Congress goes off the deep end

No they really were effects. It is consolidation of power which the founders found quite important to stop via the mechanisms they instituted. And the reason was because consolidation of power can lead to corruption of gov't and abuse of people. No, there were the above effects, and the potential results of what might occur to someone who has unaccounted for wiretaps on their life. If an executive wished to hurt an enemy they could use this to get them.You may not have such enemies, that does not mean others do not.In any case, yes there is also the straight matter of violations of rights. That is something which is not supposed to be done. Inalienable. If you see no problem with this, that is a bit disturbing. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in China or Saudi Arabia. I was willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that honest gov'ts will only use this against terrorists. Corrupt ones would use this against personal enemies.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

When you first typed 'enemies' I was thinking of enemies of the country and that it is not that bad. That could be a big problem. I'm thinking more smear campaigns However, wouldn't exposing stuff, from personal enemies, they've found through warrantless wire taps show that they were breaking the law that these warrentless wire taps are for immenent attacks only?But, honestly, I can see how this power could be abused. Is this potential abuse a bigger reason for your opposition of this legislation than the rights violations?

That's where the problem of no oversight comes in. They really wouldn't have to expose what they found or link it to anything.They can collect and use what they want as they want... leaks, blackmail, etc.And all he is required to show (to an undetermined group of people with no oversight themselves) is that he believed there was a connection. That's why I asked how reasonable does that belief have to be? What happens if it isn't? Who judges? That's hard for me to answer. It is a more specific outcome and so more concrete thing to be upset with. But I can't say it's more than the rights violation itself.The point is that that's one of the reasons we have that right. To prevent such issues. And once we give it away there, we set a precedent for similar incursions and so more problems.I might point out that the Bush administration has asserted how important it is for them to be able to not be listened in on. They say that privacy is important for them to work properly. That is in the face of a very real possibility of corruption and a need for others to get information of their activity. I'm not certain why their argument should not hold true for others.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sure it is.And I apologize for not being more clear, which made it seem like I was misrepresenting you. I should have added "in the eyes of the world" to "maintain moral high ground." However, I am concerned with actually doing the right thing, not just the image of doing so, so my reply, to me, seemed complete at the time. So, if you were being tortured would you always tell the truth? Or would you tell your captor anything to make it stop?Additionally, how is one sure that the person they are torturing actually knows anything? How is one sure that they are indeed "the enemy?" Well, allowing for oversight and conducting fair trials is one way. If the rules can be made up as they go along(1) and they are not accountable to any other governmental body(2), unless Congress decides to revoke or amend this legislation, then how could we possibly know these things and how can someone who is detained, tortured and "tried" have any recourse?(1)Sec.949a of the Military Comissions Act of 2006: (2)Under Section 6 of the Military Comissions Act of 2006: Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 establishes the United States Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as having "exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision" of the tribunals, HOWEVER: AND:

I don't think the bolded part is accurate. He has to notify an intelligence committee, which is half Democrat, and whose jurisdiction includes:

quote:

---

to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

---

To me, it looks like the group has been determined and also has oversight. He also has to explain the reason and names the individuals and groups involved. I guess he has to explain this to the intelligence committee. Its up to whoever he has to explain to, to judge how reasonable his belief is. I don't know what happens if the belief is found to be unreasonable. I think they feel this is a neccessary step to successfully defending ourselves from terrorism. I'm not really afraid of them spying on me. I don't really feel like I've lost much in the way of my rights, on the day-to-day level. I can, however, understand the problems that people have with this. I don't know if I believe them that this is neccessary and I've already admitted that it looks like it is giving the president too much power. Nevertheless, I think I can comfortably say that people are overreacting about this.

Sorry to just blow you off on this, as it looks like you put some time and effort into you post, but I don't think pursuing this discussion is on topic. I also have some work to do here at work and don't have much time left for posting today.

The context is political conservatism. If you don't know anything about that movement, I guess the quote doesn't make any sense. Reagan said that while his party was in control of the government, so he clearly was referring to government in general, not the government of his opposition.He was expressing his political philosophy. That philosophy came to typefy political conservativism until recently, when what typefies conservativism now is total devotion to the personality cult of George Bush. Now you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that I agreed with Reagan. I'm just telling you what he said, and that phrase of his came to be one of the prominent watchwords of political conservativism.If you don't believe me, there's a couple of books on the subject of the history of the conservative movement. Maybe you'd like to educate yourself in regards to the side you lean towards? Yes, Reagan was a conservative. I've told you that. What's your point, again?

Ahem... it says he must notify the commitees and "congressional leaders". It does not say he has to notify every member on such commitees nor all those in congress, or leaders of all parties in congress.The wording is so vague that a president can justifiably notify one member of each committee. That they do not report it to anyone else would not be a violation.As I mentioned earlier they already pulled this very same gag. It worked. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe it wouldn't work again.And as far as oversight goes, remember we are discussing WARRANTS. The only proper authority for that is the courts. The committees do NOT have the proper role to do that, and what you presented did not suggest they actually have oversight. All it says is that they need to be reported to. If they already agree that the prez can do what they said he can do then, what can they say as long as he reports to them? At the time all he has to do is say that he believes an attack is imminent. What is imminent? To him 5 years has been described as imminent.Only LATER, which is not defined and so could always be delayed for any reason (how about for ongoing national security concerns), must he explain the reason for his belief and what groups he thought were involved. With no restriction on reason or limits to groups we can have legal justification for the same activities that Hoover had been involved with. Once a precedent is set and a right is actually removed and powers of the gov't are consolidated that is it. Thus anyone complaining about what is happening is not overreacting.On the flipside I feel comfortable in saying that people who believe this is a reasonable reaction to the threat of terrorism are overreacting. They do not understand the scope or nature of the threat from terrorism and so believe they must sacrifice a longheld right for some undefined measure of protection.I might even note that your criticism strikes a founding father's advice head on:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin 1759

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You may be right that discussion of the legislation that overrides the Geneva Conventions and the right of habeas corpus is off topic because the OP pertains to the wiretap legislation, but I believe that the topic may be stretched to include the general hacking away of rights perpetrated by the Bush Administration and its pet Congress in recent years since they are all "answers" to the same threat and the wiretap legislation can be tied into the Military Comissions Act via warrantless wiretaps' new role as permissible evidence.If Kuresu and/or the Admins disagree I will open a new topic regarding this particular example of Congress going "off the deep end" and I would hope that you will then address my post. That's OK. If we are permitted to continue this here, take your time. If I am directed to take it elsewhere, you will have plenty of time because I will then be constructing a much more thorough OP.

quote:

---

The people I've met in person that are liberals are very annoying. They seem to be idealists.

---

Yeah, those dumb idealists. They never accomplish anything....stupid, annoying idealistic Mother Theresa.

quote:

---

Also, a lot of them are whiny pussies.

---

The whiniest pussies I have even met were conservatives. They complain endlessly about any sort of societal change, they complain endlessly about taxes, they complain endlessly about minorities and women fighting for equal rights, they complain endlessly about having to share anything with anybody.Their sense of entitlement is enormous and all-encompassing. Their unwillingness and distinterest in checking the facts of the stories they are told before accepting them is very nearly absolute among all of the self-identified conservatives I have ever known.On the other hand, being around liberal second and third generation working class Americans for much of my childhood, and liberal academics and liberal innovative small business people in retail for much of my adult life, I have encountered a great many inspired, proactive, intelligent people who put their dreaded "ideals" into practice in their personal and professional lives, often to great success.

quote:

---

Absolutely. We are fighting terrorists. People who will blow themselves up to take out a bunch of innocent civilians. Fuck them. If we have to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a hidden bomb, then torture away

---

So, you don't care if we actually have morals or ethics, you just want to appear to have them?If we resort to torture, then we are no better than the terrorists.I find it interesting that a follower of "The Prince of Peace" would so easily discard the most important Biblical commandment of all; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I take the Golden Rule quite seriously, as an Agnostic. Shame that all of you believers, especially in the government, do not.The reasons we shouldn't torture are threefold;1) because it is morally and ethically wrong.2) because we don't want anyone to do it to us.3) it rarely provides good intelligence.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

Actually, I don't give a shit if they listen to my phone calls.

---

OK.Can I listen in on all of your private phone calls?

Imagine this. Your hands are tied behind your back. A cage full of hungry rats are attached to your face. Between your face and the rats is just a cage door waiting to be openned. At the threat of having your face eaten by starving rats, wouldn't you confess to anything? Heck, wouldn't you make up anything at all to get you off the hook?

in normal psychological experiments (you know, minus torture), there's a few reasons that test are double-blind. one of which is that subjects often tell the observers what they want to hear. and that's without the threat of physical pain for answers the observer doesn't like, such as "i don't know."

---

Yeah, perhaps someone should point out that we can hide torture and killing from the people all we want, will they be able to hide it from god?Won't HE have something to say about what means were used for what ends?Of course one has to question how much faith in god a person holds if they believe their life is so endanger from terrorists they have to give up their god given rights.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)