Legal Wire Tapping.......the Truth........

[JustRalph]

Read the entire article at this link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

President had legal authority to OK taps


By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005


President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

[lsbets]

To some of us, that comes as no surprise.

[Tom]

Frankly, I don't care if it is legal or not, it is the right thing to do. If it stops terror attacks, you just do it.

I am sure Hcap would argue that it is far better to allow thousands of innocent people to die than to offend a terrorist, but he is wrong. I am sure the other three "horsemen" wouldhave similar opinions, but we may hear them - after all it is Christmas and they are probably out tipping over mangers. :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

Anyone want to bet that this thread gets "overlooked" by at least one of the four horsemen?

[DJofSD]

I was able to listen to part of Rush's program today. He mentioned something about a piece by Posner that makes all of this very clear. Any one know the specifics or have a URI?

[rastajenk]

Here you go:

Posner's WaPo piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053.html)

Via the good guys at PowerLine (http://www.powerlineblog.com/)

[hcap]

From "horsemen" to "bushmen"

1- John Schmidt
2- Pozner

2 legal guys with an opinion. Granted

How'bout these guys?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, expects officials from NSA and the Justice Department to explain the warrantless spying.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

[JustRalph]

From "horsemen" to "bushmen"

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

excellent points, but invalid. They were not required by law to go thru the court. End of story. Now, has anybody ever considered the idea that maybe the court was not trustworthy? That leaks are happening at every level of government? The CIA has proven itself to be full of holes over the last few years. The term "need to know" comes to mind. And legally these guys didn't "need to know"

[hcap]

Invalid to who (whom)?
They were not required by law to go thru the court. End of story.
The story is not over. This is the essence of the debate that is ONGOING. The fact that the FISA court judges want explanations from the bushites shows that clearly.

Now..
Before all yousss bushmen start on "clinton did it tooo, let me pre-emptively pre-empt.

from
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/york-clinging/

Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act].

The National Review’s Byron York responded:

The Center’s position appears contradicted not only by Gorelick’s testimony but by a statement she made to Legal Times in November 1994, several months after her testimony, in which she said, “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority.”

Actually, our argument is perfectly consistent with Gorelick’s statements. Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote, were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the President’s authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasn’t arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA.

In 1995, with President Clinton’s signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches. That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended

[ljb]

The more afraid people are the more they accept. I can understand your fears folks. There may be a PETA member living in your neighborhood or worse yet a group of Quakers. :lol:

[JustRalph]

The more afraid people are the more they accept. I can understand your fears folks. There may be a PETA member living in your neighborhood or worse yet a group of Quakers. :lol:

or maybe a damn terrorist........or a terrorist sympathizer. They are called Liberals!

[ljb]

Relax Ralph,
We both know there are some here that are watching you. Yellow dots or not. :D

[Suff]

Men of equal intelligence and patriotism have differing views on domestic covert action on US citizens. And more importantly, the process through which it was approved.


Being free to make up my own mind, I use a variety of sources to get my information and a COMPILATION of the Bush adminstrations actions. I then make up my mind regardless of political affilation.

The overall tone of Govt Authority and actions have me wondering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?hp&ex=1135314000&en=10dca8926beae1ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[46zilzal]

or maybe a damn terrorist........or a terrorist sympathizer. They are called Liberals!
and I thought that was the Hatfield and the McCoy's mantra; "Yur either with me or aggin" me"

[Secretariat]

Anyone want to bet that this thread gets "overlooked" by at least one of the four horsemen?

Hey, c'mon give me a break. i been Christmas shopping.

This quote by Give Em Hell Harry Truman pretty much sums it up for me talking about how we won't use the FBI to spy on Americans:

"...we are working quietly but effectively, without headlines or hysteria, against Communist subversion in this country wherever it appears, and we are doing this within the framework of the democratic liberties we cherish.

That is the way this administration is fighting communism. That is the way it is going to continue to fight communism. Now I am going to tell you how we are not going to fight communism. We are not going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are not going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat." - April 24, 1950.

Well said Harry.

[Tom]

Widesrpead wire tapping on citizens is one thing, this is another thing.

If it stops one terror attack, it is worth it.
I am not fearful of losing my freedoms over this.
None of this can be used in court - and it doesn't need to be. It is information ath you some here whinned about because we did no thave it before 9-11.

Anyone talking about terror with terrorist countries have no rights.

[DJofSD]

We're all in big, big trouble. We're suppose to fight terrorist the same way we fought the cold war? We're all in very big trouble if that's true. (Talk about being oh so 20th century.)

[ljb]

Hey, c'mon give me a break. i been Christmas shopping.

This quote by Give Em Hell Harry Truman pretty much sums it up for me talking about how we won't use the FBI to spy on Americans:

"...we are working quietly but effectively, without headlines or hysteria, against Communist subversion in this country wherever it appears, and we are doing this within the framework of the democratic liberties we cherish.

That is the way this administration is fighting communism. That is the way it is going to continue to fight communism. Now I am going to tell you how we are not going to fight communism. We are not going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are not going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat." - April 24, 1950.

Well said Harry.

Where is Harry ? We sure could use him now. The right-wing totalitarians are in control. Pray for us.

[JustRalph]

Once again Sec comes up with a fallacious arguement to try and make his point. quoting Truman just doesn't apply. This is not 1945. Truman was speaking of using the FBI within our country to spy on U.S. Citizens.

The program Bush authorized tasked the NSA with listening in on "international calls and communications made by those who have ties to terrorist groups"

The Dem/Libs want to make it sound like the NSA is listening in on every call in the country. Read the info above again. "Those with ties to terrorism" were eavesdropped on.

Harry Truman never could have conceived of Cell Phones, Sat. Phones, the Internet phones and a hundred other technologies that are available now. When you examine the totality of the situation today, there is no way in hell any past President wouldn't use the same tactics.

One Question: Where was all this outtrage when that couple was taping Newt Gingerichs cell phone a few years back? They turned the tapes of the conversations over to Dem operatives who used them against Newt. If you aren't familiar with that.............I found some info about it here........

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/gingrichtripp.html

Duplicity once again!!!!!

[Lefty]

JR, quite familiar with the Newt wiretapping incident. The dems hailed the couple as heros. H_Y_P_O_C_R_I_T_E_S

[Tom]

:D

So Sec, when you whinned about getting good intelligence before, just how did you expect W to do that? Try to put a bunch of white guys undercover in some mosques????? Send Sydney Bristo in to steal documents?

[DJofSD]

Tom, you're close. I think what Sec wants is to infiltrate their government and to microfilm their plans for world domination.

[ljb]

Tom, you're close. I think what Sec wants is to infiltrate their government and to microfilm their plans for world domination.
Which government is it you are talking about dj? Are you referring to the neocons plans for world domination or some other government ?

[Lefty]

lbj, know tou're trying real hard to be funny but remember what i've often told you...that there must be a kernel of truth to be funny.
So, who wants us to sign all the treaties that would not benefit us? Dems.
Who is so afraid the world including the terrorists won't like us? Dems.
Who wants to keep everybody beholden to them with all the crazy welfare prgms? Dems.
So guess you're not very funny, but you never were.

[DJofSD]

I think the Ramirez cartoon in today's LA Times' says it all. It should be available for viewing via the non-subscription editorial page in about a couple of days.

Look for 12/24/05 cartoon here. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-include-ramirez,0,364695.ssipage)

[Tom]

lbj, know tou're trying real hard to be funny but remember what i've often told you...that there must be a kernel of truth to be funny.
So, who wants us to sign all the treaties that would not benefit us? Dems.
Who is so afraid the world including the terrorists won't like us? Dems.
Who wants to keep everybody beholden to them with all the crazy welfare prgms? Dems.
So guess you're not very funny, but you never were.

It is as if the dems are guilty for being free and wealthy. Gee, we gave the world a huge head start, sailed half way wround the world to an unsettled land and built from scratch. So we should feel guilty for being industrious? Funny, mexico shared virtually the same new world we live and look what little they did with thier opportunity - thier biggest natural resource is the billions they steal from us. How is it we became the most powerful nation in the world and mexico became on of the most pathetic on virtually the same land?

Merry Christmas, Lefty!

[Light]

“I would say 30,000, more or less, have died…” George Bush replied when asked about the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the American invasion of Iraq.

Osama and Bush arrive at the pearly gates together,Osama is supposed to get roasted and Bush get's to be exalted?Then Osama says I only killed 3,000 at the WTC and he killed 30,000 in Iraq. Bouncer say's "hmm,there's only room for 1 of you to get in. Let's see. Since Mr. Bush seems to have a justification,let's use his method and take a democratic vote."Bush says,"Democracy!No,no,no. I meant Theocracy"

[ljb]

It is as if the dems are guilty for being free and wealthy. Gee, we gave the world a huge head start, sailed half way wround the world to an unsettled land and built from scratch. So we should feel guilty for being industrious? Funny, mexico shared virtually the same new world we live and look what little they did with thier opportunity - thier biggest natural resource is the billions they steal from us. How is it we became the most powerful nation in the world and mexico became on of the most pathetic on virtually the same land?

Merry Christmas, Lefty!
Uh Tom or Lefty, you may want to check your history books. This land was inhabited by native Americans when "we" came. But that is another epic story.

[46zilzal]

NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

[JustRalph]

NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

good, I whole heartily endorse this activity..............it is called intelligence gathering..........you have nothing to fear if you are doing nothing wrong

[ljb]

good, I whole heartily endorse this activity..............it is called intelligence gathering..........you have nothing to fear if you are doing nothing wrong
Tell that to the quakers in Fl. You know, the ones on the FBI's threat list.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are Quakers inherently free from doing wrong?

[lsbets]

Light -

Curious as to your answer to this. Do you think FDR and Truman are in hell?

[Lefty]

Merry Christmas Tom and JR and lsbets and even to the Christmas Nuts, 46, light and lbj.
Or have I offended these libs by saying the Chritmas word? Hmmm...

[Lefty]

lbj says:Uh Tom or Lefty, you may want to check your history books. This land was inhabited by native Americans when "we" came. But that is another epic story
_______________________________
Yeah, now they don't hafta live in teepees, and follow the buffalo herds. We have put them in the casino bus.

[Tom]

JR, they tapped the phones at moveon.org and found no intelligence.:lol:

[Light]

Light -

Curious as to your answer to this. Do you think FDR and Truman are in hell?


LS

I don't think people go to hell in the traditional sense as Christians believe in. God's intelligence cannot be that limited.

[lsbets]

Well in you posts you seem to hint (actually you don't hint at it, you practically scream it) that Bush is destined to go to a place that is somewhat similar to hell. Given how often you have made that point lately, I think it reasonable to conclude that you believe in something in the afterlife for bad people. For the sake of discussion, lets just refer to this as hell since that's what you've hinted at anyway. I have no problem accepting that whatever you view as hell is not what most folks view as hell, so with that out of the way, are you willing to answer a slightly rephrased version of the original question:

Do you think FDR and Truman are in the place that equates to hell in your mind but is not the vision of hell that most folks have?

Without specific comment on your last sentance about the Christian view of hell portraying God as having limited intelligence, I'll also add that to make such a statement on Christmas Eve is simply classless. If you want to argue religious philosophy that's fine, but to make a statement that can be taken by many as casting the largest religion in the Western world as being simplistic and uninitelligent on the evening of that religion's major holiday shows a total lack of respect and lack of class.

[ljb]

Are Quakers inherently free from doing wrong?
Not sure, but if they do anything wrong the FBI has an eye on them. So fear not the quakers.

[Light]

LS
RE: Classless
It is not me who is trying to put God in a box.

[Suff]

Harry Truman never could have conceived of Cell Phones, Sat. Phones, the Internet phones and a hundred other technologies that are available now. When you examine the totality of the situation today, there is no way in hell any past President wouldn't use the same tactics.



Duplicity once again!!!!!

I recall, about 6 months ago, when you were explaining your position as a strict constructionist of the constitution you said, and I quote (with some paraphrasing)

"I don't care if the founding fathers could'nt have concieved of the medical and technological advances in todays society, I want the Constitution read as it is written"




.

Bush keeps saying he does it to protect Americans. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB.
The Constitution protects me. It is his job to protect the Constitution.

[Lefty]

suff, the constitution did not protect us against 9-11. It's the Pres' job to keep this country safe from foreign invaders. Now that he's trying to do that you libs are against him. You don't make much sense.
Article 2 of the Constitution gives him the right. Both Carter and Clinton used wiretaps during peacetime. You would not extend the privilege to the Pres during this war?

[Suff]

Any man that gives up an ounce of Freedom for an ounce of protection, deserves niether!

Benjamin Franklin
1775

[46zilzal]

9/11 9/11 ONE excuse fits all 9/11/ 9/11 9/11

[Lefty]

suff, we all know the friggin quote but we aren't giving up any freedoms. You are only wiretapped if you're talking to the enemy, what's so friggin hard?

46zilly, yes,. buddy boy, 911 was a big thing and we need to protect ourselves agains another one, so go pound sand.

[JustRalph]

suff, I think I am a strict constructionist. I believe the constitution gives the president the right to do what he did.

[Suff]

suff, we all know the friggin quote but we aren't giving up any freedoms. You are only wiretapped if you're talking to the enemy, what's so friggin hard?

.

come on man. You know we have. The argument I am hearing is that we MUST limit constitutional freedom to fight the new enemy.

Simaltanousley I am hearing that the war on terror will take decades, if not generations.

So my fears are unfounded or overblown? I think not.

[Suff]

suff, I think I am a strict constructionist. I believe the constitution gives the president the right to do what he did.

To look at Article 2 as a "Living Document" that must take into account the modern reality of technology to reach your conclusions

That is fine.

I believe I can do the same with the Bill of Rights. Read them through the prism of modern times.

[Lefty]

suff, it may take forever. That's why we must give the Pres(any Pres)the latitude to deal with the terrorists. We are not talking about 2 US citizens on the phone(Newt comes to mind, don't remembr any lib objecting to him being wiretapped)We are talking about talking to terrorists based in another country. And the Constitution gives the Pres this latitude.

[Tom]

No, it comes down to this....conversations that have legitimate grounds for suspicin are being listened to. Under the law, we hear a guy in Iran say "What is the target", that is legal. To listen to the reply from someone in the USA is illegal.

I call THAT stupid.

No one is saying let's go listen in on every muslem making a cell phone call.
And this practice has already stopped a very real threat.

Having seen Ground Zero, can you say you would NOT listen to the other half of the phone call, knowing full well 9-11 PartII was being dicussed?

And 46.....get off your parrot kick - you are an observer and not qualified to comment on people trying to actually protect this country. You did the best thing you could do already - you left it. We thank you for that. (Sorry, Canada)

[46zilzal]

something to look forward to,,,I know many folks hate differences of opinion

[Tom]

Don't they have cell phones up in Canada? :D

[46zilzal]

cell phones are EASIER to tap...you and I could do that

[Lefty]

46, are you dense or playing dense? The phones that are tapped are
known terrorists and people here that are talking to them. Your little cartoon not funny cause no truth to it and without truth there is no humor.

[46zilzal]

Phone giants mum on spying

By Jon Van / Chicago Tribune

In the days following revelations that the Bush administration ordered the National Security Agency to spy on domestic telephone and Internet communications without a court order, one involved party has remained silent.

The nation's telephone giants--which control the data pipelines--have neither commented on nor denied their reported participation, nor have they reacted to the charge that they may have been complicit in violating privacy rights.

But historically the telecom companies have cooperated with the government on wholesale wiretapping, and the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs appear to be no exception.

Without commenting directly on a classified topic, industry officials--when asked--suggested that they would not stand in the way of a request for help.

[lsbets]

46 - your medical school used a pretty aggresive curve when grading, didn't they?

[46zilzal]

46 - your medical school used a pretty aggresive curve when grading, didn't they?
I don't understand the question or is that some attempt at humor?

[DJofSD]

Isbets - don't worry. It wasn't that obtuse.

As I recall, telephone companies that may or may not be providing access to information by the government are bound by law not to disclose/discuss the activity nor the arrangements.

[Lefty]

Not obtuse at all but suspect 46zilly is.

[toetoe]

Just a couple of picky points. The general history of co-operation/non-co-operation should have no bearing, 46. As to the legality of disclosure, point taken. However, some would say the 'tappers were also bound by law, and persisted anyway. See how tangled it can get? I'm confusing MYSELF.

[JustRalph]

46 - your medical school used a pretty aggresive curve when grading, didn't they?

three extra points per grade for being 6'3 :D

[lsbets]

three extra points per grade for being 6'3 :D

:lol: :lol: :lol: And two more for being openminded!

[Tom]

46, are you dense or playing dense? The phones that are tapped are
known terrorists and people here that are talking to them. Your little cartoon not funny cause no truth to it and without truth there is no humor.

I thought it was a bit funny, but if we follow the Truth in Advertising idea here, the quarter you drop in the phone would also have to carry a label - "Net Worth - $0.22!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[highnote]

Your little cartoon not funny cause no truth to it and without truth there is no humor.

That's not true, Lefty. I find lots of humor in your posts and I know they aren't all true! :D

Sorry. Just kidding. Couldn't resist.

Happy New Year!

[boxcar]

LS
RE: Classless
It is not me who is trying to put God in a box.

Is that right, sir? Since you don't like the "box"s that [evangelical] Christians have put God in, have you not, by removing him from that box, placed him in one of your own imaginitive making -- one in which "hell", perhaps, is a little bit more palatable to your own mind?

And one more thing: Justice has more to do with Righteousness than with "intelligence". Some of the most evil people who have ever lived possessed a high degree of the latter, but none of the former.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

he's off again,,,,need a soapbox??

[boxcar]

Any man that gives up an ounce of Freedom for an ounce of protection, deserves niether!

Benjamin Franklin
1775

Too bad, Suff, that ol' Benji wasn't able to look through the "prism" of these modern times before he penned those words of a bygone era, eh? Seems to me that we'd have to adjust our interpetation to make those words "living" (i.e. to have relevance in our day and age), don't you think?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

he's off again,,,,need a soapbox??

You mean...you didn't miss me "over here"? :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

Actually, we trade off a gret many freedoms in favor of order. Smoking marijuana, who says I can't if I want to? Prostetution, not ME, but others :kiss: .

The wiretapping is being done only on calls coming in from overseas, so Isay we make the distinction that incoming calls from suspected terrorists be allowed.

Now if he tries that on citizens inside the country, I say we go yank his ass out of the White House and give him a history lesson. but realistically, we have to profile to stop terrorists, and anyone offended by it should get over it. We aren't in the business of making anyone feel good - we are trying to run a country where the safety of the many outweighs the petty shit of the few.

(Think that'll be recorded in history as profound? ):confused:

[highnote]

Too bad, Suff, that ol' Benji wasn't able to look through the "prism" of these modern times before he penned those words of a bygone era, eh? Seems to me that we'd have to adjust our interpetation to make those words "living" (i.e. to have relevance in our day and age), don't you think?

Boxcar


Actually, Ben Franklin was looking through the prism of these modern times. He and the other founders made the constitution flexible because they knew there were bound to be unforeseen events in the future. They also knew that history tends to repeat itself and that there will always be powerful individuals or groups who will try to control others -- and that if given the chance those unscrupulous ones will not hesitate to grab more power -- legal or otherwise. In fact, the good thing (or bad thing, depending on where you're standing) about being powerful is that you get to write new rules and disregard the old ones. Who's going to stop you?

[boxcar]

And not only what Tom just mentioned, but what good are individual liberties to dead people!?

If congress ties the president's hands in the time of war and impedes the government's efforts to collect intelligence on our enemies, and, as a result, the enemy strikes again on our soil and causes thousands or even tens of thousands casualities this time around, would not any sitting president be subjected again to post-strike, 911-type, armchair quaterbacking-type criticisms from his political opponents on why he failed the American people?

But even more importantly, are Libs implying by their criticism now that it's better to risk being attacked again and for numerous American lives to be lost at the hands of terrorists than it is to temporarily and voluntarily suspend some of our liberties and remain alive?

Are liberal critics now implying that it would be better to have terrorists strip some Americans of their individual liberites forever by killing them than it would be for the government to selectively and judiciously limit indivdudal liberties temporarily for the sake of everyone's safety -- for the sake of national defense?

Are libs implying now that it's better to be Sorry than Safe?

Boxcar

[highnote]

But even more importantly, are Libs implying by their criticism now that it's better to risk being attacked again and for numerous American lives to be lost at the hands of terrorists than it is to temporarily and voluntarily suspend some of our liberties and remain alive?


How long is "temporary" is the question? I've heard that some people think the war on terrorism has no end. Does that mean individual liberties should be given up indefinately?

I'm not against wiretapping, domestic spying, etc. There just needs to be checks and balances and watchdogs to make sure there are no abuses to the wiretaps. Those doing the wiretapping need to be answerable to someone. And when abuses take place then the public needs to know and justice needs to be done.

But we all know this is not the way it works. When it comes to politics, war and spying, etc., the rules will be pushed to the limits and beyond. When caught in illegal acts, those caught will be lightly punished.

[Lefty]

swety, if you are not going to be talking to the Talibon, you can rest easy.

[boxcar]

How long is "temporary" is the question? I've heard that some people think the war on terrorism has no end. Does that mean individual liberties should be given up indefinately?

I'm not against wiretapping, domestic spying, etc. There just needs to be checks and balances and watchdogs to make sure there are no abuses to the wiretaps. Those doing the wiretapping need to be answerable to someone. And when abuses take place then the public needs to know and justice needs to be done.

But we all know this is not the way it works. When it comes to politics, war and spying, etc., the rules will be pushed to the limits and beyond. When caught in illegal acts, those caught will be lightly punished.

Sunset clauses can be put into any law, and then near the time of the legilsation's expiration date, the law can be reviewed in the context of the times in which we currently live.

As far as the rules being "pushed to the limit", this is a problem. Frankly, I don't trust congressional oversight because too many of our congress critters aren't trustworthy themselves. (Sad state of affairs for our country because our enemies are from within and without.)

However, having said this, I would have to think that any blatant misapplication of the law, abuse of government powers, etc. would have to be brought to light sooner or later -- just because of the checks and balances that inhere in our legal system.

Boxcar

[hcap]

RMH

http://slipco.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/d_feb_05_1974.jpg

[hcap]

I guess we got a sleeper cell in baltimore?
Damn Quakers should stick to oatmeal.

National Security Agency mounted massive spy op on Baltimore peace group, documents show

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Agency_spied_on_Baltimore_0110.h tml
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NSA_documents_show_massive_spy_operation_0110.html

"According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.

"The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned.

According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit, part of the Baltimore City Police Department.

The documents, which follow, came as a result of litigation in the August 2003 trial of Marilyn Carlisle and Cindy Farquhar. An NSA security official provided the defendants with a redacted Action Plan and a redacted copy of a Joint Terrorism Task Force email about the activities of the Pledge of Resistance activities.

[chickenhead]

There is a lot of reference to the Youngstown case in the Alito trial, where they are trying to get the limits of presidential powers. I thought others here also might want to read it for themselves.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZC2.html#343_US_579fn4/19ref

"3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject."

The issue appears to be since Congress specifically legislated how wire-taps were to be handled, a decision needs to be made whether they had the constitutional right to limit presidential powers on this point. If so, then the president broke the law.

[chickenhead]

I'm certainly not coming at this from a partisan place, this is something I am really only just beginning to learn about. But there is something that bothers me here, keyed on by Alito's answers to certain questions and other things I've been reading.

"No one is above the law, no one is under the law"

We have a bill of rights that explicitely guarentees certain things, but then on the other hand we have Presidential powers that seem to allow the executive to overrule these rights, essentially without oversight. The wire taps and military detainees go right to the heart of this.

I've been reading a lot about Lincoln recently, it is really amazing some of the stuff he did under his "inherent" presidential powers...suspending habeas corpus, imprisoning newspapermen and politians, he almost imprisoned the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that the Emancipation Proclamation was totally unconstitutional at the time.

Our system is very dangerous the way it has been set-up, particularly during time of war.

[toetoe]

I don't see why Cornell are using language such as "aggrandize the Presidency." I just don't get what the whole hubbub is about, probably because the legalese put me to sleep. Something about the executive branch overstepping its bounds in times of "war?"

[chickenhead]

yes, this is the case where it was decided that Truman did not have the right to seize the steel mills for the war effort.

As for the aggrandize comment, I have to think that Justice Jackson believed that maybe the inherent powers of the presidency had been up to that point overstated.

[JustRalph]

There is a lot of reference to the Youngstown case in the Alito trial,

Freudian slip showing?

Yep, they are trying to turn it into a trial. It is supposed to be a confirmation hearing.........not a trial! As usual it has been turned into a circus

[lsbets]

I would have to confirm this, but from watching it, it appeared to be true.

During Joe Biden's 30 minutes of questioning yesterday, Alito only spoke 72 words. Biden definatly loves to hear himself talk.

I'm watching on and off, and they are a farce. Everyone knows how they are going to vote long before they walk in. Some Democrats are hoping to trip him up in some way to generate a public outcry against him. If they had the opportunity, the hearings would degenerate into the Thomas hearings. The hearing is more about the Senators themselves and fundraising from the bases than anything else.

[Tom]

One thing stood out for me....Teddy K has a large head. :D
He needs a large head to hold his big mouth.

And Chuck Schummer is really not the brightest bulb on the democratic Christmas tree.

Who would have thunk it - Hillary is the smarter, more professional of the two NY senators!

The senate is a joke......only no one is laughing.

[toetoe]

LS,

Biden spoke at my sister's law school graduation. I woke up at one point in his peroration and, upon hearing, "I've been in the Congress for 15 years ...," I was roused and said (thank God, not too loudly), "You've been talkin' HERE for 15 years." True story. Doesn't have to be FUNNY TOO, does it?

[lsbets]

I don't dislike Joe. I think the guy would be a ton of fun to drink with. I think Clinton (Bill) would too. As long as Kennedy wasn't driving home it would be a hoot. But, Biden does seem to enjoy the sound of his own voice, and I don't think that bodes well for his presidential aspirations. He comes across as very full of himself, which almost all Senators probably are. Was it Bob Dole who said the biggest problem with the Senate is you have 100 cadidates campaigning for President?

[Suff]

As long as Kennedy wasn't driving home . ?

Or Laura Bush...:rolleyes:

[Suff]

.

National Security Agency mounted massive spy op on Baltimore peace group, documents show

.

quick question.

If you were the Prez, and the NY times was about to print a story that they were sitting on for a year. A story that contained potenial criminal conduct on your behalf.

When you considered and/or interviewed potential Supreme Court Judge's do you think you might---maybe---try--squeeze in----raise a trial balloon , on where they might come down on the Issue??????:D :lol:

Remember now....When Ashcroft was in the Hospital...The #2 man at Justice, James Comey, REFUSED to sign off on the program because he deemed it unconstitutional. So Bush KNEW! that even his own people were doubtful he was operating within legal framework.

So Bush knew, when the NY times TOLD him they had the goods a year ago that he would need a TROJAN HORSE for the Supreme court

[Lefty]

suff, Laura Bush? How many people did she kill while driving?

[Suff]

suff, Laura Bush? How many people did she kill while driving?

1.


An 18 year old young man. She ran a stop sign (supposedly) and killed him instantly.


Care to take a guess who this 18 year old boy was?


Her Boyfriend!!!

Thats right!! Google it baby! And you think you know the Bush's.:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Was she drunk, or was this just an unfortunate accident?

[Lefty]

And she was a teenager while Kennedy was already a grown man. Apples and oranges.

[Suff]

yes...On the face of it seems a terrible tradegy. I rarely bring it up in Political discussions because I accept it for what it probably was. An accident.


Edward Kennedy also had a terrible accident on a 12 foot wide bridge with no Guard rails. Quite likley alcohol was involved as well. His reaction and subsequent behavior that evening left a lot to be desired as well.

But going off a Bridge, in a car, and going under water, while also being intoxicated to some degree will cloud a persons judgement. I also give his terrible tradegy a bit of understanding and compassion.

[Lefty]

Yeah, I feel terrible for his tragedy. Especially the part where he let the poor girl drown while he was trying to cover his ass.

[Suff]

Yeah, I feel terrible for his tragedy. Especially the part where he let the poor girl drown while he was trying to cover his ass.

It takes what 5 minutes to drown? 15? Only he and God knows what he did immediattely upon surfacing himself. I have no clue. I'd like to think he dove a number of times and attempted to retrive her and upon being unsuccessfull he reacted poorly.

But no matter. I know one thing. You have No F'ing clue what went on that night.

But its a home for your hate and God knows you need that.

[GaryG]

Edward Kennedy also had a terrible accident on a 12 foot wide bridge with no Guard rails. Quite likley alcohol was involved as well. His reaction and subsequent behavior that evening left a lot to be desired as well.
Not THAT is what you call an understatement. It had the effect of sparing the nation from what would have been likely the most liberal president of all time.

[Suff]

Not THAT is what you call an understatement. It had the effect of sparing the nation from what would have been likely the most liberal president of all time.

Not really. The Understatment part. What details do you know about that night? What you hear from Politicians. He undoubtedly was drunk,(IMO) and acted improperly. Do you know what you got for Drunk Driving in 1960's? A $62.00 Fine. An accident involving a death? Probation. in 1960 when a cop caught you drunk driving, he took your keys, gave you a ride home and told you to pick up your keys at the station in the Morning.

Ted Kennedy beat no rap. If it happened to your father, or my father, not a person in the world would even know about it 45 years later. It's his shadow. If he waited for the cops and took the beef straight up, he would of fared better.


Regarding the Presidency.

Older Brother Joe woulda been President if he had'nt been Killed in the war as a Fighter Pilot. Jack became President and was Killed horrifically in front of his nation and wife. His Brother Bobby when running for the Presidency was also Killed. Ted Kennedy has a Long dedicated carreer as a public servant.

As a matter of fact........The Entire Family does. So show a little respect for a family that has given much of itself to this Country

[chickenhead]

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

I need to read the actual decision a few more times, but I just wanted to point out one thing because I was a little misled I think by the above comment in bold. It could be read to sound like the court explicitely said that the president unquestionably has that right, what it actually said was:

"We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion
as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents."



whole decision here:

http://www.justia.us/us/407/297/case.html

[GaryG]

So show a little respect for a family that has given much of itself to this Country
Don't forget Father Joe.....they all would have fared better if he hadn't been so close to Sam Giancana and The Outfit.....just my opinion, but it all started when Bobby was Atty Genl and went balls to the wall against the mob. Joe owed those guys plenty and this was not the type of payment they wanted...again JMO.

[Suff]

Don't forget Father Joe.....they all would have fared better if he hadn't been so close to Sam Giancana and The Outfit.....just my opinion, but it all started when Bobby was Atty Genl and went balls to the wall against the mob. Joe owed those guys plenty and this was not the type of payment they wanted...again JMO.

Dude.. It goes back to the way back machine before Big Daddy Joe. His Old man, who would be Teddys Grandfather, had a General Store in East Boston. This is way back in the day when the Irish were scum. The Protestants used to call The Police Blotter the Irish Comics. But anyway, They had coal, and the early Kennedys always had a bucket of coal for a poor irish family. Them days you heated your house with Coal. The Kennedys saved alot of Irish from Freezing to death and always had a Cup of soup and piece of bread for a hungry Emerald Irelander. They go way back as The Moses to the Irish. Of Course they were rogues and made money and played (broke) by thier own rules.

We had another Irish Family in Back in the day. A five time Mayor of Boston named James Michael Curley. A true rogue. He won his Fifth Term from Jail!

He took a Civil Service Exam for another Irishman who could'nt read nor write. They convicted him of Lying on a Goverment form and sent him out to Deer Island. A prison on an Island in Boston Harbor. True story. He won Election from a prison cell.

You know what his Campaign slogan was? He had 1000's of Irish walking around Boston with it on signs.

"He did it...........for a friend."

:ThmbUp:




Man did the Protestants hate him. But you can't beat the Green!

[GaryG]

Suff, thanks for the background. Do Jimmy Coonan and Mickey Feathersone from NY have any connection with those guys?

[46zilzal]

Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, in Article, Calls for Impeachment Proceedings Against Bush

By E&P Staff / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK E&P has learned that The Nation magazine will publish tonight an article by former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman calling for impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush. Holtzman was a highly visible member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard Nixon in 1974.

A copy of the article sent to E&P opens, "Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush -- not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so."

After recalling the Nixon proceedings, she comments: "At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong."

Summarizing her case against Bush, she writes, "Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush’s breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

[GaryG]

Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, in Article, Calls for Impeachment Proceedings Against Bush

By E&P Staff / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK E&P has learned that The Nation magazine will publish tonight an article by former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman calling for impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush. Holtzman was a highly visible member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard Nixon in 1974.

A copy of the article sent to E&P opens, "Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush -- not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so."

After recalling the Nixon proceedings, she comments: "At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong."

Summarizing her case against Bush, she writes, "Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush’s breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
The Nation????? How about the New Bleeping Republic! This is a total crock and not worthy of further comment.

[Suff]

Suff, thanks for the background. Do Jimmy Coonan and Mickey Feathersone from NY have any connection with those guys?

No. Curley rose and fell around roosevelts time. Early-mid 1900's. The westies ran Hells Kitchen in The 1970's and 80's. They were drug ravaged murderous whack Jobs. Urban Legend says they did most of the Mob hits for the Gambino Family in those days. Hired Killers. Featherstone Testified against Gotti.

Hells Kitchen is actually one of the nicest areas of Manhattan now. They don't call it HK anymore. Its called Clinton believe or not. Not for Bill. Its sort of been adopted by Chelsea. Another nice Manhattan Neighborhood,

[ljb]

I need to read the actual decision a few more times, but I just wanted to point out one thing because I was a little misled I think by the above comment in bold. It could be read to sound like the court explicitely said that the president unquestionably has that right, what it actually said was:

"We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion
as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents."



whole decision here:

http://www.justia.us/us/407/297/case.html

Justralph was putting the "faux infotainment" spin on it. :D

[Lefty]

suff says:But no matter. I know one thing. You have No F'ing clue what went on that night.

But its a home for your hate and God knows you need that
______________________________
Better than you.
I have no hate for Kennedy but I hate what he stands for. But you libs hate Bush and he has done nothing but good; but it just doesn't fit your socialist agenda.

[Suff]

suff says:But no matter. I know one thing. You have No F'ing clue what went on that night.

But its a home for your hate and God knows you need that
______________________________
Better than you.
I have no hate for Kennedy but I hate what he stands for. But you libs hate Bush and he has done nothing but good; but it just doesn't fit your socialist agenda.

Schuck my Dictophone you Parrot

[Lefty]

suff says: Schuck my Dictophone you Parrot:
_______________________________
suff, you done lost it again.

[Secretariat]

I haven't posted much in this thread, because there is a lot still coming in on this. One thing is the legality of it:

Here's what GW said:

"This is is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America - and I repeat limited. It is limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates..." - GW

But in lieu of below, one begins to wonder about the legality issue being cut and dry and if maybe GW is fibbing once again.

"On Sunday, the New York Times revealed there was dissent within the upper echelon of the Bush administration over the legality of the president’s order. According to the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, refused to sign on to the continuation of the secret program in 2004 amid concerns about its legality and oversight. At the time, Comey was serving in place of then Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized for a medical condition. Comey’s refusal prompted senior Presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit Ashcroft in his hospital room to grant the approval. The Times reports Ashcroft expressed reluctance to sign on to the program. It is unclear if he eventually relented. Both Ashcroft and Comey’s concerns appear to have led to a temporary suspension of parts of the program for several months."

"Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, “The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state."

"Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the NSA passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. This news come on the heels of several other reports that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups including Greenpeace, PETA - the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Catholic Worker, anti-war groups and even bicyclists in New York City."

Are the above orgnaizations affiliated with Al Queda?

[toetoe]

Suff,

I can give the Kennedys what you ask --- a LITTLE respect. That's all. Everybody, lay off Terrible Teddy. A gentleman always dives until the decent thing is done. Mary Jo's bra HAD to go back on.

[Secretariat]

Suff,

I can give the Kennedys what you ask --- a LITTLE respect. That's all. Everybody, lay off Terrible Teddy. A gentleman always dives until the decent thing is done. Mary Jo's bra HAD to go back on.

That's crass. As crass as bringing up that Laura Bush deliberately killed her ex boyfriend in a car wreck.

[Lefty]

sec says: peaceful groups including Greenpeace, PETA - the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Catholic Worker, anti-war groups and even bicyclists in New York City."
________________________--
Peta has blown up up labs or pd people who has blown them up. Hardly peaceful. And monitoring is not always the same as wiretapping, is it? Why don't you leftists forget your stupid politics and just once side with someone who genuinely wants to protect this country? But you just can't if it's a Repub can you?

[toetoe]

wHo2.com has a list of famous accidental killers. Arlene Francis killed TWICE. Now that's talent. Others are Matthew Broderick, Adlai Stevenson, John Huston and Orville Wright.

[Secretariat]

"The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

[cryptic1]

Suff, Papa Joes dad is a Newf, through and through. The Kennedy clan
came from Newf land where there is still alot of family members. A friend
of mine's late grandmother was Joe's sister and she was newf through and
throughand she never resided in the U.S. He created a little historical
fiction.
The son's of Joe might have been meritorious but he was a scumbag.
He had many large dealings with Hitler and his crowd and tried to keep
the U.S out of the war. As the U.S ambassador to Germany he played
down both the virulent anti-semitism and the totalitarian nature of that
regime. He publicly played down the danger of Nazism while benefitting
economically. It has been alleged that he help sponser some of the Bund
rallies that took place in the U.S. to gain support for the Nazi regime. His
son's successes have helped to paper over a less than exemplary life.

cryptic1

[DJofSD]

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president

Ya, sure. All of those computers and all of those satellites and all the stuff magically appeared in 2001. The NSA has been around a lot longer than that.

[lsbets]

Ya, sure. All of those computers and all of those satellites and all the stuff magically appeared in 2001. The NSA has been around a lot longer than that.

Look up a program called Enigma. Vast data mining - by the NSA of US citizens. What's funny is when the program came to light, the NY Times editorialized about how great and neccesary it was. Oh yeah, the program started in the 90s.

[PaceAdvantage]

Look up a program called Enigma. Vast data mining - by the NSA of US citizens. What's funny is when the program came to light, the NY Times editorialized about how great and neccesary it was. Oh yeah, the program started in the 90s.

Yup, I remember Enigma. That's why I wondered why in the hell this was all such a big deal. They've been doing this for eons.

Just like in another thread though (and some may not like this), PRECEDENCE rears its ugly head once again for me....

Too bad some have selective memories....that, plus they never want to venture back past the year 2000. For some reason, all history (with them) begins with the GWB administration....go figure!

[ljb]

Look up a program called Enigma. Vast data mining - by the NSA of US citizens. What's funny is when the program came to light, the NY Times editorialized about how great and neccesary it was. Oh yeah, the program started in the 90s.
Oh now I get it. They have been doing it for a long time so it is ok to continue. Just like the corruption going on among the Repubs in DC has precedence with the Dems of years past so it is ok. You guys gotta "get real".

[GaryG]

Oh now I get it. They have been doing it for a long time so it is ok to continue. Just like the corruption going on among the Repubs in DC has precedence with the Dems of years past so it is ok. You guys gotta "get real".Corruption and surveillance have been going on since there have been politicians. It is always the party that is out of office that gets indignant about it and we have some good examples of self righteous pussy lib indignance (is that a word?) on this board. Not to name names of course. Just relax, you get another chance in 2008. Just a case of blue state fever. :cool:

[lsbets]

Oh now I get it. They have been doing it for a long time so it is ok to continue. Just like the corruption going on among the Repubs in DC has precedence with the Dems of years past so it is ok. You guys gotta "get real".

Okay ljb -show me where I ever said corruption was okay because everyone does it? You can't. Once again you go on the same path you always do - your ideas can't and don't win on the merits, so you simply make shit up hoping that you might come up with a profound point. If you are so dense that you don't understand the point about Enigma, than trying to explain it to you would be a collasal waste of time.

[ljb]

Okay ljb -show me where I ever said corruption was okay because everyone does it? You can't. Once again you go on the same path you always do - your ideas can't and don't win on the merits, so you simply make shit up hoping that you might come up with a profound point. If you are so dense that you don't understand the point about Enigma, than trying to explain it to you would be a collasal waste of time.
As near as I can tell Enigma was/is a database tracking system tracking data about American citizens. Posting the fact that this has been in existance since the early ninetys has an inference that doing so is acceptable. Using inuendos and inferences is a Rush Limbaugh/Orielly method. Sorry if I offended you by pointing the inference out. I did not make up shit, I just posted an opinion which for some reason pulled your chain. I am not sure but I believe you are one of those that posted about Dems taking money from Abramoff again with an inference that "everybodys doing it so it can't be all bad". Can't you just say "yes Many of the repubs in office are corrupt and some of the dems too." Keeping in mind that Abramoff was/is a repub lobbyist?
See you tend to want to spin all the bad news about the current regime in dc by pointing out bad news about past regimes or other politicians. Just cream the current crooks and let the dead past bury it's dead.

[lsbets]

First Enigma - another poster stated that vast data mining started with Bush. I pointed out where that statement was false, and that many of those who are outraged by it now, were all for it when someone else was President. Hypocrisy, plain and simple, and that seems to be a hallmark of many of the posters from the left - and yes, you are one of them, although not the worst one.

Second, the corruption - I believe that virtually every poster from the right has said punish the hell out of whoever broke the law. You, and many others on the left, act as if the only corrupt politicians are Republicans, which is simply an idiotic way to think, and again it comes down to a matter of correcting false statements. To say they are all corrupt is not to condone it, its looking at the truth. Again, it goes back to a matter of hypocrisy, and what I see as many people who care more about the politicians they like than this country. The left's ideas haven't won on the merits in decades, so the new strategy is to desperately search for anything that might make Bush look bad, regardless of the consequesnces to this country. BTW - I rarely bring up past administrations, and I had the same opinion of many on the right who desperately pursued every conspiracy theory they came across regarding the Clintons - be it Vince Foster, or the Arkansas State Troopers, etc ...... I found it equally repulsive coming from the far right as I do coming from the far left.

[chickenhead]

I've been trying to do some reading up on this, is it Enigma or Echelon you are talking about?

[lsbets]

Echelon probably, I was going off memory.

[Secretariat]

My post related to the thread topic which was the Legality" of it. Apparently, there was and is disagreement among the Justice Department.

[Tom]

My post related to the thread topic which was the Legality" of it. Apparently, there was and is disagreement among the Justice Department.

The vote on Roe v Wade was not unanimous, so that statement applies equally to abortion. There is disagreement amoung justices as it's legallity.

The vote to allows blacks to vote was not unanimous, so it applies to that as well.

So you have stated a pretty obvious and true fact. Congatulations on your powers of perception.

[Secretariat]

The vote on Roe v Wade was not unanimous, so that statement applies equally to abortion. There is disagreement amoung justices as it's legallity.

The vote to allows blacks to vote was not unanimous, so it applies to that as well.

So you have stated a pretty obvious and true fact. Congatulations on your powers of perception.

Tom, your analogy to Roe v Wade and Civil Rights legislation has gone to the Supreme Court and been ruled on.

JR posted that GW posits his wiretapping of US citizens is legal according to the Justice Department. Had you read my previous post you'd see that the admisntration overruled a decision they didn't like made by the fellow who was then in charge of the Justice Department while Ashcroft recovered. It's a "selective legality" not made by "judges" (as your examples), but made by presidential appointees such as Ashcroft and later Gonzalez. Even so the deputy of Ashcroft disagreed with the legality decision. My point is not to say it is illegal or legal, but to challenge JR's post that it is Legal Wire Tapping, and challenging his version of "The Truth" as he outlined in the thread title.

Suggest you go back and read the article I posted rather than make reference to something that has no relevancy to the thread.

[Tom]

The point, Sec, is that even the supreme court doesn't agree on things. you poind your chest citing low level justice officals and other cannot agree, I pointed ouot that at the top level, people do not agree on things. One vote either way and major law is changed. you suggest Bush should not do this becase people do no agree. I pointed out that people never agree - legal or illegal is a conceptual thing, always there to be changed. So your high and mighty Bush bashing because not everyone agrees is more of your BS. Legal or illegal, it is effective. That is not conceptual - that is fact. And BTW, The guy who would not sign off in Ashcroft's absence - how is that not arbitrary as well?
I read your article - I just read them with an open mind, not with a Bush filter like you do.

[Secretariat]

The point, Sec, is that even the supreme court doesn't agree on things. you poind your chest citing low level justice officals and other cannot agree, I pointed ouot that at the top level, people do not agree on things. One vote either way and major law is changed. you suggest Bush should not do this becase people do no agree. I pointed out that people never agree - legal or illegal is a conceptual thing, always there to be changed. So your high and mighty Bush bashing because not everyone agrees is more of your BS. Legal or illegal, it is effective. That is not conceptual - that is fact. And BTW, The guy who would not sign off in Ashcroft's absence - how is that not arbitrary as well?
I read your article - I just read them with an open mind, not with a Bush filter like you do.

Low level justice official? Ashcroft left this guy in charge while he was in the hospital. He's the Deputy Director. I don't consider that low level.

I don't suggest Bush should not do that because people do not agree. I suggest that JR's assertion that it is "legal" - "the Truth" is in fact not what enfolded at all, but again GW bends the truth until someone gives him an answer he likes, much as his writing notes on bills that come from Congress saying that he will pretty much do what he thinks is right as President (i.e. the McCain torture bill). He is not a maker of laws, but someone who is to uphold them.

Is Republican Arlen Spector and Republican Senator Sam Brownback bush bashing when they say:

"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will hold hearings next month on the decision to allow the National Security Agency program without court approval, said he has told Bush administration officials that he believes they are on shaky legal ground

"I thought they were wrong," Specter said on ABC's "This Week

A number of members of Specter's committee, including GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, have expressed doubt about the administration's legal basis. The hearings, planned for early February, will feature Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

It isn't Bush bashing. If anything is going on here, it is Bush ass-kissng by JR and Lefty and the like who will follow him over a cliff if he says it's all right.

[Lefty]

sec, well I don't agree with Bush on everything but a Pres that blves in the same things i do for the most part, is worth my loyalty. I blve in tax cuts for everyone, and I blve in privatization of SS and I blve in doing what's necessary to keep us safe. A man worth following:GW Bush.

[Tom]

Sec, we support the wire tapping not becasue we blindly follow Bush, but because we think it the right thing to do. Your daily talking poinst emails never told you that it was ok to believe in concpets and not candidates?

This is not a political thing - it is approriate action in the war on terror.
You worried Bush is listening in on you? :lol:

[ljb]

First Enigma - another poster stated that vast data mining started with Bush. I pointed out where that statement was false, and that many of those who are outraged by it now, were all for it when someone else was President. Hypocrisy, plain and simple, and that seems to be a hallmark of many of the posters from the left - and yes, you are one of them, although not the worst one.

Second, the corruption - I believe that virtually every poster from the right has said punish the hell out of whoever broke the law. You, and many others on the left, act as if the only corrupt politicians are Republicans, which is simply an idiotic way to think, and again it comes down to a matter of correcting false statements. To say they are all corrupt is not to condone it, its looking at the truth. Again, it goes back to a matter of hypocrisy, and what I see as many people who care more about the politicians they like than this country. The left's ideas haven't won on the merits in decades, so the new strategy is to desperately search for anything that might make Bush look bad, regardless of the consequesnces to this country. BTW - I rarely bring up past administrations, and I had the same opinion of many on the right who desperately pursued every conspiracy theory they came across regarding the Clintons - be it Vince Foster, or the Arkansas State Troopers, etc ...... I found it equally repulsive coming from the far right as I do coming from the far left.

I have yet to see anyone from the right say "punish the hell out of whoever broke the law" I see more of "he ain't been found guilty yet just indicted" splitting hairs here. OJ wasn't found guilty either. Go figure.

[ljb]

sec, well I don't agree with Bush on everything but a Pres that blves in the same things i do for the most part, is worth my loyalty. I blve in tax cuts for everyone, and I blve in privatization of SS and I blve in doing what's necessary to keep us safe. A man worth following:GW Bush.
Lefty, can you point to a note where you have disagreed with Bush?

[Bobby]

Lefty, can you point to a note where you have disagreed with Bush?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lefty]

lbj says: I have yet to see anyone from the right say "punish the hell out of whoever broke the law" I see more of "he ain't been found guilty yet just indicted" splitting hairs here. OJ wasn't found guilty either. Go figure
_________________________________________
Then you haven't been paying attention!

lbj, I disagree that the minutemen are vigilantes and I think we should protect our borders. Build the fence, then electrify it.

[Bobby]

l I think we should protect our borders. Build the fence, then electrify it.

i agree!

[lsbets]

I have yet to see anyone from the right say "punish the hell out of whoever broke the law" I see more of "he ain't been found guilty yet just indicted" splitting hairs here. OJ wasn't found guilty either. Go figure.

Than to add to your long list of talents is your lack of reading ability.

[Suff]

First Enigma - another poster stated that vast data mining started with Bush. I pointed out where that statement was false, and that many of those who are outraged by it now, were all for it when someone else was President. Hypocrisy, plain and simple, and that seems to be a hallmark of many of the posters from the left - and yes, you are one of them, although not the worst one.



Its jeff right?

Jeff.Who was all for it? Me? Zilzal? Secrtatriat? None of us were familiar with each other when a Democrat was President. So to say Hypocrisy all the time , as I have seen on this Board , is Downright wrong!

STOP comparing this administration with previous admistrations and telling me where I stood.

I DO NOT STAND FOR GOVT. Period.

[boxcar]

I DO NOT STAND FOR GOVT. Period.

Shouldn't you have qualified this by saying you don't stand for conservative govt.? After all, as a self-confessed liberal, why wouldn't you stand for liberal government?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I DO NOT STAND FOR GOVT. Period.

You've never met Suff so take it from me...he ain't joking when he posts that...

[ljb]

Than to add to your long list of talents is your lack of reading ability.
So since you cannot back up your statement you say I can't read. Typical neocon response.
Also I'm with Suff in asking who was "all for it"?
You are starting to sound more and more like one of those right wing spin doctors.

[Tom]

lbj says: I have yet to see anyone from the right say "punish the hell out of whoever broke the law" I see more of "he ain't been found guilty yet just indicted" splitting hairs here. OJ wasn't found guilty either. Go figure
_________________________________________
Then you haven't been paying attention!

lbj, I disagree that the minutemen are vigilantes and I think we should protect our borders. Build the fence, then electrify it.\

Ljb reads selectively. I was out for Tom Delay's ass as soon as I heard his wife and daughter were making $50,000 a year working for him. I have consistently called for throwing all the crooks in jail, no matter what party.
Must be he is immune to the truth.

[lsbets]

So since you cannot back up your statement you say I can't read. Typical neocon response.
Also I'm with Suff in asking who was "all for it"?
You are starting to sound more and more like one of those right wing spin doctors.

ljb - do a search and try reading. I know that statement has been made by just about everyone on the right. I know, putting effort into finding out you're wrong is not something you're willing to do, but if you bothered to, once again you would be proven wrong. You can't debate the merits so you say "ooh, neocon."

Suff - read what I wrote - I posted that the NY Times editorialized in favor of the program under Clinton, yet is outraged by the program under Bush. For me to call that hypocrisy is well justified, and well within the bounds of fair debate. Give me a freaking break "You can't say hyposcrisy because you didn't know me." Now did I say that many who post here from the left are hypocritical - yes I did. You took that to mean yourself. Many does not mean all, and trust me when I say that in responding to ljb, you don't come to mind - and that should be taken as a compliment. But a trend is emerging. You seem to think any topic that might make an argument from the right stronger should be out of bounds - can't bring up things that happenned in the past no matter how relevant, can't criticize the NY Times when they get something really wrong. So Suff, stop telling me what I can and cannot say - you don't get to make the rules and shut off debate just because you don't like the points being made.

[PaceAdvantage]

So Suff, stop telling me what I can and cannot say - you don't get to make the rules and shut off debate just because you don't like the points being made.

Yep again....and remember, only *I* make the rules....;)

[Secretariat]

Turley is no liberal having advocated the impeachment of Clinton. In lieu of that his comments are interesting:

"George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley offers the best argument for impeachment -- not because he is persuasive, but because he is consistent. Turley said he supported the impeachment, conviction and removal of Clinton, and is advocating likewise for Bush, as the Bush wiretaps constitute "a clear and undeniable crime." (He ignores lawyers and judges who see the issue either as far from settled, or come down in Bush's favor.)

Turley added that what the Bushies did "wasn't necessary." The administration could have won warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Out of tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests since 1979, Alter reported, FISA rejected only four.

Toensing countered that it was necessary. FISA's turndown rate is low because government lawyers don't push for warrants unless they know they'll win.

Don't forget that the feds wouldn't even ask for a warrant to tap the laptop computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French citizen who later pleaded guilty to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers. Turley says they should have sought a warrant. Toensing says officials knew they would lose because they could not establish Moussaoui was an "agent of a foreign power."

Turley also argues that if Bush had problems with the FISA law, then he should have gone to Congress to change it. But to do so, Toensing noted, officials would have had to reveal their surveillance methods.

Turley's best argument: If the president can circumvent FISA, then "he can circumvent any federal law."

Are we at war? I asked him. "That's a good question." Then, after deriding Congress for passing war resolutions -- not declarations of war -- Turley said, "As a constitutional matter, no.""

[ljb]

\

Ljb reads selectively. I was out for Tom Delay's ass as soon as I heard his wife and daughter were making $50,000 a year working for him. I have consistently called for throwing all the crooks in jail, no matter what party.
Must be he is immune to the truth.
Tom,
I don't want to get you upset but, you are more Democrat then Republican, or at least evenly balanced in your thoughts regarding politics. So I don't really consider you "from the right".

[Tom]

Still, the bottom line is Clinton WAS and Bush WAS'NT.

And it is killing you! :D :lol: :jump: :lol: :D

(notice the "balance" of this post)

[hcap]

The Administration's humiliation of Congress

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-humiliation-of.html#links

READ THIS story

Evidently the senate tried to loosen up FISA by introducing legislation back in 2002. For some reason bush said it wasn't needed and then FUNNY, prooved it by going around FISA.

Guess he knew what he was talkin' bout.

[highnote]

For some reason I took the time to read this whole thread. I have no life.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if Bush's wiretappings were legal or illegal. It comes down to power. If he has enough power he can do what he wants.

So the question is -- Is he powerful enough to get away with it?

[chickenhead]

Three presidential views on Executive Power:

http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/hst341/prezpower.htm

I have always found Lincolns to be the most persuasive: Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution?

If you remember Lincoln seized all the telegraph offices, along with all records of any telegrams sent or received...which the secret police then went through.

However, I believe even if this is correct legally, whereby the President has in extreme cases nearly unlimited power, his actions are still to be judged by us and the courts as to whether they were used reasonably, proportionally.

[46zilzal]

in Lincoln's case the country was being ripped apart. No suprise he did what he did.

[chickenhead]

in Lincoln's case the country was being ripped apart. No suprise he did what he did.

Right, but that's the point, the President has those kinds of powers. He is the sole national representative, and the sole controller of military force.

I know that until recently when I began to study this a little bit, it hadn't quite dawned on me what an awesome amount of power the president truely does have, we should really choose them a lot more carefully than we do now. It goes a lot further than having his finger on the button.

[JustRalph]

we should really choose them a lot more carefully than we do now.

some of us do,,,,,,,,,,

[chickenhead]

some of us do,,,,,,,,,,

you think Bush is the best man in the country? C'mon, I know you aren't saying that. I'm not saying "Choose between the two aholes they put up carefully"....quality does have some inherent properties, it's not all relative.

[46zilzal]

I know that until recently when I began to study this a little bit, it hadn't quite dawned on me what an awesome amount of power the president truely does have, we should really choose them a lot more carefully than we do now. It goes a lot further than having his finger on the button.

the old rutabaga is a good example of absolute power corrupting absolutely

[highnote]

you think Bush is the best man in the country? C'mon, I know you aren't saying that. I'm not saying "Choose between the two aholes they put up carefully"....quality does have some inherent properties, it's not all relative.

Not many men alive have been around power their whole lives as much as Bush. I think he knows more than many. However, IMO, that does still not automatically make him the best. But it does carry some weight.

[JustRalph]

you think Bush is the best man in the country? C'mon, I know you aren't saying that. I'm not saying "Choose between the two aholes they put up carefully"....quality does have some inherent properties, it's not all relative.

No way, I didn't say that. But when it came down to the available choices........he was heads above the rest.

[46zilzal]

Funny. I have a friend who's daughter goes to Yale and the students there refer to the rutabaga as their Persian rug. Tradition is that when these are made, a deliberate mistake is created to insure that they are not perfect....

GOOD ANALOGY

[Tom]

Yale students.....now there's a group with their fingers on the pulse of mainstream America! :lol:

[IBCNU]

It may be the right thing to do insofar as fighting terrorism. But what government, in the long term, when given an inch won't take a mile and completely abuse this kind of authority?

[ljb]

It may be the right thing to do insofar as fighting terrorism. But what government, in the long term, when given an inch won't take a mile and completely abuse this kind of authority?
This administration has already demonstrated what happens with an abuse of authority. There supporters are dimminishing in numbers as we speak, thank God.

[Lefty]

chick, right ya re and so far the pipples are with the Pres.

[Lefty]

lbj says: This administration has already demonstrated what happens with an abuse of authority. There supporters are dimminishing in numbers as we speak, thank God
_____________________________________
Yes, attacks prevented. I se no diminishing of numbers but makes no never mind; this Pres does what's right, not what's popular. That's why he won 2 elections.

[46zilzal]

what pipples are those?

[Secretariat]

For some reason I took the time to read this whole thread. I have no life.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if Bush's wiretappings were legal or illegal. It comes down to power. If he has enough power he can do what he wants.

So the question is -- Is he powerful enough to get away with it?

I am surprised that you say it doesn't matter if the wiretappings were legal or illegal. Of course it matters. The President is not above the law. The other question is he powerful enough to get away with it? Well, let's hope no President regardless of party is powerful enough to get away with this type of crime especially when it affects the privacy of American citizens.

[Lefty]

I know that until recently when I began to study this a little bit, it hadn't quite dawned on me what an awesome amount of power the president truely does have, we should really choose them a lot more carefully than we do now. It goes a lot further than having his finger on the button.
__________________
"Man, being reasonable, must get drunk." Lord Byron
__________________________________________________ _
Chick, that's why the U.S. Pres is called the most powerful man in the world. I think we did a great job choosing this one.

sec, I wish you would get off the mem lies. We are eavesdropping on terrorists and citizens that are conspiring with terrorists. You think even libs would consider that a good thing. Guess not, power more important...

[Secretariat]

sec, I wish you would get off the mem lies. We are eavesdropping on terrorists and citizens that are conspiring with terrorists. You think even libs would consider that a good thing. Guess not, power more important...

Problem is Lefty, I don't beleive him when he says that. He's proven to be completely untrustworthy.

Let me ask you something Lefty. If GW is in fact eavesdropping on terrorists and citizens why the reluctance to get a warrant...and don't tell me about time because there is a big leeway to get that warrant even after the fact. GW ignores even that with the FISA court. How can you be sure he is not violating the rights of citizens and listening into your calls? Maybe you don't care, but other citizens do. And it is their right to do so UNDER the LAW.

So it comes down to a matter of trust. THat's why we have the FISA court, so we don't have to worry about a monarch doing what he wants with no oversight. Kind of something we rebelled about n 1776.

[Lefty]

because it's not a 100% certain fisa would give him a warrant. So, a little piece of paper makes the act good or bad while it's the same act? If he can stop just 1 attack(and he has) I don't give a rodent's derriere whether he gets that piece of paper. Clinton was right to do what he did and so is GW.

[Lefty]

sec says: Problem is Lefty, I don't beleive him when he says that. He's proven to be completely untrustworthy.
__________________________________________________ _____
Only in the eyes of the far far left.

[DJofSD]

Problem is Lefty, I don't beleive him when he says that. He's proven to be completely untrustworthy.

"I did not have sex with that women."

[Tom]

It may be the right thing to do insofar as fighting terrorism. But what government, in the long term, when given an inch won't take a mile and completely abuse this kind of authority?

Ones run by the Taliban.
Ones run by Sadaam Hussein.
Ones run by th ePOS SOB in Iran, N KOrea, China, Syria, Sorry Arabia.

I'll worry about OURS once THEIRS are destroyed. ;)

[highnote]

I am surprised that you say it doesn't matter if the wiretappings were legal or illegal. Of course it matters. The President is not above the law. The other question is he powerful enough to get away with it? Well, let's hope no President regardless of party is powerful enough to get away with this type of crime especially when it affects the privacy of American citizens.

Let me rephrase that... It doesn't really matter to Bush is the wiretappings were legal or illegal.

[PaceAdvantage]

There supporters are dimminishing in numbers as we speak, thank God.

Wishful thinking....again.....and again.....and again......and again......

[IBCNU]

Ahhhhh........
I do believes I does stand corrected.

[hcap]

This sums it up nicely

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html?ei=5090&en=4785bb029b806e38&ex=1296190800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

According to ouweer leedur, all hail and bow.
A one anna two....

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1696/694/320/caesar_Bush.jpg

Sept. 11 could have been prevented.
Only bad guys are spied on.
The spying is legal.
Just trust us
War changes everything.
Other presidents did it.

[rrpic6]

Hmmmm..in another topic on here, Lefty claims only Americans that conspire with terrorists are being spyed on. That editorial must have been written by some wacko left wing insurgent sympathizing pinko commie gay loving free love loving abortion loving lover.

[hcap]

rrpic6,

Kinda difficult to question what goes on out there with so many bush-lovers on this board.

The view by the subserviant rigthies here is that we are facing an evil enemy more threatening than anything ever experienced in human history.

Not every conflict is World War II, and not every foreign policy challenge is about proving that you are Churchill and not Chamberlain.

Under the bushies, the term "conservative" changed from a political ideology into a mindless personality cult. A cult of personality which glorifies oweer leedur and accepts no limits on his power.
George Orwell would be proud.
Lefty is one of the rush limbo soldiers defending big brother no matter what.
The name Lefty is obviously an oxymoron.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rrpic6]

My mom is 83 and she says this is the worst government in her lifetime. She is glad to be 83 so she won't be around when the consequences of Bush's actions take affect in America. She is also relieved that we have struggled in Iraq, as she believes Iraq was just a test for Bush. If he could easily wipe them out and establish himself in that region, then he could move on to Iran and then North Korea, and then and all-out with China. She must be some left-wing wacko that does not bow down to W.

[ljb]

rrpic6,
Glad to hear your mom is not intimidated by these fear mongering rightys. I am not as old as your mom but my avatar displays similiar sentiments. Some here will continue to support this oppressive/intrusive/corrupt regime forever. They have such blind faith in these folks that they see not what is really going on. They are suffering from "The Emporer has no clothes" syndrome. Some while still supporting "his arrogancy", have displayed tendicies to see truth. Soon support for this regime will consist of only the aristocracy and the sheep. Tell mom to keep the faith, with continued effort the light will come through and we shall be set free again.

[highnote]

Hmmmm..in another topic on here, Lefty claims only Americans that conspire with terrorists are being spyed on. That editorial must have been written by some wacko left wing insurgent sympathizing pinko commie gay loving free love loving abortion loving lover.


That is funny. You could have a career as a poet. :lol:

[lsbets]

rr - glad to hear your Mom is happy American soldiers are getting killed. That explains a lot.

[rrpic6]

Isbets:


How dare you say my mom is happy that American Soldiers are getting killed. She was 100% against going there in the 1st place. I said she was relieved that we did not crush Iraq then move on to Iran, Korea and China, which would mean tens of thousands of more dead soldiers and civilians.

[lsbets]

How dare I? Let's see:

You did not say she was relieved we did not crush Iraq. You said she was relieved we had struggled. Given the way the media covers Iraq, it is reasonable to assume that she equates struggles with the deaths of US servicemen and women. So, maybe I should not have said happy, perhaps it would have been better to use the word relived. She is relieved that US servicemen and women are getting killed in substantial enough numbers to turn public opinion against the war. Because if those folks hadn't been killed, she would have been distressed at how popular the war is.

Don't tell me how dare I. I used your words. You are proud that she is relieved that there have been struggles in Iraq, and as I pointed out, there would not be a perception of struggles without US deaths. So I say - how dare you and how dare she!

Spare me the self righteousness - you said it, you got called on it.

[Tom]

Isbets:


How dare you say my mom is happy that American Soldiers are getting killed. She was 100% against going there in the 1st place. I said she was relieved that we did not crush Iraq then move on to Iran, Korea and China, which would mean tens of thousands of more dead soldiers and civilians.

Did it ever occurr to you that we were not there crush them, but only, Bush said, to eliminate SH and then free theIraqi people? That we have struggled not as a test, but as part a war on terro, to give people a governement to protect themselves in the future?
Where was your mom when SH was gassing people? Putting them into chippers?
Invading Kuwait?

[rrpic6]

How dare I? Let's see:

You did not say she was relieved we did not crush Iraq. You said she was relieved we had struggled. Given the way the media covers Iraq, it is reasonable to assume that she equates struggles with the deaths of US servicemen and women. So, maybe I should not have said happy, perhaps it would have been better to use the word relived. She is relieved that US servicemen and women are getting killed in substantial enough numbers to turn public opinion against the war. Because if those folks hadn't been killed, she would have been distressed at how popular the war is.

Don't tell me how dare I. I used your words. You are proud that she is relieved that there have been struggles in Iraq, and as I pointed out, there would not be a perception of struggles without US deaths. So I say - how dare you and how dare she!

Spare me the self righteousness - you said it, you got called on it.

I can see by every post that I've written you dissagree with. You obviously have issues with my being aginst this tragic war. My mom was against going there in the first place. 2000 deaths is 2000 too many. Iraq did not asked to be "liberated". We went to conquer them, then move on to other countries to do the same, so my mom thinks. Is this what Bush planned? Only he knows for sure. If it was up to me, i'd bring home everyone today to prevent more casualties. Do you want more casualties? What is your answer on how to stop this killing. Dont' blame myself or my mother for terrible leadership in this country.

[rrpic6]

Did it ever occurr to you that we were not there crush them, but only, Bush said, to eliminate SH and then free theIraqi people? That we have struggled not as a test, but as part a war on terro, to give people a governement to protect themselves in the future?
Where was your mom when SH was gassing people? Putting them into chippers?
Invading Kuwait?

Somalia still does not have a government since being overthrown in the early 90's. Clinton pulled out after the disaster at Mogidishu that left 17 American soldiers dead. Since it does not affect oil, countries that rule by brutal dictarors, or no governments at all are of little concern to the Bush people.

[lsbets]

Nice non response RR. Until you can explain how we could struggle without suffering casualties, your excuses are nothing but bull - you said it. But, we're used to bull from you. In your small number of posts, you have managed to amass a huge amount of crap, or blanketly insult everyone who disagrees with you. I don't have issues with anyone being against this war, I have issues with anyone who is happy that we have had our struggles there, because the only reason the public at large has a perception of struggles is the casualies we've suffered. So the issue is not your being against the war - the issue is your character.

[JustRalph]

He is his mothers son...............apparently. At 83 she must have been happy as hell after pearl harbor.............that's a joke son..........:D

[rrpic6]

Nice non response RR. Until you can explain how we could struggle without suffering casualties, your excuses are nothing but bull - you said it. But, we're used to bull from you. In your small number of posts, you have managed to amass a huge amount of crap, or blanketly insult everyone who disagrees with you. I don't have issues with anyone being against this war, I have issues with anyone who is happy that we have had our struggles there, because the only reason the public at large has a perception of struggles is the casualies we've suffered. So the issue is not your being against the war - the issue is your character.

With the technology we have, the massive problems encountered by our servicemen and women could have been prevented by this administration. I can still see Bush laughing at a podium, then looking underneath it, saying I dont' see any WOMD here. Making light of a blunder that cost so many casualties is unthinkable. I've never attacked the character of anyone here, so I believe my character should not be questioned by yourself just because you do not agree with my thoughts. In another post, I did wish you well in your future, so again, good luck to you Isbets.

[Tom]

Somalia still does not have a government since being overthrown in the early 90's. Clinton pulled out after the disaster at Mogidishu that left 17 American soldiers dead. Since it does not affect oil, countries that rule by brutal dictarors, or no governments at all are of little concern to the Bush people.


....which has nothing to do with my post. You just tried a nice little spin when you cannot offer a real argument - like the other libs. Change the subject. Hehehe. We know all we need to know about YOU.....you don't even warrant a wire tap! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

The Kool-Aid must be pretty powerful this time around. Worst gov't in 80+ years, eh? LOL You guys have some pretty short attention spans.

I can think of a few times in the past 80+ years where the MASSES of Americans have SUFFERED 100x more than they are suffering today, in every single category.

When you make blanket statements such as "worst gov't in lifetime," it just kills your credibility, at least with me. Kind of like the "this is Vietnam all over again" chants. Laughable in its absurdity.

[toetoe]

Tom,

A warranted wiretap? Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms? :D

I think I have the key to rr's mom's statement. She may believe, as Truman did in 1945, that deaths here and now will prevent many, many more deaths then and there. It may be specious, but it was fairly well received when Harry used it. :)

[lsbets]

Yes toe, but Harry was thinking of the deaths of those we were fighting, not the deaths of our boys doing the fighting.

[toetoe]

Forgive us for getting into HST's heezy, but OF COURSE he was thinking of our boys. You've unwittingly said a horrible thing. Even agreeing with your theory, rr's mom could be worried about civilians, also. I might guess she's worried for both, long term, maybe even the survival of our species.

[lsbets]

toe - I might say horrible things, but I never do so unwittingly. ;)

[hcap]

LS,

rrpic6 mom did not call for US service men to die according to rrpic6.
Nor did rrpic6. Struggle, I believe was meant as a reality lesson in difficulties in empire building. If I were to say Vietnam taught us lessons by media coverage of the reality of war on the ground-it does not mean I take comfort in US deaths or injuries. Maybe rrpic6 phrased it so it appeared that way to you, but I don't think that is what was meant.

Back to topic A
From Talkleft...

Well, so much for that Rovian storyline. Chuck Hagel became the latest major GOP figure to come out today and doubt whether the president has the authority to spy without warrants. He joins Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Sam Brownback in sharing that position. Hagel said on ABC’s "This Week" just now that Bush doesn’t have the unilateral authority to decide that FISA is out of date and violate that law. Crooks and Liars has the video. So much for the talking points Karl, you felon. And Hagel took a shot at Rove to, for politicizing the war against terror.

On top of this, Newsweek breaks the story this morning that there were numerous lawyers inside the administration, who have fought Bush, Cheney, and David Addington and John Yoo over how much power the president has since 9/11. Most of these lawyers have left the government now, but they all had one thing in common, aside from being conservatives: they thought that the claims by Cheney, Addington (now Cheney’s chief of staff since Scooter left), and Yoo were bogus. And it appears that John Ashcroft agreed with them, even on the issue of whether or not Bush had the authority to conduct surveillance of Americans without a warrant post 9/11. The NSA spying mess was just one issue where these conservative lawyers thought the administration was going too far in its claims of unimpeded executive authority.

[toetoe]

Agreed, hcap. To say we should wage war in Iraq, knowing that war kills innocent folks, would mean, by that logic, that we support killing innocent folks.

[lsbets]

Hcap - I did not say anyone called for US servicemen to die, I said that since without the deaths there would be no perception of struggle (and that's not to say there wouldn't be struggles without deaths, but they certainly wouldn't get any coverage), you cannot seperate relief at the outcome with what has caused that outcome, especially since in many ways, the struggles seen in the polls are based more on a perception than a reality. Do I think RR or his mom sit at home and say "Good, two more died today." No, of course not. But as I have said before - if you hope for failure that can only arrive if one thing happens - those serving over there get killed. If casualties were far lower, there would still be broad support for the war, and those who hoped things would not go well would be bemoaning the support for Bush and saying nothing could stop him if he wanted to go into Iran, Syria, or wherever. Its nothing but the logical extension of the original statement.

[hcap]

If I say DIFFICULTIES we experience in the so-called remaking of the Mid East are a valuable lesson to avoid FURTHER miscalculations, am I supporting american deaths or injuries? What makes you think we "hope for failure" as we post problems that are indicators of failure?

From a military point of view, a geopolitical point of view, or finally a moral point of view, I am saying as I believe rrpic6 is also saying, we think this lesson in "struggle" is the central point and the reality to be dealt with.

Before the war many of us were opposed on moral grounds. And equally opposed pragmatically. I have argued both. I take no joy in saying I told you so. As I have said previously, I do believe if any good does come out of this mess, it will be because of good deeds done by our guys directly working with Iraqis. But I should add in SPITE of our misguided official "policies".

You may believe the overall scheme. I don't buy it. Geopolitically or morally.
Democracy is only one element in play. Historical alliances and hatreds are more powerfull factors.

It's also a tough debate. Killing innocents is always the fine line. At what point does the that number become a heavy enough burden on the conscience to renounce a particular war. 10,000, 25,000?, 50,000, 100,000?

Breaking that many eggs to fry a neocon geopolitical omelete questions the appetite.

[lsbets]

hcap - there is a difference between you statement of "Difficulties we experience in the so-called remaking of the Mid East are a valuable lesson to avoid FURTHER miscalculations" and the statment of "She is also relieved that we have struggled in Iraq, as she believes Iraq was just a test for Bush."

One says there are lessons to be learned, the other implies glad that things happenned the way they did.

Of course you take no joy in saying I told you so. You can't, unless you are talking about polls at home. The gap between the perceptions of the public and the reality that our military sees is huge and disturbing. So many folks talk about Bush's propoganda, but the sad fact is, the only propoganda that has shaped the pulic opinion on this war over the last two years is the propoganda of the left.

[twindouble]

It's also a tough debate. Killing innocents is always the fine line. At what point does the that number become a heavy enough burden on the conscience to renounce a particular war. 10,000, 25,000?, 50,000, 100,000?



Cap, at what point would you go to war when it comes to innocent Americans being killed by our enemy's? I take it, 911, the Cole and so on wasn't enough for you. Count them up, the day will come when Ben laden strikes us again, then what, we just surrender over there and here because the numbers are a heavy burden on our conscience.


T.D.

[highnote]

Cap, at what point would you go to war when it comes to innocent Americans being killed by our enemy's? I take it, 911, the Cole and so on wasn't enough for you. Count them up, the day will come when Ben laden strikes us again, then what, we just surrender over there and here because the numbers are a heavy burden on our conscience.

T.D.

TD (or anyone else who wants to chime in),
I need a refresher course in history. It used to be, and still is a little, the US Capitalists vs. the Russian and Chinese Communists. The U.S. had a policy of containment of communism.

We provided weapons and support of various kinds and at various times to Saddam/Iraq and Osama/Afganistan.

Late 1970s early '80s we had the Iran Hostage Crisis. Then we've had bombings of the Cole, Embassy, WTC 2 times and finally and 9/11.

Something went wrong somewhere in the 70s or 80s.

What made these middle eastern/muslims/radical Islam, etc. start attacking U.S. interests abroad and at home?

What did we do to try to understand why these people's needs were not being met? What actions did we take to prevent these attacks and the escalation of hostilities? What could we have done differently to prevent the attacks?

Thoughts?

[JustRalph]

What did we do to try to understand why these people's needs were not being met?

Do you really think it is about meeting their needs? It is about them deciding that we (and anybody who isn't like them) are infidels and dogs. They think that we don't deserve the power and control that we have over the world.

On the flip side, what do they deserve? They are a backwards society in most places and they treat women worse than dogs. I have no sympathy for them at all. I wish that we could someday elect a leader who understands that they stepped over the proverbial line in the sand. They have been pushing us for 30 years. I wish that we could find our way to unleashing our military in a manner that would once and for all, put an end to this crap. Yet we still toy with the world, and more specifically those who have been chanting "death to america" for decades now.

[highnote]

Do you really think it is about meeting their needs?


Yes. On some level their needs are not being met. Why else would they attack us? So, I'd like to know what their needs are that are not being met. Now, whether or not we can meet their needs is another thing.

It's also about understanding their belief systems. I know virtually nothing about Islam. I know virtually nothing about the belief systems of people living in Islamic countries. I'm pretty sure people in Islamic countries don't understand our belief systems either.


It is about them deciding that we (and anybody who isn't like them) are infidels and dogs. They think that we don't deserve the power and control that we have over the world.

That is undoubtedly true in many cases. I often read quotes by some Palestinians calling Israeli's pigs. They try to dehumanize them so that killing them is easier. It's a lot easier to kill a subhuman than a human. I wrote about that in an earlier post how one individual or group will try to dehumanize another person or group to justify killing or enslavement. We had to fight a civil war in this country because slaveholders believed so strongly that slavery was justified because the slaves were less than human. It was wrong, but they believed it was right. And we danced around the issues for many years. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that whites wouldn't let blacks eat in the same restaurants or share toilet facilities when traveling. So even if we win this current war, it will be many decades until the radical Islamics beliefs are changed. We still have white supremacy groups in the country 140 years after the Civil War.

The same situation is what is going on today with radical Islam and Northern Europe and the U.S. There are two populations with opposing beliefs.

However, I just wanted a history lesson on what happened in the last 25 years that brought us to this point. Was it that Russia gave up on Afganistan and radical Islamists turned their attention to the U.S.?

Yet we still toy with the world, and more specifically those who have been chanting "death to america" for decades now.

It ain't easy running an empire.

[hcap]

swetyejohn,

This goes back a ways. Long standing rivalries between Christians and Muslims. But recently in the late part of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century, there was a mad dash by western interests to control resources in the mid east-OIL. (Of course we did not invade for oil ;) )

However at that time there was a term used by the great powers-including Russia, called "THE GREAT GAME". Google it. No they were not ashamed to make jockying for control over the region their major national priorities.

Remember the industial revolution, Henry Ford and other free market capitalist tycoons were coming into their heyday around the 1910s' to the 20s' What nation could fire their boilers without crude?

After scoring some major points in this "GREAT GAME", The Brits and French with our involvement convientally carved up the bounty and redrew NEW borders-including Iraq, Kuwait, Iran. Ya think those terrorists burst onto the scene naked?

Later WE got more heavily involved as the new "great power" and overthrew the lawful regime in Iran-the late 60's (I think), and helped the Shah gain power. A real represive type who irritated his people no end and facilated the rise of the fundamentalists( Khomeni )who overthrew him.

We also had imposed our will on Iraq and helped Saddam muscle in on an elected leader in Iraq. 50's or 60's. Cia inspired coup.

We helped the Mujahdeen in afghanistan in our own great game with the soviets. Helped the rise of more fundies. Paved the way for bin laden to consolidate power.

And we continued propping up of various oppresive regimes like the Saudis
Let alone an unbriddled support for Israel. Broke many more UN sanctions than Iraq. Don't play well on the Arab street.

Nothing happens in a historical vaccuum. Action and reaction. Or as the intel guys say-blowback

Sanctions after the first Gulf war might have contained Saddam, but according to UN stats and Madeline Albright-numbers are questionable-but helped increase Iraqi infant and child mortality rate substanstially. Again not a popular policy for many arabs.

All of this sets up the present day

JR, there is no way get rid of them miltarily without resorting to genocide. Military solutions are limited. We are growing new terrorists as we eliminate the old. There is not a finite group, rather an increasing number we help the loonies enlist. In Iraq, the US invasion and US imposed “democratic institutions” have not been a cure-all. They have strengthened Shiite fundamentalists and further divided the country along sectarian lines, rather than elect moderate leaders and unite the rival religious factions.


Not everyone believes Saddam+Iraq=911
So my comment about killing innocents is about the civilian death count on Iraq. Although we may not purposely target civilians, when your Iraqi mother or sister dies because a smart bomb aint so smart, intentions are only one aspect of killing and maiming. Not trying to raise moral number counting judgements,but less than 4000 american civilians have died from islamic terrorists over the last 30 years. None from Iraqis, no Iraqis were on the 911 planes.

Going to war in Iraq and going after bin laden are not synomous. Declaring a "global war on terror", invading Iraq, and ignoring real threats of nuclear proliferation are grave mistakes.

Pakistan becomming unstable, it's prodigy A.Q. Khan, the very large quantity of remaining russian nukes, undermining alliances with Islamic moderates who used to respect us, are the real problems. This cannot be solved by solely military actions.

Or I guess you could bomb Pakistan, moscow and North Korea, or anyone else who aint with us

There is nothing simplistic about these problems
You cannot successfully run the world on comic book slogans and biblical homilies.
The cowboy model of diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired.

[Bala]

After such a lengthy thread, reminiscent of passionate discourse between ancient Roman
Senators I thought I'd join the party.

Bill Clinton enlarged the capabilities of Echelon.
Also, aggressively funded projects like Carnivore.

And my personal favorite, the great stain maker, authorized the FBI's Green Lantern.
A back door key logger to be installed on any computer that uses
the internet. {I kid you not} The project was later abandoned when
some antivirus companies said they would detect the Green Lantern key
logger.

Privacy issues -- http://www.epic.org/
__________________________________________________ _____________
The only guaranty in this life is that tomorrow things will change.

[JustRalph]

JR, there is no way get rid of them miltarily without resorting to genocide.

That is why they make these..................

http://www.air-and-space.com/strato/9202%20m.jpg

[Secretariat]

TD (or anyone else who wants to chime in),
I need a refresher course in history. It used to be, and still is a little, the US Capitalists vs. the Russian and Chinese Communists. The U.S. had a policy of containment of communism.

We provided weapons and support of various kinds and at various times to Saddam/Iraq and Osama/Afganistan.

Late 1970s early '80s we had the Iran Hostage Crisis. Then we've had bombings of the Cole, Embassy, WTC 2 times and finally and 9/11.

Something went wrong somewhere in the 70s or 80s.

What made these middle eastern/muslims/radical Islam, etc. start attacking U.S. interests abroad and at home?

What did we do to try to understand why these people's needs were not being met? What actions did we take to prevent these attacks and the escalation of hostilities? What could we have done differently to prevent the attacks?

Thoughts?

These are core questions, and very important ones. Their are two major reasons.

1. Israel and Palestine. Frankly, I'm not sure how this can be resolved. It appears impossible, but it must be dealt with becasue it fuels everything.

2. Oil - The explosion of the need for oil has given formerly poor countries a huge power chip for super powers. We aren't getting into heavy nation building in the middle of Africa. Why? Because at this stage (although that could change in the future), the Mid-East sits on top of the largest oil reserves in the world.

Oil is power. Differences in Religion causes most wars in that region - even factionalism among muslims. Even India and Pakistan are fundamentally pointing nuclear weapons at each other over religion.

The solutions are not easy. There are two approaches. Might. Beat them into submission. Two, negotiation and compromise and continal vigilance. Neither is easy because both have ramifications.

[twindouble]

TD (or anyone else who wants to chime in),
I need a refresher course in history. It used to be, and still is a little, the US Capitalists vs. the Russian and Chinese Communists. The U.S. had a policy of containment of communism. quote; swetyejohn

For decades now, sense 48 when the league of nations voted to create the State of Israel and our support of that state, has been and will continue to be the underling problem in the middle east. Including our failed policies over those same decades. Even when it comes to oil and our neglect to do anything about our dependence on it. Other than that, we represent everything the religious fanatics detest because of inroads we've made, they know freedom threatens their power to suppress and control their people. Esp woman.

There's a long history of conflict in the middle east as others have covered and the only tools they have to use against freedom, is hate for the Jews and the west. It works very well when they start at a very young age within their religious teachings. That also has been going on for decades and continues today.

T.D.

[DJofSD]

1. Israel and Palestine. Frankly, I'm not sure how this can be resolved. It appears impossible, but it must be dealt with becasue it fuels everything.

Build a wall around each country with no gates between the two countries.

[lsbets]

Build a wall around each country with no gates between the two countries.

Problem is there is only one country there - one of them has never been a country at any point in history.

[Secretariat]

A good primer on the origins of Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Palestine#Palestine_Defined

[highnote]

After such a lengthy thread, reminiscent of passionate discourse between ancient Roman
Senators I thought I'd join the party.

Bill Clinton enlarged the capabilities of Echelon.
Also, aggressively funded projects like Carnivore.

And my personal favorite, the great stain maker, authorized the FBI's Green Lantern.
A back door key logger to be installed on any computer that uses
the internet. {I kid you not} The project was later abandoned when
some antivirus companies said they would detect the Green Lantern key
logger.



The military invented the internet. Is anyone naive enough to think that when their computer is connected to the internet it is secure? Maybe it is, but I assume it isn't.

I love doing my taxes using TurboTax. I get the feeling that every time I do the automatic update that all my "what if" information is being sent to the IRS. :D

[DJofSD]

Problem is there is only one country there - one of them has never been a country at any point in history.

OK. Fine. Build walls on the existing boundaries that divide the two factions. Neither will have access to the holy places on the other side of the wall. No if, ands, or buts.

These two camps insist on acting like to sibblings that can not get along. Then put them into their own rooms with no privlidges.

[Bala]

Joke if you like. However, it is good citizen like yourself that pay their taxes
probably pay their credit cards on time that make for good fishing.

Identity thieves love responsible people. Real thieves do not hack machines,
they hack people! Mid level people in any large organization are a companies
weakest link. Reference the six clerks at Bank of America in N.J. that sold
sensitive data to a small ring of identity thieves on 100,000 account holders.
BoA computers have solid security system but people have wanton ethics.

If you live a responsible life style, you are in need of more privacy than you may relies.
After all this thread is about privacy or a lack of... BTW, white collar crime is immeasurably
larger than street crime in dollar terms.

[twindouble]

Build a wall around each country with no gates between the two countries.

This country would exist if it wasn't for the extreme use of power and submission. Gandhi didn't win a war, he was just defiant at time when his enemy was the weakest. North Vietnam didn't win a battle but they won the war when we were at our weakest here at home. The Inca's gave all their riches to the Spanish Conquistadors and got slaughter for showing their good will and appeasement. So on and so on and so on. :bang: Go back as far as you want in history, you'll get the same results. The only difference today is we are dealing with weapons that can destroy all of us, or one state like Israel.

T.D.

[highnote]

This country would exist if it wasn't for the extreme use of power and submission. Gandhi didn't win a war, he was just defiant at time when his enemy was the weakest. North Vietnam didn't win a battle but they won the war when we were at our weakest here at home. The Inca's gave all their riches to the Spanish Conquistadors and got slaughter for showing their good will and appeasement. So on and so on and so on. :bang: Go back as far as you want in history, you'll get the same results. The only difference today is we are dealing with weapons that can destroy all of us, or one state like Israel.

T.D.


Good points. Don't forget the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims and the Europeans that followed.

[twindouble]

Good points. Don't forget the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims and the Europeans that followed.

I thought I covered the native Indians with the first sentence. The way I look at it, we humans haven't evolved to a point where war won't be the answer to our problems. Sure, here in this country some would like to believed it's possible but many other cultures have a lot catching up to do and that won't happen in our life time, your's or your grandchildren's.


T.D.

[highnote]

I thought I covered the native Indians with the first sentence.

I thought you were refering to wars the U.S. engaged in outside the U.S. But I am in basic agreement with you.

Except that I believe it could happen in my lifetime or my children's. It would take a big effort by every human being. For example, and I forget which president said this, if Earth was attacked by aliens from another planet Earthlings would put aside their differences and to fight the aliens.

I think it might be more likely that we will be attacked by aliens than achieve world peace, but I am an optimist as well as a realist. So world peace could happen in my lifetime. There is a greater probability of it not happening, but the probability is not zero.

Does this thread have any relevance anymore? :D

[rrpic6]

The Kool-Aid must be pretty powerful this time around. Worst gov't in 80+ years, eh? LOL You guys have some pretty short attention spans.

I can think of a few times in the past 80+ years where the MASSES of Americans have SUFFERED 100x more than they are suffering today, in every single category.

When you make blanket statements such as "worst gov't in lifetime," it just kills your credibility, at least with me. Kind of like the "this is Vietnam all over again" chants. Laughable in its absurdity.

That was my Mother's opinion. My opinion is that many on this site do not actualy read what is written. Most, including the host, seem to enjoy, putting each other down instead of expressing ideas. What President has been the best and worst in your lifetime PA? Its just an opinion,so answer it without fear of me saying you have no credibility.

[twindouble]

I thought you were refering to wars the U.S. engaged in outside the U.S. But I am in basic agreement with you.

Except that I believe it could happen in my lifetime or my children's. It would take a big effort by every human being. For example, and I forget which president said this, if Earth was attacked by aliens from another planet Earthlings would put aside their differences and to fight the aliens.

I think it might be more likely that we will be attacked by aliens than achieve world peace, but I am an optimist as well as a realist. So world peace could happen in my lifetime. There is a greater probability of it not happening, but the probability is not zero.

Does this thread have any relevance anymore? :D

I try to stay on topic but sometimes I get going in one direction and I can stop all it takes is a crack in the door. :D

[twindouble]

swetyejohn;

Fighting ailens.:rolleyes: We will be the ailens of the universe.

If not and we humans won the war, we would end up fighting each other over the technology that that got the ailens here. :lol:

[highnote]

swetyejohn;

Fighting ailens.:rolleyes:

It wasn't my analogy -- it was that of a U.S. president! :D I kid you not.

Why I am using sentence syntax like Yoda?

[rrpic6]

Forgive us for getting into HST's heezy, but OF COURSE he was thinking of our boys. You've unwittingly said a horrible thing. Even agreeing with your theory, rr's mom could be worried about civilians, also. I might guess she's worried for both, long term, maybe even the survival of our species.

My mother is a Christian that prays for our soldiers everyday. She, like many want it to end today, so no more will suffer or die. The "struggle" is the reverse of how smooth W. made it look when he said "mission accomplished." My mom thought his smugness would lead to further invasions of other countries. The theory being, this was easy, lets do it again, and again, and again. "Mission accomplished" should mean, let's go home and leave the Iraqi's to be themselves. The "struggle" is Bush did not get what he wanted. I for one called the White House, along with about 50,000 others, before he invaded, to ask for more time to investigate WOMD. I lost all respect for him the day he went to the podium and joked about WOMD being under the podium. I could not imagine how parents of lost soldiers felt seeing that ignorance on display of the man that sent their children there.

[ljb]

From rrpic6 I lost all respect for him the day he went to the podium and joked about WOMD being under the podium. I could not imagine how parents of lost soldiers felt seeing that ignorance on display of the man that sent their children there.
this was just another example of "his arrogancy's" arrogance.

[Lefty]

rr and lbj, he wasn't putting the troops dn, it's called self depracating humor. He was making fun of himself. War is serious business and sometimes humor is the best medicine.
BTW, swety, the alien reference was made by Ronald Reagan.

[PaceAdvantage]

That was my Mother's opinion. My opinion is that many on this site do not actualy read what is written. Most, including the host, seem to enjoy, putting each other down instead of expressing ideas. What President has been the best and worst in your lifetime PA? Its just an opinion,so answer it without fear of me saying you have no credibility.

I did not put you down. I simply stated an opinion on your opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

That was my Mother's opinion. My opinion is that many on this site do not actualy read what is written. Most, including the host, seem to enjoy, putting each other down instead of expressing ideas. What President has been the best and worst in your lifetime PA? Its just an opinion,so answer it without fear of me saying you have no credibility.

Well, my lifetime is fairly short in comparison to your mother's. I've only been cognizant of politics since about the Ford/Carter era, so I would have to say the best President would have to be Reagan, and the worst.....hmmmmm.....Carter?

Again, my lifetime doesn't encompass too many Presidents....so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.....

[rrpic6]

rr and lbj, he wasn't putting the troops dn, it's called self depracating humor. He was making fun of himself. War is serious business and sometimes humor is the best medicine.
BTW, swety, the alien reference was made by Ronald Reagan.
I think the best medicine would have been to go to each deceased soldier's home to express sympathy. He takes 5 weeks off to hunt rabbits instead.

[JustRalph]

I think the best medicine would have been to go to each deceased soldier's home to express sympathy.

What a crock of shit............yeah right...........that is what he should do.......:rolleyes:

[ljb]

What a crock of shit............yeah right...........that is what he should do.......:rolleyes:
Based on the increasing use of vulgarity being used on this board by the neocons, it appears they are feeling the heat. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ljb]

rr and lbj, he wasn't putting the troops dn, it's called self depracating humor. He was making fun of himself. War is serious business and sometimes humor is the best medicine.
BTW, swety, the alien reference was made by Ronald Reagan.
Ok Lefty, Bush was making fun of himself while thousands were dying in Iraq. That makes it all better. :rolleyes:

[twindouble]

Well, my lifetime is fairly short in comparison to your mother's. I've only been cognizant of politics since about the Ford/Carter era, so I would have to say the best President would have to be Reagan, and the worst.....hmmmmm.....Carter?

Again, my lifetime doesn't encompass too many Presidents....so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.....

I always think in terms of the administration as a whole, not just one man. For example, I didn't vote for Bush, I voted for Powell and yes, Cheney. So, I figure he would bring like minded people to his cabinet as well. Who in their right mind would for Kerry and who he would bring with him? Plus I really thought with the Republicians in control again things might get done.

Anyway, I don't excited and teary eyed when some politician is saying what I want to hear using slogans like "Contract with America." or freaking "Lock Box." We would need to be standing over the suckers with a guns to their heads to stop them from spending and stealing like drunken sailors.

Some how, some way, we have to clean house, get rid of those intrenched relics and finally do what's right for the country.


T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

Based on the increasing use of vulgarity being used on this board by the neocons, it appears they are feeling the heat. :lol: :lol: :lol:

More wishful thinking. I feel no heat, and I rarely curse. Then again, I don't consider myself a neocon, so maybe there is my answer.

[JustRalph]

Based on the increasing use of vulgarity being used on this board by the neocons, it appears they are feeling the heat. :lol: :lol: :lol:

LJB, sometimes a crock of shit is just that............and deserves to be called that........don't read more into it than what it really is.......

[Lefty]

yeah, rr and lbj, he shoulda done one of them phony Clinton faces, you know, tear up and bite the lower lip.
At that time less than a 1000 had died in Iraq, too many; even one too many, but look at what we accomplished. No more threat from saddam, no more torture and rape rooms; no more mass graves and now wer're cleaning out the terrorists as they obligingly come to us. Every soldier I have taked to says wer're winning in Iraq. Everybody that's been there says we're winning. But yet you libs whine and try to find every vehicle possible to criticize the Pres. Who's feeling the heat?

[rrpic6]

What a crock of shit............yeah right...........that is what he should do.......:rolleyes:
Would have been a classy act. He could have shown his gratitude, but laughed instead. NO CLASS.

[highnote]

BTW, swety, the alien reference was made by Ronald Reagan.


Thanks. I thought I had heard that quote in my lifetime. I was thinking maybe I had imagined it.

Well, if it's acceptable for Ronald Reagan to use the alien analogy then I guess it's OK for me, too. :D

[Tom]

Anyone know how to get on the list that will get your phone calls bugged?
I want the get on it because then I can send a clear message that Bush will listen to:
"You friggin idiot - you want to protect America, get you worthless butt down to the border where the MEXICAN ARMY is invading. They are crossing illegally and putting legitimate Texas lawmen at risk. They care smuggling people and drugs into our country, you jerk-off."

[twindouble]

Anyone know how to get on the list that will get your phone calls bugged?
I want the get on it because then I can send a clear message that Bush will listen to:
"You friggin idiot - you want to protect America, get you worthless butt down to the border where the MEXICAN ARMY is invading. They are crossing illegally and putting legitimate Texas lawmen at risk. They care smuggling people and drugs into our country, you jerk-off."

Tom, how long to you think this has been going on?? From what I understand States can call on the National guard to protect their borders. Correct? :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

I always think in terms of the administration as a whole, not just one man. For example, I didn't vote for Bush, I voted for Powell and yes, Cheney. So, I figure he would bring like minded people to his cabinet as well. Who in their right mind would for Kerry and who he would bring with him? Plus I really thought with the Republicians in control again things might get done.

Anyway, I don't excited and teary eyed when some politician is saying what I want to hear using slogans like "Contract with America." or freaking "Lock Box." We would need to be standing over the suckers with a guns to their heads to stop them from spending and stealing like drunken sailors.

Some how, some way, we have to clean house, get rid of those intrenched relics and finally do what's right for the country.


T.D.

I don't agree with your perception of Kerry, but I do agree on this misuse of slogans by all polticians. THis crap has got to stop. Are people this dumb that they buy into this stuff - It's both parties in this regard. "Freedoms on the March", "Lock Box". You name it. It is really dumbing down to people.

[twindouble]

I don't agree with your perception of Kerry, but I do agree on this misuse of slogans by all polticians. THis crap has got to stop. Are people this dumb that they buy into this stuff - It's both parties in this regard. "Freedoms on the March", "Lock Box". You name it. It is really dumbing down to people. I agree it's both parties.

Like I said before, Kerry is as phony as the come, just listen to him talk, he thinks he's J.F.K. and F.D.R all rolled up in one the way he hangs on every phrase in a phony resounding way. His personality and sole is out as thick as my toilet paper. I'm sorry you don't see it.


T.D.

[DJofSD]

The problem with Kerry is no matter where he goes he thinks he's the smartest man in the room.

[Lefty]

Kerry has also said our troops terrorize Iraqui civilians. He hasn't changed since he made accusations against our troops in Vietnaam.

[Tom]

Tom, how long to you think this has been going on?? From what I understand States can call on the National guard to protect their borders. Correct? :rolleyes:

I think thier National Guard is busy in Iraq - not defending THIER borders.:rolleyes:

[twindouble]

I think thier National Guard is busy in Iraq - not defending THIER borders.:rolleyes:

I know the Guard is thin but I would say there's enough left to do the job plus. My point is the Governors have that responsibility not Bush, unless otherwise requesting Fed help.

[Tom]

This is a national issue - the illegals are drifting out and destroying many states, not just those on the border.
Besides, a FOREIGN ARMY is involved - this is cleary Bush's responsibility to address.

By your standard, NYC should have reacted to 9-11, not the military.;)

[twindouble]

This is a national issue - the illegals are drifting out and destroying many states, not just those on the border.
Besides, a FOREIGN ARMY is involved - this is cleary Bush's responsibility to address.

By your standard, NYC should have reacted to 9-11, not the military.;)

Come on Tom, your stretching out a horse that can't run the distance and he has the highest Beyer figure. :lol:

There's clearly a national security issue involed and it will take the Federal and State govenments together to solve the problem. I do agree it's long over due.

T.D.

[Tom]

However, I do believe that NCY could EASILY put together a group that could have kicked Afghanistan's butt! I sat with some of them at Toga! :lol:

[Secretariat]

After watching Gonazalez the other day I am now convinced that this administration is losing it. Their arguments are evasive and frankly unjustified. From George Washington used "electronic surveillance" to Article 2 of the Constitution is applicable, but the 4th amendment isn't. He completely ignores the FISA Law. It's pretty obvious that there has been a revolving door at the Justice Dept. and when Ashcroft woudl not sign off on it, you've got to wonder. From him saying it is too difficult to get a warrant because of the size of the operation to him then testifying it is a small narrow amount later on. Even the Repubs on the committee were shaking their heads.

But in some ways I hope Gonazalez is correct, becasue "if" he isn't then every case against a terrorist in which this information was used will have that case thrown out against the terrorist becasue the information was gathered unconstitutionally.