George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

oops! you lose!

quote:

---

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

​

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

​

There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

​

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

---

(edit: although it might be appropriate in this case...)This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-02-2006 06:17 AM

---

As an online discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving anything approaches 1

quote:

---

A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.

---

You are thinking of this too narrowly, tal.You are thinking of the situation and not the power.Let's pretend that Hillary Clinton became president.Do you want her to have the power to wiretap anyone, for any reason, without any record of it or any approval required from any court?Bush has declared that he has the power to do this, as the President, whenever he judges it necessary.I get that you trust his integrity 100%, but what if a president came along that you didn't trust? Do you still think it's ok for an untrustworthy president to be able to secretly wiretap Americans for any reason without any judicial oversight?

quote:

---

You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.

---

We've all said the following multiple times, but I'll say it again, because you apparently are having trouble remembering that we said it.WE WANT YOU TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AL QAIDA.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AMERICANS IN CONTACT WITH AL QAIDA.But, if you are going to spy on Americans, you need to get a warrant so there is judicial oversight and that there is a record that you have done it and there was just cause for you to do so.Otherwise, it is illegal and unconstitutional.My question is, if Bush decided to not get warrants for some of the spying he did, was that because he spied on people without probable cause?If he had the warrant, he'd be able to show that he was justified in spying, but because he didn't get it, we have no way of knowing if he abused the ability to spy.No president is above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tal.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2006 07:22 AM

You realize that that was a reference to YOUR charges right? I guess I do hope you are admitting that. But in case it isn't I want to understand your position.You are claiming that anyone who stands against ANY plan which MIGHT result in losses for the enemy, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? That seems rather odd.After all a plan to jail and or summarily execute all people who have travelled or talked to anyone of mideast descent, or are islamic, will likely result in getting some terrorist. So if Bush simply starts doing this and we catch him and say that isn't right (particularly without legislative and judicial checks on those acts) we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?You seem to have missed the point. No one is saying they wish AQ was here and tapping our phones, or that they wish AQ would win and so help them achieve that end in some direct manner.What people are saying is that THEY HAVE RIGHTS, and neither AQ nor Bush should have the ability to VIOLATE those rights. They are standing against enemies foreign and domestic. Whoever comes to violate our rights is the enemy.By the way an interesting historical note. AQ got its start when reps supported OBL and other rabid fundamentalists to overthrow Russian occupation of Afghanistan (sort of like our occupation of Iraq right now). Despite the fact that the Russians were helping the moderate majority make gains in education and civil rights, anyone opposing US support for rabid fundamentalist terrorist activities were criticized for in some way aiding and abetting the Russian menace.Now here's where it gets real interesting. The big fear is that if we didn't support those rabid fundamentalists, the Russians would "win" and take over our gov't and we'd lose our freedoms. This gov't you see would be controlled by a central authority we'd have no direct control over, and no judicial oversight, and THEY'D TAP OUR PHONES.Yeah, so the reps empowered religious maniacs to engage in terror tactics against russians so we wouldn't have to face a gov't that spies on its own population. 20- years later and reps are now saying we must accept the president spying on the population in order to save us from the religious maniacs they put into power in the first place.I'm sorry, you were saying something bad about liberals?This message has been edited by holmes, 02-02-2006 05:47 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Remember when phones with cryptographic technology was being introduce and Clinton was trying to make it the law that people would have to register their private keys with government agencies so that they could decrypt the phone messages when they thought it was necessary? Remember the outcry against such government intrusion? I wonder if one of the criers was Tal.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Just FYI.It appears that AT&T, and perhaps other carriers, gave NSA unfettered access to the Daytona application and associated database. This is not some small little thing but rather 300 Terabytes of data of any phone, wire or email messages that ran over the AT&T network or servers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

the problem that no one seems to identify is that, yes, wire taps will give the government more information. this is not necessarily good. the reason they didn't connect the dots for 911 is that they didn't regard the information as valid or trustworthy. (assuming their story on 911 is accurate, which i'm starting to believe it most certainly is not.)
there was too much information floating around in the intel ether to be sure which info was accurate and which wasn't. so you think that recording out-of-country phone conversations is going to help?
the hell you say.
for one. i'm sure they already have code-word recorders. that's a pretty common legend. maybe false, whatever. sometimes in phone conversations i say random codewords. just in case. especially if i'm talking about butt sex or something offensive. blah blah blah blah blah bomb blah blah blah... and so forth.
so now they're multiplying the amount of information they take in by like 3! or something equally crazy. and you think this is going to help things? intel operatives are already overstretched and they're already hiring everyone with a math degree they can. and nothing is getting better. americans are still scared out of their minds of the towelheads and arabs and muslims are still (rightly) concerned that american is out to get them.
so bushy says he's gonna use this to spy on terrorists. who's to say he's not going to spy on business competitors or party competitors. maybe that's why he's decided to change his energy policy. he eavesdropped some big biodiesel meeting and invested lots of money in it and now he's gonna shift policy that way.
even if they use this unconstitutional capability -which you defend- the way they say they intend to it won't help them. the only thing that could be accomplished from this is a continued infraction of the rights of ordinary citizens without the bonus of actually protecting us. but who is to say they're going to use it the way they say they will? if we have no check on the power of the president, we have no way to say for sure that he's being honest. that's why we call him a president and not a king. we have to check his power because we DON'T want a king.and like schraf said. what if next go round (assuming bushy doesn't proclaim himself king) we get some crazy liberal president who decides he wants to spy on fundies so that he can publicly shame them? you have to think about this in the larger picture. would you want any president to have this power or just bushy? if the answer is just bushy, then you really shouldn't support it. cause what if you're wrong?

lol. i had att wireless until they sold. some crazy government guy is gonna get my "butt sex butt sex butt sex bomb butt sex butt sex" conversations.abe. i'm sure some other company might have had an agreement to use att servers. that's funny. no one is safe.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-02-2006 12:28 PM

i hate lincoln. we should exhume him and put his head on a stake.

We are at war. The military is on a war-time footing. It was authorized by Congress.September 14th Resolution: Authorizing the use of the Armed Forces sounds like war. An unusual and extrardinary threat is posed to national security...check. President has authority under the Constitution...check. Here is the money quote. Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appopriate force against those NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, or PERSONS HE DETERMINES....Now for those of who quit reading at "terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept 11," read further: or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent future acts of terrorism... And there is the War Powers resolution.We are at war.This message has been edited by Tal, 02-02-2006 01:12 PM

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

Well, we authorized the Armed Forces to provide aid to Indonesia after the tsunami.Were we suddenly at war with Indonesia? Or with tsunamis? Sure. And the illegal wiretapping was neither necessary nor appropriate, so he didn't have the authority to do that. But, you know, thanks for proving that for me.

yeah, no, this is what a declaration of war looks like:

quote:

---

Congressional Declaration of War
on Japan December 8, 1941

​

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

​

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

​

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

---

notice that bit where war is formally declared? that's good, but you neglected "necessary and appropriate." and i don't see how that suspends either the fourth amendment or habeus corpus. or, you know, you could look up "war powers" actually means. "war powers" refers to congress's constitutional power to declare war. however,

quote:

---

...beginning with the Korean War, American presidents have not sought formal declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions".

​

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities.

​

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia

---

in this case, congress authorized the use of force, but did not declare war formally. understand the difference? it's kind of subtle, i know.

---

Emphasis added: So the illegal wiretapping was okay because Bush had it done at gun-point rather than with a warrant? The resolution authorized military force against terrorists et al., not illegal wiretapping against citizens.Anyway, the WH has already argued they didn't need the resolution, so that's a lot of hot-and-bothered jabber for no good reason.Also, the WH has told the judiciary that seizure of American citizens on American soil for detention indefinitely, without charge or recourse to an attorney or court, merely on the President's say-so, is not subject to judicial review.Personally, I think anyone who doesn't have a problem with that is treasonous to the founding ideals of our Republic, but...O, wait...I feel an oracular moment coming on...Bush will discover that telling Congress and the SCOTUS that they are not co-equal branches of government is a really bad idea.As in REALLY BAD idea.But we'll see: I notice your location is Ft. Knox. I did basic there about 35 years ago.I'll bet you a double-time march up Heartbreak Hill and back from one of the old training company areas that ultimately both Congress and the SCOTUS will reject Bush's rationalizations and act to prevent recurrences.Deal?

Show me in the constitution where it outlines what a declaration of war should look like.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

It is legal. You are assuming it is not.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?