»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Above the Law
| The Alley |
|
Above the Law |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
quote: quote: And Bush personally did this: quote: And from the document: quote: and let's not forget Darth Vader: quote: |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Yup, worst than Hitler. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, Local Rebel's comments dealt strictly with information and with sharing information that had only recently come to light. Your conflation of his information with Mike's slur on the Speaker of the house as being like Hitler discounts the effort that Local Rebel spent in gathering and sharing that information. As for the contribution specifically, it is supposed to be prose. One of the obligations of prose is to leave less confusion in its wake than there was before its arrival. A sentence can't get by on being clever unless it is first clear. Otherwise, the audience isn't sure of how clever it may be; they are only somewhat bewildered. Your post needs a re-write for clarity. If you are not upset by the emergence of still more material about Bush's possible assault on the presidency and the constitution and the rule of law, you have not in all likelihood considered that the precident, once set, means that future administrations now appear to have the way opened for them. This includes administrations that are not as congenial to your particular point of view as you believe the Bush administration to have been, such as the current one. We desperately need to know what has happened, so that we can fix it. You've heard how Denise talks about the current folks, and how Mike does. Where do you think those fears came from? Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I guess I’m on the arrest list as well then . . . Mike, I get top bunk. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And I'll take the floor...just throw me a pillow! It may get pretty crowded in there with all us "Right Wing Potential Terrorists". Seriously, this new information that has supposedly come to light still seems to be pretty obscure since it hasn't been made public as of yet, so what the heck are they talking about? It's hard to make a judgment on it until the information is released. But if it has more do with surveillance or treatment of our sworn enemy, I'd say more power to Bush for making the tough decisions in the interest of national security. At least Bush, whatever his shortcomings, knew who the enemy was, unlike Obama, who seems to have his Department of Homeland Security branding everyone who doesn't view the world as he does as a potential national security threat, attempting to criminalize right-wing political beliefs and thought. I think it would be better to focus our attention on the current administration, the one that now has the power to effect our lives for better or worse and not this smoke and mirrors of charges against the previous administration that is just an attempt to deflect attention away from what the current administration is doing, in my opinion. And the fact that Holder is once again throwing this threat of prosecution of those in the previous administration out there is an abominable political move, especially since he just refused to prosecute real criminals, the New Black Panthers who intimidated voters and poll workers in Philadelphia, even with videotape evidence and sworn affidavits. I guess you can break the law with impunity if your actions are seen as advancing the O Team. I really don't think we need to look to Bush's actions to prevent future assaults on the presidency, the Constitution and the rule of law. We can learn all we need to learn from Obama. He seems to be the master. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's patently wrong, Bob. quote: Says you? While I disagree completely with John, I certainly didn't have any trouble understanding his point. Did you? Please, Bob, stick to the issues of the thread, not your perception of the posters. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Nasty swipe I understood. Contents thereof, I did not. You cannot know what I think without being inside my head. As the world's only authority as to what occurs in that peculiar place, I can and do tell you that you are wrong. Respectfully, you have no idea. While you may believe that making things clear isn't an obligation of prose, I will stand by my statement. You may feel that prose is not obligated to bring clarity; I disagree with you. If you feel that the notion is patently wrong, then you should explain it to those of us who were brought up to write clear english sentences or to feel like we were failing in our aim. Clarity in prose has been a major aim in English prose since at least the eighteenth century, That is patently true. Asserting that value does not make me a blockhead, nor does it put me outside the mainstream of opinion on the subject. [Edit Comments about posters removed - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (07-12-2009 11:23 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bottom bunk is fine with me...and bunk is an appropriate word here, it seems. It doesn't really surprise me. The stimulus package is failing. Those shovel-ready jobs seem to have disappeared. The unemployment, which Obama assured us would not go over 8% is almost to 10. A group of Democrats have announced they are not buying Obama's health plan unless major changes are made. The cap and trade looks like it's headed for trouble in the Senate. Obama's popularity is dropping all over the country. What does one do in such a situation. I know...let's have a Bush-bashing party again, go back a few years to take people's minds off the present. As I said, I'm not surprised.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, As I recall, you bashed Clinton through all eight years of the Bush Presidency, and are perfectly willing to take a swing at Carter whenever you can. I'd think you'd want to know what precedents in policy and practice that Obama may be following unknown to everybody that may have been passed down from Bush in the same way that some of Bush's stuff was passed down from Clinton. The FISA courts didn't come from Bush's fevered brain but, as I understand it, from Clinton's. Bush merely ran with them. I have no idea what Obama's doing with them now, but I'm not encouraged by the fact that they're still there; are you? Get some overview of this stuff in mind, please. If you think it's simply Republican versus Democrat, we may both be throwing the country away. The whole business is an attack on civil liberties. The same laws that Denise is so nervous about now were — many of them — put in place by earlier administrations, some Republican, some Democratic. The power of the congress as a whole has been eaten away by the administrative branch, and the power of the courts for oversight has also been eaten away. Look at the movements of the whole system, not the party in power. Or at least think about it a bit. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The whole system, Bob? The whole system is the Democratic party. They control the White House, the Congress and the judiciary. That is why there is such an arrogance of power these days. Checks and balances that have maintained some semblance of control, is a thing of the past. As Pelosi said, "We run things now." As I recall, you bashed Clinton through all eight years of the Bush Presidency, Yes, and I recall you admonishing me for it. Are you now using that as an excuse to do the same? Either Bush is the smartest man on the planet or we have the dumbest Congress in history. He fooled them on Iraq (supposedly). He fooled them on WMD's (supposedly). He fooled them on interrogation tactics (supposedly). Obama now says the economy was worse off than he thought (supposedly). GW just seemed to outsmart them at every turn, which is why they voted for all the things they now say they were fooled by (supposedly). This red herring isn't going to work, Bob. People are beginning to see that Obama's grand plans for change was just talk and he really doesn't know what he's doing, which is not surprising for a man with no experience. Even Obama realizes that this tactic won't work. Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to having a probe into alleged Bush-era abuses and resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards." Maybe looking forward is not a bad idea, Bob? Follow your leader, perhaps?  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Once again you confuse me with being a doctrinaire anything. I am a Liberal, which actually obligates me to think for myself and not agree with other people who call themselves anything, including Liberals. You have heard me criticize as many Democrats as Republicans, though my sympathies tend to be far more left wing than right. The congress that voted for the Bush agenda was Republican, by the way. You have apparently confused that congress with this one, which I would have to agree doesn't seem very strong on backbone. Perhaps you can't tell the difference? I could. I thought the Iraq invasion was bogus at the time. I thought WMD was a bogus issue at the time. I still do. I also thought that Bush did the best he could with his bail-out plan when he came up with it, and I still do. You were in favor of it when he came up with it, as I recall, and are against it now, but are trying to blame it on the Democrats. The Democrats tried to stall it when Bush first brought it up in the Bush congress. I understood their reasoning, but I thought that the recession needed addressing, even if the Republicans were the ones doing it. I thought that the Republicans had created the problem and had warned that it was coming a year beforehand. You said that it was a figment of my silly imagination. Am I saying anything here that isn't true, Mike? I really wish you wouldn't try to portray me as somebody marching to the beat of somebody else's drum. The facts don't bear you out, and you are still left with the actual facts on the ground to deal with. You don't know what damage the Last administration has done to the country because you feel forced to defend everything it's done, regardless of how foolish, simply because of party loyalty. I don't mind saying that Obama was wrong about the depth of the recession. It was deeper than he thought. It's still not as deep as I thought it would be, but then I hope I'm wrong. So what? I'll go further — I'll even say that I don't know that Obama's program will work at all. And that anybody who says that they know it will is an idiot. Policies don't come with guarantees, Obama didn't offer one, and in fact that's one of the things I like about him. It reflects a more accurate view of reality. I about somebody actively trying to solve foreign policy problems, tackling the recession (by first admitting we have one, for a start), and getting our heads out of the sand about environmental problems. I see Obama doing those things, and not trying to put himself above the law in the process. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You have apparently confused that congress with this one, which I would have to agree doesn't seem very strong on backbone. No, Bob, I was referring to Pelosi, Hillary and all of the other Democrats who voted for Iraq and interrogation techniques and then screamed they had been fooled when the polls went against the actions. I was referring to Ted Kennedy who wanted to send in nukes, if necessary, to blast Iraq out of existence. I was referring to all the Democrats who sided with Clinton in the late nineties, avowing their knowledge of WMD's and how Iraq had to be stopped bywhatever means necessary. All of this has been supported in earlier threads with quotes so there's no need to refute it. I ws referring to the same people who have since claimed they were all fooled when public sentiment against the Iraq war was going bad. No confusion there, sir. I really wish you wouldn't try to portray me as somebody marching to the beat of somebody else's drum. Sorry, Bob. I call them as I see them. Yes, you throw in a barb ar the Democrats once in a great while, but your selective support is always Democratic and, when derrogatory instances come up against them, you may either respond with a one-liner or not at all, considering them non-issues, whereas the right side is always in for it. Look, you just claimed the House was right in passing the Cap and Trade without even knowing what the cap and trade was about, by your own admission. They did it so that was right for you. Let me put it to you this way.... Let's suppose we have a Republican president and congress. This president made a lot of claims and promises in his run for the presidency, such as... Posting a bill online for five days for public viewing so the public would know what their government was doing. Hasn't, and isn't, happening. It was a lie. Currently, after a bill passes Congress, the White House posts it by linking to the site of the library of Congress. Obama says he plans to do it the way he said pre-election but doesn't say when. Promising that there would be no pork in bills passing his desk. After acknowledging that the stimulus plan was riddled with pork, this theoretical Republican president says "Well, from now on...." He laughs at his opponent's thoughts about taxing health care and now considers taxing health care. He makes claims that the middle class will not pay more in taxes on ANY level, not income tax, not capital gains or any other form of tax and then passes bills which tax the vital things the middle class uses. He inherits a large national deficit and then quadruples it. He puts the country in such debt it will take generations to repay it....and he wants to keep spending, even though the till is empty. He rams through a stimulus bill, assuring Americans jobs are shovel-ready and that the unemployment figures will not pass 8% by June. He then claims that they will probably go over 10% by end of summer and, months after passing the stimulus package, which was so vital "the country would not survive without it", only 10% of it has been used. He plans higher taxes for the rich and then, when companies faced with higher taxes including tax oh healthcare benefits, cut back or stop hiring from knowing the higher costs are coming, he doesn't understand why the unemployment rate is rising. He wants a government-run single payer health plan which will basicaly destroy health care in the country as we know it, citing innacurate figures to back his claims. He rushes laws through Congress by calling them emergencies and his Republican congress passes them without even readingthem, although they have dire results on the population. I could go on and on but the point is, Bob, based on your track record here, if this were a Republican president, you would be attacking him with the same fervor you defend Obama. Damn any talk show host, Fox news and anyone with the audacity to point out the holes in his rhetoric but praise anything the Democratic congress allows him to do has been your path down the Alley. As far as this red-herring thread to takes one's mind off the current state of our country, I see no reason to give it any more attention. This time I'll be the one to consider it a "non-issue". |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Most if not all of those red herrings you drag into this thread have been or could be dealt with in other places, where I would be happy to do so with you. You know I disagree with many of them, and in part with others. This is the place where the thread is about the posting "Above the Law," isn't it? Local Rebel's information? I'd like to learn some more about that. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There are those, who for their god, lethally hate us more than any of us think we should hate ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcC6bTHosx0 It really happened. And there are those still wanting it to happen again and again. Still willing to kill themselves to make it so. Americans as civilians have never faced that before. The oceans don’t matter, no mountains protect our borders. Anyone going to a commercial airport is faced with a comprehension of those realities. This thread should keep mindful of that context. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don’t think there’s enough information to form an opinion at this point, someone may have done something that may or may not have been legal and may or may not have been morally justified even if it was illegal. I think I’ll wait for the paperback. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm curious, John, in light of other threads, whether you think our national policies should be predicated on honor or fear? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, A group of Saudi fanatics perpetrates a horror on the United States — and it was a horror, clearly — and our response seems to have been to kill and displace a large number of Iraqis, who had nothing to do with it. Religious warfare is not a happy thing. The rhetoric that we have been using in our conversations with the middle east over much of the past almost twenty years now doesn't justify the twin towers, but it is highly inflammatory in its own right. It has hardly been designed to bring the level of tension down, and has been a match for a lot of the Islamic rhetoric. I speak of our use of the term "Crusade" in our conversation, especially by President Bush. This frames the conflict as a conflict of religions when I don't believe that we needed to have accepted that framework. Our acceptance of that framework now is a success for the more extreme forces in the Islamic world and, sad to say it, in our own. Realpolitik may have forced us in some instances to align ourselves with some of the more repressive governments in the region, such as the Saudis and the Egyptians, because these regimes have at least some political stability. We aligned ourselves with the late Shah of Iran and, for a period of time, with Saddam Hussein as well for the same reasons. We have not proven ourselves to be good friends of Democratic movements there, and I am not sure that it's the best idea that we should. I simply don't understand the arab mind well enough to say. I do believe that we have made ourselves pretty unpopular for the alliances we have made, and our talk of being for "Freedom" doesn't seem to go over well over there. It doesn't seem to fit with our actions. Someday perhaps it will. I hope so. I understand that you, Huan Yi, believe that this is the case today. I am envious of such staunch belief. I hope that — from my perspective — we may eventually get there from my perspective as well. I see much though not all of what's going on there as a response to some of our actions in the area. Some of it may be over-reaction or distorted reactions or heavily culturally determined actions, or actions that are as much a response to their history with us as they are to our current relationship. But in this, I can at least see a pattern of cause and effect determined by a back and forth relationship. This offers some hope for being able to effect the relationship and the possible outcomes. In this way I see my point of view as being hopeful. I suspect you don't. I hope I'm wrong about this. Comments? Also, I need to say that I shouldn't have gotten away from the actual point of the thread so much. I simply felt you should be answered as best I could because I thought you were trying to say something that was important to you here. What Local Rebel was saying is important to me. I feel that it affects the nature of our democracy; no matter who is elected or in power, we need to have dependable civil liberties. We must guard them against the Government's attempts to take them away for this or that emergency reason. Emergencies are in endless supply. Civil Liberties are not. It was a mistake to allow warrantless wiretapping in the first place. It was a mistake to continue it. Whatever other inroads were made into our civil liberties need to be known so they may be corrected and so that the powers of the government are clear for all to see, and so the people may know what is being done in their name. There are things that simply are not all right with me. I want to know if the government is doing them. I want to know who authorized them, and why they felt their judgment was more important than that of the constitution on these matters. I wanted to know these things about Democratic Presidents, such as Lyndon Johnson, and the use of the CIA and the US army for domestic intelligence gathering, and I wanted to know them about Republican Presidents. It is the loss of civil rights that concerns me, not the party in power. Sincerely, Bob kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It was a mistake to allow warrantless wiretapping in the first place. Well, Bob, I - and around 70% of the public polled - disagree with you. Some of us feel that it was a smart thing to do. One fact that cannot be disputed is that we were not attacked again after such things were implemented. Does the wiretapping get the credit for that? Beats me. That's a question that can't be answered, since it didn't happen. I would much rather have any inconvenience incurred by it than another 9/11. It damaged our civil liberties? That would not be a first, considering the Japanese interrment camps and the McCarthy trials and too many other instances that could be listed. Do you feel your own personal liberties were damaged? In what way? I believe that, had another 9/11 occurred and facts came out that suspected terrorists had been communicating with their leaders in the Middle East, unimpeded, to plan and carry out the attack, then THAT would have been the sin and the American people would have had the right to scream, "What are you people in Washington DOING???" You and I just have a different way of looking at things, Bob. You want to know everything the government is doing and I simply count on them to allow me safety and chase the pursuit of happiness previous generations have enjoyed. When I order a hamburger, I don't want to view a film of cows being fed and then slaughtered, what takes place in the processing plants, how the carcasses are disposed of...I simply want to enjoy the hamburger. When I want a life where I can live in relative safety, where I can work as hard as I want to succeed as much as I want to, where I want the ability to live with a maximum of freedom, I want a government who provides that. I don't need an itemized account of what they do to achieve that goal...I just want them to do it. If you are one to say, "Well, we had another terrorist attack where thousands died again but at least no one was wiretapped illegally and no rights were violated", then be my guest. I would not be one to say that. I don't think any president, Republican or Democrat, goes to the Oval Office to see how many laws they can break. They are in charge of protecting the country and it's citizens. As long as they do that, they are jake in my book. ...and I still say that, had Bush been a Democrat, many of the people outraged by such actions, would not be saying a thing. Only you know if you fall into that category or not. Getting back to the thread's intent, it's still a detour to the past to avoid thinking about the present. When all else fails, have a Bush blast, even when you don't realize that the people aren't buying it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What loss? Which rights? Don’t get me wrong Bob, I don’t mind taking a swipe at anything that I see as detrimental to civil rights but I’m a little hesitant to start swinging haymakers simply because I hear someone ringing a bell. The Bush administration authorized secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public It's unclear how much valuable intelligence was yielded by the surveillance program which have yet to become public an unnamed White House official Someone may have done something that may or may not have been legal and may or may not have been morally justified even if it was illegal. I need more, or at least some, information before I form an opinion. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think our national policy as regards foreign threats should be realistic as opposed to idealistic. It should accept that for some our existence however much we try to apologize and make amends for it is enough justification, by whatever means, for our deaths. I remember very clearly the difference in sense between the community of Eastern Europeans, (who were survivors of another enmity), I grew up in and the born Americans around them. We are a nation being at warred with by men whose faith is so strong they have demonstrated over and over again, (though not again, by virtue of known and unknown efforts made, here), their willingness to kill themselves to kill unarmed men women, and children. Once such men step on a plane, a bus, or train or into a mall it is too late. Like it or not, as one is made aware at airports from O’Hare to JFK it is the world we now live in. That is not either fear or honor. I certainly do not believe applicable national policies should be predicated on our past, present, or future sin or guilt. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hmm.. Maybe it’s just the way you worded this, or the implied hidden horrors in your hamburger example but this comes over as a dangerous amount of leeway you’re allowing Mike. I think I know what you’re getting at though – that you have to trust that your government is always acting, or trying to act, in your long-term best interest. To a large extent I think you’re right, we can’t be privy to all the information our leaders base their decisions on, we are forced, especially in some extreme situations, to fall back on that underlying trust. I get the trust bit – anybody taking on the highest office deserves a fair amount of trust that they’re doing the right thing. What I don’t get, what doesn’t quite gel, is your obvious lack of trust when it comes to the actions of your current leader. It seems to contradict your argument. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL @ Mike. I'm sure President Obama appreciates your blind trust, too. It doesn't matter in the least whether illegal surveillance is effective. Not until you can show that legal surveillance would have been less effective. Put another way, no one in their right mind is arguing that we shouldn't keep a close eye on the bad guys. It's just sort of nice when the checks and balances built into our Constitution aren't ignored for the sake of expediency. Illegal surveillance isn't any more effective than legal surveillance. It's just a little bit easier. And a lot more dangerous. quote: Sure it is, John. It's not greatly different than leaving a man behind because it would be too dangerous to go get him. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I understand your question, grinch, and actually I thought of that while constructing the other reply. My lack of trust in Obama is that his actions are geared to a "distribution of wealth" plan, which I believe is his goal. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Take from those who produce and give to those who don't. It's not that I think he wants to destroy the country. He simply has no idea what he's doing based on lack of experience either in politics, business or leadership and he is aided by a Democratic congress drunk on their newly-acquired power. He does not stop to think what something like the cap and trade or national health care will do to the country. He simply wants to get it done. He pushed through a multi-trillion dollar stimulus package and hasn't even used 90% of it for anything. I don't think he's a bad person. He simply acts without thinking anything through. He was elected because (1) he didn't have anyone worthy to run against, (2) he was the receipient of anti-Bush sentiment and (3) he got the poor and minority votes with promises he has no way of keeping. We are going down a road paved with good intentions which could actually lead to hell. I hope not. Besides, I don't have to trust him. I didn't vote for him. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Checks and balances, Ron? They are a thing of the past, like the Walkman. ...and I think the jury is still out on the legal/illegal aspect of the surveillance actions. People get my trust until I feel they don't deserve it. What Obama is doing does not warrant my trust and I have to put my trust, or at least hope, in those around him who will try to keep the damage to a minimum. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That would explain it. It might also explains why LR and Bob didn’t and don’t trust Bush. Personally I think the fact that you voted for someone is a bad criterion to judge the suitability of their subsequent actions and the benefit of your trust. Did you vote for Nixon, Mike? Did you trust him? When did he lose your trust?  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Aside from rejecting the grounds of your argument Mike, even if your assertions were true this would be an extremely unproductive way to change the subject: quote: quote: OK Craig -- here's the paperback: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17267628/Unclassified-Report-on-the-Presidents-Surveillance-Program The possible laws/rights that have been violated -- let's start with the 5th amendment -- and the President's responsibility to keep the Congress informed. Then there is that matter of 'innocent until proven guilty' -- which is what you want to (correctly) apply to the accused in this matter -- but as we learn more of Darth Vader's death squad -- we see that the blatant disregard for the Constitution was SOP for the former administration: quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It's the world we've always lived in John. Your heightened awareness of the dangers of the world are no different from the world the framers of the Constitution experienced. quote: How about predicating them on the Constitution John? quote: Just take it right back to the source information Ron: quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Me changing the subject? Hardly. I'm explaining why the subject is all of a sudden in the headlines. Hey, at least it's a better try than bombing an aspirin factory. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Personally I think the fact that you voted for someone is a bad criterion to judge the suitability of their subsequent actions and the benefit of your trust. True enough, grinch, but I didn't vote for Obama because I knew what his subsequent actions would be. Anyone bothering to listen to him would have known and he hasn't disappointed. Bush? I can't say I voted for him because I felt he would be an excellent president I could trust but I knew that Gore would be one I couldn't. Bush got my trust for the security of the country based of his reactions after 9/11. I felt he would do whatever necessary to prevent another attack and maintain the safety of the country and take the fight to the terrorists...and he did. Nixon? I wasn't living in the country and didn't even vote. I was in a remote area in South America and didn't even follow what little news we got of American politics. There were no American newspapers, magazines or tv programs. Someone even had to explain Watergate to me when I got back. Kennedy I would have voted for if I had been old enough. He impressed me with the way he handled the Cuban missile crisis and the steel unions. I felt he was a man I could trust. So what happened? He escalated Viet Nam and sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths for little reason but, since no one really talks about that, I guess it's a non-issue, right? You may think I am some wild political person or a right wing nutjob or whatever you like but you can believe me when I say that politics was never part of my "things to care about" when I became of age. I judge people on a personal level. It just so happens that I considered Clinton, Gore and Kerry to be nothing more than men out for their own personal gain with the welfare of the country coming in a distant second...and they all happened to be Democrats. That's about it.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: You bury me with off the subject questions. The subject is what were the things that happened in addition to the wire taps that we know about following the 2001 imposition of the restriction of civil liberties. You are eating up that space. I will try to answer you in the Red Herring thread. Time I spend talking about those questions takes time away from me researching my subject of interest here. This is one of the ways that Red Herrings prove useful in a debate. As I believe you know. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Your Fruedian slip may be showing Mike, You ARE trying to change the subject -- but that's not what I said. Read it again. What I said was that IF your assertion (that Obama is trying to change the subject) were true -- this would be an extremely unproductive way to do it (since it can engulf the entire domestic agenda). |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Democrats have trumped up a charge that the CIA, on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, failed to notify Congress that it was contemplating — not implementing, but essentially brainstorming about — plans to kill or capture top al-Qaeda figures. This is their most ludicrous gambit in a long time — and that’s saying something. Given their eight years of complaints about President Bush’s failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and given President Clinton’s indignant insistence (against the weight of the evidence) that he absolutely wanted the CIA to kill bin Laden, one is moved to ask: What did Democrats think the CIA was doing for the last eight years? And if Democrats did not believe the CIA was considering plans to kill or capture bin Laden, why weren’t they screaming from the rafters about such a lapse? . . . Fourth, this bizarre complaint comes in the form of grousing about a failure to notify Congress, voiced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among others. But consider that back in February, Senator Feinstein publicly revealed that Pakistan’s government was allowing the United States to use Pakistani territory as a base for Predator drones being used for controversial targeted assassinations. Unlike Leahy’s aforementioned malfeasance, Feinstein’s unfortunate revelation was doubtlessly inadvertent. But it underscores the danger of informing Congress about intelligence activities. The last point is a critical one, showing starkly the difference between Democrats and Republicans on national security. President Obama is clearly conducting a war in Pakistan, a country with which we are formally at peace. The legitimate existence of wartime conditions is crucial: If we are not at war, there is no basis in international law for killing Pakistanis (or non-Pakistanis) in Pakistan. But the Right is not accusing the president of conducting an illegal war, of failing to seek congressional authorization, or of committing war crimes. Nor did Republicans seek to exploit Feinstein’s gaffe — while there might have been political sport in it, doing so would have made it more difficult for Pakistan to cooperate with the Obama administration in an effort that advances American security interests. That is, while Democrats politicize “torture,” “domestic spying,” the Patriot Act, and now the CIA’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda, Republicans are generally supporting Obama’s Pakistan policy for the greater good of protecting our national security. Eventually, people do figure out who the grown-ups are.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYxMzEyMmFmYzZkOWY1Y2NiNWU3YWM3NTNkNjEwMjk=&w=MQ== . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways and means, reb. Actually I gave Obama a pass on this one, as I mentioned in reply #9. Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to having a probe into alleged Bush-era abuses and resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards." It seems to he Holder and the other Dems carrying the torch on this one. Of course, it COULD be Obama behind it, telling the others to push it while he pretends to protest but I agree with you that it would not be the greatest tactic at this time/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, quote: I am glad to see you responding in detail. While not agreeing with your opinion, I am pleased to see this more detailed version of it and having this chance to understand your thinking with a bit more depth. “[T}orture,” “domestic spying,” should both be publicized as widely as possible. The reason that the publicity has been politicized is that one party actually had the bad judgment to go against this government's long term policy against torture and to even try to shift its definition. This may be the reason that your attempt to use the word has failed. The stuff we are doing was torture in WWII and in Korea when it was done to us, especially waterboarding, and I believe Japanese were tried for it in Manchuria and in other places. We publicized it widely when it was done to us. We not only sought to suppress the fact that we used it, we first lied outright when it came the saying we were responsible for using it. These are not the actions of somebody with nothing to hide. The Bush administration knew it was wrong, that it was against international law, against military policy, against tradition, and, I believe, against US law. Check on that, I may be wrong. The military was solidly against it for good reason. The folks they targeted against in Iraq for several years may have been, some of them, criminals, though it appears that many of them were people caught up in large sweeps and included a large cross section of the population, but one thing they weren't was Al Quaeda. That particular terrorist franchise didn't come to Iraq till the US had been there several years. The very fact that there is anybody who is in favor of torture as U.S. government policy completely puzzles me. One of the clauses in the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us against Cruel and unusual Punishment. We used to point at other countries and say look have savage a place this country is. They're so crazy, they take political prisoners and they torture them. Now we send those crazy folks business as subcontractors, as though that absolved us from anything. Had the torture taken place under a Democratic watch, I'd call attention to that as well. My wife belongs to Amnesty, and she's writing letters all the time for their children's network about kids or mothers and kids in other countries. I occasionally will write a letter myself. To have anybody help with such an abomination in our government is unbearable for me. The reason that the issue is politicized is that there were Republicans and some Democrats too, I believe, though I don't know who weren't willing to vote to stop it. Which brings me to the PATRIOT Act. Even if a majority of both houses of the congress had voted for an immediate stop to torture, it's unclear whether or not the administration would have obeyed. I remember the signing statements in which the President, quite ominously I thought, detailed those portions of the law that he was going to follow. Having stretch the limits of Presidential power that far without consequences, there is very little that congress can do now should a president again to wield such powers. The case has been made, hasn't it. As has the case for the President for not allowing members of his administration to testify before the the houses of congress. Where were all the Republicans when these precedents were being set and while the constitutional balance of powers was being dismantled? Where were these strict constructionists who should have been screaming? They were screaming! They were also whistling and applauding because it was a Republican doing it. There was absolutely no thought for what might happen should there be a shift in power, just as today there appears to be no thought about that change in power and the fact that those laws are still there. They can still be pushed further, Huan Yi. We need a bi-partisan alliance to get those laws out of there. We need to have a country in which the President cannot declare somebody an enemy alien by himself. Nobody should be able to draw up that kind of enemies list, Democrat or Republican. As for domestic spying, I don't want Big Brother listening in. It's creepy. You have no idea what will cause them to do so. Ownership of Firearms? Reading some material that they're nervous about anybody buying or reading? Doing too much gardening, and using too much of specific garden chemicals. Has your cold gone on too long and are you buying too much of specific kinds of cold medication. Do you hang around in bars where a lot of guys who like guns hang out? Almost anybody can have some sort of profile that could trigger an investigation. That's why warrants are supposed to show probable cause. It's supposed to protect the citizenry from exactly this sort of fishing expedition. Domestic spying threatens to put this constitutional protection out the window. Not being notified that the warrant has been served in some cases seems like a date rape drug. You may not know you've been had, but you've still been had. The CIA's efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda are appreciated. They are however, circumscribed by law. The President may have issued a finding against several of these guys, in which case they may well be appropriate targets (I believe) but as I understand it that finding has to be run by the Senate oversight committee, or selected members of it. And I do not recall that the vice-president is granted any such powers at all. Has the Oversight Committee been notified? And did the President write up the finding himself, taking responsibility. The congress felt that such findings required that level of supervision. Less would not do. This may be the successful government program that has been such a help to us in Iraq that the Administration was talking about in Bob Woodward's last book. He said that he had been sworn to secrecy, that he knew what it was, and that the documentation had been sealed for years, a sort of updated Phoenix Program. Obama's Pakistan Policy is one that I know little about. You act as if the Republicans are doing him a favor by supporting this war. If they didn't like it, they vote against it. They vote en bloc against lots of other programs without a flinch. They don't want to run the risk of being seen to be weak on defense. As a matter of principle, I tend to be a war skeptic. That's all I have time for at this point. I'd be interested in your comments. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ve already read it LR. It’s more like a book review than a paperback, written to give the gist of the plot without enough information to ruin the story. I’m still not sure what I should be mad about – can you spell it out. Is it that Bush might have done something wrong for the right reasons? quote: I’d rather start by looking at whether the actions undertaken were necessary and reasonable under the circumstances. Then we might discuss whether the law needs to be changed to fit changing circumstances instead of constantly amending what could be the best course of action to work within an outdated law. That’s what amendments are for. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bravo, Mr. Grinch...I agree completely. The possible laws/rights that have been violated How is it we have judges, juries, and executioners here over laws and rights that were "possibly" violated? That's like saying, "Buy Fixodent...it will possibly hold your teeth in place." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: As I understand it, that's the nature of the Justice system. You may be used to thinking of it differently, I don't know. But in our Justice system I'm told that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and people are brought up on charges that must be proved. That means that the laws and rights "may have been violated" in the phrase that you use with such a surprising tone of disrespect. Often prosecutors will refuse to bring a case because they feel the case is too weak to be tried, and it never gets to trial, or they feel that other circumstances make it important to either push forward or quash the charges. These can involve public or governmental pressures, as the pursuit of environmental cases was often delayed or quashed in the Bush era, and as the impeachment hearings were pushed forward in the Clinton era. Or, if you will, the Whitewater investigation is felt by the Republicans to have been quashed, and Bush to have been bashed throughout his administration. Happens apparently to everybody. This is the nature of the judicial system, Mike. Most of the time the executioner doesn't come into the picture, and I think that your use of the term was probably to fill out the idiom rather than an actual expectation that there will be Republicans lined up and shot. I, for one, am not in the mood for a localized civil uprisings, which I believe such a course of action might well provoke. I also believe that many Republicans have an authentically useful point of view that the country needs to hear. I tend not to agree with it, or large parts of it, but that doesn't relieve me of my obligation to understand it and the people who hold it in the most sympathetic light I can muster. I also feel that some of the folks in this last administration belong in jail, or should, at the very least, have the country witness the details of what they've done, and to have a jury make a decision on whatever appropriate charges might be. If that means they are judged "Not guilty," that's fine with me too. Anyway, I believe that answers your perhaps rhetorical question: Because that's the way the Law works. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Are we in a war or not? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: This is the law. The AG is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of Federal crimes. Can an independent judiciary NOT mount an investigation even if the President doesn't want him to? If the President put political pressure on the AG to investigate or not investigate is that not also a criminal act? What if the President puts political pressure on the AG to authorize a surveillance warrant? quote: We talk about war a lot. Are we in a war? If so -- a war to do what? Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? Can we violate the Constitution to save it? quote: Being in the battlefield and ordering a strike on an enemy, in a time of war, is not sneaking up on someone in a friendly country and putting a bullet in their brain. quote: So you want the Vice-President to be the judge, jury, and executioner -- running his own little hit-squad Mike? How about if Panetta just kept Cheney's death squad operational and turned the keys over to Joe Biden? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: So then, the Conservatives, who hate government, love war and military. And Liberals, who love government, hate war and military. Is that what you're trying to say John? Republicans hate democracy and Democrats love democracy? Or are you saying that the Republicans never saw a war they didn't love? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: um... about those grown-ups. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
