Topic: Pentagon to review possible database misuse
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 |
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.
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Ya know Mo and Teuques and David...
You guys complain constantly about name calling, attacks etc
Look nobody likes being called a DUPE! Either...
Like you folks are the only folks with brains and we're all "sheep" following the "facist,imperialistic,outlaws of government"!
No wonder we question your patriotism and rightly so....
Especially in a time of War, that as yet, none of you understand...... It isn't a meere political game folks...it's real people killing and being killed.
I dare say that it's going to continue for quite some time....
As long as their are Christians,Jews. As long as their are extremist muslims that want to destroy any democratic way of life in favor of a theocracy and the belief that they are the only true "belivers".
Look folks,,,,lesson one about war....
If you play nice and fair....you lose!
Plain and simple....
Don't be DUPED into believing otherwise.
Like Patton said..."No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dieing for their country...
They made the other poor dumb bastard die for his".
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
2004 speech in Buffalo, similar one given in Pittsberg:
BUSH: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Wiretaps are conducted around the country every day. The FISA Court alone approves something like a half a dozen a day in highly classified national security or espionage related cases. Bush can tap up to 72 hours prior to asking permission.
The issue here is why the President decided to go around the normal rules.. why he chose to make himself above the law.
Additional info on the FISA court in response to those Bush apologists suggesting he had no time to go to the court (Rush and others are saying that it could take "10 to 12 days" or longer (!!) to get approval back from the court which ACTTALLY often gives appropral in hours, if not minutes).
For some 20 years plus - there were over 15,000 surveillance warrants issued by the FISA court, clearly displaying that the process is quite favorable to the government seeking such wiretaps. The amount of surveillance warrants which were rejected during that same 20 + year period, ZERO...in all that time not one request was denied.
From 2002 until now, four such requests were denied. (!!)
~~ So from the time the act was established until 2002, nobody seeking a warrant was denied. Then, the Bush Admin was turned down four times. Why? And could that be why they simply decided to go around the FISA court??
And why did he lie to the public about that, with emphasis??
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having served in the military does not exempt one from making apathetic comments. LabRat has proven that.
quote:Originally posted by lymedad: tequeslady,
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.
posted
Please specify why you question my patriotism? Because I don't agree with YOU? That is hilarious.
And NO, I don't think it's a political game either. People are dying. That is very real. I still don't agree with our invasion of Iraq. It was a lie from Day 1. Don't you care about the truth? Doesn't it bother you that there were plans to invade Iraq way before 9-11?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: Ya know Mo and Teuques and David...
You guys complain constantly about name calling, attacks etc
Look nobody likes being called a DUPE! Either...
Like you folks are the only folks with brains and we're all "sheep" following the "facist,imperialistic,outlaws of government"!
No wonder we question your patriotism and rightly so....
Especially in a time of War, that as yet, none of you understand...... It isn't a meere political game folks...it's real people killing and being killed.
I dare say that it's going to continue for quite some time....
As long as their are Christians,Jews. As long as their are extremist muslims that want to destroy any democratic way of life in favor of a theocracy and the belief that they are the only true "belivers".
Look folks,,,,lesson one about war....
If you play nice and fair....you lose!
Plain and simple....
Don't be DUPED into believing otherwise.
Like Patton said..."No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dieing for their country...
They made the other poor dumb bastard die for his".
zman
[ 06. February 2006, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
NO Teuqes, It is not because you don't agree with me that I question your and others patriotism.
The fact that this administration made mistakes and got us in this war is not the issue anymore...
we're there...and no amount of belly acheing is gonna change that. What it does do is undermine the efforts of the military. This is why I question your patriotism.
The constant barrage of mute points about the administration is exactly what Osama and the other extremists are counting on...
When one is engaged in war one must take care of that first....then deal with the why's and wherefore's after it is won...not durring.
Ya get it now?.......I can't make it any plainer than that for ya'll......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 |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
I suspect we're all dupes to some extent, one thing for sure, we can only guess at what the future holds. There are some clues, at least I see them as clues. It's a fact that we've been under attack for a very long time and we've been without a president who would do anything serious about it. The attack on the trade center was a gross mistake by our opponents for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a sitting president who could turn to his father for advice!
I find it distressing that everyone in the world with a pen hates Bush and America. It worries me the French agree with us now and want to be our friend. With a big unhappy raghead population, are they worried?
It looks like Iran and the religious idiots running the country have pushed themselves into the cross hairs, seems through luck or careful planning we're in a pretty good position to stop their nuclear ambitions. Why would we want to do that? Why not live and let live! Orrr, maybe it would be easier to stop and change things now and save a lot of lives that would be lost in a future conflict.
To be sure most of the Democratic Party will find fault with whatever Bush decides to do! I feel they have little concern for what happens to America just as long as the problem can be presented as Bush did something wrong!
Take a look at this slick, well made thread, with collage professors, New York Times, Nobel Prize winner and a retired female officer, (who made the most sense) and wonder who put the money up for it! Made with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of conjecture, looks to me like the sole purpose was to savage Bush and to reduce his power and to paralyze the country's war fighting abilities!
On two occasions the ragheads have tried to turn the American people away from Bush. Why do they have our best interest at heart?
posted
I disagree. I think it IS an issue that we were lied to. Then, now and into the future.
I support our troops, because they are following orders. They joined the military to protect us. I want them to have the very best.
However, that does not mean I agree with the lies this administration made. Yes, we're there, so why do I care? 1. Intentional lies are important, because if they'll lie to us one time, they'll lie again. A lot of people have died due to this lie.
2. Now, we're setting the stage to go to Iran. Surprise, surprise. Should we jump right in now and believe what they're telling us about Iran? Given their track record, we'd better not just believe that whatever comes out of their mouth is the truth.
So, let's take a serious look at this one BEFORE it gets started. That adheres to your rules now, doesn't it Tony?
quote:Originally posted by lymie tony z: NO Teuqes, It is not because you don't agree with me that I question your and others patriotism.
The fact that this administration made mistakes and got us in this war is not the issue anymore...
we're there...and no amount of belly acheing is gonna change that. What it does do is undermine the efforts of the military. This is why I question your patriotism.
The constant barrage of mute points about the administration is exactly what Osama and the other extremists are counting on...
When one is engaged in war one must take care of that first....then deal with the why's and wherefore's after it is won...not durring.
Ya get it now?.......I can't make it any plainer than that for ya'll......zman
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Sooo, ya figure Iran will mature into a civilized society and will act more responsible once they have some nukes? I don't believe I agree with that.
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting commentary from both sides of this issue.
I've been wondering, however, why we, as civilians, think we have the need to know what the "Commander-in-Chief" of the U.S. military has been planning in response to the war on terrorism.
Having held a fairly high federal security clearance I was taught that "need to know" was as important as being cleared for a specific level of information.
Can any of us say we have the "need to know" specifically what our "Commander-in-Chief" is planning to do to execute his plans for the war against terror??
A primary focus of the president's authority is to conduct the foreign affairs of the U.S. particularly as it relates to a declared war against an attacking enemy, in this case Islamic terrorists.
President Bush stood in front of the American people during his state-of-the-union address in November 2001 and told us exactly what he was going to do. He has not backed down an inch on what he said.
It could very well be that the President has been planning an air war against Iran's nuclear power plants. Iran has clearly stated its goal to gain nuclear capacity and has clearly stated it's intention of destroying our ally, Israel.
What better place to conduct surgical air strikes against Iran than from protected air bases in Iraq??
We've vested George Bush with all the powers of the executive branch of our government. I am personally pleased with the results he has attained.
Those who disagree with President Bush's handling of the war have an opportunity to do something about it in November of 2008.
It is my opinion that we have an obligation to stand behind our elected leaders and provide our enemy with nothing less than a united front as a country.
To do otherwise will surely cause us great harm as a nation. To do otherwise provides our enemy with hope and encouragement. To do otherwise causes harm to those who are fighting this war for us.
We are at war with Islamic terrorism, not with our own president.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take a look at this slick, well made thread, with collage professors, New York Times, Nobel Prize winner and a retired female officer, (who made the most sense) and wonder who put the money up for it!
I watched the video twice. Very interesting group of commentators, I was surprised to see Ellesberg & Norman Mailer in the clip, NOT !!!
I was especially disheartened by LtCol Kwiatowski's involvement in this type of propaganda.
I agree with your assessment, especially that of the piece being hind-sight driven and clearly designed to smear Bush and nothing else.
I'm really saddened sometimes where my country is heading.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We elected him President, not King. We are supposed to have a limited Constitutional government. The checks and balances are there for a reason.
Since you mention the WAR ON TERROR... I might have missed it somewhere... did Congress ever declare War?
I understand what you're saying about strategic battle plans. There are too many leaks. What bothers me is his whole pretense for going over there in the first place. A pack of lies.
You have a lot of good hypotheses about why he might have gone over there, but by now, he should have fessed up. He hasn't.
And no, I'm not going to lay down and merely accept what he and his ilk are doing until 2008. Do you really think that our Founding Fathers would agree with you?
I am very unclear as to whom is the biggest threat to the United States and its Constitution. Certain elitists in our government and elsewhere... or other nations.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Well, hurumpfff! I can see people setting around, picking brains for scraps of info to use to sell the war. I really am surprised no wmd's were found, and you know, the jury may still be out on that subject. We won't know till someone tells us where they are, if they exist. There were stories about a pea under the chestnut shell before the war. Even stories some of the stuff wound up in North Korea. Remember the train that blew up a town! That female officer, hmmm, if I were Bush, she could kiss her pension good by.
No king in history has had the power Mr. Bush has at his disposal, or faced the dangers I might add. You don't get to be president less your tough as nails! He's been a busy boy since he took office, lots of problems. He's done as well as any man could and better than most. Some dislike him for different reasons but the way I see it, he was in the right place at the right time and we were damn lucky to have him as our president!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since you mention the WAR ON TERROR... I might have missed it somewhere... did Congress ever declare War?
You can throw up a wall of semantics if you wish, but yes Congress did declare war on terror:
quote: The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
quote: You have a lot of good hypotheses about why he might have gone over there, but by now, he should have fessed up . He hasn't.
What should he fess up to and to who should he "fess up"?? You, me ?
I'm not sure the president has time to "fess up" to every decision he makes while exercising his consitutional duties as commander-in-chief.
quote:And no, I'm not going to lay down and merely accept what he and his ilk are doing until 2008.
I don't think anyone expects you to "lay down and merely accept" anything. I think we should all be expected to show our enemy that we are a united people. I also believe we have the obligation to show through our words and deeds that the biggest mistake anyone can make, country or religion, is to attack the United States.
I think you as well as everyone else in this country has a right to express their opinion in public and in private.
What bothers me more than anything else is the clearly political bashing of our president by just about every faction within our government, our press and every left-leaning organization in the country.
There is absolutely nothing that Bush can do to come out on top of any issue. History will record his successes and his failures. I happen to believe that history will show him to be a true patriot and a great leader when we really needed one.
quote:Do you really think that our Founding Fathers would agree with you?
I'm sure your question was rhetorical, but just in case it wasn't - YES !Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Aren't we threatening enough nations at the moment? Leave the poor Syrians alone.. ~~ besides, I happen to have it on good authority that Saddam hid the WMD's on the grassy knoll..
Seriously, I don't understand. Show me your proof that Saddam hid stuff. I bet Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld would be really interested in knowing that...it would get them out of a big mess. How COULD he if we had every inch of Iraq covered with satellites? I think the WMD thing has been exhausted entirely, or they would have found something within the exhaustive investigations.
On the spying - LymeDad..
The arguement isn't that citizens need to know exactly what the President is doing in detail.. it's quite simple..
That which we need to know and expect and are entitled to is the knowledge that the President is following the Constitution, and the statues of law, particularly referring in this instance to the FISA Law set up in 1978 very carefully by a comittee stating that IT would be the EXCLUSIVE means by which the President could authorize ELECTRONIC SURVEILANCE. The Law is highly specific to that, and it states it is exclusively the way to deal with electronic surveilance.
The President lied to the public in '04 (quoted above)stating he was following that (problem #2 here, lying to the public about his following FISA)..
2004 speech in Buffalo, similar one given in Pittsberg:
BUSH: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Attorney General Gonzales appears to have been lying about this when asked questions pertaining to his view of the 'inherant power' we keep hearing hin talk about now, he appahrently lied about his views of this in his confirmation hearings.. (when the tapping was well underway and he was involved) ...an A.G. who, by the way, has NEVER parted from the President on ANYTHING. (another thing I personally find disturbing)..
It's simple, and all the dancing they are doing throwing out bones of fear (or chumming, if you will..),
then justification by using Terror as a sheild, even CHANGING the name of it to 'the Terrorist Surveliance Programme' - that is pure PR, it's harder to question a programme of that title!
then attacking NYT for reporting it, THEN -- throwing out old Supreme Court cases and acts of earlier Presidents that were either before FISA, or having to do with something entirely different than wire-tapping ..ALL this dancing is not wiping away the simple yet paramount concern Americans have..
That is that there are Laws, and a checks and balance system which separates us from the very countries we have called enemies...SO LONG as all branches comply. That includes the excecutive branch.
That the President, even in War time, does not have a 'blank check'.
I counter the arguement that in War time he should be left to do as he sees fit with no checks and balances.. because I contend THAT is the time we need these protections in place more than ever.
During intense War times there is a heightened propensity for power abuses, as we saw with the torture incidents which came from allot higher up than the poor men and women who took the fall. There were allot more abuses in history as well, FISA drafting and implementing was responding to just one element of those.
Certainly ..with today's increased communications technologies, we have MORE propensity for abuses than even in 1978 when they enacted FISA. We must fight Terror, and we must protect against abuses of Power.
That is a core American principle that cannot be brushed aside. We fought a revolution for that one.
FISA is secret, FISA is quick (that's the fact, despite the rhetoric).. FISA is there to provide the necessary checks. Not to mention, in case it isn't quick enough, they have 72 hours after the fact to submit.
Furthermore, if FISA was not working for them.. they have had years to go to the Intelligence committee, who has an impeccable record of NOT leaking (another bogus arguement by the admin, they would not have been a security liability, that is more smoke and mirrors to say that).. and they have been a bi-Partisan support system for the President throughout this War!!
They are all and have always been (and I am too, for that matter) in agreement that Al Quaeda operatives should be surveiled by all means lawful and available.
They would have granted a provision to FISA if they had been presented with that problem. Most of them said that today as well, and their record of staunch support stands behind them.
But they were not ever approached about this. Not once.
FISA was skipped, after turning down the first cases in many years (see my last post).. could that be why? Because these taps would not have MET the requirements????
Bottom line, the President CHOSE to BYPASS FISA.. thousands of taps and other surveilance have taken place..he authorized this and the NSA ran with it.
~~ and yet the first we hear of this from the admin is only after the Times puts out a story..
and now we hear all the reasons (from the White House and Bush) as to why it should be OK. Again, using fear of terrorism as the lead arguenment in order to gain public support.
Furthermore, the President both publicly and through Gonzales is not ofering a solution, or proposing FISA be changed even now..
he is simply hiking up his jeans in thet Texan sort of way and saying 'I have the power, like it or not, and I am going to do what I think I should do. Period.'
Beyond all the obvious problems with the above .. and even beyond the concerns as to who, how many, and what has been listened to .. and even tho he CLAIMS it is the thing he must do to protect US..
there is the concern as to where this goes from here.
If he has unbridled 'inherent powers'.. where does it end?
Then, theoretically, they could search, and seize, and invade homes..all without warrant?? What more might they be doing that has not yet been leaked?? And what of our Laws?
The President and Gonzales' and some others sweeping and blatant claims that the President has 'inherant powers' that superceed all Laws is what is so frightening. How can we draw any lines then? Should he have nothing that checks him at all? Is that what you are saying? Will you be OK with the next President picking and choosing which laws to follow in War (even if he is one you do not personally agree with so well)? Would you write a blank check to absolutely anyone else as well?
Think about it, because this will set a tone for the future Presidents as well..
I am surprised you are OK with this, but, respectfully.. even if you are, it pales in comparison to the concerns on the table regarding basic American rights and the need we have to have a BALANCE of power.
NO one branch is supposed to have ultimate power over all the others.
The lying is gettin very old as well. These things only weaken us, they do not make us strong as you say. How can we fight Terror strongly when it is done warrantlessly and not abiding by our own laws?
The Founding Fathers are not at peace with the Bush era, I'd wager.
The President must (and CAN) uphold the Constitution even in time of War, and he must follow Laws and a system of checks and balances.. (one that is approproate, of course)
OR, and I quote you:
"To do otherwise will surely cause us great harm as a nation. To do otherwise provides our enemy with hope and encouragement. To do otherwise causes harm to those who are fighting this war for us."
Mo
[ 07. February 2006, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Well, I was rested and read a little more than half Mo, which is pretty good. It was generally well written but dry, boring and uninteresting. As I set here wondering who I can con into fixing me breakfast, I wonder why our opponents haven't gone all out to counter your points. Surely they must think, ''we gotta figure a way to shut her up before she gives up our game plan''. To be fair and balanced, or give some appearance of being on our side, could you post some of the rules the terrorist must abide by in their war on us. I mean, you can really get down to the ``I's'' and ``T's'' when it comes to what hoops our president must jump through to save your sorry butt and you seem to have written on the back of your hand every ``lie'' he or his ``cronies'' ever told. I can't recall you ever complaining about anything the terrorist have ever done. I've heard you ***** about the Jews having a homeland, but not a peep when a Jewish grocery store is blown up with mothers and children inside. I guess there's just so much complaining one person can do, sort of have to take sides.
So it seems to me your more of a hindrance than a help, or you would be if you could be!
Well, to be fair, I do recall, under pressure, you called the ragheads, ``MF''s once. See, your not all bad! Now practice spitting and scraching and you can hang out with us guys!
Uh, how's for some ham and eggs?
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Me thinks I have finally gained some insight into that mind of yours after all these years.
Ham and eggs for breakfast??
Dearest Sir FartsAllot..what you need is a good colon cleanse, and then maybe we can sit down and have a real conversation.
That leap straight to what the Terrorists are doing just isn't cutting it anymore.
This isn't about what the Terrorists are doing, and raising these questions does not make someone a friend of Terrorism.
This is about what the President is doing and whether he is above the Law, and in so doing can keep what he is doing from Congress, FISA, and everyone else woth absolutely no oversight when it comes to domestic spying. Moreover, it's about Presidential powers and disclosure in general.
Arlon Spector, Lindsey Graham and a couple other Republicans on the comitte, plus present and former officials within the workings of National Security also question the programs legalities and the actions of Bush. Ashcroft did as well.
It's not about dotting i's and crossing t's.. it's fundamantal, as I wrote above if you actually read my post.
Further, if all of this is on the up and up...and as necessary as they say..
why won't they simply present the whole program to the intelligence committe in secrecy (as they have a history of not leaking).. and even to them not have to disclose all, just the general programme.
Why don't they just present it and set things straight? Instead Gonzoles, representing Bush as his client before the Comittee.. is blowing smoke around the questions.
To assert this is no big deal, or that it is wrong to question this is about as unAmerican as you can get on this topic, IMO.
Would you settle for this (taking a domestic spying program totally on his or her word with the NSA) from a President whom you did not staunchly support personally?
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Do "the guys" agree that President Hillary Clinton should be able to disregard all laws and render the judiciary and congress irrelevant if she hoodwinks congress into declaring hostilities against a foreign entity? Actually, I kind of like it.
-------------------- 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/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
's OK, friend, feel better...
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[tsk]](graemlins/tsk.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic