with all these necessary tools present, there also comes great responsibility, and when we certainly need to use these tools, may they be used the legal way. Otherwise, in allowing the circumvention of the law, it could potentially put "anyone" as risk of being spied on with any burden of proof required prior to doing so. Like I said, Bush has every right to question FISA's relevance today, as things certainly have changed since the Carter Era and we are coping and enduring new and evolving threats. I agree that I think most Americans believe some changes need to be made inevitably, and had Bush notified Congress to discuss reforming FISA and allowing a bi-partisan change to the rules under his understanding, I absolutely approve of that. But that wasn't the case, and chose instead to pretend there was no such thing as FISA and did not seek a warrant under the rule. And I believe that these sorts of executive overreachings are only going to encourage successors of Bush to behave just like this and continue experimenting with how far they can go beyond the limits of the law, which I believe sends a freightening message to our children that if they can get away with it, why can't they. That's really what the concern here is and has been, and if we choose to be passive and allow this executive power grab to continue, we're just allowing a free pass for future exploitation of our American values. This goes beyond any particular president or elected official, this is about our democratic foundation. Moreover, I believe just the opposite as some may think that this decision puts the rights of our enemies above our lives. In fact, I believe very much the reversal, in that this decision is a blow to the terrorists who are attempting to manipulate us, play mind games with us, and hope that our ways of life, our democratic foundation, are internally chiseled away because of our lack of resolution and patience, who are hoping we'll compromise our principles in dwelling under an umbrella of paranoia. I believe this decision eloquently tells them, "We believe in wholeheartedly securing this nation, while also securing our values, and believe us, we CAN defend both hand in hand!" Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Maybe for some, Mike. But their intent, by itself, would accomplish little. Their intent, by itself, is a gun without bullets. quote: For me, Mike, that is the bottom line. And the bullets. Personally, this isn't about the President, except perhaps peripherally. I suspect the very qualities that make a man want to hold the highest office in the land will also compel him to push all boundaries should he gain that office. Such a man will always be convinced he is right, will always be certain he knows best, will always trust to his own devices rather than those of others. It's the nature of the beast, I think. It's also exactly why our system of checks and balances is so absolutely vital. It's never been about Bush (or Clinton, or Nixon, or any other such man) thinking he was above the law. I almost expect that. For me, the real concern has always been that so many Americans seem to agree with Bush. I firmly believe the system will protect us from any over-eager President. I'm not so sure anything can protect us . . . from us. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
"I suspect the very qualities that make a man want to hold the highest office in the land will also compel him to push all boundaries should he gain that office. Such a man will always be convinced he is right, will always be certain he knows best, will always trust to his own devices...." …an illuminating perspective. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's really what the concern here is and has been, and if we choose to be passive and allow this executive power grab to continue, we're just allowing a free pass for future exploitation of our American values. Really, Noah? What then of the executive "power grabs" of Truman, FDR and Eisenhower, whose solitary actions make this one pale into oblivion? Were American rights or the constitution shattered those 50-60 years ago? If you really feel that this decision is a blow to the terrorists, feel free to join the ranks of possibly 2% of the human race. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Plaintiffs being Democrats, news reporters, lawyers and the ACLU. Do you really think their main goal is the public interest, Ron?...and I still have not yet seen where the constitution has been violated. I can understand your or anyone's concern about an "over-eager" president but, in this matter, if an act like 9/11 cannot shift a president into overeagerness concerning national safety then he's not the man I want to see sitting in the Oval office. You are concerned that so many Americans support Bush? Well, tell me.....do you feel your rights have gone downhill under him? Do you feel that his implementation of the surveillance program - even without getting congressional approval - was detrimental to the U.S? They don't. Do you feel that your rights and your safety is more secure now that a court has ruled against the wiretapping and surveillance? They don't. Most of the Americans who support Bush are just ordinary, common-sense folks. They don't see the destruction of the constitution you may - they see a fellow who acted by implementing things to make them safer - and they can look at five years of post-9/11 history of no domestic attacks to appreciate. The surveillance is all but toothless now with all of the publicity. It only worked on a clandestine level, which has been blown apart. These peoeple will remember that, too, and who blew it apart. Even if I grant you that Bush did not follow the protocol he should have, I cannot join in your or Noah's claim that the constitution is being decimated or that our rights are going down the tubes. It is what it is...one small incedent that, at least in Britain, just saved thousands of lives. If the Democrats want to scream that they were left out of the loop and missed getting some credit for what they haven't done....tough patooties. That's the bottom line......not that the program was bad but that they didn't get in on it......makes them despise Bush and attack so much more. If you can see that so many people agree with Bush, that could be a hint for a little self-examination.......or just accept the fact that so many people are so dumb and ignorant that they just don't know any better. The Constitution is alive and well.....no one man is going to bring it down. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, their goal, main or otherwise, isn't an issue. The purpose of an adversarial system isn't that someone wins and someone loses, but rather that everyone is constantly scrutinized and forced to justify their actions. Trust me, if wasn't Democrates, reporters, lawyers, and the ACLU, it would be someone else (if only retired nerds), 'cause that's the only way the system works. Frankly, if they can't take the heat, they shouldn't be in the kitchen. quote: Yes. quote: Yes. quote: Yes. quote: Or one small step? Come on, Mike. Your not untypical exaggeration sounds like a B-movie gangster. "Yo hona, we'd just knocked 'im down a bit, it's not like we killt 'im or somethin." And the camera pans to a close-up of the wizened judge, his right brow quirked and clearly wondering what might have happened had the police *not* arrived in time? Don't get me wrong. I don't for a minute believe that Bush or anyone else serving this country wants to decimate the Constitution. I'm sure Bush's intentions are noble. I'm equally sure that he's horribly, terribly wrong. quote: quote: Dumb and ignorant? No, Mike, just afraid. And far too complacent after 200 years, apparently forgetting that terrorism is a relatively new danger among many, many much older dangers. People can only kill you once, and then it's over. When people control you, it's never over. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are three rights listed there, Mike. Not just the one. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, if you feel that your rights and your safety is more secure now that a court has ruled against the wiretapping and surveillance, then you leave me without any possible reply. There are three rights listed there, Mike. Not just the one. I would be interested in knowing which two Bush has wiped out. So your opinion is that so many support Bush because they are scared. That can only be an opinion of yours since you are not one of them. I AM one of them so I feel qualified to answer that. It's not fear- it's the recognition of a common sense manner of responding to and dealing with a situation. Many feel that Bush used quick, decisive and intelligent thinking in the implementation of this action. We could care less that he didn't waste time bringing it before Congress. It was, after all, a good, sound plan that everyone would endorse. You don;t hear Democrats claim that it was a bad procedure or something they would be against. Their only complaint was that they weren't part of the decision to implement it - that THEY could not in the future use it as political fodder (WE authorized the program and gave Bush the ability to proceed!) Well,we "scared" people that you refer to could care less how hurt their feelings are. It was a sound plan and Bush went with it. We have no problem with it. Do we feel that the Constitution has been damaged because of it? No, we don't. Do we feel that our rights are being violated because of it? No, we don't. Are we complacent? Just the opposite. We saw the World Trade center fall just like everybody else. How you can suggest we are scared and complacent at the same time baffles me. We saw the first WTC bombing attempt. We saw the USS Cole. We saw the marine barracks in Beirut and we've seen many terrorist attacks aimed at us over the years. We also hear groups and even countries calling for our destruction. We know the threat is real and we stand behind someone who thinks clearly and acts decisively in our best interests. You claim that he should be forced to justify his actions? We feel that his actions are justified and we feel that the charges against him are nothing more than an attempt to be adversarial on a personal level. We will let the retired nerds, the professors, the lawyers and the political opponents sit around and theorize about the damage to the constitution and the loss of human rights. We are not smart enough to do so. We do know, however, that every presidency is different and the constitution remains constant. We hear the theories that if one president does something it will lead to further variations of that particular thing in the future until it raches a point where all rights are gone... and we don't believe them. Every presidency is a new beginning and the term of every president is unique. FDR interred Japanese in the U.S. during WWII. Have we tried to inter muslims? Has anyone in the past 60 years tried to inter any group again? Did that violation of rights lead to a chain of events which snowballed into a major fracturing of the constitution? No, it didn't. I can give similar examples of actions of other presidents. Have any of those actions lead to the doom that you and Noah project for the future if Bush is not stopped? None. You make innuendos about 'when people control you' as a reference to the present. THERE we are getting into B movies, with all due respect. When do the references to Big Brother begin? It's not 1984 - it's 22 years later and Big Brother has still not made the scene. We don't feel we are being controlled. We still feel that our rights have not been violated and we support a man who is acting in our best interest in the realm of national security. He has the tools - we don't. You may choose to believe it or not but we would support his action even if he were of a different party. Mike, their goal, main or otherwise, isn't an issue. Actually, it is. We recognize that the only reason this is such a major issue is based on partisan bickering and personal dislike and we don;t care for political parties playing political football with our national or personal security. I realize that I have left plenty of avenues in this little speech for people to pick apart. I'm not writing this as a 'scholar' (even if I could). I'm just writing it as one of the many people that concern you with their support of Bush's action in this matter. Frankly,I don't feel that your rights have been diminished any more than I believe that you are safer now that the wiretapping program has been exposed but if you do, then so be it. That's how we feel. We are not any more scared or complacent than anyone else but we can recognize smart thinking when we see it and we applaud it. That's just the way we are........ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Amen, Mike, Amen. And God help us all if the courts ruling against eavesdropping on the commuications of known terrorists stands. Because we are certainly going to need His help big time. The thwarted bombings last week would certainly have not been thwarted and a major disaster would have happened two days ago. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, I believe you're overlooking that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wasn't ruling against the NSA program in its entirety; she was only ruling against the program in its warrantless form. Observe Page 1 in particular closely: * Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's Decision * "This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”)undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since." * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, I'm in total agreement with you. Noah, thanks for pointing out the significant part about "warrantless." Exactly, why is it so difficult to get a warrant and do it the right way? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If it makes you feel any better Ron the numbers agreeing with Bush seem to be on waning... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701484.html http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=285 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.slate.com/id/2147955/?nav=tap3 quote: and http://www.slate.com/id/2134215/ quote: Don't have time to go into this right now, but I tell you what? In '88, let's all vote Democratic, see what happens when that President invokes these precedents, and we'll all be on the same side. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
It has been found that the Honorable Diggs made multiple large donations to the ACLU, who happened to be one of the primary plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit over which the Honorable Diggs volunteered to preside. To this simpleton, that's a conflict of interest. She should have recused herself from the case and her verdict should be nullified for prejudice and said conflict of interest. To quote the New York Times, of all places: quote: [This message has been edited by Alicat (08-23-2006 10:36 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Ali, I'm honestly not sure a belief in upholding the law can legitimately be called a prejudice or conflict of interest, let alone a reason for recusion. Besides, donating to a cause doesn't create a financial or personal relationship with the ACLU any more (or less) than voting for a Presidential candidate creates a relationship with the Bush administration. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Actually Ron, the ACLU lists the Honorable Diggs as one of their secretaries. That sounds pretty darn cozy to me. Not to mention the ACLU shopping the case around until they found a rather sympathetic ear. Which was connected to a Carter appointed Federal Judge who made hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the ACLU in 1999. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
financial= hundreds of thousands in donations. Personal = listed as a secretary of the ACLU. You may want to rethink that, Ron. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'll admit I would prefer more distance. However, a judge who donated either time or money to a political party would have to face similar scrutiny. And any judge that was appointed by the reigning political party would be no less linked than would a secretary (uh, whatever that is?). Face it, in any Federal case of this nature a Federal judge is going to be associated to one and probably both parties involved. When push comes to shove, however, the decision has absolutely nothing to do with the ACLU. Their victory is a moral one, not a profitable one, and the issue decided wasn't about the watchdog but about the Constitution they safeguard. When a man stands before the bench, his guilt doesn't depend on who arrested him but only on what he did. Was Diggs influenced by ties to the ACLU? Or does she simply agree with them? There is a difference. A judge who supports his local police, either financially or vocally, doesn't recuse himself every time they arrest a criminal, after all. Even if he personally wants the police to win, he judges each case on its merits. That's the job. I would have liked a cleaner victory, by a judge no one could reproach (as impossible as I suspect that would ever be). But then, that's why we have an appeals process. If Diggs was wrong, her decision will be reversed. I don't think she was wrong. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron: "I would have liked a cleaner victory, by a judge no one could reproach (as impossible as I suspect that would ever be). But then, that's why we have an appeals process. If Diggs was wrong, her decision will be reversed. I don't think she was wrong." In agreement with you, Ron. However, I believe Ali is right in that there really are no non-political judges until they reach the Supreme Court....and even then, it takes them a few pay backs before they can really be unbiased. That doesn't mean every decision the lower court judges make is biased though, so I'm in accord with you there, too. I applaud her ruling in this case. Unfortunately, I think it will be reversed and have to go to the Supreme Court. Then we will find out if the two new judges have their debts paid yet. *wink* I fear that if the Supremes do not interpret the Constitution in 'our' favor, a nonreversible precedent will be set for all times, giving the executive branch way, way too much power and ultimately paving the ground for a dictatorship. Maybe even a democratic candidate, Ali. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Iliana, for provimg my point so vividly. You belive in Diggs even with her affiliation and support of the ACLU....and yet you are already coming up with sly insinuations that if it reaches the Supreme Court, the odds are that judges will be biased for having been appointed by Bush..."if they have paid their dues yet.." is that how you put it? Say what you will but i have a feeling that if the decision had gone in favor of Bush by a judge appointed by a Republican, a member of a Republican organization and a donator of hundreds of thousands to their causes, you and Ron would both being holding your noses. Since it is the exact reverse, you applaud her decision. Must be nice....... Should be interesting watching the ACLU now. They are going after all the congressional bills before Congress dealing with surveillance, stating that, after the Diggs ruling, they are all illegal. Their point has ALWAYS been the program, not the protocol. Stay tuned... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, as much as I admire your fierce defiance, I am totally baffled by your stance. Are you all that eager to give up your freedom and privacy? Searches without warrant...really? My point was that a precedent would be set, and it could well be that the next president will take full advantage of it! Or maybe the next one after that....could be a dem., could be a repub.; it doesn't matter. We are talking about facilitating abuse of executive powers here and not partisan mumbo-jumbo as you always seem to turn the threads into. And....I'm out....... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Give up freedom and privacy? Well, you need to make up your mind, Iliana. Is your problem with it all the surveillance or the lack of warrant? That's the one point that is so ludicrous in the Democratic hoopla. First, they don't condemn the surveillance itself. They know how unpopular that would be. Their grievance is the lack of notification and participation. At the same time, they pose little innuendos to mom and pop and all inbetween, hinting that freedoms are being lost or trampled on. They get people like you to speak of the loss of freedom and privacy. So what does that mean? Does it mean that, if Bush had got warrants before and made notifications then the plan was a good one and nobody's freedoms or privacy would be in danger? It's just another sleazy tactic.... Your freedoms and privacy are intact, Iliana, unless you care to show me where they are not. The wiretapping and surveillance dealt only with overseas calls to people with possible terrorist ties. Granted, if you have made calls like that to people like that, then you would have a point. In every war (and don't think for a minute we are not in one) there are freedoms traded for security, be it curfews, rationings, blackouts or a variety of things we are not subject to in peacetime. I can relate better to ron's point that it is the supposed illegality of the situation that is the question more than I can your doomsday concern about our rights and privacy. The plan was a good one - an intelligent and logical plan to implement. The question is whether or not it was implemented legally - not whether or not it destroys our freedoms and privacy. It doesn't. As far as your point of a precedent being set, I covered that in an earlier comment. Perhaps you missed it.... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, I thought I was finished on this thread and after the following I am. First, it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you because you make everything partisan. Secondly, your comment: "They get people like you" -- what is your implication? You don't know anything about me except that my son has joined the Army Reserves. And....what the heck are you implying? You mean independent thinkers, like me? If so, you'd be right. You think I do not have a mind of my own??? Ask my husband, he'll tell you, I certainly do. I think for myself based on listening to both sides and weighing the evidence! I was addressing the legalities, as well and said I was in agreement with Ron. And, YES, I think warrants are necessary....I did not say anything about notification (that would ruin the element of surprise). What is so freaking wrong about asking the executive branch to get a warrant through the special court they established? As to the privacy....you are dead wrong about that, Mike. We talked about the banking situation once before and I have first-hand proof through a foreign banker for my friend whom I'm the executrix for that more than terrorists' bank accounts are looked at. It is part of their disclosure procedure in my friend's case. Additionally, overseas phone calls are listened to. The internet is watched closely, yahoo mail, etc. How on earth do you think security distinguishes one call or one email from another. They've been listening for years based on certain key words. For instance, if I use the word "bomb"....you can bet your booty it will be picked up on. I was in the airport in 2000 and was discussing the fact that there was a bag sitting beside a trash can with my daughter. I mentioned that I hoped it wasn't a bomb or something and that maybe we should report it. The next thing I knew, I was approached by a security guard and questioned with my family for several minutes. Pretty spooky. My daughter was retained at the SF Airport because she had a keychain that looked like brass knuckles given to her as a gift after she was assaulted....they fined her $150 for having it in her possession even though she threw it away....that was Homeland Secuirty. Everytime I fly, they search my bags. The last three or four times I have flown, they have gotten me up out of my wheelchair and searched me head to toe....pat down and between my legs. You tell me that our rights are intact.....bullhockey! Mike, sometimes, I think you just want to be beaten up on by a woman....lol. And now....I am really out. But I do wish you well. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
As for "turning these threads into partisan mumbo-jumbo", Mike has no copyright on that. It has certainly proven to be a two-way effort. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I wish you well as well, miss. Whether you beat up on me or not, you always have my admiration for your "Don't expect me to back down, buster" attitude and may your day go well. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Had the decision gone the other way, Mike, I wouldn't have questioned the judge's partisanship. I would have questioned their sanity. Seriously, this isn't even a close call. We are protected from illegal search and seizure, period, end of discussion. quote: I think you're confusing program and protocol, Mike. Any congressional bill dealing with surveillance that does not include judicial overview is illegal. The only way around that is a Constitutional amendment or, perhaps, a declaration of martial law. quote: There's nothing wrong with surveillance. It just can't go unchecked because, yes, Mike, THAT constitutes a loss of personal freedom. That's not an innuendo or a hint, it's simply the way our Constitution was written. One man doesn't get to decide another man's fate in a free country. We are protected by due process, where no one gets to simultaneously be judge, jury, and executioner. quote: It's not a sleazy tactic to expect our elected officials to follow the law, Mike. If the Administration procures warrants, that means someone else agrees that probable cause has been established. Checks. Balances. Due process. quote: No, Mike, we are NOT in a war, and even if we were, the things you list are privileges not liberties. Throwing innocent people into an internment camp, as we saw happen in WWII, is illegal -- despite widespread fear that let's our government get away with it. Even in war, where the Constitution grants the Executive branch far more power than in peacetime, there are checks and balances established. The President only gets that extra power when Congress declares war, not when the President declares war. Checks. Balances. Due process. Iraq aside, because that's not the issue here (although I'd be happy to discuss that, too), the so-called War on Terrorism is no different than Johnson's War on Poverty or the subsequent War on Drugs. It's rhetoric. We are no more at war with terrorists than we are at war with the gangs in Los Angeles, the drug peddlers in New York, or any other criminal between the two coasts. Terrorists are criminals, little different from Al Capone, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh. quote: You can't separate the two, Mike. If it was accomplished illegally then it WAS an infringement on those people's liberties. And, I'm sorry, but your freedom and my freedom is inextricably tied to their freedom. You can't protect your own rights unless you are ready to protect everyone's rights. When due process is thrown out the window, the baby goes with it and no one is safe. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
There are times when I wished you were not so articulate, and then again those times when I'm thankful you are. *mutter praise mutter praise* Irrespective, since the Honorable Diggs failed to disclose her contribututions to the ACLU, as well as her personal ties to the same organization, her Opinion should be strenuously reviewed and overturned, pending further examination by one who is not tied so intrisically to the plaintiffs. Kinda reminds me of the Molly McGuire cases of unionized coal miners against the owners of those coal mines and the lawyers and judges who had investitures in said coal mines. All the 'ring leaders' were executed. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
