posted
On the subject of American Freedom.. this is frightening.
Why is the Pentagon spending time and resources doing surveilance on peace activists, some even on high school and colledge campuses, and peaceful and within the law? Who do they threaten?
Why are they on this list expressly intended for threats to National Security and anti-Terrorism?
*************************************************
Dec. 15, 2005
Pentagon to review possible database misuse
ROBERT BURNS Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon says it views with the greatest concern possible misuse of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity in the United States. A news report said the database listed activities of anti-war groups and referred to at least 20 U.S. citizens or others inside the U.S.
Pentagon spokesmen declined to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement Wednesday evening that implied - but did not explicitly acknowledge - that some information had been handled improperly.
The Pentagon said Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, ordered a full review of the system for handling such information to ensure that it complies with Pentagon policies and federal law.
Cambone also ordered a review of whether Pentagon polices are being applied properly with respect to reporting and storing information about "U.S. persons" - people, not necessarily U.S. citizens, inside the United States. And he ordered the database to be reviewed "to identify any other information that is improperly in the database," according to the Pentagon statement.
The House and Senate intelligence committees were to receive letters Thursday spelling out these actions, officials said.
The Pentagon was responding to a report Tuesday by NBC News, which said it obtained a 400-page document generated by an obscure Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity that includes at least 20 references to U.S. citizens, plus information on anti-war meetings and protests.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, acknowledged that anti-war group activities had been included in the database.
Earlier, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he had not determined whether the 400-page document was authentic.
"What I can tell you is that the Defense Department does have legitimate interests in protecting its installations, in protecting its people, and to the extent that they use information collected by law enforcement agencies to do that, that's an appropriate activity of the United States military," Whitman said.
The military's intelligence-gathering efforts must pertain directly to protection of Pentagon property or people, he said.
NBC News said the database lists a meeting in 2004 of The Truth Project in Lake Worth, Fla., where activists planned a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. It listed the meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.
The NBC report also said the database includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation or recruitment center.
The database was generated by an obscure Pentagon agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity, a three-year old outfit whose size and budget are classified secret.
Some have portrayed its activities as reminiscent of the 1960s when the Pentagon collected information on anti-Vietnam war groups and peace activists.
The Pentagon increased its counterintelligence efforts in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. An intelligence reporting system developed by the Air Force, called the Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, was put into effect across the Defense Department in 2002. Its purpose was to assemble and share "non-validated domestic threat information," according to a Pentagon fact sheet.
"The TALON is designed to capture non-validated threat information and security anomalies indicative of possible terrorist pre-attack activity," it said. "Reportable events include nonspecific threat to DoD interests; suspected surveillance of DoD facilities and personnel," tests of security, unusual repetitive activity, bomb threats and "any other suspicious activity," it added.
-------------------------------------------------
� 2005 AP Wire and wire service sources.
(uh-oh ... I'm probably on the list!! )
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
Iam convinced now and before' the patriot act is totally wrong even with terrorists on the loose.
Government is running rampant and out of control in every facet of its realm.
We need prayer and people to speak up on real issuse's.
We are heading for a One world order ran by the antichrist.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
I'll make a point of reading all your post later. I have to say that if you have trouble figuring that out mo, you are wwaayyy behind the power curve!!!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
OK Mo, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on something this simple, you either g'it or you don't. If you wanted America to lose this war, you wouldn't get much traction if you walked around with a sign that read,'' I hate America and I want it to lose this war''! You just might piss off some redneck that would show you where to stick your sign! To say, ``stop the carnage of war'', would at least garner some sympathy or at least no direct hostility to you.
So what is the intent of the anti-war bunch. They don't picket anyone else but America, somehow that doesn't seem fair. They seem to only want America to stop fighting! I see these people as enemy combatants, plain and simple! It is indisputable they provide aid and comfort to our enemies and they are an organized operation with a chain of command. A chain of command with paid organizers, that's an army Mo!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
Senate rejects reauthorization of Patriot Act Failure of vote to pre-empt filibuster is major defeat for administration.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the nation's top anti-terror law as infringing too much on Americans' privacy, dealing a major defeat to President Bush and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.
Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and GOP congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.
If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.
CLICK FOR RELATED STORIES Bush reportedly OK'd spying on Americans Analysis: Are wartime measures being abandoned?
Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.
``We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act,'' Frist warned.
`Vital tools' in the war on terror If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. ``In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. ``The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come.''
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost Friday from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
``I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,'' said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
``It is time to have some checks and balances in this country,'' shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. ``We are more American for doing that.''
Most of the Patriot Act -- which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers -- was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.
Compromise reached earlier The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. These supporters predict doom and gloom if the Patriot Act's critics win and the provisions expire.
``This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
``Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit (of) ... a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security,'' said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began.
The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
So Far!!
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
posted
This subject is not one I'm really familiar with, but thought I'd add my two cents anyway.
I've read on other war related subjects here that we've spent too much time, money and blood on fighting the war outside our borders, specifically in Iraq.
I've also read that we need to dedicate our efforts more on preventing future terrorism here rather than fighting a land war in Iraq.
Now I read that the Pentagon should not be spending time and resources doing surveilance on peace activists, etc.
I'm confused!! We don't have a problem being listed in credit card databases or in the IRS database or other personal information databases, but we get our panties all in a wad (it's just an expression, no offensive intended)if we might be listed in an anti-terrorism database.
I know nothing about the The Truth Project in Lake Worth Fla, highlighted in Mo's post, but did the group come to any harm being listed in the Pentagon's database??
I personally have no objections being listed in the Pentagon's database, I have absolutely nothing to hide. Just because of my security clearance, I know I'm in at least a dozen federal databases, if not more.
By virtue of what I do for a living, I'm probably even listed in several terrorists databases. Don't much care.
There is a price we all must be willing to pay in order to keep tabs on our enemy. He is not easy to identify, extremely hard to track if identified and he will be extremely hard to eliminate.
Our collective memory concerning who the actors were on September 11 and where they were able to beddown prior to 2001 seems to be a little selective.
I'm not a proponent of Big Brother, but I have no problem having my name or anything else about me listed on a database that might help fight our enemy.
Are we being just a little paranoid about losing our freedoms by being listed in a federal database?? Personally, I think so.
posted
Because this is nothing new doesn't make it OK.
After Vietnam, there were restrictions put on monitoring of anti-War groups .. this was done then and it was outrageous. ..and the Bush admin did away with all those provisions.
There is another situation regarding evesdropping of international calls.. which requires judicial overview, clearance.. and all that has bee overridden by this administration as well.
LymeOjai, these individuals and groups are not merely on a list.. and yes, I would mind being on an anti-terrism database.. however, these groups are being monitored, survelied..
Yes I do want exactly what you said.. our government to be more pro-ative in investigating terrorist threats (the real ones), and they are lacking in that regard both here and abroad.
That is why, not only as a matter of principal and concerns over why our government is 'watching' groups that do things such as plan peaceful rallies, where they hand out bumperstickers and buttons.. or show up at recruitment pushes on campus.. WHY??
but moreover that they are using time and resources we need to be targeting terrorist cells here in America.
The DOD has said they are 'looking into this'.. I hope their findings and actions taken are forthright.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that might be your opinion, shared by others.. but that does not make what they do alright, and appahrently there has not, in many cases, been the justification you describe in these practices.. if there were, then a court order should have been easy to obtain.
Instead, they just skip that step.
*************************************************
Senate refuses to extend Patriot Act amid eavesdropping row
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Saturday December 17, 2005
Guardian
The White House yesterday suffered a new assault on its conduct of the war on terror when the Senate refused to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. The rebuff, which leaves the anti-terror law in limbo before crucial portions expire on December 31, was delivered amid growing outrage at reports that President George Bush secretly authorised eavesdropping on Americans inside the US without court oversight.
It was the second setback for the White House in two days after Mr Bush yielded to Congress and agreed to ban cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees.
The Senate vote was driven by a report in yesterday's New York Times that the president signed a secret order in 2002 authorising the national security agency to monitor international phone calls and emails of ****hundreds, if not thousands of US citizens without obtaining a court warrant.
Several senators accused the administration of treading on civil liberties following the September 11 attacks, and Arlen Spector, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said he would press for hearings early next year.
The White House would not confirm the veracity of the report. But in an interview to be broadcast on PBS, Mr Bush defended his leadership of the war on terror: "After 9/11 I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country within the law, and that's exactly how I conduct my presidency."
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "The president acted lawfully in every step he has taken to defend the American people."
Several NSA officials told the New York Times they were so concerned about the legality of conducting wiretaps without surveillance court approval that they declined to participate. The programme was temporarily suspended last year amid questions about its legality from the judge of the court, which operates in secret.
The legal justification came in a memo from John Yoo, a former justice department official, who advised the administration on the definition of torture and presidential powers to prosecute the war on terror, the New York Times reported.
Critics of the administration said the report raised questions about the legality of the president's order, and was a disturbing throwback to the abuses of the 1960s and 70s when the government spied on anti-Vietnam war activists.
"The president apparently believed that he could order government officials to commit a crime, and if that's the case then it is an astounding and frightening incident of lawlessness," said Kate Martin, director of the Centre for National Security Studies.
"We know that some in the justice department had advised the president that he was above the law when it came to national security matters, but we didn't know the president had adopted that view himself and acted on it."
Guardian Unlimited
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Those of us on this board that are'nt afraid of the big bad wolf actually put where we really live in our bio's...
Those who may have reasons not to display places like "wonderland".
Maybe they are on the list...frankly...maybe someone who refers to our leaders as "facists" should be on a list somewhere...just to keep an eye or ear on them...
How the heck do ya blame the president when his advisors come to him and say, "Look George we can't guarantee to protect the US if we can't be allowed to monitor communications between the worldwide terror groups".
Then George says...do what you have to to keep America safe....even if you have to break a few outdated RULES....cuz this war is "different" than any we've faced before and we must keep anything like sept 11 from happening again.
Even if you have to play by their rules(which they don't seem to have).
Those who fear big brotherism...don't get it!
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Those of us on this board that are'nt afraid of the big bad wolf actually put where we really live in our bio's...
Those who may have reasons not to display places like "wonderland".
zman
The reason people dont put where or who they are is because of all the fruitcakes running around building info on individuals. Safe practice
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
This coming Monday, the very conservative business periodical, Barron's, will have an editorial calling for impeachment of Dumbya. The text is already all over the web. The position taken is that he repeatedly broke the law by ordering wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant. Then mr. machoman bragged about it in press conference. Things are getting interesting. Happy Winter Solstice Season!
posted
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai: Are we being just a little paranoid about losing our freedoms by being listed in a federal database?? Personally, I think so.
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tequeslady,
Franklin's statement as been quoted quite a bit lately.
Unfortunately I don't believe the safety of our way of life that is being threatened is either "little" or "temporary". I believe our enemy has decided they will do whatever is necessary to end all of our liberties.
I find it odd that we allow BankofAmerica, CitiCorp, the IRS, several credit bureaus to maintain detailed databases on a vast majority of adult Americans without as much as a whimper.
However, if the executive branch tries to maintain surveillance on suspected terrorists, he's susceptable to ridicule, political harranging and the possibility of impeachment????
I continue to be concerned that we are developing selective memories; September 2001 was only 4 years ago.
I don't think we should assume that those attacks were the only ones we'll ever experience over the next few years, especially without tight security and surveillance, if necessary.
IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
One last thought on the current uproar on wiretapping, loss of liberties etc.
I can't quite understand why to some folks the president (commander-in-chief) cannot be trusted to use necessary cautions in deciding upon whom eavedropping is appropriate, yet they find it okay to allow a politically appointed federal judge to make the decision.
IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
David, you write:
quote: This coming Monday, the very conservative business periodical, Barron's, will have an editorial calling (my emphasis added) for impeachment of Dumbya.... the position taken is that he repeatedly broke the law by ordering wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant.
You seemed to be pleased with that information, which kinda pissed me off. Don't be offended, I get that way pretty easily, so I researched the Barron's article,
No where in the article does Barrons or the author call for the impeachment of the president. Donlan writes:
quote: It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that , would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
(My emphasis added)
The author further states:
quote:Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it.
Then finally he comments:
quote: Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping.
Advocating the impeachment of a president during a time of war, at least from my perspective, provides way too much comfort to the enemy and borders on (I started to say treason, but thought better of it). It's just plain bad stuff.
My other concern is all the hoopla about wiretapping/eavesdropping on groups here in the U.S. versus the perceived notion of the real need to wiretap only international calls, etc.
I don't remember reading about the 9/11 terrorists coming from outside the U.S. in the period just prior to the attacks. They were hunkered down here in our home.
It seems to me that to limit the surveillance of suspected terrorists or terrorist groups to only those outside the CONUS, makes little sense.
Personal Note: I'm coming up on my third deployment, not counting Desert Storm. I can't emmphasis too much that we need to get behind this thing as a country and we need to do it now.
The Iraqi front may be coming to a close, it's my opinion that Iran is next. Without a united front from civilian america, we will still win this thing, it just makes it harder.
I've been home on leave a little over six weeks. During that time I've read more political crap than I can handle. I'm ready to get back to my troops and away from all this nonsense.
I only know a few things for sure,
1. Nothing in that region of the world, including Saddam's gold, Iraq's oil or anything else is worth one drop of American blood.
2. We didn't ask for this and we're right, the enemy is wrong.
3. As a people, the enemy is much more united in their goals than we are in ours.
4. His politics are simple, kill the infidel, that's us.
5. We have much more to lose than he does. I've been there, they have nothing we want, believe me.
6. American GI's know how to read newspapers, they perceive the division in our country and it hurts morale and morale is extrememly important.
7. My job, as a GySgt, is to keep my troops alive, keep discipline and morale high, keep my troops motivated, and make sure we kill more of them than they do of us.
8. I've had too much to drink tonight and I'm a little testy (just got my orders changed from Iraq to Afghanistan again).
So this will probably be my last post for a while. I'm taking my sister on a little get-away. She's not doing so good and I hate to see her hurt this way.
You all take it easy. My folks will be actively participating in this board.
I'm done now - Semper Fi
(Keep us all in your prayers, they really help)
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also concerned about the erosion of your freedom and liberty by what we're allowing to occur in our OWN country. We were told to be "ever vigilant".
Why would I think it wise to grant someone the power to take away my freedom and merely trust (or hope) that he doesn't do so. To do this is very dangerous, in my opinion.
As far as the databases that large corporations or credit bureaus have on citizens... do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.
9-11... You're right, we should never forget. But, Iraq was not who bombed us. Did you forget that it was Bin Laden???? I don't see what Iraq had to do with it. Please straighten me out here.
I agree with you that 9-11 is unfortunately not the last time we'll be threatened by an external force. And the more that we invade other sovereign nations, kill their citizenry and overthrow their government, the more it will likely happen.
What are we doing in THIS country? I hear that we already have a lot of "cells" in this country. Ok... what are we doing to stem the current and future tide of terrorists into this country??? Are we tightening the borders? If so, how?
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai:
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tequeslady,
Franklin's statement as been quoted quite a bit lately.
Unfortunately I don't believe the safety of our way of life that is being threatened is either "little" or "temporary". I believe our enemy has decided they will do whatever is necessary to end all of our liberties.
I find it odd that we allow BankofAmerica, CitiCorp, the IRS, several credit bureaus to maintain detailed databases on a vast majority of adult Americans without as much as a whimper.
However, if the executive branch tries to maintain surveillance on suspected terrorists, he's susceptable to ridicule, political harranging and the possibility of impeachment????
I continue to be concerned that we are developing selective memories; September 2001 was only 4 years ago.
I don't think we should assume that those attacks were the only ones we'll ever experience over the next few years, especially without tight security and surveillance, if necessary.
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Barron's: Investigate a possible impeachable offense in Politics I normally steer clear of politics (except when it relates to markets, science or technology).
But I had to sit up and take notice this morning, when I saw the normally conservative-leaning financial weekly Barron's calls for an investigation into the Bush administration's use of domestic surveillance as a possible impeachable offense:
"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
>
Astonishing. When people ask me how I derived a 6,800 Dow in the BW survey, its not all that difficult to imagine any number of scenarios where the wheels all come off the bus -- and that was before this potentially troublesome issue raised its head.
>>
NOTE: See if this link leads non-subscribers to the full article
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I think all those who are afraid of this wiretapping issue becomming at worse case scenario a "big brother" issue are wrong.
Secrecy should have been maintained...to do otherwise let's the enemy know what tactics we're employing so they can circumvent our efforts...
Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot... If these wire tapping issues have kept you too safe....I guess you'll find that out soon enough...now that the word is out...
I hope there is a contingency plan in the works.....
I understand Treepatrol....it's I guess the fact that I don't feel anyone can actually harm me with anything I say on this board cuz...contrary to some here...I'm not some wacko! Just a regular sort of guy with my own opinions....I mean what the heck can they do to me...shave my head; put me on an LPH and send me to Nam?...zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Religious freaks"?? Are you talking about Muslims? Are you saying that we should overthrow every Muslim country? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: I think all those who are afraid of this wiretapping issue becomming at worse case scenario a "big brother" issue are wrong.
Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot... If these wire tapping issues have kept you too safe....I guess you'll find that out soon enough...now that the word is out...
I hope there is a contingency plan in the works.....
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
This really is not about whether any of us have something to hide. It's about our constitutional form of government.
Congress makes the laws and the executive branch implements them. The executive branch does not make the laws. If the administration believes it needs a law change, it requests it of the congress which then debates it and decides. The administration bypassed this process that is absolutely central to our form of govenment.
Democracy is precious and fragile. There is always a crisis of the day or war of the year that is put forth as the reason to give up parts of our system. With ten year hindsight, they seem less compelling.
Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in order to assure a steady supply of steel for the Korean War. The courts said no.
Roosevelt ordered the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans during WWI. The congress and courts failed to respond and the result was a huge miscarriage of justice that still reverberates in the lives of those imprisoned and their descendants, to this day.
Reagan bypassed congress and defied the Boland ammendment by selling arms to Iran (which conveniently held onto the hostages until he was in office) in order to finance an attempted coup in Nicaragua. The coup failed, his administration was damaged, and our international reputation was further sullied.
Authoritarianism can be very appealing to people who are frightened by current circumstances and to those who are characterologically fearful of the unexpected. I believe we need to be forever vigilant in protecting what the founding fathers created.
BTW, it's my opinion that if the ammendment the administration decided to bypass was the second (the right to bear arms) many people who are fine with having the citizenry spied upon without court order would be singing a different tune.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: I'm also concerned about the erosion of your freedom and liberty by what we're allowing to occur in our OWN country. We were told to be "ever vigilant".
Why would I think it wise to grant someone the power to take away my freedom and merely trust (or hope) that he doesn't do so. To do this is very dangerous, in my opinion.
As far as the databases that large corporations or credit bureaus have on citizens... do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.
9-11... You're right, we should never forget. But, Iraq was not who bombed us. Did you forget that it was Bin Laden???? I don't see what Iraq had to do with it. Please straighten me out here.
I agree with you that 9-11 is unfortunately not the last time we'll be threatened by an external force. And the more that we invade other sovereign nations, kill their citizenry and overthrow their government, the more it will likely happen. ... ...
Yes, these are very important observations, expressed in straight and simple words. The kind of misinformation the government has infected us with, though, evidently make reading them incredibly difficult for many people. It's just uncanny... DaveS Posts: 4567 | From ithaca, NY, usa | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Was President Bush right to authorize NSA eavesdropping on Americans?
Yes - 26% No - 69%
This latest unscientific poll shows that the majority of Americans do not agree with the presidents choices regarding eavesdropping and wiretapping.
Additionally several posters on this board also disagree with the president, while others support his actions.
People like Mo, meg, David95928, LymieTonyZ, tesquelady, treepatrol, my son and others have stated their positions without rancor or malice toward others. They have simply stated their opinions, usually supported by research and facts.
Then we have to read from one of those psuedo-intellectual superior leftist who make statements like;
HaplyCarlessdave;
quote: Yes, these are very important observations, expressed in straight and simple words. The kind of misinformation the government has infected us with, though, evidently make reading them incredibly difficult for many people. It's just uncanny... DaveS
Mr S.,
I have absolutely no difficulty reading, understanding and in some cases agreeing with those on the left of this and other issues. I do, however, take umbrage from people like you insenuating that because we on the right don't agree with your points-of-view we are somehow less intelligent and
quote:evidently make reading them incredibly difficult
.
I see nothing uncanny about the fact that many Americans, although in the minority at this time, happen to believe that President Bush is doing the right thing in using assumed powers to attempt to protect us from future terrorists attacks.
I, for one, would appreciate it if you would keep your elitists comments to yourself. If you have nothing more than innuendo to add to the discussion, do me a favor and don't say anything.
I would be more than pleased to provide you with my personal e-mail address, street address or phone number if you'd like to discuss these issues further.
LymeDad
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've read the post you referred to and others where the rhetoric became heated and I understand that the "conversations" are not always civil.
My frustration comes when others assume that those "across the political aisle" either are less intelligent or just don't understand the "real" truth.
I find if I treat my opponents with respect, I learn much more of their point of view and I can usually get them to see where I'm coming from easier. Respect begats respect.
Smug inferences do nothing for communications.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I understand your feeling of this type of smug rhetoric being minor, however, I found another quote by this same self-important radical that emphasizes his complete distain for any real exchange of ideas:
quote: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S THAT MANY morons, selfish jerks, or oppression-victims who are completely hypnotised or deluded by the bushwazian corporate dictatorship into behaving like one. (Anyone who REALLY voted for that disgusting piece of excrement, gee dubya bush, must, of course, fall into one of these three categories!)).
I would personally relish the opportunity to speak with Mr. HaplyCarlessdave in person. I'd like his opinion on which of the three categories I fit within; moron, selfish jerk, or oppression-victim.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: I find if I treat my opponents with respect, I learn much more of their point of view and I can usually get them to see where I'm coming from easier. Respect begats respect.
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
posted
By the way, Tony, I can't say that I'm all that against prohibiting a whole bunch of people from coming to the U.S. At least for awhile. It might be said that this is profiling, but so what.
It's one thing disallowing people to come into the U.S., our country, and invading/overthrowing another's country.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: Thank you for the reply, Tony.
Actually I sould'nt have replied as it should have been obvious what I meant by "religious freaks" to most people...
In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
MYSELF and my common sense...
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
I was'nt calling you a liberal per say...it was just a collective use of the word "you" and if you don't belong there then don't take it personal...
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
If you recall we did go after Ole Osama...
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
Your attempt at twisting my term of religious freaks into accusing all Muslims of said missinterpretations of their religious beliefs is offensive at best. You and everyone with an ounce of common sense should have been able to read what I said and not read into it anything that was'nt. But you did...I suspect you want to goad me into an argument...your feeble attempt won't do it...
If the extremists in ANY religion are allowed to hide behind there religion as an excuse to take power by terrorism it's simply wrong.
If these extremists happen to be muslims at this time and if they are also in Iran then yes...we should go there next...are you forgetting the hostage situation a few years earlier? Are you forgetting that the Iranians collectively Hate us? Are you forgetting they have nuclear capabilities? Are you forgetting that extreme muslims want to take over the world? There figurehead president over there is just a puppet to appease the UN. He has no power that the bearded freak behind him does'nt allow him to have.
I don't know where you came up with wanting to keep people out of the US...I never mentioned that. What I was referring to was folks living here that happen to be of Arab desent...
I mean if we're being attacked by folks of Arab desent it would'nt do much good to profile and keep an eye on Asians...now would it...unless of course they were extremist muslims.....
Gee I hope I cleared you up....
Goldwater huh?.......hmmmm........zman you know you're not fooling me with the new name..... chicken lady
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Hey there teuques lady...
Let's see what do I mean by "religios freaks"....
NO not all muslims....this was a really unfortunate miss read on my comment by you...
Religious Freaks: The people in any one religion that uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs.....ya know like the terrorists.....the Klan........the whatever......
These folks are religious freaks...they missuse their respective religions to attempt to oppress and dominate their neighbors.
Again...the wire tapping would'nt have to have been so broad if the government would have been able to profile suspects.....
Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling....
Ya know in WAR ya gotta break some eggs if you want to win... I know "we're not gonna win" ...well if we don't you can blame yourselves...
This WAR is not going to go away when we pull out of Iraq... zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lymie tony z: [QUOTE]Originally posted by tequeslady: Thank you for the reply, Tony.
"Actually I sould'nt have replied as it should have been obvious what I meant by "religious freaks" to most people..."
Hummm... Anyone but you??
"In your definition of "religious freaks", who would decide whether someone "uses their religion against another religion or group of people in a fanatical missinterpretation of their beliefs"?
I think this is treading on dangerous territory. Who do you trust enough to make this decision?
"MYSELF and my common sense..."
Now... that's scary.
By the way, concerning your statement... " Then you liberals would have been whining about profiling...."... It is a joke to call me a liberal. To give you an idea, I came from a family who voted for Goldwater. Plus, I think it is a cop out to start throwing around labels rather than debate the facts.
"I was'nt calling you a liberal per say...it was just a collective use of the word "you" and if you don't belong there then don't take it personal..."
I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe we invaded Iraq for the right reasons. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the bombing. It was he and his group that we should have gone after. Not Iraq. No degree of bait and switch change the facts.
"If you recall we did go after Ole Osama..."
But we didn't get him, we diverted to invading Iraq. First it was because they had weapons of mass destruction, then it was because we were avenging 9-11. Neither of which was true.
In an earlier post, you said... " Quit crying about Irag not being the one's that hit the towers and realize that these religious freaks are everywhere... Apparently a lot of them are indeed in Iraq at present...and I think you folks ought to be glad they are so we can deal with them militarily in one spot..."
I believe there are also a lot of Muslims in a number of other countries, including Iran. Are you thinking that we should also invade and overthrow that government too?
"Your attempt at twisting my term of religious freaks into accusing all Muslims of said missinterpretations of their religious beliefs is offensive at best. You and everyone with an ounce of common sense should have been able to read what I said and not read into it anything that was'nt. But you did...I suspect you want to goad me into an argument...your feeble attempt won't do it..."
I wanted you to explain your position. I guess you cannot.
"If the extremists in ANY religion are allowed to hide behind there religion as an excuse to take power by terrorism it's simply wrong."
"If these extremists happen to be muslims at this time and if they are also in Iran then yes...we should go there next...are you forgetting the hostage situation a few years earlier? Are you forgetting that the Iranians collectively Hate us? Are you forgetting they have nuclear capabilities? Are you forgetting that extreme muslims want to take over the world? There figurehead president over there is just a puppet to appease the UN. He has no power that the bearded freak behind him does'nt allow him to have."
No, I haven't. But, then again, so do we. If Iran threatens us, you bet, I'd say we need to take them out. I'm not aware that they have done that. Are you?
"I don't know where you came up with wanting to keep people out of the US...I never mentioned that."
I know you didn't. I did. I think it is a preferable approach to invading sovereign nations that haven't done anything to us.
" What I was referring to was folks living here that happen to be of Arab desent..."
I have no problem with that.
"I mean if we're being attacked by folks of Arab desent it would'nt do much good to profile and keep an eye on Asians...now would it...unless of course they were extremist muslims....."
"Gee I hope I cleared you up...."
"Goldwater huh?.......hmmmm........zman you know you're not fooling me with the new name..... hi chicken lady "
What the heck are you talking about? If you're saying Goldwater was a chicken, I don't think so.
You seem to be full of inuendos, Tony, but lack substance.
It's actually somewhat funny, I've noticed when you can't back up your point, you resort to insults.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
hey teuques...
You are really full of it!
It's sad and very old...
Whatever......
[ 01. January 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I respect your 'no-bones-about-it' and non-partisan discussion points.
It's refreshing also to see that you do not get caught up in some of the sillyless that exists here.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
MY BAD teques...
I did get you mixed up with someone else...
My humble appology...
I edited out the previous accusation...
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
this President and his administration lack integrity. (and lack of humanity and Christianity as far as I am concerned.)
Honesty, strength, intelligent address, effective management, support of the troops, communication, forsight and global relations and image are at an all-time low.
You may decide to PERSONALLY agree with what he -- they -- have done.. however that does not change the fact that this administration lacks these essential qualities.. you may PERSONALLY agree with the invasion of Iraq, but that does not make it a justified War. That does not erase the grave mishandlings, and you may PERSONALLY agree with spying while skipping the secret court step (put in place for this, and easy to navigate if circumstances call for it) -- you may PERSONALLY think that's 'OK', but that certainly does not make it so in America. (or at least the America I know and LOVE)
New Yorkers amd many other Americans feel less safe than they did in the days following 911, as documented terrorist recruitment, and Bin Laden's own statements express this invasion has fueled that deadly cause. He basically thanked Bush publicly.
Globally, nations look upon the US as a catalyst to global terror as a result of our actions in Iraq, and our actions contribiting to -- as well as inactions toward thwarting Islamic extremism.
To think the War on terror can be won militarily on the ground in Iraq is ludicrous.
and with 2000+ military men and women lost, and the 'War on Terror' loosing, not gaining.. (remember, this should be a War on a tactic (terrorism), not on Iraq)
as well as a plethora of other failures foreign and domestic..
lack of integrity is ever more scurging. This admin will undoubtably go down as one of the very worst --- ever. TIME WILL TELL..meanwhile, how much time do we have?
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Oh my God,
The sky is falling the sky is falling!
I PERSONALLY don't think so!
By the way how can you PERSONALLY speak for the eight million new yorkers when you don't even live there anymore...
Besides they should'nt feel afraid anymore...they have'nt been attacked since 2001! So this administration must be doing something right.
There is not a plethora of mistakes with this administration...quite a few but hardly a plethora. Probably not too many more than past administrations that refused to secure louisiana's dike system...the past administrations new full well it was going to happen sooner or later and did nothing.
Perhaps the President did'nt want to tip off the terrorists by going through the court system cuz our records are public...perhaps by being secretive it prevented terrorist attacks the last four years... Of course now all bets are off cuz the media blew the whistle......
I PERSONALLY never agreed with going into IRAQ but the bottom line is...we did...the war there has been won...the battles against terrorism linger on. Just like they do in Israel and Palestine. I doubt these folks will ever GET IT!
How much time do we have??
About six years.....if you believe the Mayan callender..... the doom and gloom folks or even the Rapture folks who are aglow with belief that the end is near... I personally don't know for sure...but I'll be glad to get rid of this lymie body...one way or another......
The bottom line...I PERSONALLY don't really care what you PERSONALLY think...Mo...you've been preaching the same broken record for a long time now....time to move on.
And life goes on...for some of us....
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
This is interesting.
Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority, characterized by an inability to find other modes for human relationship than those of more or less complete domination or submission. The pseudo-conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition. [He] sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed.
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, 1965.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many analysts believe the first thing we must work to set straight to begin to mend Midle Eastern relations is to rectify American support/looking the other way -- in response to Israel's atrosities against the Palastinians.
Isreal has, to their credit, taken some respectful steps of late...but there is a long and poignant history of US acceptance of their terrorist actions against Palastine. Looking the other way in cases of genocide.
Just one of the core isues that runs deeper than the 'axis of evil' rhetoric, the great hypocracy.. and the idea that Islamic extremism just appeared out of nowhere.
Now, if you look beyond rhetoric and YES, consider the views of other nations.. (it's scary how this admin has encouraged so many Americans to disregard the rest of the World in this -- this isn't the Wild West, folks..not having World support is extremely deleterious to our standing -- and we NEED their help and support to effectively work globally on Terror) In addition, our actions in Iraq are pointed to - even by Bin Laden himself -- fueling Islamic extremism and hatred for America. The greatest recruitment campaign they could have asked for.
Because we have not been attacked again the way we were on 911 is a simplistic view, and considering all pertinant cause and effects of the Iraq War..should not be accepted as 'proof things are working'.. NYers by and large do not feel safer, and since they suffered the brunt of the attacks and big cities are the likely target of future attacks (not if, but WHEN has been a quote used by many top experts), perhaps NYers lrgitimate concerns should at least be considered..certainly not so easily blown off.
These groups are notorious for patient, careful planning and suprise attack. They are fine with things taking years.
(That statement also completely ignores the attacks in London, Madrid, and Jordan.)
And, I'd say 'plethora' is accurate. As far as administrative blunders and harmful actions go.. both foreign and domestic. Would you like me to list them? There is no comparison to other administrations.
Also, the step GWya openly admits he didn't think he need bother with regarding spying... is not justified by the need for secrecy.. the court is set up to move swiftly and secretly.. and even if he thinks he has to move faster than that, he/they have 72 hours after the fact to submit the required info. He chose not to. Yep - this is another one of the impeachable offences.
What it comes down to is whether the Repoblicans and Democrats have the courage and dignitiy to put the country's welfare over the coming election aspirations and do their job's first. Congress (as a whole) has let us down as much as the admin IMO.
(PS: Interesting piece, David)
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
More blah blah blah...
by definition they could'nt be guilty of a "plethora" of misdeeds...
This obsession you have against dubya is not healthy for you...
David....outdated little ditty...his comments were made durring an anti war period in our history and should be judged as irrelevent and immaterial at this juncture and time. IMO
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Actually, in 1965 public support for the war in Viet Nam was quite high. Given how publication tends to go, it was probably written in 1963. This still seems extremely relevant to me because the kinds of psychological defenses that people use have been pretty stable throughout the time they have been studied. There is quite a bit of research, including current on authoritarian personalities.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
David, How old are you?
I was fifteen in 65 and I certainly remember division on the war back then...
It only grew...
I hope it does'nt happen this time...
If you think the threats are imagined...where have you been?
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zman, wasn't it you that said the following in response to various of Mo's posts? I guess it just depends on what each of us thinks is important, eh?
"Oh my God,
The sky is falling the sky is falling!
I PERSONALLY don't think so!"
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: David,
If you think the threats are imagined...where have you been?
posted
can i put my 2 cents in? i believe it was Jefferson who said something about the price of freedom being ETERNAL vigilance,concerning everything,especially our government, which if you've all done your homework, is US! "WE THE PEOPLE".....it's all in the Bill of Rights. the main reason we always have to deal with these aftermaths is because of grassroots apathy and ignorance of abuse of power,even locally. how many people go to their town meetings? that's where abuse of power starts, along with corruption! Evil prevails when good men do nothing. 'nuff said!
-------------------- ~*~ Carole ~*~ Young at Heart Grandmother of 4 Posts: 140 | From Morristown, NJ, USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Yo teuges,
Do you understand what sarcasm is?
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Loribelle
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6293
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
[ 22. January 2006, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Loribelle
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6293
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
OK Lori,
Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
I should probably stay off the internet durring my monthly flare cycles...
My brain and emotions don't always click on all eight cylinders durring this time....
Sorry......zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Loribelle
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6293
caat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 2321
posted
wow. lol.
Mo, I so admire your courage... I honestly do. Coups to you!
Hey every one, has anyone considered this might be a strategic build up in preparation for a world war 3?
Peak oil is either over or around the corner. Probley no one knows for sure when it was or when it will be, but even experts in the oil industry are nervous.
China and India are needing more oil than they ever had before. Former Russian states seem to be having problems with their oil supplies. Think about it.
Afganistan hasn't any or hasn't much oil, but geographically it has always been a potential staging point and thought of as a key point to hold in Euopean invasions of Asia. It's right next to India. It's been invaded over and over again by many countries trying to expand their power. Of course, no country was able to use that position all that well, but that hasn't stopped that historical trend.
I don't think the US goverment is all that concerned about Bin Laden. Regardless of how shocking 911 was. Sure, they're concerned, but not more concerned than about Columbian rebels or the rocky mountain survivalists group that the Oaklahoma bomber was associated with. Or the white supremist's groups which bomb churches etc and fund their organizations through counterfeight operations and robbing armored bank trunks. Personally those guys scare me a lot more than Bin Laden...
I just wish that these mega companies would start investing in safe and self sustaining alternative energies before we run ourselves into the ground. A war for the oil isn't going to help in the long run anyway- not for future generations. We will eventually run out even if dubya gets his misguided fantasy of the US militarily holding most of the oil reserves in the world. Remember, we are not bigger than China... China has patience...
As someone at a bus station once said, any carbon based alternative energy is just not going to work- there will be too limited a supply. Whether that means we use up all the cooking oil to run deisel cars or we run out of something else.
Right now we don't have the technology to produce enough safe non-carbon based alternative energy. Nuclear energy is not safe and it's waste is dirty.
It takes an incredible amount of energy and resources to make solar pannels.
But if scientists were funded and allowed to work on it I think there is a very good chance we could come up with clean alternatives and could avoid a very bad scenario when oil runs out.
With that and world wide public pressure for voluntary birth control we might actually be able to have peace on earth some day. Just imagine. Someday we might not have to live through what so many people in the rest of the world are so upset about.
Posts: 1436 | From Humboldt county ca usa | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Swedish government has already converted to Ethanol - and give huge incentives to homeowners to do the same.
Ethanol is carbon-based as well, but at least it would serve as an interim alternative, for which we have the natural resources.
We are (still holding, but not for long. IMO) a country in the front running in technological potential, and certainly have the work forces.
In fact, I think it is an enourmous opportunity economically, not only to secure our future and National Security , and to protect the environment for our children (!!), but to increase home-based jobs exponentially, and to eliminate the motivation for Imperialism..
but we could also teach and sell cutting edge technologies to the rest of the World.
I agree..imagine the potential of independant energy resources. I don't suspect Sweden will ever be a target of Terrorism, either. Our incestuos relations with Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East have created a terible mess.
The PNAC had the plan (control of the Midle East oil interests) we see in motion set forth years ago. If you read it, it is eerily spot on as far as what we are doing in the Midle East now. Also no cooincidence that those then and now (same folks named then are major players in this admin), and are all oil men.
Imperialism.. fueled by classically facist tactics to string the public along.
It's the oldest tactic in the book.. manipulate the pubic based on fear, trump up nationalism, all dissent is consisered treasonous.. (or at the very least, considered idiotic.. hence the term 'far left wackos')
inflate these illusions to get the piblic behind War, and take over the region involved for strategic positioning. (in this case, to secure the oil)
Why is it every military base in Afghanistan is along the pipeline? Why did we really go into Iraq, if the 'intelligence supportring it' as we now know -- was just not there? Why did we go in the name of 911 when there was no connection (as investigated extensively by the independant 911 commission)? Why did Bush plan it before even those flawed reports were released?
The rest of the World, by and large, sees this as the U.S. government's postition. Cetrainly as well, the Middle East sees this, it's not like they haven't been through it before.
Imprialism...for control of the oil states.
They have seen it as such since the inception of the Iraq invasion. China doesn't even need much patience in the scheme of things..
Much of the World is sitting back and watching the U.S. implode.
Iraq, the status in the War on Terror, the rampid propaganda and manipulation of public perception in the U.S., oil control, (indicted) curruption running deep, violating international law, the administration breaking the law through the NSA programme, the torture policies, Katrina, recently we hear that 25 billion was literally squandered in rebuilding funds..and on and on.
(IMO, in this form of government, Congress is our only hope, and so far they have been far too politically concerned to do their job fighting for American interests, we need some more mavericks..)
I have several friends internationally, some in circles of governments.. and that is how they see us right now. They worry for the citizens, however this is the view of our current administration. A nose dive.
A big concern is how long we can operate this way, and how much damage we have incurred, as these views have been formed and solidified internationally for years now.
The thing I am most personally enraged over is how 911 has been exploited by this administration in order to further it's Imperialistic goals, and that this administration has amplified the threat of further attacks like 911 ten-fold..
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Oh stop whinning and go gas up while the lines are short and gas is only a little over two bucks a gallon!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I thought this thread was about the NSA...
Dubya will be cleared of any wrongdoing in his actions to "spy".
The economy of the world would implode if fossil fuel is not used at this point in time that is why alternative fuels have not had a chance YET.
Some of the car makers are finally gettin it but not all.
The military has to start using alternative fuels for it to change.
Ethanol is replaceable fuel source but IMO not the best neither is nuclear.
The best so far seems to be the hydrogen car.
However, how do you base an economy on hydrogen?
America is not IMPLODING...and your international friends can stop worrying...
America has'nt been liked for a long long time...and we are NOT imperialistic facists and I'm getting sick and tired of you calling us that!
Why don't you go move to one of your allies countries and stay their. Maybe you should be worried about the NSA. Frankly I'm not.
I'm not worried about WWIII either...it ain't gonna happen.
I think the reason congress is stymied is cuz they're afraid to do anything against a current pres who on the surface seems to be doing what is necessary to keep the american folks safe....
Yeah yeah I know he's screwed up a lot...but hey the other side never did anything about louisiana either...
Besides the bird flu or some other world wide epidemic is going to take care of a lot of the unrest in the world.... We'll all finally realize that we can't do without each other and about that time an asteroid will hit us and only a handful(if that) of humans will survive...if not the cockroaches and ants...the real insects of this world will inherit it....at least they know how to work together.....
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite a glim picture you paint there, Zman..
IMO we have allot of hope if the people start getting more actively involved. It's well beyond necessary.
Greetings Sir FartsAlot!
Thank you kindly for the advise..
At least I know I don't have to worry about you, I'd wager you're repleat with natural resources.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
caat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 2321
posted
>>>>America has'nt been liked for a long long time...and we are NOT imperialistic facists and [...] Why don't you go move to one of your allies countries and stay their.
LMAO!! OH!!! He said it!!! He did!! LOL!!
I have to admit, I was just waiting for these classic points of reason... You couldn't ask for better...
I better go before I start antagonizing people.
bye
Posts: 1436 | From Humboldt county ca usa | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Yeah yeah yeah,
I said IT!
I just get tired of someone calling the US a bunch of incestuous,facist,imperialistic,oil grabbing,war mongering whatever......
These folks won't leave here cuz they're safe to say whatever they want...not like in other countries...they would'nt have the guts to criticize a govt say in China or Uganda...
They're protected here and yet they mock the very same govt that protects them...
I'm all for making it better but not by calling it names......or riddicule...especially when they don't have a better plan in mind.
Go ahead and laugh your *** off......but be glad you don't live somewhere else where your *** can be chopped off and your breasts as well and nobody there will give a rats *** .......zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Perhaps there is a contrast between obedient patriotism and idealistic patriotism.
My definitions would be that obedient patriotism is of the "my country right or wrong..." variety. People who hold this value often get EXTREMELY irate with people who don't hold to that view. Idealistic patriotism values the principles upon which the county was founded and has an expectation that we should aspire to being a good neighbor, support equal opportunity and fairnes, scupuloulsy adhere to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the doctrine of separation of powers and, for me anyway, the separation of church and state. Former president Jimmy Carter would seem to fall into this category.
It seems to me that the country actually needs both types and I have to say that I find it extremely offensive when people assert that if I don't agree with them I have no right to my citizenship.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Look David,
Idealistic patriotism is all well and good in peace time...at present we are at war...or did you miss that.
I am not blindly obediently patriotic...I just know that durring a war idealism is not needed nor does it help matters.
Idealisticly the nut cases over there want all the power and have used their religion errantly to amass the poor and hopeless against what could be a way of life that they might readily accept.
A way of life that allows for freedom of thought,religion, etc...the american way of life.
And no I don't expect them to buy it all...but at least enough of our good points that would stop all the needless killing.
Now Hamas has power...the ball is in their court. What are they going to do with this opportunity? Are they going to turn the other cheek and negotiate or are they going to go berserk?
We'll see...zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
3greatkids
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3838
posted
Idealisticly the nut cases over there want all the power and have used their religion errantly to amass the poor and hopeless against what could be a way of life that they might readily accept
Lymie z>>>>>>>
The nut cases over here want all the power and have used religion errantly to amass the CEOs and upper income brackets against middle america.
Ripping the backbone out of a once thriving and strong community.They have negotiated our wealth and power over seas.Tariffs have left us high and dry.Pensions dried up,factories closing,and we are told it is a lack of skills??
Americans lacking skills?Cut some CEO salaries,a few VP jobs.
Heck we don't need Hamas or any other country to do us in,we are letting our leaders to it for us.Negotiating our country away.
Posts: 1076 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This kind of surveillance, which hones in on people who are aware of how scummy the leaders of the country are, is wasting resources, and is getting all the ...'law-enforcement'...(yeah,right...) jokers barking up the wrong trees, actually HINDERS any kind of REAL war on terrorism- - anybody who's planning to blow up the pentagon or something (I wonder if the bots honed on that phrase and now my phone wil automatically be tapped.) is NOT gonna waste time trying to waken others to what needs to be fixed to make the people in our country happier! The ...'patriot act'... will be put to rest and will go down in history with quite a negative tone, IF democratic rule is to survive! DaveS
Posts: 4567 | From ithaca, NY, usa | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LymeOjai: One last thought on the current uproar on wiretapping, loss of liberties etc.
I can't quite understand why to some folks the president (commander-in-chief) cannot be trusted to use necessary cautions in deciding upon whom eavedropping is appropriate, yet they find it okay to allow a politically appointed federal judge to make the decision.
Thats basically a separation of powers issue- whether or not the president can be trusted (and georgie b. has pretty much shown himself to be totally untrustworthy) is merely incidenal! The president simply does not have the authority to order wiretaps- it is against te law for him or her to do so. This is polisci 101 stuff that even musicians know! (Somebody probably said this, given the length of this log, but it can't be ove-emphasized! DaveS
DS
Posts: 4567 | From ithaca, NY, usa | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noon one argues that the President should take whatever steps toward valid tracking of Terrorists that he can.
That simply is not the issue.
The issue is circumventing the law in doing so. Then boldly saying that is his right/choice to do so.
Also that this has been going on for five years.
If they thought the law was too cumbersome, they have had plenty of time to ask that it be revised and state why.
Another issue is the way that the secret court is set up, they have 72 hours after the fact to submit the information to the court.
If indeed these wire-taps are with valid reason, surely submission would not be a problem.
Then there is the fact that Bush was taped in '04 speaking about these taps, and stated that their is a court in place for this, and that any wire-tapping that goes on goes through that court..every time.
This was an outright lie, because wire-taps long before and well after that have gone on without using FISA.
Some of you may say despite all that that 'he has every right to do what he wants'..
but the fact is, circumventing the law is not acceptable even from the President..
and it goes against the very core values of our founding fathers for this to go unckecked, for it to go on at all.
These the very values and freedoms some of the same people will say we are fighting for in Iraq, and the President makes claims that we must take down 'all tyranies' for.
I also do not think our founding fathers would have thought America should pledge and proceed to take down all tyranies in the World, and order Democracy at the point of a gun. Especially when we at home are in such great need.. even if we were not.
Then... to top it off.. we claim to support freedom and Democracy, yet are at the same time denouncing other countries for not having the exact kind of Democracy WE expect.
Masterfully constructed rhetoric.
Why are we not in Sudan where many millions have died and are still dying?
Could it be because they have little oil or other resources??
Nah.
We are fighting for 911, don't you know..
even tho the killers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
We are fighting in Iraq to keep them from bringing it to our shores..
Who? The insurgents? Those who cannot even afford a plane ticket here and are solely fighting the occupation?
This War against Terror cannot be won militarily.
It must be won politically, and with special forces and intelligence targeting known Al Qaeda groups.
In Iraq, we need to now take this opportunity to get the Shiite to allow the Sunni to have a stronger role in government... other wise their Civil War will last for generations.. as it has been waged in deep beliefs for generations before this.
The insurgeny strenghtens so long as they realize we are NOT leaving as we promised.
So long as the PERMANENT military bases we built are still there and operating.
Think.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Well said!
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been reading all of the hyperbole concerning the president's conducting surveillance on our enemy and whether he has the constitutional right/obligation to do so. I've read several opinions here on how illegal his actions are, but opinions about the law do not satisfy the requirement to know the law.
For example:
quote:but the fact is, circumventing the law is not acceptable even from the President..
The problem I see is that many are making statements like the one above, but do not state case law to back up their statements. I have been doing some research on case law relative to the president's powers to authorize surveillance in order to collect foreign intelligence information. I found several websites that list the following precedent setting cases:
United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
Another relevant case is United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.'''
Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, summarized as follows:
``In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs''
The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:
``For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], ``unduly frustrate'' the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities''.
``First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations''.
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), was a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court wrote:
``Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment''.
Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and FISA is the statute the administration supposedly "violated."
So maybe some would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim does not hold water, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers.
But there is a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA, sites the following:
``The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power''.
OBTW - the plantiff in re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 was the ACLU (now there's a surprise).
Lots of Bush detractors agree that he is doing the right thing by intercepting international messages between al Qaeda terrorists and their agents in the U.S.
The major complaint seems to be that in a handful of cases, they want the administration to follow a different procedure--a procedure which, on their telling, will not encumber the administration's ability to carry out the international surveillance in question.
The problem is, you can't base a technical legal argument on what you think the law ought to be. You can only base a technical legal argument on what the law actually is.
And the current state of the law, as uniformly stated by the federal courts, is that the NSA's international surveillance program is a legal implementation of the President's constitutional powers.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get so sad when such nice and intelligent, caring people reach so far to defend this President and his administrators, because I feel they have been duped...
Our excecutive administrators abused the Constituion and subsequent laws brutally and you don't mind? Don't you stand first and foremost for Democracy? Or is this view Partisan?
Most of the cases you list, LymeDad ..were pre-FISA law. The President himself, when asked about this very thing.. in a press conferance, ON TAPE through 2004/5 ..assured he was following FISA law and even described it to the public.
Then, once called to the carpet, they have given several conflicting reasons for doing this, contradicting themselves, and always including some kind of blame for anyone questioning - to make it seem (to the public) like those questioning the Predident of what is supposed to be a model Democracy -- make it sound like those who question do not want spying on terorists to be conducted at all!!!
In fact, the usual blacklisting is being done, again. Soon, no organization or view except those on the far Right will be considered credible by ultra-Conservatives, and that is a tradgedy. That is not an American Democracy, at least not the one I grew up in.
Firstly, they accused the NYT of endangering National Security! Now, they say they can't reveal the details because of National Security.. as tho Al Qaeda didn't know that we spy? They want to operate outide the LAW and disclose this to noone, operating with no checks or balances? The President now (and even in his SOTU speech) said Congress knew? When only a very small circle if the same ideological mindset knew anything, and they also think the President is above the Law.
What is this, high school? These men are supposed to operate on HIGH standards..
There are allot more than a handful of cases, as well, and I pray simply that the truth comes out in the hearings, but that is a prayer that has not been answered over these past few years.
In addition...the President stated in his SOTU address two nights ago - that we could have caught Al Qaeda on 911 with this program..
I have a huge problem with exploiting 911 to garner support for Bush policies, and they are milking that tradgedy dry.
No time in this post, but if you take the fiscade off that statement, it makes no sence and appahrently is used to sway public opinion..again.
You have allot of points here, but you hit on one I can write about quickly and I'll get back..
Conservatives such Rush are falsely claiming that the administration's authorization of domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA.
In fact, FISA, enacted in 1978... contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications "exclusively between foreign powers,"
....specifically stating that the president may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is
---"no substantial likelihood" --- that the communications of "a United States person" -- a U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States --
will be intercepted.
...such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration's authorization of domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States and parties outside the country.
FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering
"foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress."
This provision does not permit Bush's conduct either..... as he acknowledged that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said that the program is "reviewed approximately every 45 days."
There's allot more I'd like to address maybe later..
The really frightening thing is they just hoodwinked Congress (assisted by a bad performance by Democrats in the hearings, no doubt) .. into pushing through as fast as lightening this Alito confirmation. (cloture was called for within days, faster than in any other appointment) The public and the hearings heard/went into very little about his ruling history relating to unitary excecutive powers (and other things dealing with coorperate power, and consistantly ruling against the little guys).
I fear if this goes to the Supreme Court, the court has been purposely and dutifully in a most PARTISAN WAY padded by Alito and Roberts to err toward excessive excecutive power that in reality moves us away from our Constitution -
if the judges scAlito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts rule according to their consistant records.
Then we will see the last embers of Democracy stamped out entirely, with no branch to check the excecutive branch objectively.
The ONLY way we are going to have any hope of getting America back on track is if the PEOPLE rise, and many of them don't even know how desperate things are because they do not have acess to the information in their day to day.
Do you know how many TRULY Conservative friends and family I have that once they look at the details of something themselves, they are very concerned about many things that have gone on, and the future?
You can't listen to the extreme Right and get any kind of truth in these matters. Plain and simple.. they are manipulating minds.
Anyway - I got off track...but not really. It's all tied together.
Mo
[ 02. February 2006, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Pomo, (poor mo) Wednesday's child for sure. With so many problems in this world, she wails about the least important.
It is written, do not pick these posies but the sign is useless because the wind cannot read.
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the cases you list, LymeDad ..were pre-FISA law. The President himself, when asked about this very thing..
Not much time to write this morning; however, please re-read my last post.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA , sites the following:
``The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power''.
However, I'm not sure that the president has any real chance of winning on these types of issues.
If he authorizes wire-tapping on suspected terrorists operatives between people located within our borders and agents outside the country and is able to prevent an attack, no one will ever know.
If he fails to use all resources at his disposal and with the authority of the consitution and we are attacked, he will be blamed for not doing his job properly.
I just hope he continues to battle our enemy as hard and as aggressive as he has up-to-now.
War is a very difficult proposition. The president of the United States is given the power under the constitution to deal with all foreign matters, especially during a time of war.
We're spending way too much time worrying about our so-called civil liberties (especially when there has not been one case sited as to anyone having lost a single liberty because of these surveillances)when if he fails to do his job properly, those very liberties will be taken from us by our enemy.
I'm considering adding a signature block to all my postings here and on other boards to read:
"We are at war with Isamic terrorists, not with our president"
LymeDad
ps: Mo, don't worry yourself over my being duped by anyone. I can actually read and think for myself - hard for some to believe, but true nontheless.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm quite sure LabRat can speak for himself, but I couldn't resist writing a reponse to your comment toward him on January 25th, i.e.,
quote:Spoken like a true apathetic American. How sad.
However, it seems that LabRat has retired from the military after at least 20 years service to his country. I doubt that that qualifies him as being apathetic.
Sometimes it pays to know your audience before you make comment.
Just a thought.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reason the President may not slip out of this one - is simply he did not follow the Law, also because he could have done all he needed to do WITHIN the law.. especially with the 72 hour time frame to submit the info -
and if that was too constraining, considering all the power you are emphasizing he has, he could have had this law revised. NOWHERE does it say he can decide to ignore laws as he sees fit, and then rely on trumped up public opinion and stretching of the truth afterwords to support him.
This particular infraction has been going on for five years, and on top of that, he lied about it to most of Congress and the public intil a long-time American responsibility was taken, and excecutive power law-breaking was exposed.. we are who we are as a country because we HAVE whistle-blowers. (at least we still have a few)
NOONE, especially me, is putting civil liberties above National Security. Neither will I let exploitation of fear and terror threats manipulate me into thinking our Laws do not apply to the President.
My comment about being duped was not regarding your ability to read and think for yourself, I simply question what you are reading and what you are not (and why), as I am utterly perplexed that some folks who claim to stand for Democracy are unconcerned and even defending a long list of abuses by the current administration (and some members of the republican party).
I do not question you and LabRat's dedication to your country and I revere you both for your service, but at the same time that makes your stances on the Bush administration all the more confusing. You seem to have no concern or consideration regarding excecutive power abuses, and advocate for unitary excecutive power.
This kind of power is exactly what we clainm we are fighting in the Middle East.. unlimited power without checks and balances. Yet we should not be even looking at what is going on here in that regard?
I just don't understand.
I do not question your Patriotism (tho LabRat questions mine) I question your perceptions and why you do not look with discerment upon the executive branch on particular and upholding Democracy and the Constitution you have fought for.
I honestly have to wonder if party affiliation and loyalty is effecting your judgement. There are many moderate conservatives raising the same points I have.
On that case involving the ACLU, do you have further info or details?
What I find disturbing is the ACLU has been on the FOX hit list for months.. in a Swift-boat style smear campaign. This an organization that has advanced American civil freedoms and made us as great as we are, differentiated us from cultures dominated by power and extremist ideologies. They have played a role in making us great and protecting the little guy.
They have among other things recently exposed the fact that peace activists and other total innocents have been spied on, arrested, indicted, and jailed. That citizens of this country have been taken and held without warrant.
Fox started in on them soon after they started running documentaries on the specifics of the Patriot Act (alarming ones) and many other things of concern to individuals and freedoms. They also produced a documantary on the profoind impact the Supreme Court has on our PERSONAL lives, and how a court leaning toward one ideology or another threatens our society to the core.
In any event it seems, in your post, you are writing the decision off in the case you sited just because they were involved..
that's one example of why I feel you may be slanted in your thinking..
on the other hand, how could you think otherwise regarding this President and all questions raised regarding his acrions when your lives have been dedicated to standing behind the Commander in Chief?
As you SHOULD, and questioning him is simply not an option when you are in the military. I understand that totally. in fact, we obviously NEED you to feel that way in service.
However, his policies are not decided nor controlled by the military, and the People and our representatives (in America, anyway) MUST be keeping tabs on the excecutive branch.
You know the NSA business is not the only major issue that has come up.
If you prefer his choices, I understand..that's entirely beside the point of my concern, tho. Two thirds of the country feel the President lies to the public .. and many of them have not seen documentaries such as the ACLU or WorlLink TV provide from international sources, as they will only be aired these days on non-profit cable stations. Actually, only one station to my knowledge.
- are all those folks standing on completely invalid ground to distrust this administration based on their performance?
Mo
[ 02. February 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
[ 06. February 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: LabRat ]
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Mo, it's great that you don't resort to sarcasm and name calling. In my opinion such behaviors are signs of knowing one is advancing a weak argument.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/