Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFrom www.davidcorn.com:
I thought that Bush administration officials believed in narrow and restrained interpretation of the law. At least, that's what they say when it comes to selecting judges. And some Bush allies in the judicial wars believe in literally interpreting the Constitution: if the words aren't there, the ideas are not. Anyone who attempts to read into the text--or who seek to apply the ideas behind the text to modern situations that could not have been foreseen by the guys who came up with the Constitution--is accused of committing the sin of "judicial activism." Of course, conservative judges often engage in such activism themselves when they impose their views (narrow or broad) upon the implementation of laws passed by legislative bodies. Still, it is the rightwing, with Bush shouting "Amen," that has made the end of liberal judicial activism a holy cause.
That's why I have been bemused in recent days by the Bush administration's attempt to justify Bush's order that instructed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without seeking warrants--not even after-the-fact in emergency circumstances (as is permitted by existing law). In a letter sent to Congress, Bush's Justice Department acknowledged that Bush's snooping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which set up a secret intelligence court and made it a crime to conduct electronic surveillance without obtaining a warrant form that court, except in certain situations authorized by the law. But in that letter, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella claimed that Congress implicitly established an exception to FISA when it passed a resolution days after 9/11 that authorized Bush to use military force in response to the that attack. This law contained not a single reference to surveillance. Yet Moschella claimed that NSA snooping was covered by this authority.
How liberal of the Bush Justice Department. At that time, Bush was free to ask specifically for such authority. And if it had been shoved into the Patriot Act, it probably would have won congressional approval. Moreover, Tom Daschle, who was then Senate majority leader, notes that the Bush White House did indeed ask for war-making authority "in the United States" and that Congress rejected that formulation. If true, this undercuts Bush's case that Congress essentially granted his administration permission to snoop domestically without a warrant within the United States.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been pushing this implied-powers argument, too. He has pointed to a 2004 Supreme Court decision--a four-member plurality--that declared that the 2001 resolution did implicitly permit Bush to detain American citizens suspected of terrorism. But that ruling did note that such detainees must be given access to the courts--that is, that there had to be some degree of due process. The Court maintained that the president could not do whatever he wanted in this matter. Gonzales, who has previously pushed a president-is-king position--is practically saying that this Supreme Court decision allowed the president rewrite or ignore any law he wishes to if he can say he is doing so to prosecute the war on terrorism. Now that's legal activism. Gonzales' recent statements also echoes a Justice Department memo regarding torture that claimed Bush was not bound by existing law when he takes actions as commander-in-chief--a memo that Gonzales did disavow when the White House was under fire for seeming to justify the use of torture. Clearly, Gonzales still believes in the intellectual underpinnings of that memo.
The Bushies--with Dick Cheney beating the drum--are mounting the most extensive power-grab seen in decades. Yes, there is a war. Yes, Abraham Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. Still, this band is fiercely challenging the general constitutional balance, and, worse, they are doing it in secrecy. Consequently, they are trying to prevent citizens from seeing and debating the arguably unconstitutional actions they are taking, supposedly in the name of protecting the citizenry. This is hardly traditionalism; this is radicalism.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
During the 2000 campaign then candidate George W. Bush made the following apparent gaff... "It's the Legislative Branch's duty to make the laws. It's the Executive Branch's duty to interpret the laws !! I guess the little man knew what he was talking about after all.
Posted by Bubbleboy at 12/26/2005 @ 12:21pm
Foolish Democrats! Use a little lemon juice between the lines of the laws and the secret laws will be revealed. Either that or use your Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring to drink more Ovaltine and spy on your neighbors' downloads. Simple as that. No need to complicate the matter with cries of Constitutional defiling.
Bush is more than liberal. It's clear now that his missing time in the National Guard was spent being turned into the Manchurian Candidate. Domestic spying, secret interment camps, re-education through Today's Worst American Pop Music--it's all been done before but without Bush's special penache.
The Cold War is on. Unfortunately those who rule in America have decided that the evil force on the other side of the curtain is the American public. In the paraphrased words of our great leaders, "You are either on the side of American citizens, or you are for tyranny."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/26/2005 @ 1:00pm
Clearly, Bush's arrogance, defiance, and child-like desplays of bravado result from his having a comfortable political cushion in Congress and a private, well-funded constituency who'll back him no matter what he does. If the Dems held Congress Bush would have to run a cleaner administration since censure or impeachment would be realistic concerns of his. As it is, he can thumb his nose at the Dems and progressive media (and the "sheeple") and do exactly what he wants, when he wants to.
Bush is like a very nasty and ill-behaved little kid who makes huge messes wherever he goes, and the rest of us responsible adults have had to follow behind cleaning up and attempt to explain his messes for five years now and I, for one, am god damn sick of it.
Really though, my great personal fear stems from the thought of additional Republican gains in Congresss in the 2006 off-year elections. Should that happen, our Constitutionally-driven government will be in extreme peril from total takeover by Republican plutocrats.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/26/2005 @ 2:28pm
Bushboy's lies have snared him.
Posted by jkrogman at 12/26/2005 @ 4:18pm
Have they? You have to wonder. You know, as cynical as I am about the people who own and run this country, I have to admit that this Bush and his followers have pushed the envelope a lot further than I ever thought the radical right would be able to do in this country.
Posted by Legba at 12/26/2005 @ 5:38pm
The thought of brother jeb manipulating the Florida attory generals office to take the heat off of rush limpbrain is too much to take. When will we the american people say enough is enough will it be when bush and Co take our guns away because they fear a revolution to king george?
Posted by dycel8r at 12/26/2005 @ 7:14pm
TJ, enjoy your NY visit?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/26/2005 @ 8:42pm
I hate to say this, but 9/11 was the greatest thing to ever happen to the Bush administration. He has taken the power to give his buddies government contracts, spy on everyday Americans, pass laws that infringe on all of our civil liberties, and (obviously) extended the power of the president to Orwellian proportions.
Ever since 9/11, King George has used fear of terrorism to steer this country to unchartered waters. I am certain that he is now untouchable - a lame duck president, but untouchable nonetheless. I do not know what happened to the country I lived in 6 years ago. It feels a lot more like Stalin's Russia than the US. Like many others, I am very concerned about the '06 elections and can only hope that some sanity will emerge from these very dark days of being an American citizen.
Posted by Daniel Rubin at 12/26/2005 @ 8:43pm
Little confused by Mr Corn's use of the term "liberal"...
is he trying to say it's a "bad thing" to be liberal with a more "loose" interpretation of the law?
or hypocritically, that it's "bad" for Bush to do it with things Bush wants to do, but "okay" for a liberal court and possible liberal President of the future to do it with things that Mr Corn wants to do?
Posted by Mask at 12/26/2005 @ 10:32pm
MR. Corn
"The Bushies--with Dick Cheney beating the drum--are mounting the most extensive power-grab seen in decades. Yes, there is a war. Yes, Abraham Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. Still, this band is fiercely challenging the general constitutional balance, and, worse, they are doing it in secrecy. Consequently, they are trying to prevent citizens from seeing and debating the arguably unconstitutional actions they are taking, supposedly in the name of protecting the citizenry. This is hardly traditionalism; this is radicalism."
Lincoln did far worse than Bush would ever imagine doing.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged." Abe Lincoln
Lincoln also had Congressman (D)Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio home in the middle of the night by 67 armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a military tribunal, and deported.
Vallandigham's "act of treason" was to make a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives (which was repeated to his home constituents) in which he condemned the Lincoln administration's "persistent infractions of the Constitution" and its "high-minded usurpations of power," which were designed as "a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead." Sound familiar to anyone?
Vallandigham also ridiculed the Whig and Republican Party political agenda of protectionism, corporate welfare for the railroad corporations, and inflationary finance through fiat money.
Lincoln also thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court by literally issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after he issued an opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln simply ignored the Court.
So you might want to re-look the last statement of your article. Because its obvious hyperbole. I dont think Bushs' actions qualify or even rate on that radical meter of yours. Our form of govenment survived then, it can certainly survive now.
Question for you; Do you think Lincoln would mind or even object to Bushs' actions?
Posted by CPT at 12/26/2005 @ 10:47pm
Bush himself has admitted this, referring to 9/11 as the trifecta, with the american people being the losers.
I have an idea, let's start imagining the post Bush era. I mean we will see the back of him, leaving, but what kind of country will he leave behind?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/26/2005 @ 10:53pm
Johannes,
Good trip for the most part. We limited our travels a great deal with the combo of the cold (we're quite delicate in Dixie) and the gridlock. Went to the Top of the Rock for a bracing view of the nightime skyline. Discovered that my enjoyment of art museums is more durable than my wife's. Saw the 2/23 taping of Letterman. For our one day outside of Midtown we scurried down to Chinatown, Little Italy, and SoHo. Worst decision of the trip: to eat lunch in Chinatown. While down there I dragged my wife north, not telling her where we were heading. When we reached Joe's Pub and found it closed for Christmas Eve, not a little tension arose as we headed back to Zoe Restaurant in SoHo for dinner that night.
All in all it was quite good. But for our next trip I think I'll sacrifice the beautiful store windows and citywide decorations for more temperatures more suitable for southerners.
And, as for the post-Bush era, I've seen far too much of his jutting chest to want to look at what are surely a pair of sublime asscheeks. What he's leaving behind has a great deal to do with what lies in the middle of those cheeks.
Have you read Al Franken's book "Liars"? In it, he researches Bush's "trifecta" quote, something he swears he mentioned on the campaign trail of 2000 about deficit spending. Fact is, he never mentioned it. The man who came closest was Al Gore who mentioned the importance of a balanced budget and that the only times in which he could tolerate deficit spending were "barring an economic reversal, a national emergency, or a foreign crisis."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/26/2005 @ 11:07pm
CPT,
Given the complex wording and correct spelling of most of your post, I can only assume that you have cut and pasted. Citations are helpful for those of who are curious.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/26/2005 @ 11:11pm
TJ, I don't know but I could swear that Bush said that trifecta thing, I remember being appalled by his cllousness, which he has of course shown repeatedly, now watch this swing...
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/26/2005 @ 11:22pm
TJ, one more thing, New York is wonderful in the fall and the spring. hey, I tried.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/26/2005 @ 11:24pm
TJB
How astute of you to notice. But I have properly cited what is not mine in quotes. Yes spelling is not my specialty.
As to its complexity and wording, well most of the time I try to write in simple words and phrases, as I think it is appropiate for most of the posters here.
If, however, you are still curious, the examples I have mentioned above are taken from any number of books and the general historical record. You may if you wish use the vast resources of the internet to search for much of this data.
Again, its all fairly common and is a simple search. Oops and my fifth "paragraph" down is cut and pasted from the American Thinker website, from an article a few weeks ago. Forgive me for not properly citing that portion.
Again the question still stands, Do you think Lincoln would have objected to Bushs' actions?
Posted by CPT at 12/26/2005 @ 11:27pm
What I meant about the trifecta is that his full quote is (and he repeated slight variations over a dozen times as he stumped for his tax cut:
"I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, 'Would you ever deficit spend?' I said, 'Only--only--in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession, or in times of national emergency.' Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta."
As Tim Russert pointed out, the exchange that Bush is talking about did not happen. Russert even contacted the White House for verification and received none. The closest he found was when Bush was asked, "Would you give up part of your tax cut in order to ensure a balanced budget?" and Bush responded, "No."
NYC was fun, even cold and even with Joe's leaving us out in it!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/26/2005 @ 11:32pm
The truth is emerging. Wiretaps, eavesdropping without a warrant? Hell, W switched on "Big Brother" without telling anybody! It seems our government is monitoring everyone all the time! Now the question is whether we will be outraged or understanding. Predictions?
Posted by hollowr at 12/26/2005 @ 11:35pm
CPT:
Your logic that Bush's actions are somehow acceptable because they aren't as bad as what Lincoln did smacks of the most obvious form of legal relativism. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me, since you have shown in the past your penchant for moral relativism.
The bottom line is, what Lincoln did AND what Bush IS DOING NOW are wrong, no matter how you slice it. Bush's actions are obvious usurpations of constitutionally granted rights to the ALL citizens in this country. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
The bottom line, CPT, is that you are a craven sycophant who has no sense of right and wrong, either from a moral standpoint, or from a legal standpoint. Without absolutes of government power, which supposedly the constitution represents (certainly in the much vaunted rhetoric of the right), we find ourselves in the midst of a miasma of arbitrary rule, precisely against that which the founding fathers were fighting. You are the worst sort of patriot... a mindless excuse-maker who roots for his team regardless of right or wrong, just so you can tell people around you that you're on the "winning team", even when your "team" doesn't really give a rat's ass about you.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/26/2005 @ 11:36pm
The problem is not Big Brother... the problem is Little Brother...
Posted by jorcheim at 12/26/2005 @ 11:58pm
I am about as anti-Bush as you can get, but in a "Morfordian" sense(S.F. Chronicle Writer) I have almost been dulled into insensibility by the sheer volume and audaciousness of President Bush's lies, half-lies, and illogic. However, I must admit that even I was shocked by this last NSA spying debacle. I don't care what side of the fence you are on, if you take an honest look at constitutional law, there is no way what Bush did is evenly remotely legal.
"Torture Boy" and Dick Cheney can philosophize and spin all they want, but they are way out there on this one. To make matters worse, President Bush has said that he isn't going to stop! Unless he back tracks real fast, this issue will set into motion an inexorable chain of events that will lead to either his impeachment (a word I don't use lightly)or his resignation from office. No matter how partisan or browbeaten congress may have become, it ultimately can not and will not accept a president that questions its very reason for being.
I am telling you guys, just like the Plame affair, this issue will just snowball and grow next year! Even though I think Bush is the worst president in history, I hope he has the good sense to pull back before it is too late!
Posted by Stormbringer at 12/27/2005 @ 12:08am
"Emperor" George behaves badly on a dare, just like the unpopular kid in school who would do anything to get a little respect. A little wholesale slaughter here, a little torture there. Not to mention usurpation of Constitutional rights. Nothing is sacred to our unloved, big baby, brat of a president. It's too bad that nobody even likes the snivelling punk, save for Karl, Andy, Dicky, and Condi and a few million of the certifiably "brain-dead" Oh, let's not forget CPT, who fancies himself smarter than the rest of us with his self-described clever posts. CPT, if you took more frequent potty breaks, I am confident that your posts just might be more entertaining to all of us. And lose the patriotic stuff. Your version has an offensive odor.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"
Kisses!!!
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 12/27/2005 @ 12:42am
The truth is emerging. Wiretaps, eavesdropping without a warrant? Hell, W switched on "Big Brother" without telling anybody! It seems our government is monitoring everyone all the time! Now the question is whether we will be outraged or understanding. Predictions? Posted by HOLLOWR 12/26/2005 @ 11:35pm
Good question to ponder. Quick answer: if GWB is "permitted" by Congress to ignor the 1978 FISA (Act) and, worse yet, the 4th Amendment, then he effectively becomes Dictator until he says he no longer is, which of course is never. The bastard starts a goddamn war, claims he's C-in-C over all, and then attempts to seize control of the U.S. Government. All oversight and adherance to the U.S. Constitution goes into the toilet. He has NO use for the Constitution anyway, take a look at his latest comments -- and actions.
Think the worst can't happen? Take a good look at Roman history for one thing, my friends. For another, GWB is no Abraham Lincoln. He isn't even fit to spit-shine his shoes. GWB is now OFFICIALLY and certifiably power crazy, where before he was merely evil and grossly incompetent. I worry greatly for our nation now. Congress MUST put its collective foot down very hard over this latest outrage. GWB has thrown down the gauntlet.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 01:02am
JORCHEIM,
Beautiful rebuttle to CPT, especially that last sentence. Oh, how the sheep so apparently like to be led.
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/27/2005 @ 01:13am
Question for you; Do you think Lincoln would mind or even object to Bushs' actions?
Posted by CPT 12/26/2005 @ 10:47pm
Good question. Let's dig him up and ask him.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 02:24am
Letting President Lincoln rest in peace, what anyone "thinks" of this is a moot point. As John Dean pointed out, Bush is the 1st President to his knowledge to admit to an impeachable offense. Unless someone is his chain of appointed lawyers can come up with a much better defense of the NSA spying, Bush & Co. are going to be in big trouble.
Even the most dim-witted congressmen will realize what would happen if this action were allowed to stand unchallenged, and they will be forced to act.
Posted by Stormbringer at 12/27/2005 @ 02:49am
CPT continues to bring up Lincoln's record because, at some level, he believes that Bush's situation is comparable to Lincoln. But there is no comparison that can be made that would make any kind of sense.
Posted by Legba at 12/27/2005 @ 04:36am
So again, the question of a "trifecta" gets raised...
1. Will the Dems win back the House?
2. Will the Dems win back the US Senate?
3. Will they risk losing one or both after 10 years on the outs, to feed their minority base to try to impeach Bush?
Posted by Mask at 12/27/2005 @ 07:42am
The Lincoln comparison doesn't work, because Lincoln was facing the fragmentation of the United States. Bush faces nothing like that. Terrorists are bug bites on the body of this current nation. That said, I don't condone Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, or Wilson's imprisonment of Debs for protesting WWI, or FDR's internment of American citizens of Japanese anscestry. All were unconstitutional acts by an imperial presidency. All were immoral.
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 07:49am
MASK--In 1992, I supported Jerry Brown. But the Democratic Party power structure, both here in Washington State and nationally, were determined to have Clinton. So I held my nose and voted for Clinton (I have never voted for a republican) even though I knew he was a corporate whore. I felt it was necessary to wipe clean the last stink of the Reagan years by removing Bush Sr., who had blood on his hands from years of CIA skullduggery. And Clinton was a corporate pig, doing everything the transnational corporations wanted: signing NAFTA, allowing the outsourcing of millions of jobs, signing the Telecommunications Act, which allowed the centralization of the media. I voted for Nader since. My point is I don't care if another Democrat loses if he/she is a Republican-lite. I won't support another Clinton. And my feeling is shared by millions of progressives. We stand on principle. Maybe that is a difficult concept for some political people. Too bad...
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 08:26am
Phil, you are correct. in england they have a Tory party, that of the bosses, and a LABOR party, that of the workers. here we have two bosses' party. other democratic countries have numerous party and coalition governments are the rule. it will take a long time before the american people have a real choice at the ballot box.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 09:02am
Ahh, the joys of moving to the Big City. Amusingly enough, I caught this snippet out of Rese's postings.. "But bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease,"
To whomever bitched about it not being a funny phrase, Ehhh. At least now you know what the hell it is.
Posted by Megido at 12/27/2005 @ 09:41am
JORCHIEM
As always thanks to the Left for overstating. What I was comparing was Mr Corns last paragraph and in particular last statement to REAL actions of "radicalism" that a President excercised. Yet the country survived, as it always has, due in no small part to some of those "radical" actions. The current LEFT contention that Bush is usurping Constitutional authority is really very silly, especially when in comparasion with historical examples.
What I always find somewhat disturbing and tragic in people who advocate your position is that you are naive enough to believe the world operates on the doctrine of right or wrong principles.
In short you are the worst kind of appeaser, you would hold the USA to a sole a standerd of conduct and allow the rest of the world a free pass to do what they would, merely because the US is the most powerful nation on earth and should only use its power to feed the hungry. You believe one size fits all, sorry it does not. I hope one day you realize that.
You forgot to add one thing in your analysis of Lincoln's actions. THEY WORKED AND DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO WINNING THE WAR!
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:02am
Oh, how the sheep so apparently like to be led.
Posted by TEXASDEMOCRAT 12/27/2005 @ 01:13am | ignore this person
TEXASDEMOCRAT
Excellent point, I wholeheartedly agree, with your statement, unfortunate isn't it? However, I apply this statement to people like yourself.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:04am
CPT,
It is one thing to learn from history. It is another thing entirely to look at history to excuse one's current mistakes.
Hell, why not look at WWII and drop a big one on Fallujah if those people get uppity again? Or lock up all Muslims until the war on terror is over since FDR won the war with a similar policy? Or bring back napalm and agent orange and mines since they were pretty effective at gutting our enemies' environment?
This is where people like you run up against American history and don't have the ability to discern right from wrong. If it is "American" than it has to be "right" or at least justifiable in your mind.
If you don't watch out, the next time our economy needs a boost, someone might just force a bubbly, slightly chubby intern onto the Oval Office. After all, history shows that such actions were interconnected with economic (and other) growth.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 10:27am
CPT-- So your point is that the end justifies the means? That right and wrong don't matter? Then you are an amoral man with no principles. The Constitution is a collection of principles. The Fourth Amendment is a principle: the concept that the government may not search your property or your communications without court order. The Bush Gang has clearly violated the Fourth Amendment. If you see nothing wrong with that, then you have no respect or understanding of the Constitution. I thought military men were sworn to uphold the Constitution. Perhaps you would prefer a military dictatorship without the hassle of a Fourth Amendment.
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 10:27am
CPT-- I ask again: did you go to school? Do you read? "Standerd"??? When your spelling is so bad, you have difficulty convincing others that you are a smart guy, instead of just a grunt.
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 10:30am
Now the CIA can legeally operate within the USA, under the Patriot Act. What if they decide political protestors are not in the national interest?
Posted by RESE 12/27/2005 @ 07:54am
Considering the way this administration goes after even those who choose to protest in his presence, locking them up then dropping the charges when he is gone, it is not unreasonable to assume he is using this practice to moniter his political enemies. Adding he could not have do these things without the cooperation of many people (just look at the post from most of the right wingers here). What could cause so many people to ignore our civil rights? The threat of terrorist attacks? Maybe they're just drunk with power? The rights motto should be "we could do so much good for this country if that damn Constitution didn't keep getting in the way".
Posted by zhong at 12/27/2005 @ 10:31am
LEGBA
"But there is no comparison that can be made that would make any kind of sense."
Oh how WRONG you are! There are MANY comparasion that can be made to the Civil War, although it does require thoughtful study.
"You have CHOSEN to inaugrate this War on the people of the South" Viriginia Governor in a Letter to Lincoln. Does that sentiment ring a bell with current criticism of todays policy? And there was plenty of it back then.
"Whatever hope some may have entertained that a returning sense of justice would remove the danger with which our rights were threatened, and render it possible to preserve the Union of the Consitution, must have been disspelled by the malignity and barbarity of the Northern States in the prosecution of the existing war" Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Feb 18 1861
For many, the Civil war was one of "Northern Aggression" on a sovereign states soil. Sound like a familiar line by anyone?
And yes there were ALOT of people who thought that very way, many like, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, JEB Stuart and many others. They believed it so deeply, that they betrayed their own oath of office and joined the Confederate Army.
So you see LEGBA, the comparasions are too numerous to count, although I certainly understand why you dont want to even contemplate them. They punch sizable holes and are embarassingly revealing in the LEFT's current positions.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:38am
By the way, CPT, your discussion of people like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, et. al. seems to be an historical excuse for people like Zarqawi.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 10:43am
PHILBQ
"Terrorists are bug bites on the body of this current nation."
Was 9-11 a bug bite? What if they had a detonated a WMD, not necessarily nuclear? Would that have been a bug bite?
It is that type of thinking that got us 911. If you cannot recoginze the threat a MODERN terrorists poses, then how can you sit there and honestly critique something so utterly irrelavent as my spelling? Spelling?! are you serious with that?
My goodness man, you think modern terrorism is a "bug bite?" I believe that is a larger issue than spelling.
Yes I know the common rebuttal, "CPT you are ruled by the administrations fear-mongering! blah, blah, blah"
Sorry 911 was no bug bite, it was a warning!
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:47am
I've been reading some history during the holiday break.
So, after reading Jonathan Schell's "The Hidden State Steps Forward" here characterizing President Bush's attitude toward the Constitution as intransigent, it was refreshing to get reacquainted with FDR. The contrasting focus of governance between the two is stark. I offer this quote from President Roosevelt's closing remarks to his fireside chat delivered on 4/14/1938 over the radio to the American people:
I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust. I try always to remember that their deepest problems are human. I constantly talk with those who come to tell me their own points of view…very often with average citizens without high position who come to this house. I want to be sure that neither battles nor burdens of office shall ever blind me to an intimate knowledge of the way the American people want to live and the simple purposes for which they put me here.
FDR was able to know what the people were thinking by asking them directly; he didn't need to tap their phones. Of course, the other point is that he wanted to know of their concerns.
Posted by seattlescribe at 12/27/2005 @ 10:49am
TJB
Slight difference between ZARAQAWI and Lee, Stuart annd the rest of those who I mentioned. They did NOT TARGET civilians! Actually thats a big difference.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:52am
PHILBQ
Yes! Finally a breakthrough. National Foreign Policy is often immoral, its the way of the world. Nations act out of their own self-interests, what is best for them. Its been that way for a quite a long time. Otherwise, we would be in a constant state of conflict for trying to apply our principles to EVERY single situation. As it is now, we pick and chose discriminately as to where to apply force.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 10:57am
CPT--My use of the metaphor "Bug bite" was to illustrate the difference between the challenge Lincoln faced: destruction and dissolution of the nation. In comparison, terrorist attacks do not and will not threaten the survival of this mighty nation. They are "bug bites", not mortal wounds. So comparing Bush to Lincoln is invalid.
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 11:00am
SEATTLE
Is that why he interned thousands of Japanese-Americans? All legally upheld. FDR did NOT tap phones or spy on Americans? Are you sure about that? I think you will find he did, quite often, although FDR ONLY did it to those with KNOWN German connections, and its quite understandable as to why he did it, no one would ever object to what he did.
Its only when Bush does it, that people are outraged.
Thank God Bush taps phones of those talking to AQ and their associates. Good for him, actually its good for us, though many here would NEVER admit it.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 11:04am
CPT__ You confuse (perhaps intentionally) the difference between foreign policy and domestic constitutional requirements. The president IS NOT ELECTED KING. He governs under a structure of constitutional restrictions. The Fourth Amendment is one of them. The president is sworn to uphold the Constitution. That includes the Fourth Amendment. Even in wartime (there has been no congressional declaration of war), the President has constitutional restrictions. Why is that concept so difficult for you Bush lovers to understand?
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 11:10am
PHILBQ
There was a quite a STRONG voice at the time, in 1861, that wanted to allow the South to secede. "Nothing will come of it" and "They will come back to into the fold without coercion" summed up the anti-war feelings in the North and these opinions were held by very prominent polticians of the day.
For many Lincoln embarked on a war of CHOICE rather than necessity. Sure we know now, how important the fracturing of the nation would have been, but then it certainly was not as clear.
So the comparasions are valid, in my opinion, more than others want to think.
Modern terrorists want the destruction of the US via mass casualty attacks.
No matter what we do, they wont stop trying, even if we somehow gave the Palestinians back their land and expelled all the Jews of Israel back to Europe, they still wont stop.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 11:16am
PHILBQ
Because the ultimate AIM of our particiaption in this war is to WIN.
Like Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, and Truman, their GOAL was to WIN and they did what was necessary, and THEY often times ignored otherwise restrictions to their authority for the greater goal of WINNING the War.
And throughout all of THIER actions, the Consitution STILL ENDURES. Point being, Bush's usurpations are minor and they are NOT the begining of the end of our form of governmet.
Thats why I do not understand all the hype, surrounding Bush and his actions.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 11:23am
.
The New York Times, treats this subject today with a compelling op-ed, here.
It points out, President Bush was not wire taping telephone calls to build a legal case against suspected criminals. That would require warrants. Nor was he trying to find out what his political enemies are planning, nor trying to overhear the chitchat of journalists. He was acting on his foremost responsibility, protecting this nation from attack.
Our intelligence services were listening in on the conversations of Al Qaeda whenever it dialed a US number. Because that is the kind of information Bush needs to anticipate terrorists actions.
The Constitution makes protecting America the president's chief job. After 9/11 Congress underscored that by demanding he "use all necessary and appropriate force in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States."
That it was right to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda is too obvious for words. Which is why that is not the complaint. The kvetch is that the president ignored the telephone surveillance procedure of a 1978 law.
To the "bemused" David Corn that suggests Bush's contempt for the law, or his outright desire to rob Americans of their rights and liberties. That is an unwarranted and malicious imputation.
During the Cold War the FBI was spying on foreign agents in the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed to supervise our secret police as it watched these suspected foreigners. The FISA court oversaw that cat and mouse game.
But hostile individuals were not the central threat and chief concern of the White House back then. Thousands of MIRVed nuclear missiles were. Against them the president, assisted by an aide with the nuclear codes, was poised to make swift and fateful decisions night and day. No court controlled the defenses of the United States as the White House daily managed the danger of missile attacks.
Today the central and constant threat is no longer missiles rushing at America from abroad. Now it is that of terrorists in this country bringing mayhem to our cities. It is not reasonable that a court should supervise our defenses as the Commander in Chief must maneuver them at a moments notice against this new challenge.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 11:30am
CPT,
Actually the difference you observe between the Rebs and the insurgents is a detail. I'm referring to the fact that your quote
"For many, the Civil war was one of "Northern Aggression" on a sovereign states soil. Sound like a familiar line by anyone?
And yes there were ALOT of people who thought that very way, many like, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, JEB Stuart and many others. They believed it so deeply, that they betrayed their own oath of office and joined the Confederate Army."
seems to show an equivalent for the beliefs of the Iraqi insurgents and an historical justification for their attacks. As to their methods for engaging their enemy, well, each war has its own unique gifts to the world of violence and debauchery. Find a war that was conducted wholly above board, then come down to my neck of the woods to buy some of my swampla...I mean waterfront property.
Fact is, morality makes things pretty easy. Create just laws, obey them, treat others fairly according to the law--just a few examples of how morality can guide the leaders of a country. What is it exactly that is guiding our current administration? It certainly is not morality.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:37am
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 11:04am | ignore this person
CPT,
I knew the inevitable "but what about this…" comments would emerge – as they would no matter what historical figure is cited in any post. The point I'm making is the focus of their governing style. For being born into American aristocratic families, both FDR and Bush are similar here. However, FDR connected with the American people where no one will accuse Bush of doing that.
Having not been born into the aristocracy myself, I must leave now and contribute to our economy.
Posted by seattlescribe at 12/27/2005 @ 11:42am
NACL,
This issue with FISA's limitations in the post-Cold War climate is not new. The FBI and other investigative agencies have been aware of this problem for years, as they have testified to Congress. So why not enact new legislation or amend the FISA regulations? Who would have fought this battle in Congress, particularly in the first year after 9/11? By choosing not to do this, the administration is in violation of the law.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:52am
CPT,
It appears you are willing to eliminate our rights to the Fourth Amendment because we are at war (invoking the victories of Lincoln and FDR).
So American citizens of Japanese descent were interned and Americans with German connections were spied on. Was it not different since those wars had a quantifiable end? The surrender of Japan. The surrender of Germany.
In the war on terror when will Bush allow us our Fourth Amendment back? Do you think there is a quantifiable end to a "war" on terror?
In other words, we are little more than grovelling subjects begging at the feet of King George for him to reinstate our rights. Oddly, you do not see the evil in that reality!
Posted by colmes at 12/27/2005 @ 12:24pm
Don't you think if the terrorist had the capability to launch a WMD attack they would have done so again Isreal by now? They've been bent on Isreal's destruction for half a century now. Right now we are placing these terrorist in the position of control by pandering to their every threat. Threats that has been blown out of proportion by people who stand to gain enormously by overstating them.
No matter what we do, they wont stop trying, even if we somehow gave the Palestinians back their land and expelled all the Jews of Israel back to Europe, they still wont stop.
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 11:16am
With that opinion how can we win if not by just killing everyone over there. These terrorist are inept for the tasks you describe. This war in response is overkill, and has little to do with our safety. It was just an opportunity to carry out an agenda designed years before. Do suggest our only option is to turn the USA into a police state?
Posted by zhong at 12/27/2005 @ 12:34pm
CPT,Nacl, and other apologists for their little King-- You knaves of the king will never convince us thinking people here that we should just forget about all civil rights protections like the Fourth Amendment, as we run like chickens in fear of terrorism. I would hold the same position if a Democrat were in the White House. Can you honestly say that? No, I suspect your rabid defemse of Bush's illegal domestic spying is totally partisan: you wouldn't be saying this if Clinton was in office. You would be at our position: standing with the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. We don't have kings in this country, thank the Framers.
Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 12:53pm
NaCl
In the Time Op-Ed piece it states "the government can get a warrant from the FISA court when there is probable cause to believe the target of surveillance is a foreign power or its agent." and thus acknowledges FISA the proper venue for such activity. There are those who at this point cry that since the "terrorists" are not a bonafide "foreign power or its agents" this does not apply. To them I would remind that we have declared war on "terrorists" and have therefore acknowledged a fuzzy "sovereignty" to al Qaida, et al.
In addition it goes on to state: "Although the administration could have sought such warrants, it chose not to for good reasons." Apparently the authors then realize that the law is applicable. It goes on to say that the law is basically "dated" and justifies the WH's willful ignorance as justified under these premises.
So the law is the law, unless Dubya et al decides its too much bother, or deems it dated, in which case they may choose to ignore the law as they see fit? I kinda thought this was the USA where the laws counted for something. Isn't that what makes US different from THEM?
I would ask CPT to chime in at this point as well in the area of spying on "peace groups" such as PETA and Greenpeace under similar guise recently. For all of the aforementioned many of us are very concerned. It seems the lines of who may be "peeked on" under these conditions is both capricious and arbitrary....and most certainly beyond the scope of any applicable law. Have the "powers-that-be" decided they are both above the law and in charge of the laws? That my friends is Dictatorship defined.....kinda what we say we are fighting against dontcha know?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/27/2005 @ 1:07pm
CPT, the Civil War took place within the confines of the United States. It was not waged against a nation of people who had done the United States no previous harm. I understand full well that the wealthy elite who defended the confederacy believed their autonomy and their right to defend an archaic plantation system within the borders of this country was paramount, just as I know you believe an archaic imperial regime should be allowed to secure a hold in the Middle East. They were wrong, and you're wrong. End of story.
Posted by Legba at 12/27/2005 @ 1:53pm
Damn CPT
I see you are still flaunting your pussy credentials. I have a recommendation, dig a real deep hole, line it with concrete, stock it with a few decades of food and water, and then lock yourself in.
Then you won't have to be afraid of that nasty ol' booger man ever again.
I know this is probably an alien concept to you but it isn't just soldiers that die to protect our freedoms. Any American that stands up for them and loses his or her life in the process does so. If protecting the rights of all of us means that I have to die in a terrorist attack then so be it. Because if my death results in the dismantling of the things I value, then I certainly did die in vain.
It's funny that in all your ranting about history you fail to quote the most important point. The bill of rights was the final compromise. Without it our constitution would never have been ratified by the states. Without it, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a country called the United States of America because the articles of confederation weren't working and Europe was more than happy to help our little experiment fail.
You might want to think about that the next time you rush to blindly support the illegal actions of your boy king.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 1:55pm
PHILBQ
Actually to the contrary, if a DEMOCRAT were in office at the time of 911, and he/she had chosen the same action now currently underway, I for one would be staunchly for them.
Country trumps party
Security trumps Liberty.....now this is subject to debate, but without security there is no liberty.
LEFTOCENTER
As to the groups you are referring to, I do not believe the NSA was "spying" on them, rather the FBI, but be that as it may, the FBI is chartered for domestic surveillence. I am unaware that anything illegal was involved in those cases.
But rather the "outrage" is in response to the fact that a govt agency, "dares" to monitor these organizations. As I understand the facts of these cases, the govt is monitoring them.
I mean is it a big step from Greenpeace to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)? The ELF a group KNOWN to conduct acts of wanton vandalism and arson. And havent groups associated with PETA, been known to act in similiar ways?
The question is however, is the govt impeding these groups in their efforts or causes? or merely monitoring them, looking for other extremists who might associate themselves with the group as an outlet or conduit to contact other more extreme radicals?
I do know the FBI has monitored other groups as well like the KKK or Neo-Nazis for the same purposes that they monitor the above mentioned groups. Now of course there are differences in the groups nature and expressed purposes, but using the one size fits all philo of many here, I guess even that would be considered wrong by some here.
As far as the peace advocacy groups, again, to me, is the govt working to stop their expression? No, they are monitoring them, uncomfortable concept yes, but I would not given in to more cynical theories just yet.
As with everything, it depends on the circumstances.
On a side note, I want to go on record as your profession as a teacher, is my personal dream job, which I plan to engage in, once I retire, and get little more financial security. After all, while the teacher's pay in the area I chose to retire in is improving, its not quite there yet, to live in the manner I want to. But again, I think teaching is great job.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 1:57pm
Security trumps Liberty.....now this is subject to debate, but without security there is no liberty.
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 1:57pm
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin
I was getting tired of reading quotes from the leaders of the Traitor states of America that waged a bloody civil war against the USA. You have strange friends CPT.
We might need to keep and eye on you.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:06pm
CPT:
"Modern terrorists want the destruction of the US via mass casualty attacks."
Given that Hussein had no connections to these modern terrorists, I fail to see how the invasion of Iraq accomplished anything in this fight. If anything, it has provided reasons for recruiting new members. Your purported forward strategy is taking us several steps backwards.
Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:11pm
CPT, if terrorists want to destroy our nation, violating the Constitution and curtailing individual liberties that our nation was founded upon is a step in that direction.
Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:13pm
The question is however, is the govt impeding these groups in their efforts or causes?
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 1:57pm
No. It isn't. How on earth can you think this is a relevant question much less "the" question? If the FBI decides to set up a little pup tent in your unused attic space, but you don't hear or see the agent, then certainly there is nothing wrong with that, right? If Dick Cheney moves in next door and installs all forms of satellite dishes in his backyard, large telescopes on his roof aimed at your windows, and sits in his front yard staring at you as you mow the lawn, all the while talking into a hidden microphone, why on earth would you worry about this? Just go on, live your life, and enjoy, right?
What the hell are we fighting for again? Who are the enemies of this country?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:16pm
WILL C
"It's funny that in all your ranting about history you fail to quote the most important point. The bill of rights was the final compromise. Without it our constitution would never have been ratified by the states. Without it, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a country called the United States of America because the articles of confederation weren't working and Europe was more than happy to help our little experiment fail."
The REAL funny thing is that you missing my point. Are the Bill of Rights null and void today? Do you not enjoy these protections, right now? When these histroical figures violated the Bill of Rights and or its spirit, did they apply the violations to every single person? Did Lincoln, imprison without trial, a man in Boston who violated the importing laws that taxed goods from other countries? No, he did not treat him the way he treated those Confederate sympathizers in Baltimore.
Niether did Wilson when he imprisoned Debs, or FDR when interned the Japanese. For whatever their reasons, EACH applied those violations of the Bill of Rights to those they FELT posed a threat to the overall effort of winning the war.
So it is with Bush.
Lincoln, clearly violated the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
Wilson, clearly violated the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
FDR, clearly violated the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
Bush, has clearly violated the spirit if the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution will survive!
"Then you won't have to be afraid of that nasty ol' booger man ever again."
Who is the one that is afraid? me or you? Hey Pot this is the kettle, I hate to say it, but you are blacker than I am.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:18pm
WILL C
If I join a radical group, by all means
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:19pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/27/2005 @ 2:16pm
My primary concern is the allocation of assets. The congress just cut back funding for air marshals. Our port and border security suck, but we have the money to hire teams of agents to spy on peace groups.
and they want more tax cuts
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:21pm
Lincoln, clearly violated the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
Wilson, clearly violated the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
FDR, clearly violated the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution survived!
Bush, has clearly violated the spirit if the Bill of Rights, the country and the Constitution will survive!
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:18pm
Could you connect the dots, please, between the illegal actions of these presidents and the successful outcome of the wars they waged? I see no connection. I see over-reactions.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:22pm
WILL C
If I join a radical group, by all means
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:19pm
Radical
Now there's a nicely subjective term. And the infinate number of ways we can define it
juicy
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:24pm
LEGBA
"CPT, the Civil War took place within the confines of the United States. It was not waged against a nation of people who had done the United States no previous harm."
Any Civil War historian would argue that comment tooth and nail, especially the second sentence.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:25pm
Who is the one that is afraid? me or you? Hey Pot this is the kettle, I hate to say it, but you are blacker than I am.
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:18pm
Hey Cpt. It's been awhile since you used one of your tired old clichés.
I thought you lost your touch.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:28pm
The REAL funny thing is that you missing my point. Are the Bill of Rights null and void today? Do you not enjoy these protections, right now? When these histroical figures violated the Bill of Rights and or its spirit, did they apply the violations to every single person? Did Lincoln, imprison without trial, a man in Boston who violated the importing laws that taxed goods from other countries? No, he did not treat him the way he treated those Confederate sympathizers in Baltimore.
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:18pm
No I'm not missing your point. You beleive that my rights are transitory. They only exist when things are all peachy.
With you guys it's always our rights that our first on the chopping block. You never say we have to send congress home or put the boy king on ice. It's always the freedoms that go first. And then we have to suffer through all the misty and teary eyed confessions about how fellas like you CPT are out there protecting the rights that you so quickly shitcanned.
becuase security trumps freedom.
not "live free or die"
not "untill you pry it form my cold dead hands"
all we get is "The terorists are coming, the terrorists are coming"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:37pm
Any Civil War historian would argue that comment tooth and nail, especially the second sentence.
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:25pm |
Care to name a few
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 2:39pm
Norman Solomon reminds us of the story of NSA spying on the UN in the weeks leading up to the Security Council's vote on the Iraq War resolution.
http://www.counterpunch.com/solomon12272005.html
I know a few on this site who see the UN as every bit the enemy that al Qaida is. But for those who see more clearly, it is another reminder that this administration's first objective is its own power with the country's best interests somewhere down on the list after "Enjoy more bike rides with Lance."
Is anyone else having trouble with this site's link set up?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:43pm
CPT is right.
We should FREELY give up our rights to save our country from these naughty naughty terrorists.
And you know what? If Canada beats the USA at Ice Hockey again then we should Nuke Toronto....because damn it I can't stand those Cannucks!
Posted by colmes at 12/27/2005 @ 2:45pm
Will,
You think you're up to the threat of a good biting and scratching at the mouths and fingers of top Civil War historians? Big words!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 2:45pm
TJB
A good argument can be made that Wilson and FDR over-reacted, though I am sure they thought of it in the context of fighting a "total war" concept, one that included the homefront as well. So in that context one could say, rightfully, that they were justified.
One has an easier time defending Lincoln's actions. If Lincoln does NOT jail hundreds of Southern Symapthizers in Baltimore, they could have very well pushed Baltimore into Confedrate hands, hence putting DC in a precarious position, of being surrounded. Not to mention losing a vital supply port. And if Lincoln does NOT put down the draft riots in Ohio and NYC, very probable that those spread like wildfire to other towns, who were disillusioned with the War effort.
Remember, those ignorant Southern hicks, as many now like to characterize them, had thwarted the Union army for TWO and HALF years! inflicting horrendous casualties. People in the North were looking for a way out, an attitude had begun to set in "its not worth it," This evident in the periodicals of the time, and of course the draft riots.
But it was a STRONG, DETERMINED, and UNWAVERING LINCOLN! That saved this Nation. Despite the numerous set-backs, and constant bad news of Union defeat after defeat, with a SINGLE Day's battle producing the casualties we have suffered in the War on terror in 3 years!
So yeah Lincoln, at least was indeed justified. The others you can make a case to the contrary.
HMAN
We have disagreed on the terror connections and argued it out, you know my position and I know yours. We agree to disagree.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:46pm
COLMES
Shelby, for one, though he is dead now, heard him speak many times on the subject. Oh just pick any one
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:48pm
WILL C/TJB
Your right, there is NO terror threat, they can be reasoned with, there is nothing to worry about!
We dont need no stinking badges!
They are just misunderstood young arabs, rebelling against the evil corporation of the USA.
Thanks for clearing it up
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:51pm
WILL C
Tired old cliches, whatever best to reach you.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:53pm
COLMES
Sorry last post for Will C, not you.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:53pm
.
The argument of this New York Times, op-ed is that no law that regulates the police as it watches spies, regulates the president and his efforts to protect the nation, in a time when America is under attack.
President Bush intentionally did not go to the FISA court while eavesdropping on int'l calls, though he could easily have done so. He ignored that FISA procedure because it did not advance but constrained his efforts to keep ahead of Al Qaeda. He did not ask Congress for a smoother law, because as Commander in Chief, he needed no law regulating his efforts to protect the country. He was ordered by the Constitution to do all and everything necessary to prevent or stop attacks. Congress had expressed its urgent desire that he do everything necessary, "to prevent any further attacks of int'l terrorism against the United States." He did not see how a new law regulating the surveillance of our enemies could help him.
The president did deem it necessary to tell the leaders of Congress what he was doing, including the leaders of the opposition party. He told them, he was unrestrainedly listening to the enemy. At the same time he was carefully watching his apparat so that the focus of the work remained sharply and truly fixed on a class of calls genuinely suspicious and dangerous. He authorized this work for limited periods followed by reviewes, before reauthorization was made. The president was making sure that this eavesdropping practice did not become blanket and unrestrained. We see here the executive doing its work conscientiously.
No 4th amendment issues are involved.
There is however here involved a deliberate attempt to undermine the president. That it undermined him in the very work of protecting the country did not deter the leakers. The people responsible for ending a successful eavesdropping on threatening conversations have increased the nation's danger and deserve to go to prison. My guess is that includes the publisher of the NY Times.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 2:55pm
COLMES
"CPT is right.
We should FREELY give up our rights to save our country from these naughty naughty terrorists.
And you know what? If Canada beats the USA at Ice Hockey again then we should Nuke Toronto....because damn it I can't stand those Cannucks!
Posted by COLMES 12/27/2005 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person
Yeah, thats EXACTLY what I said. And people accuse you guys of being "unhinged" I cant imagine why?
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 2:55pm
CPT
re: teaching....thanks. Hope to get a comfy full-time post in the not-too distant future.
As to NSA....scary place. I have it on good authority that we hear W-A-A-Y less about "intra-US snooping" than what actually goes on. No details mind you, just an acquaintance with a few beers in him/her who used to have a respectable clearance once upon a time.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/27/2005 @ 3:02pm
NaCl
off-topical
Left a minor item of clarification at the tail of "older" from WA Dept of Public Health email
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/27/2005 @ 3:03pm
Your right, there is NO terror threat, they can be reasoned with, there is nothing to worry about!
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 2:51pm
Wow CPT. What was that, fifeteen minutes? You went from one extreame to the other. First the threat from al qaeda is so dire that we need to trash the constitution and now it doesn't exist.
take a few moments to decide where you stand and we can resume.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 3:25pm
.
If you think I am going to revisit that, than you are being watered too much, or maybe it's too litle sun.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 3:26pm
.
Poisionous Salt,
In part you wrote:
He was ordered by the Constitution to do all and everything necessary to prevent or stop attacks.
What part specifically are you referring to?
If a President did NOT do "everything neccessary" what should happen to them in your opinion?
Posted by colmes at 12/27/2005 @ 3:31pm
WILL C
becuase security trumps freedom.
not "live free or die"
not "untill you pry it form my cold dead hands"
all we get is "The terorists are coming, the terrorists are coming"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Merely commenting on your assessments
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 3:34pm
CPT
Since you seem to enjoy using the Lincoln analogy then I guess that makes the Traitor States of America, scuse me... the Conservative states of America, sorry... the Confederate States of America equal with al Qaeda.
I'm glad we have finally cleared that up.
Let's see. Where on the map is the unholy well spring of the evangelic abomination.
It looks like...
Oh my God!
Those same states
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 3:35pm
Merely commenting on your assessments
Posted by CPT 12/27/2005 @ 3:34pm
Thats what that was. And I thought you were talking about pots and kettles.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 3:37pm
NACL,
So when you write,
"He did not ask Congress for a smoother law, because as Commander in Chief, he needed no law regulating his efforts to protect the country. He was ordered by the Constitution to do all and everything necessary to prevent or stop attacks."
do you believe that Bush has limits on what activities he can authorize? And at what point does he reach those limits, if they exist? Also, there seems to be a contradiction in the fact that "he could easily have" gone to FISA, but that it would have "constrained his efforts to keep ahead of Al Qaeda". If it were easy, what was the constraint?
The problem I am having, and this is probably not something with which you agree, is that this administration seemed to shift its arguments regarding the necessity of the Iraq War. For this reason, I am wary of their "first" reason for the spying. We have to take their word on the fact that all of their spying is related to the War on Terror/Al Qaida. From my point of view, that requires a huge leap of faith. Just as the tax cuts went from returning a surplus to stimulating a recessing economy, I am skeptical that they are giving us the straight story.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 3:38pm
If a President did NOT do "everything neccessary" what should happen to them in your opinion?
Posted by COLMES 12/27/2005 @ 3:31pm
That's a good question, Colmes. If we can point to open borders, open ports, ineffective searches at airports..., yet he's listening in on people who are "known" members of al Qaida... Maybe his eavesdropping is telling him that al Qaida is just going to lie low so he doesn't really need to do much to protect the homeland.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 3:42pm
NaCl
Per your post upthread then, it is "reasonable" to circumvent the law as long as it fowards the agenda of the "War on Terror"? Hmmmm. Interesting when law becomes an arbitrary tool. Most of us out here are expected to obey all the laws all of the time. Guess the WH folk aren't adherent to the laws like the rest of us folk. Of course, that means we are approaching a dictatorship, but as long as we are fighting terrorists, what the hey!
re: "old business", was just a post of an email received from WA Public Health clarifying the status of the organism in question. Just came today and states its primarily an aerobe..that's all.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/27/2005 @ 3:46pm
TJ:" Just as the tax cuts went from returning a surplus to stimulating a recessing economy,
the recession has been over for some time but the tax cuts go on, and on. I don't think skeptical is the word, incredulous is more like it
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 4:01pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/27/2005 @ 4:01pm
I wish we would stop talking about the deficit and start talking about the national debt. The country thinks the deficit is like your credit card bill, its number changes because of new charges or current payments when in fact it resets to zero each year as it transitions into debt and resets at zero.
And our countries debt is over eight trillion and climbing.
bankrupcy will kill us faster the Osama.
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 4:11pm
And the cure for bankrupcy...
Tax cuts
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 4:11pm
just kidding
Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 4:12pm
CPT:
You are a daft, witless pratt. Thank you once again for twisting my position into some completely unintelligible argument which makes no sense. No wonder your rebuttals are the most ridiculous attempts at logic I have seen on this site. Allow me to dismantle your comments one by one.
You said:
As always thanks to the Left for overstating.
My response:
First off, how was I overstating? Please explain specifically where I was using hyperbole. I was being completely serious in my commentary. It comes down to something Benjamin Franklin once said:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
We are learning how true this is at the present. Illegal search and seizure, warrantless surveillance (via Project Echelon and TIA), and presumed guilt without due process are all bugbears against which we should struggle. They are the true enemy. And anyone who would support such actions taken by the regime should be consider the enemy combatants.
You said:
What I was comparing was Mr Corns last paragraph and in particular last statement to REAL actions of "radicalism" that a President excercised. Yet the country survived, as it always has, due in no small part to some of those "radical" actions.
My response:
Wrong again, my friend. The only radical actions which have allowed this country to survive have been the radical actions of those who would expand liberty, not abridge it. Whether that is women's suffrage, equal rights, etc., these are the true hallmarks of a progressive society. Let us not forget that the FBI had extensive files on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, despite the fact that he was an avowed pacifist, and supported ONLY non-violent civil disobedience. Let us not forget how the Pinkertons or the mob or even the National Guard have been used to break strikes, even though these brave people were exercising their constitutional rights to free assembly.
You said:
The current LEFT contention that Bush is usurping Constitutional authority is really very silly, especially when in comparasion with historical examples.
My response:
ANY abridging of constitutional rights in this land should be fought vehemently, even violently. Not doing so devalues the sacrifices of all who died for the creation and guarantee of this nation. Allowing such rights to be abridged starts us as a society down a long yet steep slope inexorably toward tyranny. Power begets power. And those in power always agitate for more power.
You said:
What I always find somewhat disturbing and tragic in people who advocate your position is that you are naive enough to believe the world operates on the doctrine of right or wrong principles.
My response:
I would say that you are the naive one. Without a firm understanding of what is and what is not allowed, you have absolutely no sense of limits. The whole idea of an open society and a fair and equitable government is based on the concept of protecting the weak from the strong. For example, if I beat you up and take your stuff, I go to jail. Regardless of the fact that you are weaker, and I have invoked the "law of the jungle", there are laws in place placing limits on what is allowed in civil society. Without those limits, you die. As Hobbes said, the anarchic nature of human exiostence has proven to be "nasty, brutish, and short".
You said:
In short you are the worst kind of appeaser, you would hold the USA to a sole a standerd of conduct and allow the rest of the world a free pass to do what they would, merely because the US is the most powerful nation on earth and should only use its power to feed the hungry. You believe one size fits all, sorry it does not. I hope one day you realize that.
My response:
Just as my parents told me, I can't help what other people do. I can only hold myself to standards that remain unimpeachable (unlike our president, I hope), and not worry about what others do. That does not mean that we should allow other countries to do what they will to us. But inherent in that means we do not wage aggressive war against a practically defenseless nation (or any other nation for that matter) unless they attack us directly. In case you haven't quite grasped this, Iraq never attacked us. Quite to the contrary. As the Black Panthers used to say during the Viet Nam War, "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger". In this case, we have no right to attack other nations arbitrarily.
And lastly, you said:
You forgot to add one thing in your analysis of Lincoln's actions. THEY WORKED AND DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO WINNING THE WAR!
My response:
You obviously don't know your history. It was precisely these actions by Lincoln that provided legitimate grievances and support in the South for the Confederate war effort, and prolonged the war. Many in the South saw Lincoln for what he was... a man who would be king. And while I hate much of what the South has stood for throughout its history (this coming from a native Southerner, by the way), on this point they were absolutely correct. As usual, you show absolutely ZERO knowledge and understanding for the history of this nation, or this world.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 4:46pm
CPT:
You are a daft, witless pratt. Thank you once again for twisting my position into some completely unintelligible argument which makes no sense. No wonder your rebuttals are the most ridiculous attempts at logic I have seen on this site. Allow me to dismantle your comments one by one.
You said:
As always thanks to the Left for overstating.
My response:
First off, how was I overstating? Please explain specifically where I was using hyperbole. I was being completely serious in my commentary. It comes down to something Benjamin Franklin once said:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
We are learning how true this is at the present. Illegal search and seizure, warrantless surveillance (via Project Echelon and TIA), and presumed guilt without due process are all bugbears against which we should struggle. They are the true enemy. And anyone who would support such actions taken by the regime should be consider the enemy combatants.
You said:
What I was comparing was Mr Corns last paragraph and in particular last statement to REAL actions of "radicalism" that a President excercised. Yet the country survived, as it always has, due in no small part to some of those "radical" actions.
My response:
Wrong again, my friend. The only radical actions which have allowed this country to survive have been the radical actions of those who would expand liberty, not abridge it. Whether that is women's suffrage, equal rights, etc., these are the true hallmarks of a progressive society. Let us not forget that the FBI had extensive files on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, despite the fact that he was an avowed pacifist, and supported ONLY non-violent civil disobedience. Let us not forget how the Pinkertons or the mob or even the National Guard have been used to break strikes, even though these brave people were exercising their constitutional rights to free assembly.
You said:
The current LEFT contention that Bush is usurping Constitutional authority is really very silly, especially when in comparasion with historical examples.
My response:
ANY abridging of constitutional rights in this land should be fought vehemently, even violently. Not doing so devalues the sacrifices of all who died for the creation and guarantee of this nation. Allowing such rights to be abridged starts us as a society down a long yet steep slope inexorably toward tyranny. Power begets power. And those in power always agitate for more power.
You said:
What I always find somewhat disturbing and tragic in people who advocate your position is that you are naive enough to believe the world operates on the doctrine of right or wrong principles.
My response:
I would say that you are the naive one. Without a firm understanding of what is and what is not allowed, you have absolutely no sense of limits. The whole idea of an open society and a fair and equitable government is based on the concept of protecting the weak from the strong. For example, if I beat you up and take your stuff, I go to jail. Regardless of the fact that you are weaker, and I have invoked the "law of the jungle", there are laws in place placing limits on what is allowed in civil society. Without those limits, you die. As Hobbes said, the anarchic nature of human exiostence has proven to be "nasty, brutish, and short".
You said:
In short you are the worst kind of appeaser, you would hold the USA to a sole a standerd of conduct and allow the rest of the world a free pass to do what they would, merely because the US is the most powerful nation on earth and should only use its power to feed the hungry. You believe one size fits all, sorry it does not. I hope one day you realize that.
My response:
Just as my parents told me, I can't help what other people do. I can only hold myself to standards that remain unimpeachable (unlike our president, I hope), and not worry about what others do. That does not mean that we should allow other countries to do what they will to us. But inherent in that means we do not wage aggressive war against a practically defenseless nation (or any other nation for that matter) unless they attack us directly. In case you haven't quite grasped this, Iraq never attacked us. Quite to the contrary. As the Black Panthers used to say during the Viet Nam War, "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger". In this case, we have no right to attack other nations arbitrarily.
And lastly, you said:
You forgot to add one thing in your analysis of Lincoln's actions. THEY WORKED AND DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO WINNING THE WAR!
My response:
You obviously don't know your history. It was precisely these actions by Lincoln that provided legitimate grievances and support in the South for the Confederate war effort, and prolonged the war. Many in the South saw Lincoln for what he was... a man who would be king. And while I hate much of what the South has stood for throughout its history (this coming from a native Southerner, by the way), on this point they were absolutely correct. As usual, you show absolutely ZERO knowledge and understanding for the history of this nation, or this world.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 4:46pm
Sorry for the double post, folks. Dodgy internet.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 4:47pm
It was worth repeating, Jorcheim. Good post.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 5:14pm
TJBEHRENS1:
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 5:18pm
Okay, we are all talking and debating and exposing, and all that is good. BUT! What the hell do we do now? I have read about a protest in DC on Feb. 4, 2006. Is it worth it? Can we spread the word? Can we stop paying taxes. I already write my two Republican Senators and my Republican Representative. (I always receive a lovely form letter in response). I want to do something beside surf the blogs. Any ideas?
Matthew 5:9
Posted by Squid25 at 12/27/2005 @ 5:41pm
.
No. His orders are to "use all necessary and appropriate force in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States."
"All necessary and appropriate force" is about as unlimiting as it gets.
FISA is an oversight process, it exercises a degree of control. The G Men could have filed the necessary papers and followed the FISA routines easily enough. But that would not have helped their work of anticipating terrorist actions; if anything it could have slowed or complicated the work. So it was unnecessary and inappropriate to resort to it.
You think the administration wants to use the terrorist rationale to limit the privacy and basic rights of Americans in general. For that you have to produce some evidence that that is happening, or at least being contemplated. So far no one has, not even The Nation.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 5:50pm
Conservatives want bigger government, Conservatives want government on their backs.
They make excuses, they crack jokes, they bring up Clinton, they bring up Lincoln, they bring up Vietnam, they bring up World War 2 - or they reject comparisons to Clinton, Lincoln, Vietnam, and Hitler.
Conservatives hate America, all they respect is their narrow version of religion which they want to force on everyone else just as Jesus is about to throw the innocent people of the world into Hell to be burned alive forever.
Conservatives supported slavery and they back up Bush for still not wanting the Pentagon to pass regulations against human trafficking by contractors.
Conservatives are still for slavery and illegal wars, torture, looting of the treasury for no-bid contracts and no oversight,
Conservatives are against human rights, against the environment, against freedom of speech, and its only a SHORT matter of time till Bush tries to take away their guns and they'll like that too.
Posted by reidsucks at 12/27/2005 @ 5:52pm
.
You are again demonstrating your inability to understand what you don't want to understand, and to twist and change my words.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 5:53pm
Conservatives have no respect for the law, they are sadistic, they want to torture people, they worship a God who burns kids alive forever and washes those chosen to be his house slaves in the blood of freshly killed lambs.
Can you imagine, all those conservatives cutting the throats of lambs, spraying the blood all over each other and singing their barbarianistic christian songs?
Posted by reidsucks at 12/27/2005 @ 6:00pm
.
Any sovereign nation has the right to protect itself against attack. That is universally acknowledged. Furthermore it is the govt of a nation which most commonly conducts its defense.
In Article II Section 2, the Constitution specifically designates the president as head of the army and navy. He is responsible for using America's national security resources to protect the US. It is up to him to decide how those are best applied toward that goal.
The Congress' responsibility is to decide when the nation is threatened. It must then call on the president, in his capacity as CinC, to take the military into action. It does not have the power to tell him/her how he must proceed, only that he must proceed. For that reason the Congress passed a resolution following 9/11 authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States."
Failing to act as CinC and not responsibly employing all available means to protect the nation, would make the president subject to impeachment.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 6:07pm
You think the administration wants to use the terrorist rationale to limit the privacy and basic rights of Americans in general. For that you have to produce some evidence that that is happening, or at least being contemplated. So far no one has, not even The Nation.
Posted by NACL 12/27/2005 @ 5:50pm
I honestly don't care if the administration is limiting the rights of Americans in general. If they are limiting the rights of anyone, they need to stop. Earlier on this blog, CPT was making a point, more or less, that unless someone can point to a specific way in which they have been oppressed, then no harm done. This puts a whole lot of trust into the goodwill of the government.
Now I am all for the government stepping in to do things that, I perceive, cannot be done by the private sector. However, these things must be done with a certain amount of transparency. After all, whatever bubbleheads have control of either the White House or Congress are ostensibly there to represent our interests. But when it gets to the point where we just have to assume that these people are behaving appropriately, that's the point when I need evidence that what they are doing is truly appropriate.
Why is the burden on us to prove harm? Let them demonstrate that what they are doing is clearly appropriate.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 6:17pm
squid, in other countries they have a general strike when things get really shitty
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:39pm
Squid, where did you read about that protest?
Posted by goldilocks at 12/27/2005 @ 8:15pm
JORCHIEM
"You are a daft, witless pratt. Thank you once again for twisting my position into some completely unintelligible argument which makes no sense. No wonder your rebuttals are the most ridiculous attempts at logic I have seen on this site. Allow me to dismantle your comments one by one."
Seeing your rebuttals to the points I made, are very amusing.
I have often ignored many responses to my posts, such as yours, because they, your comments, in and of themselves are the best possible examples of leftist fringe-type thinking.
Allow me, now, in a rare moment of time alloted opportunity to dismantle your rebuttals point by point:
You said:
"First off, how was I overstating? Please explain specifically where I was using hyperbole. I was being completely serious in my commentary. It comes down to something Benjamin Franklin once said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." We are learning how true this is at the present. Illegal search and seizure, warrantless surveillance (via Project Echelon and TIA), and presumed guilt without due process are all bugbears against which we should struggle. They are the true enemy. And anyone who would support such actions taken by the regime should be consider the enemy combatants.
My response:
You asked where were you using hyperbole? As evidence, I submit your own comments. "Illegal search and seizure, warrantless surveillance (via Project Echelon and TIA), and presumed guilt without due process are all bugbears against which we should struggle. They are the true enemy." Exactly who and how many Americans have been imprisoned, using warrantless surviellance? You dont think that is hype? Yes I know you imagine yourselves as true defenders of the faith and upholders of American values, but there is no FREEDOM without SECURITY. Stop being foolish idealistic college kids, and deal with the REALITY of today's world. Ben Franklin, with all due respect, is wrong.
You said:
"Wrong again, my friend. The only radical actions which have allowed this country to survive have been the radical actions of those who would expand liberty, not abridge it. Whether that is women's suffrage, equal rights, etc., these are the true hallmarks of a progressive society. Let us not forget that the FBI had extensive files on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, despite the fact that he was an avowed pacifist, and supported ONLY non-violent civil disobedience. Let us not forget how the Pinkertons or the mob or even the National Guard have been used to break strikes, even though these brave people were exercising their constitutional rights to free assembly."
My response
All those wonderfully "progressive" issues are null and VOID without the RADICAL actions of Lincoln. The USA is the USA not SOLELY because of the actions of a MLK, or Susan B. Anthony or the Labor Unions. I hate to break it to you, but without Washington, Lincoln, and FDR the USA is not the USA. These 3 men were decisive to the USA, decisive! without them the USA is not the Nation it is today. There are always social activists to be found. And as much as I admire MLK, there were other voices. By the way you forgot to add how that National Guard was used to escort Black students into HS in Little Rock, and how the US Army was used to nearly destroy the KKK in the 1870s, both times ordered by REPUBLICAN Presidents.
You said:
"ANY abridging of constitutional rights in this land should be fought vehemently, even violently. Not doing so devalues the sacrifices of all who died for the creation and guarantee of this nation. Allowing such rights to be abridged starts us as a society down a long yet steep slope inexorably toward tyranny. Power begets power. And those in power always agitate for more power."
My response:
This gets more to my point about your use of hyperbole. Firstly I thought you were a pacifist? That first statement is a bit disturbing. ANY abridging, well again study your history. I cited several Presidents who did far worse than Bush would ever dream of, and OOPS our Constitution SURVIVES!!!!!!! It survived then, why do you think it wont survive now? Or do you just hate Bush that much?
You said:
"I would say that you are the naive one. Without a firm understanding of what is and what is not allowed, you have absolutely no sense of limits. The whole idea of an open society and a fair and equitable government is based on the concept of protecting the weak from the strong. For example, if I beat you up and take your stuff, I go to jail. Regardless of the fact that you are weaker, and I have invoked the "law of the jungle", there are laws in place placing limits on what is allowed in civil society. Without those limits, you die. As Hobbes said, the anarchic nature of human exiostence has proven to be "nasty, brutish, and short"."
My response:
Again, nothing but hype, I dont see any anarchy or the roots of a taliban like regime being installed by Bush. I know its a common Leftist joke to say Bush wants a Taliban-like govt, but that is beyond ridiculous. Where is the govt run amok? What jail are the hundreds of administration critics in and where is it located? What do you have to cite? Bush tapping Americans who are talking to AQ and or their associates, post 911, most Americans WANT that to happen.
You said:
Just as my parents told me, I can't help what other people do. I can only hold myself to standards that remain unimpeachable (unlike our president, I hope), and not worry about what others do. That does not mean that we should allow other countries to do what they will to us. But inherent in that means we do not wage aggressive war against a practically defenseless nation (or any other nation for that matter) unless they attack us directly. In case you haven't quite grasped this, Iraq never attacked us. Quite to the contrary. As the Black Panthers used to say during the Viet Nam War, "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger". In this case, we have no right to attack other nations arbitrarily.
My response:
Thats great, you hold to your unimpeachable standerds of conduct, Nation-States do not, they cant, the world is NOT one fucking homogenous population with all the SAME values. They do whats in their best interests. Get it? so you turn that other cheek, FDR did not at Pearl Harbor, niether did Truman, or Lincoln, or Bush. Go back to la la land if you want to live in that world.
There is actually much more to rebutn, your posts leave so much room to comment, but for time sake, I wont.
Posted by CPT at 12/27/2005 @ 9:31pm
yes calamare, tell us more about that protest
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 10:04pm
It seems the more the unchecked spying goes on by the Bush administration, the less purpose there is for any courts or judges who, by law, were previously granted the legal authority for search and seizure warrants.
Now, simply going around the law and telling everyone else to stick it, this Bush regime has finally exposed itself for what it should rightfully and accurately be called: a dictatorship.
With virtually no laws to counteract the out-of-control Bush mob now running the country there is also little necessity to have oversight committees in the U.S. Congress since all those members have simply relegated themselves to the same role as their Star Chamber counterparts on the Supreme Court -- powerless and too gutless to challenge the totalitarian Bush mob.
Instead, they go through the motions of passing legislation like the USA Patriot Act, which gives G. W. Bush even more executive powers than the first version which was passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. If any of them cared one iota for the preservation of citizens' rights they have not demonstrated it.
What we have now in this country is quite simply put -- a piece of paper document called the U.S. Constitution with its "quaint and obsolete" provisions to protect the rights and liberties of American citizens, and the other, totally repressive, autocratic laws now fabricated on the fly and embraced by the Bush mob which preempt and trump all laws in the U.S. Constitution.
We know that for a fact now that Bush claims powers never granted him by any law in this country. Bush has demonstrated his contempt for freedoms and liberties by telling Americans that in order to protect us from terrorist attacks he must take away our freedoms and eviscerate the U.S. Constitution in the process.
Call it by any other name you want, but this is pure, unmitigated and absolute power wielded by a handful of Right Wing extremists and ideologues hell-bent on asserting what they perceive as their Manifest Destiny role driven by divine power.
The terrorists and enemies of our country couldn't be more ecstatic to watch Bush, as the leader of this country, strip away our Constitutional rights. He has accomplished through his anti-Constitutional edicts that which they could not: the complete overthrow and subversion of our once-inalienable Constitutional rights and freedoms.
The latest revelation of snoop assaults and illegal spying on American citizens is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It will only get worse as the media begin doing their jobs and start exposing these abuses of power.
Unfortunately, for the American people, this mob is here to stay for at least one more year unless our system of checks and balances is reestablished.
Posted by richard38 at 12/27/2005 @ 10:05pm
.
Stop attitudinizing, go pay your brain-bill, and consider what you are saying. .
Posted by nacl at 12/27/2005 @ 10:43pm
NACL,
You were making such progress. We all had such hopes. You had spent the better part of a day participating in a mature debate as if you weren't a lunatic. So close! Run to the light! Reach for my hand! Look both ways before crossing the street! And tell Mommy that her little saltboy gets a little cranky after 10:00pm EST.
Poor, tuckered out, little guy. I'm still pulling for you and willing to correspond any time you can restrain yourself.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:00pm
NaCl
Oh, I understand perfectly well. I am just trying to distill your post to get the basic tenor. That is Dubya sidestepped laws in place to a purpose which you defend, noting the focus of actions, etc, as a justification of an illegal act. (Although, I do recognize your argument that this overextensoin of consitutional right "trumps" extant laws. I just don't agree it is a valid perspective.) Is that about right?
I have found no one that I know that gives credences to either the "Presidential edict via constitutional mis-interpretation" nor the "War Act" arguments. As has been noted before, if Dubya is going to make the "all and everything necessary" call then what is NOT within his power? Precious little I would imagine. Why vote on the Patriot Act....he could declare it falls within the "all and everything necessary" umbrella and do away with the need for that pesky Congress thing.
The bending of laws and the ignoring of others is, as per my view, unconscionable. You view otherwise, that is your right. Your opinion however, does not negate my own interpretation of the facts on hand.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 12:17am
CPT:
Your arguments or imbecilic exercises in futility. I proceed with ripping your rebuttals a new one.
You said:
I have often ignored many responses to my posts, such as yours, because they, your comments, in and of themselves are the best possible examples of leftist fringe-type thinking.
My response:
If you actually take some time to go back and read the Constitution, specifically the first 10 amendments, known to most as the Bill of Rights, you will see how firmly ensconced in the mainstream my views SHOULD be. The fact that your neo-con taskmasters have managed to skew the debate and get people to start giving up their liberties is beside the point. You are the fringe.
You said:
Exactly who and how many Americans have been imprisoned, using warrantless surviellance? You dont think that is hype? Yes I know you imagine yourselves as true defenders of the faith and upholders of American values, but there is no FREEDOM without SECURITY. Stop being foolish idealistic college kids, and deal with the REALITY of today's world. Ben Franklin, with all due respect, is wrong.
My response:
Apparently you have not been keeping up with the news. The cases of people being essentially kidnapped under cover of night and put in some military holding cells, without access to proper legal representation, or even to contact their family, constitute a complete lack of due process, the concept of "innocence until proven guilt". We have even stooped to kidnapping foreigners ON FOREIGN SOIL who have absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist movement whatsoever. Perhaps you missed the story last week about the German national with whom the CIA absconded to Afghanistan, in order to torture and interrogate him outside the purview of legality. I'm sure these instances don't bother you, but they should. Also, the surveillance of Americans without a bench warrant is a blatant act of illegality, and constitutes not only a complete executive end run around judicial oversight (separation of powers, anyone?) but also constitutes illegal search and seizure, AND circumvention of probable cause. Need I quote the 4th amendment directly?
It states:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Security is ephemeral, a chimera. And I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but this country was founded by people who held rather strong convictions in an ideal. The reality was far from perfect, but that did not cause them to waver in putting down quill to parchment and enshrine these ideals in the founding document of this country. And if you aren't willing to stand up and protect those ideals, then I submit that you are no real American, and you are more dangerous than the "terrorists". You really don't understand what being an American is all about.
You said:
All those wonderfully "progressive" issues are null and VOID without the RADICAL actions of Lincoln. The USA is the USA not SOLELY because of the actions of a MLK, or Susan B. Anthony or the Labor Unions. I hate to break it to you, but without Washington, Lincoln, and FDR the USA is not the USA. These 3 men were decisive to the USA, decisive! without them the USA is not the Nation it is today. There are always social activists to be found. And as much as I admire MLK, there were other voices. By the way you forgot to add how that National Guard was used to escort Black students into HS in Little Rock, and how the US Army was used to nearly destroy the KKK in the 1870s, both times ordered by REPUBLICAN Presidents.
My response:
OK, your understanding, or should I say LACK of understanding of American history, is simply appalling. First off, the Republican party today is almost diametrically different from 140 years ago. I know that in a day of such "ideological purity" this is difficult to believe, nay understand. But it's the truth. It was in the 1890s-1920s when the Republican party started changing and morphing into the pro-corporate, anti-individual structure that we have today.
You mention 3 presidents in your comment. The first, Washington is exceptional in what powers he DIDN'T ascribe to the executive. His own former aide-de-camp, Alexander Hamilton, pushed him to create a lifetime position in the president, and to set strong executive privilege precedents, yet Washington declined. While you were correct in invoking him, you wrong wrong as to why... and as everyone knows, it is the WHY that is most important in ALL things.
Next, you mention Lincoln. Again, we have done this to death. I won't waste any more time on Lincoln. If you have read my previous posts, you will know how I feel about him.
Lastly, you mention FDR. Interesting that you mention him, considering he was supporting practically socialist policies (which I find more than a bit ironic). And as great as that is, you are still missing the point. I am not saying these men did not have considerable impact on shaping this country. But your view of the US is that it is shaped by those at the top. I submit that the most important changes in the history of this country were at the grassroots level, people who were exercising their rights, not their power. And their demand to have their rights protected is what has made this country livable for MOST of us.
You said:
This gets more to my point about your use of hyperbole. Firstly I thought you were a pacifist? That first statement is a bit disturbing. ANY abridging, well again study your history. I cited several Presidents who did far worse than Bush would ever dream of, and OOPS our Constitution SURVIVES!!!!!!! It survived then, why do you think it wont survive now? Or do you just hate Bush that much?
My response:
I don't hate Bush, first off. I hate no one. Period. And your attempts to obfuscate my arguments by ascribing hate to them is intellectually dishonest. Either you don't grasp subtlety or the intracacies of my argument, or you are just a hack.
But more to the point of this response... our Constitution survives not because of "security" but because many people have fought and died in order to exercise the rights supposedly guaranteed in that document. When we allow those rights to be tread upon, it is the responsibility of every true American to stand up and deny the STATE the ability to do so. Your complete ignorance to the history of the reasoning for the Revolution is galling.
I find it interesting that the US has only even been bombed on its own soil 3 times in its history. The first was by an errant Japanese bomber, killing a score of innocent cattle in Oregon during WWII... the second and third were both at the WTC. So then explain to me why were spend more on military excursions than almost all the countries on the planet combined.
You said:
Again, nothing but hype, I dont see any anarchy or the roots of a taliban like regime being installed by Bush. I know its a common Leftist joke to say Bush wants a Taliban-like govt, but that is beyond ridiculous. Where is the govt run amok? What jail are the hundreds of administration critics in and where is it located? What do you have to cite? Bush tapping Americans who are talking to AQ and or their associates, post 911, most Americans WANT that to happen.
My response:
Now you are simply showing once again how truly ignorant you are. We have been an imperialist power for over a century, starting with the occupation of the Phillipines following the Spanish-American War. Since then, we have made it our task to insert ourselves into and infringe upon the sovereignty of countless nations throughout the world. I would name them all, but it would take me all day. And it wouldn't make a difference, because you would simply call it "liberal propaganda", even though the US military has come clean about many of these instances. So no, it isn't hyperbole. You just simplyt refuse to learn your history. Ignorance is not a crime. But unrepentant, consistent ignorance and truclence in the face of truth should be.
My response:
Thats great, you hold to your unimpeachable standerds of conduct, Nation-States do not, they cant, the world is NOT one fucking homogenous population with all the SAME values. They do whats in their best interests. Get it? so you turn that other cheek, FDR did not at Pearl Harbor, niether did Truman, or Lincoln, or Bush. Go back to la la land if you want to live in that world.
My response:
I never even once implied that the world is homogeneous. You again are misrepresenting my comments. But hey, what else is new? I expect others to do what they feel is in their best interests. That's fine. But that is why there are laws. Even the most internationally lawless regimes in the world (and believe me kid, we rank right up there near the top of the list) invoke legality when it suits their interests. The point is, if you only invoke laws when it is convenient, then what use are they? If we are truly going to buy into this rhetoric of world policeman (which is in point of fact more like world kneecapper/mob muscle for corporate capitalism), then we shouls at very least stay consistent from rhetoric to actions. I always looked at the US as a country which should be a paragon, and example for all the world to look to as a guide to liberty. Sadly, we have transmorgrified into fascist state, whose military is at the beck and call of corporate America. Your pride in the US is as misplaced as your understanding of the US is erroneous and faulty.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 08:31am
That next to last "My response:" should read "You said:".
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 08:31am
Jorchy, good and very thorough.
good to call attention to the fact that political parties morph into their opposites over time. some good examples of this in Schlesinger's "the Age of Jackson", (not again?)
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 08:55am
JORCHIEM
Lets just agree to disagree.
Are you a big Chomsky/Zinn fan? If you are, good for you. It explains alot.
By the way, America is not shaped, SOLELY by those at the top, but the Big 3 I spoke of were DECISIVE characters, meaning without those particular individuals, because no one else thought or did what they did. And what they did, saved and shaped the nation and wihtout them we are not the Nation we are today. And without them, all those grassroot organizers are null and ineffective.
Posted by CPT at 12/28/2005 @ 09:10am
JORCEIM and CPT,
I am aware of a case in my little sphere of teenage internet pranks leading to a knock on the door followed by the confiscation of a computer by Feds. The incident involved a love-starved girl sending topless jpegs of herself to the object of her affection. I know we need to be concerned about kiddy porn and all, but... And this is not merely a story I heard about or an urban myth, but someone I know. And in fact the mother involved is a staunch Republican who, more often than not, would be inclined to defend this administration than decry its overreaching.
Now, this is not a case of someone be dragged off in the cover of darkness to meet Cheney in his little cave. But if our emails are being monitored THIS closely and reactions take place THIS swiftly and surely, I think that even the most extreme "security over freedom" citizen should be put off.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 09:41am
And CPT,
Your dismissal of JORCHEIM's opinions based on the possibility that he is a Chomsky or Zinn fan seems to indicate that you just don't like smart people.
Pssst...there might actually be more than one Chomsky or Zinn fan on the loose on this very site!!! Don't tell anyone.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 09:43am
I do think that CPT has stumbled upon an interesting topic: the role of Presidents in shaping the social climate of the country. And clearly the role is very important. But JORCHEIM is right. Presidents are reactive in these situations rather than proactive. Look at the baby steps taken by Presidents from Truman to Johnson in terms of civil rights for African-Americans. We can point to moments of great leadership by all four Presidents. Yet each of the first three seemed unwilling to truly risk his career on the issue, choosing instead to take the country one step farther down the path to equality when the path was clear for two or three steps. Likewise in the 19th century when workers began to organize themselves, forming political parties that made no great gains in legislatures, but did succeed in prodding the powers-that-were into adapting more humane workplace regulations.
Sure, presidents defend the country from outside intrusions. But compared to the task of ensuring "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the task of protecting our lives is relatively easy--the kind of task for which our generally dimwitted leaders are actually suited. For the hard work of making this country a better place, they need guidance from the People.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 09:53am
Noam Chomsky is the greatest intellectual in the world. As an activist for social justice, he has millions of admirers all over the world. When he visits Europe, South America, and Japan, he is on national television. (He is not allowed on commercial T.V. here...we have thought control here, and Chomsky might get people to think, a very dangerous thing to the power structure.) Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States", has written monumental works of history. "A People's History" has sold millions of copies, and is standard reading in college. If I had to choose one book for U.S. citizens to read, that would be it. Rightwing attacks on these intellectual giants do nothing to diminish their stature.
Posted by philbq at 12/28/2005 @ 10:21am
PHILBQ:
Don't forget to add Michael Parenti to that esteemed list of scholarly luminaries. His work has been a constant inspiration for me. I particularly liked "The Assassination of Julius Caesar". Talk about standing history on its ear.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:33am
CPT:
How about not. See, I am very willing to be swayed by an argument if that argument is well thought-out and reasoned properly, backed up by fact. Unfortunately, you arguments always unravel into childish namecalling and "naa-nee-naa-nee-boo-boo" type attacks on preferred historical or social literature. Have you ever even READ Chomsky or Zinn? And if you have, did you read more than a couple of paragraphs before you tossed it aside in disgust?
See, unlike you, I have. In point of fact, the very ploitical science professor at Duke University, Peter Feaver, who wrote (along with Chris Gelpi) Bush's domestic policy on the Iraq War was my senior advisor. I also took the majority of my advanced political science classes from this man... not because I wanted to necessarily, but because that was my only option. See, all these "conservative" skreeds about how liberal the Ivory Tower is, is total bullshit. It is decidedly easier to get a job in academia as an ultra-conservative than as an ultra-progressive. Case in point, my best friend, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa with me from Duke, is a PhD in history, speaks and writes several languages, and whose scholarship is beyond reproach. Yet, he has been shunned simply due to his political leanings.
You are in over your head, kid. Have someone throw you a life preserver in the form of real life experiences with real people... not your upper middle class bourguoise candyland.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:41am
JORCHEIM -- I enjoy and respect Parenti very much. Chomsky, Zinn, and Parenti have all spoken here in Olympia,WA in recent years. When Chomsky spoke at Evergreen College in 1996, there was a packed hall of several thousand and a huge crowd outside straining to hear. It was one of the most inspiring moments of my life, and Chomsky gave a long great speech on the history of U.S. foreign policy. His words are more powerful than atom bombs.
Posted by philbq at 12/28/2005 @ 11:37am
.
I believe that. The people you know don't know whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts.
You're claiming, your brain is not shut down. I'm saying, maybe; but your brain waves aren't reaching the beach.
Does your sneer mean, the president seeking to do "all and everything necessary" to defend the country is taking his job too seriously?
But granted, there is a real question there. If Bush already has the traditional authority to do whatever is necessary to defend America, why is the Patriot Act necessary?
Because for the first time, things are a little different.
Sure, it is clear that the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment does not protect invaders in the uniforms of Transylvania storming North Carolina beaches with Ak-47s. Nor are their combat-packs protected by the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
But Americans are protected by the Bill of Rights as they go down into the subway with backpacks extruding wires. Also when they check out library books, even if those books are about how to make bombs, or when people go shopping on the computer for krytrons switches, or acquire large stocks of fertilizer for their city apartments.
Before 9/11 we did not need to deal with that fuzziness. Now we do. Hence the Patriot Act. That is incomprehensible to you, eh?
That is a veritble endorsement of our lawful and just society, as your views are consistently upside down and inside out.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/28/2005 @ 11:45am
JORCHEIM--The myth of left radical professors brainwashing college campuses is just as false as the myth of the "liberal' media. College boards of regents respond to complaints from rich powerful contributors about left professors, so the boards now avoid left radicals. Powerful people do not protest rightwing academics. Thus the power of money equals censorship on campus.
Posted by philbq at 12/28/2005 @ 11:46am
JORCHIEM/TJB
Actually all I meant by the Chomsky/Zinn comment is that, it explains to me where you are coming from on these issues, and to try and convince you otherwise is pointless. America is in essence, no good, to the Chomskyite/Zinn type.
And I am sorry, but I do not consider myself "in over my head" when debating your type.
Name-calling? I certainly dont agree there.
It seems you dont like what I have to say, you claim your opinions are SOLELY based on reason? Really, I submit to you that your opinions are HEAVILY influenced to fit your political leanings and not based on PURE OBJECTIVE FACT.
Example: You think Lincolns actions were deplorable, correct? I do not, I think they were vital.
You see how two people can see the same FACTS and have differing opinions as to their merit.
Thats all we have here. You see America's shortcomings, I see its accomplishments. I dont discount the shortcomings, but I do not use only our faults to make a conclusion about America as a whole. Chomskyites appear to want to do that, more so than most.
So you see, I agree to disagree with your well-reasoned and fact based arguments.
Posted by CPT at 12/28/2005 @ 12:08pm
CPT:
Here we go again... Just as the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/Coulter skreeds out there, sink to saying that somehow progressives only look at the negatives, or how bad America is... or in more recent comments I have heard, how we hate America.
Bullshit. The difference is simple. I know how great America can be. And I EXPECT it to live up to its promise. See, you look at the world in this absolute black and white America AWESOME, everyone else HORRIBLE dichtomomy. Well, friend, there again is what's called shades of grey.
Oh, and you still haven't answered my question to you about how much, if any CHomsky, Zinn, or Parenti you have actually read. Again, my guess is maximum of a hanfdful of pages, if any at all.
The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, both are secular civic works which delineate PRECISELY those wrongs against which the revolution was being declared (in the Declaration) and PRECISELY what our rights are which shall never be usurped by the federal or state governments (the Constitution). When I see things occurring which are in OBVIOUS contravention to those STATED ideals and LAWS of this land, there is no debate. Breaking a constitutional law is breaking a constitutional law. Period. I, along with my fellow progressive brethren, have enough faith in the wisdom of the authors of these documents to believe they had it right. Does that mean that reality always conforms to the ideal? No, very rarely. Does that mean we should throw up our hands and pay lip service to those vaunted ideals while accepting reality the way it is and not attempting to change it? No. And if you think that's the way you should be, perhaps it is you who should rethink your position, and it is you who should consider finding a new country in which to reside.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 12:41pm
CPT,
Excerpts from your 12:08pm:
"America is in essence, no good, to the Chomskyite/Zinn type."
"Thats all we have here. You see America's shortcomings, I see its accomplishments. I dont discount the shortcomings, but I do not use only our faults to make a conclusion about America as a whole."
There are two problems here. The first is that Chomsky, Zinn, and those of us who admire their ideas look at much at the foundation of this country for their understanding of it as you and other conservatives do. Chomsky and Zinn see the promise of America, but are frustrated by efforts to undermine this promise. Perhaps "America" is an ideal that will never be reached, but, like a living a sin-free life, it is a goal that is most admirable. So when you overstate your point of view with "America is no good" to Chomsky and Zinn, you are confusing, perhaps not deliberately, the idea of America with the history of America.
As for the shortcomings, yes, they see the shortcomings. They point out the obvious ones; they uncover the more obscure ones. And this is something that many people don't want to hear. It's understandable to a point. It's hard to hear bad things about that which we love, and many rise to defend America from people like Chomsky or Zinn just as they would defend their child from a teacher they perceive is being unfair.
But sometimes the teacher is right. And our child is not going to be helped by the parent's overprotection. The parent needs to address problems in an honest, straightforward manner, understanding that this will have enormous positive benefits in the future of the child. Ignoring things like bad behavior, laziness, or sloppy work is going to cause significant damage to the child's future prospects.
Everyone wants what is best for America. But some are far too easily satisfied with "good enough" or "not as bad as the other countries". America does not need citizens who are coddlers.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:54pm
Sorry,
Meant to say "There are two problems here. The first is that Chomsky, Zinn, and those of us who admire their ideas look AS much at the foundation of this country for their understanding of it as you and other conservatives do.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:56pm
CPT, like you, I don't think the question of whether Lincoln's actions were deplorable or not are relevent. Unlike you, however, I see Lincoln was a man of neccessity who had to make up for a lot of time lost under a series of slave-owning and slavery friendly bourbon presidents ( Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison,Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan) who wouldn't have known neccessity if it had walked up and bitten them in their overfed asses. As a result, they refused to support aggressive legislation and work that would have softened the transition away from the slave economy. Jackson, in fact, deepened it through his Indian campaigns, and made much more likely the outbreak of Civil War. Lincoln had long been watching the storm growing, and undertook what needed to be done when it became apparent to him..
Bush, on the other hand, is a continuator of the imperial presidency- (by Cheney's own admission last week) which is not a neccessity for a country that likes to consider itself a revolutionary democracy, and if anything, has helped turn the world into the powderkeg it currently is. It is no coincidence that he is always standing in front of that fucking portrait of fucking Theodore Roosevelt, who has always been a guru to the Bush dynasty. Fuck that shit.
And once again, CPT, it is not "America" which is playing such a role, but the most powerful nation in the Americas and its imperial elite, and it is the imperial mindset generated through textbooks, church, advertising and popular culture which insists upon referring to one country among many other cultures as America, singular. The "New American Century". Who needs it? Who wants it? No one but the deluded.
Why should we trust such thinking? Isn't that the thinking that was being employed by Stalin when he annexed, and seized, and murdered in the name of something called "the Russias"? or Hitler and his thousand year reich? Do you think you all are more modest simply because you only attempt to claim a century instead of a millenium? Many of us are not anti-American, as so many of you like to imply. We are opposed to that bug in the U.S. mindset which continues to refer to itself exclusively as "America", which we believe is itself anti-American. And we pray earnestly that all "american century" crap crashes and burns, as all empires should. And you ask me how I expect you to take me seriously, when I express a willingness to do violence against empire. Believe it or not, that's what Patrick Henry was talking about. You'd best be glad I take you seriously. I am your opposition, and you have yet to understand my motivation. But I understand yours. Oh yes.
It's the sort of thinking that can view its own history, excesses, crimes, with equanimity, or as a process; but which refuses to everyone else in the world the same standard. Moreover, it refuses such considerations when many of the problems other nations undergo are a result of the United States and other nations of the west constantly interfering in their internal affairs, and then denying the same autonomy to other peoples. It's not white supremacy, but it's not far down the hall from that department. Moreover, if we met an individual with such patterns, we would recognize them as somewhat sociopathic. But a nation of people do it, and it's patriotic. Don't make me barf. Reich was'nt talking through his hat when he spoke of the mass psychology of fascism, and guys like you are playing with fire. You'd better knock it off.
Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 1:04pm
NaCl
I should really know by now that it is simply not possible to hold a civil conversative with such a self-inflated pedantic bigot. However, this will not keep me from trying *sigh*
"I believe that. The people you know don't know whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts."
Just showing your callous nature...no surprise. Granted, during holiday break the population of PhDs is down...but there are a few. What kind of folks are in your closet with their tin-foil hats?
your "brainwaves" answer
Hmmm, a non-answer. There's a surprise! Just a snide remark actually. Again, typical. When you can't muster a civilized comment, let's gibber and throw feces.
"Does your sneer mean, the president seeking to do "all and everything necessary" to defend the country is taking his job too seriously?"
No, my question was does this prerogative include ignoring laws and due process. Apparently you are unable to muster an actual "yes" although you dance around the concept nicely.
"...for the first time, things are a little different." In what way precisely? During WW2 we had Japanese attacks in HI, and even on the CA mainland. We had U-boats virtually inside our east coast waters. With a defind enemy on either side, we managed without the so-called "Patriot Act." [I would at this time point out the obvious intent of the name is to brand "yes-men" as patriots, and those who disagree as "un-patriotic." (as has already been done) Political BS embedded in the "packaging"]
Your last sentence / attempted jibe makes no sense aside from a masturbatory stroke of your deranged ego...
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 3:20pm
re: the above 3:20pm
ooops....make that a "civil conversation"....I suppose the concept of their not being a "civil conservative" amounts to a Freudian slip.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 3:22pm
to all assorted wingnuts....
from the Washinton Post:
...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that national security wiretaps be authorized by the secretive FISA court. "A person is guilty of an offense," the law reads, "if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute"
Per the letter of the law, Dubya broke the Law.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 3:48pm
LEFTOFCENTER:
I am still trying to understand why Bush's breaking the law while president is passed off as irrelevant. I don't understand all these so-called "law and order" types on the right who have absolutely no problem with his obvious breaking of the law. Are they really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to such excess and illegality?
And what I don't understand from the left is why they are so surprised that he would be so strident and obvious about breaking the law, when that has been a hallmark of his life, whether that was when he used cocaine in college, when he should have been thrown in jail for insider trading when his daddy was in office, or when he participated in land deals with his Thai-hooker-loving brother Marvin that were of dubious legality.
I guess it truly is the "don't do as I do, do as I say do" administration.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 5:15pm
Jor
They seem to build some odd cross-logic that amounts to a game of constitutional euchre, where their interpretation of executive power is the Jack (ass of clubs), and trumps all lower (ie: laws we don't like) legal concepts I guess....
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 5:27pm
.
I have answered that a few times. You are worried about Cold War legislation (1978) regulating the police when surveilling foreign agents. There is however also our basic law which since 1789 has made the president CinC and responsible for using the national security resources of America in her defense. In addition, there is the Sept 14, 2001 congressional resolution passed by the Senate 98 to 0 and 420 to 1 by the House. It declared that "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force . . . in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States."
Now you find the "bending of laws and the ignoring of others ... unconscionable." The bending and breaking of which legislation and which laws do you find irksome?
Recall, laws have been in conflict with one another in the past, and even branches of govt have been in conflict with one another. That happened as early as 1803. In the case of Madison vs Marbury Chief Justice John Marshall said:
In short, here is a question of which law governs. If you, or The Nation (Victor Navasky, incidentally is an attorney) think that Bush has broken a law, that must be charged in court. It is then up to the judiciary to decide which law prevails. But until that happens, that you think the president has bent or ignored a law that bound him is just so much hot air.
Why does your crowd not submit this matter to the hard gavel of a court? Because you have no case that will stand up. It is much more useful to make a political case that relies on the soft headedness of the public.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/28/2005 @ 7:31pm
someone should remind Bush that he is the commander in chief of the army, not the commander in chief of the country. here in america we have three commanders in chief of the country, president, congress and judiciary. he is subject to laws and rules written by congress, even 20 years ago, and approved by the courts. there is no other way in a democracy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 7:42pm
I am still trying to understand why Bush's breaking the law while president is passed off as irrelevant. I don't understand all these so-called "law and order" types on the right who have absolutely no problem with his obvious breaking of the law. Are they really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to such excess and illegality?
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/28/2005 @ 5:15pm
They are not "Law and Order" types. That description is just one in a long series of lies put out by our domestic enemy to make them appear competent and pro-American on prime time.
this current debate exposes the lie.
As bush taking vacation after that Osama determined to attack inside the US PDB exposes the lie.
As the massive and growing national debt exposes the lie.
and so on
and so on
...
Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 8:04pm
WILL C.:
Hence the "bunny rabbit ears". :D
Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 8:30pm
protruding from between their lips
Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 8:37pm
NaCl
re: If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. . .
Good idea.....I'm sure it will come. Many (including GOP legislators) think the Dubya has overstepped his bounds this time....will see in the New Year I suppose.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 8:40pm
Nor does it have to, apparently.
Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 02:59am
JORCHIEM
"Are they really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to such excess and illegality?"
Are you really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to Americans calling international numbers connected with AQ?
The "illegality" accusation is not absolute, there is much room for debate on that, many, legal scholars and courts have affrimed the Preident has that right. So for every legal expert crying foul, there are just as many, saying no foul.
In the same way, I would never call Clinton a rapist, based on an accusation, I would not call Bush's action illegal.
And yes, I have read more than a handful of pages of Chomsky, difficult as it was to get thru, it seemed like after each page, I would cry out "BS!"
Posted by CPT at 12/29/2005 @ 09:36am
I can respect anybody with a good crap detector when they read Chomsky, CPT. All too many of Chomsky's adherants are as dogmatic as the orthodox Marxists they spend so much time attacking. By the same token, it's a shame your crap detector doesn't work as methodically on state department briefs.
Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 10:57am
Are you really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to Americans calling international numbers connected with AQ?
Posted by CPT 12/29/2005 @ 09:36am
I think the issue is the possible abuse of this type of unchecked surveillence on us citizens. This administration locked people up for their opposing political views (when expressed in the presence of the President) just to drop the charges a few days later when it was evident no laws were broken. Unchecked, the secret surveillence could expand into wholesale checks for anything the present administration wants, including the conversations of political enemies.
Posted by zhong at 12/29/2005 @ 1:37pm
Frank & Legba
In response to your recent above...maybe now is the time for the left to sponsor "reality-based initiatives"?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 3:03pm
Left of Center- Mayhaps. What might that look like, though?
Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 5:56pm
Legba
Its been so long since anything approaching reality has been broached in DC...I say for a model we take an exising law or guideline that has come into being in the last few months and then change the wording to reflect its exact opposite and see what comes out!
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 8:35pm
CPT:
You said:
Are you really so partisan as to turn a blind eye to Americans calling international numbers connected with AQ?
My response:
You really don't get it, do you? It is AGAINST THE LAW to surveil someone's phone calls without a warrant. Whatever happened to probable cause? Whatever happened to due process? Wake up, and extract your head from your ass.
You said:
The "illegality" accusation is not absolute, there is much room for debate on that, many, legal scholars and courts have affrimed the Preident has that right. So for every legal expert crying foul, there are just as many, saying no foul.
My response:
Um, no really, there isn't. Just because someone happened to go to law school and passed the bar doesn't mean they are a constitutional scholar. That means that all those so-called scholars you are reading from the neo-con blogs are probably just churning out pabulum for mindless parrots like yourself. What Bush is doing flies in the face of over 200 years of legal precedent... yet you claim it is liberals who are activist judges.
You said:
In the same way, I would never call Clinton a rapist, based on an accusation, I would not call Bush's action illegal.
My response:
Wow... comparing the rape of a woman (which is horrible, to say the least) to the destruction of basic constitutional rights (which affects millions of people) is the lowest of intellectualism. But let's say you can compare them. The difference is, Clinton never admitted to rape, and Bush HAS ADMITTED TO BREAKING THE LAW. Dude, wake up. Your moral and legal relativism is sickening.
You said:
And yes, I have read more than a handful of pages of Chomsky, difficult as it was to get thru, it seemed like after each page, I would cry out "BS!"
My response:
The table of contents doesn't count as pages to be read.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2005 @ 9:46pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/29/2005 @ 9:46pm
Table of contents?
Dude, he never got past the reviews on the back cover.
Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 10:51pm
WILL C.:
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
CPT:
I'm curious. Which pieces from Chomsky did you actually read?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2005 @ 11:46pm
CPT:
And more to the point, which points SPECIFICALLY did you take Chomsky to task on?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2005 @ 11:48pm
I too would be interested to know: what Chomsky book did you read, CPT? ( I find it hard to believe) Rightwingers are afraid of factual argument that challenges their cherished myths.
Posted by philbq at 12/30/2005 @ 12:12am
as we speak he's running out to the book store for a copy of the cliff notes
Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 01:02am
JORCHIEM
You said:
"You really don't get it, do you? It is AGAINST THE LAW to surveil someone's phone calls without a warrant. Whatever happened to probable cause? Whatever happened to due process? Wake up, and extract your head from your ass."
I say:
No. Its you and your ilk, that really dont get it? After 9-11 it was readily apparent to clear thinking Americans, that AQ was bent on doing us great harm. Whatever happened to protecting American citizens from terrorists thug killers? I guess that doesnt bother you as long as the rights of mass murderers are protected. Wake-up, there is a big world out beyond the college campus.
You said:
"Um, no really, there isn't. Just because someone happened to go to law school and passed the bar doesn't mean they are a constitutional scholar. That means that all those so-called scholars you are reading from the neo-con blogs are probably just churning out pabulum for mindless parrots like yourself. What Bush is doing flies in the face of over 200 years of legal precedent... yet you claim it is liberals who are activist judges."
I say:
I get it, only Liberal/progressive legal experts are worthy of merit, especially those who agree with you. Anyone else with a different take on the law, must not be permitted in your eyes. A unique form of censorship which borders facists type thinking. If they dont agree with me they must be wrong? laughable arguement of yours at best. And as soon as the Supreme Court rules, if they do, they will back up the Presidents right to protect the nation. You will not win that point.
You said:
"Wow... comparing the rape of a woman (which is horrible, to say the least) to the destruction of basic constitutional rights (which affects millions of people) is the lowest of intellectualism. But let's say you can compare them. The difference is, Clinton never admitted to rape, and Bush HAS ADMITTED TO BREAKING THE LAW. Dude, wake up. Your moral and legal relativism"
I say:
You misunderstood, but that is typical of people like you. I was comparing the way you, "know" with absolute certainty, that Bush "broke" the law, even though, no adjudicating authority has said that. The presumption on your part that Bush is guilty, of being judge and jury in this case. In that way the comparison is relavent, many accused Clinton of being a rapist, I scoffed at them as well. Yes I know you can yell at the top of your lungs, "he admitted it." But BUSH NEVER said "i broke the law." He did say: "I did what was necessary to protect the American people," Now of course that doesnt matter with your kind, but I say lets wait and allow the legal authorities to determine the matter. He did not break the law, you nitwit, the constitution and the Congressional resolution, post 911, give him broad authority to do this. The fact he was listening to those people TALKING to AQ is paramount. You get that?
Posted by CPT at 12/30/2005 @ 08:17am
Quick question: If not to gain intelligence about America's enemies, why is Bush spying on some Americans? I.E., what does he, personally, get out of it?
It's my understanding that the people who were spied on were American Muslims who had terrorist connections. Someone explain to me how Bush could benefit or profit by collecting intelligence on these sorts of people. What is his evil driving force?
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/30/2005 @ 09:27am
Well, CPT, we all know what the president SAYS he was doing. We also know that he now admits that the intelligence he received on Iraq was faulty. That being the case, he presented the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet after he knew the intelligence was faulty. So we know the president says lots. He says lots of things. And you believe all of them.
Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 11:54am
He's President, Lil' Eichman!
Why was Nixon concerned about '72 when he was destined for a landslide? Why was Reagan consumed with the leadership in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Grenada, and then as quickly forgot about certain elements to his undertakings? Why wouldn't Bill admit that he got his happies with Monica?
Why would Bush nominate Kissinger to look into intelligence failures? Why would he bring Poindexter from the dead to look into our private lives? Why would he allow Abrams to do anything?
Your question is rhetorical, I hope.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2005 @ 4:07pm
As the American public now has to scrap and dig to find the information that points to the truth of what our government and so called leaders have done to our democracy and the constitution, the MSM (main stream media) continuous it's assault on our freedoms. The media's elitist backers, to afraid to offend there number one source of news, the Republican Karl Rove propaganda machine, keeps spewing out the same narrow minded, simplistic and sanitized talking points. The editors, producers and owners of this mindless media conglomerate, are running scared. They have become so attached to the controlled government sources of information, they have forgotten how to actually do investigative reporting. This nations traditional news media has been bought and paid for by the very companies and government special interest groups that are the sources of most of the corruption and disinformation that they are suppose to be exposing. People are turning away with revulsion and disdain from these hacks, and finding their own sources for news that is not compromised by the monopolized powers that have only one interest, to hypnotize the population into thinking only simple thoughts, to buy the latest gizmo or gadget or the latest drug to treat a made up symptom, to spend more, save less and go further into debt with over extended credit cards. They want you to be a slave to their mind set, and don't ask questions, just bend over and enjoy the reaming. Times they are a changing, and it doesn't look good for our fascist leaders and their minions. The awakening is happening every day, as more of us start seeing the light, the anger and complete disgust of what our so called free press has let happen to this country requires an opposite force, a revolution that will take down these corrupt institutions and individuals who have disgraced our country. Let's bring back the ideals that our founding fathers had envisioned. Liberty, compassion, freedom of choice, and a truly free press that is there to protect the people, not conform them. The Democrats may have their flaws, but you can believe that they are not going to run our country like an elitist country club or dictatorship. Things will be different, the American people only have to make an informed decision, and the truths do exist, if you are determined and have the courage to face it, no mater how horrible it may be. The truth will set us free and start this country on the road to recovering our dignity and standing in the world. Remember, questioning authority is the most patriotic thing any American can do to keep our leaders honest and forthright, otherwise the only choice will be to succumb to the reality that we are not a free nation or a democracy, but just another corrupt and destitute third world nation whose only interest is to gather wealth for their leaders and close circle of comrades at the expense of their citizens. It is time to make a stand, if you believe in this country and the constitution of the United States of America, take the time to find sources of truthful information. There is another world out there with many diverse cultures and opinions. Dig for yourself, you won't find answers in today's controlled media, look deeper, explore the rabbit hole, what you will find can be frightening, but the most frightening thing would be to not know. Then we are led by the hand of a perverted stranger who promises us candy if only we will step into the car and be quiet, it will be easier if you don't struggle. It's your choice, choose wisely.
Posted by ttwain at 12/30/2005 @ 8:51pm
LEGBA
Question: How do we know, NOW, that the Iraq intell was faulty?
Really we know, definitively, because we went, and by the, personally, I am not surprised we didnt find any, after all, intell has an expiration date, just like milk. The longer its "out there" the more likely by the time you get there, whatever you were expecting or hoping to find, is long gone.
And Duelfer's long report, of which there is no executive summary, says, quite clearly, that "He retained the capability to start back up his programs"
But I dont really want to re-argue the iraq thing. Just saying.
Posted by CPT at 12/30/2005 @ 9:28pm
CPT
Downing Street Memos?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/30/2005 @ 9:35pm
cpt, Of course you don't want to re-argue the "Iraq thing". You would rather that it all went away, just like the memory of the ruined extremities and sensory organs of the hapless men and women who got involved in the mess.
Come on you asshole, show us the point to all of the war stuff. Make us all feel better about the disaster.
We are all waiting.
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 12/30/2005 @ 10:04pm
Well, TJBEHRENS1, my question really isn't rhetorical. I just never have understood conspiracy theories in general. Too many things don't jive. For instance, it wasn't long ago that Bush was nothing more than a party animal, more interested in panty raids than his studies. He was ridiculed during one of his campaigns for not knowing the president of some foreign country. On and on...Bush has been characterized as the biggest buffoon on the planet.
Now, how can he be simi-retarded and orchestrate the schemes he accused of? I mean think about it. Only a genious could deceive the Congress and the rest of the world to lead us into Iraq. How can this be? According to you, Iraq makes WWII look like a vacation. How did he do it? How can he manage to steal Iraq's oil while the whole world is looking at him with a microscope? I mean if Bush can do all of this, he's on track to personally discover the cure to cancer.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/30/2005 @ 10:14pm
Hey "lil" you ain't even simi, you're semi. Hate to say it pal, but your lower-echelon frat-boy roots are showing now. And your handle...in fratspeak, it might as well be dickhead. If you want to really play with the big boys, you must do better. (That admonition extends to rio-punko, cpt, (captain of his own nonsense),LL -the right hand o'jesus, (jerkin and all), NAC-L, (grappling with sanity)--and a guy whose grasp of graphic fundamentals is moronic at best. As for you, young acolyte. Align yourself with the pee-stained blankets of failure. We don't need you anyhow.
Great cheese in Paris,
Come along, punkass,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 12/30/2005 @ 10:33pm
Wow, Bloppy, my jaw is stinging. You certainly put me in my place. What a burden it must be to have such a superior brain and deal with numb skulls like me. I'm sure that attidute gets you a lot of dates.
After all that big ass talking, you still didn't engage my points. Do you think you can stoop to my level for a moment and tell me how I'm wrong. Or are you too busy splitting atoms?
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/30/2005 @ 11:19pm
Hey "Eichman" You have a glass jaw, sonny. As for your points. I'm still looking. Your "attidute" surely doesn't get you any. It must be lonesome.
I'll waste further minutes of my life if you would like.
Best to you, punkass
bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 12/30/2005 @ 11:31pm
I am clearly no match for your wit and intellect, Bloppy. But please humor me this one explanation: How does Bush do it all? How can he be certifiably retarded and still devise all of these ingenious plots to enrich his Big Oil buddys, spy on fellow Americans for the hell of it, manipulate the pre-war Intelligence -- not only of this country but our allies as well! -- become a financial wizard and devise tax schemes that benefit only the rich (for what purpose no one knows, being that the "rich" account for such a miniscule portion of the voting public that it can't possibly be to garner political power), single-handedly destroy the environment, and irrevocably alter the landscape of the Supreme Court.
Now, how can this be Dr. Bloppy, ESQ?
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/30/2005 @ 11:56pm
Lil Fascist, Your beloved leader is a thug and enabler for a worthless bunch of sociopathic fanatics. We can talk about this 20 years down the road, and see how much you personally appreciate the wretched mess that neo-cons would have us all swallow, (that is, if we make it that far). You are clearly a youngster, and with that comes a feeling that your big balls are mightier than all of the rest of humanity. Be warned punkass, you are a little fish. and you will be swallowed up in short order. So, while the going is good, do something of real value, rather than align your impressionable mind with a bunch of shit-stained, wannabe, brownshirts.
kisses, little one!!
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 12/31/2005 @ 12:49am
Bloppy,
"Lil Fascist, Your beloved leader is a thug and enabler for a worthless bunch of sociopathic fanatics."
What a typically lame response! Can the rest of you not see this? For Christ's sake. What a bunch of losers you are. Can't even answer basic questions. You are sincerely screwed up to make beleive you have super computers for brains when this is the best you can come up with. At least plagiarize something from Howard Zinn or Abu Musab Al Zakari.
It is always a disappointment to try and engage one of you little drones. You are completely incapable of critical thought.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 07:57am
.
As the Left becomes more and more a Fascist Left, you have decided that it will be clever to have a Lil' Eichman make the anti Left argument. You want to point out that agent provocateurs can be as nasty and malicious as ever, eh?
We are on the threshold of a new year, and you are starting at the bottom. You are so low you could milk a pregnant snake.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 09:26am
NACL,
What in the hell are you talking about? Exercise your abilities by restating your thoughts in plain english. Agent provocateurs? Does that mean that I am only trying to get a rise out of you zombies? Well if that's the case, shut me down with intelligible comebacks. All I've gotten so far are personal attacks. Not one of you brain trusts has stepped up to the plate with a cerebral volley. And frankly, I don't expect one. It simply illustrates your impotence.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 09:42am
I'll tell you what, let's turn the tables. You ask me a question and let me answer. I'll show you how it's supposed to be done. The only ground rule I set is that you ask me a real question and not something dumbass like "Why is Bush the Devil incarnate?" So then, rub those hands together and type away. Give me your best shot.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 09:47am
.
Your whole game is turning the tables. You're a turnip and down to earth, but not far enough.
I'd like to give you my best shot, will you give me the pissing concession to your grave?
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 10:55am
.
I would like to give you a "cerebral volley". But a frontal labatomy would be better. It would substantially improve your quality of life as a urine sample.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 10:58am
Mr. Corn, these are your pupils. Good job.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 10:58am
.
Let's talk about the kind of job you have done on your pupils. How you have rearranged them. So that one can see the other?
And in between you have a mind that is not merely twisted but actually sprained.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 11:24am
Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.
I guess you didn't see that message.
It makes me laugh from deep in my belly to see the absolute absence of coherent thought and reason among you brainiacs. Since this is so easy and fun, I'll put my chin out one more time for you to swing at -- simply pick a topic and ask a question. Any question on any political topic.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 11:54am
.
Why are you speaking for the right, under a handle that evokes the worst right-wing mass killer in history?
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 12:09pm
O.K., it's a start. Not a political question, but a question nonetheless.
First, I am not speaking for anyone. I am speaking for myself. I am an independent thinker. I do not follow in blind lock step with anyone's political or social viewpoints. This is a mistake you should be careful to avoid -- grouping people into preset molds before you know anything about them. I have been careful not to do it with you. Yes, I've called the people in this forum zombies and dones, but that is based on what I see here day in and day out. I'm giving anyone here the chance to prove me wrong.
As for my name, I've explained it before. Some of you will have heard the story. It's simple, really. About a year or two ago a professor at CSU in Fort Collins, CO got into hot water for a speach he gave. He called the victims of the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center "little Eichmans." I don't recall off hand what his reasoning was. It had something to do with them being part of the military-industrial machine, or part of the global problem, or something along those sewery lines. Well, I said that if the people in the Trade Towers were little Eichmans, then so am I. So, the name is a counter to the disgusting hate and contempt that Ward Churchill preaches and practices.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 12:36pm
.
As an independent thinker, think through the following:
Would someone who wants to advance the Communist point of view do well to speak under the handle of "Joe Stalin" or "Lavrenty Beria", or just beneath contempt?
If he did so, would he be on the level in the honesty department, or beneath the level in the IQ department?
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 12:44pm
He would be both.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 12:46pm
.
As an independent thinker, think through the following:
Would someone who wants to advance the Communist point of view do well to speak under the handle of "Joe Stalin" or "Lavrenty Beria"?
If he did so, would he be on the level in the honesty department, or beneath the level in the IQ department, or just beneath contempt?
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 12:47pm
.
Are you saying you are a moron, but a sincere one?
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 12:51pm
Like it or not Joseph Stalin is a huge figure in the history of communism. He is an instructive example of what communism can spawn. It would be intellectually honest and stupid at the same time to envoke his name when trying to advance communist ideology. It is just one example of how difficult it is to advance a social/political belief system as bankrupt as communism and socialism.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 12:51pm
Of course I'm not a moron. I am not trying to advance Ward Churchill's cause. I am showing the absurdity and ugliness of Ward Churchill by proudly saying that I am what he despises.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 12:54pm
.
Prove it, change your handle.
There is nothing principled or intelligent in speaking as Lil' Eichman. If you have conservative convictions you are not advancing them, but undermine them, with that handle.
While you continue to brandish it you attract only contempt and loathing, for yourself and your ideas.
.
.
Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 1:06pm
Churchill is an ass to be sure, but he did not say that everyone in the WTC was a Little Eichmann. He was making an analogy to Hannah Arendt, who referred to something she called the "banality of evil", and who argued that fascism succeeded largely because of the duplicity of company people, intellectuals, and masses of folks who are more interested in earning a living than in paying attention to the sort of foreign and domestic policy the political system they live under generates. Churchill was arguing that the west has a long history of generating shitstorms in other parts of the world, attacking civilian populations in much the same manner that the WTC was attacked, and then whining when the long term consequence of that kind of foreign policy plays itself out,as it did on September 11, 2001. And to a LIMITED extent, I think his assessment is correct. I thought the attack was an atrocity also, but was I surprised it occurred? Not in the least.
And I think what it all boils down to is what can be seen in your own take on the legacy of socialism or communism. Bankrupt though those two ideologies may be- and whether they are or not, time will tell- the living contradictions of the capitalist corporate world remain a reality. For so long as they go unaddressed, there will be a resistance to them. And it may be an organized communist resistance, or it may just be gumbo ya ya, religious nuts like Al Queda, but that resistance will continue to be. Marx and his followers were absolutely right in insisting that capital will never overcome its own predatory instincts at a deep enough level to transcend those contradictions, and this moment in Iraq is the clearest proof of that assessment. The continued rape of the Americas is further proof.
So identify with what Churchill opposes all you want, but remember that what spawned his ill thought choice of words was the routine attempted bulldozing of the non-white peoples of the wider world amd the poorer peoples of every nation. If that's what you identify with, fine and good. But don't go screaming injustice when the rage generated by the people you support results in a WTC. You endorse the shit, after all.
Posted by Legba at 12/31/2005 @ 1:46pm
>Yes, Abraham Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. <
So what? What Abe did is not any kind of legal precedent. It was never tested at the Supreme Court. One president's unconstitutional action does not justify another's.
Posted by turningfool at 12/31/2005 @ 8:47pm
CPT, I'm really not interested in arguing this silliness over the war anymore. It's another imperialist land grab, and I don't care what rationale you use to defend it. I've been watching this crap for longer than you've been breathing, odds are, and I refuse to buy into your line just because you believe that the United States imperial project is a different creature just because its political line has changed. So let's just leave off with an admission on my part that I'm sure you do your work well, and that I'm going to do everything I can to encourage young people to challenge the thinking and political practice that's behind the work you do. We will never get this resolved, because you and I are class enemies. I'm really tired of stepping around the obvious.
Posted by Legba at 12/31/2005 @ 9:51pm
Legba,
You're thoughts sound impressive but don't amount to a hill of beans. I must speak a different language than most of the people here. Everything you said was in such general terms that I really and truly don't get it, and cannot respond. So the West has routinely bulldozed the poorer nations of the world? Please tell me what the fuck this means? And try your hardest not to wax eloquent like a revival preacher. Just tell it straight. And if anyone else in this forum can translate Legba's sermon into plain english, please feel free.
Now, I will say this: If the West REALLY wanted to bulldoze the poorer nations of the world, we would cut off forien aid. Imagine the outcry if we did such a thing as stop giving away free money and handouts to poor, inefficient countries. We do it out of shear charity, but all of the countries on the take from us consider our money as an entitlement. It would be like refusing an inheritance to someone. They would be outraged
Your take on capitalism is also unintelligible. Time will tell whether communism and socialism are failures? Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. Show me ONE example where these systems have EVER worked. Time has been telling us about the defeat of communism and socialism immemorial. Do you think it's just some happy accident that American capitalism dominates the world? Capitalism dominates because it is a superior system. There is no such thing a perfect socio-economic system. The closer a system comes to true freedom, such as capitalism, the closer it will be to perfect. I will put my faith in the collective decision making of millions of self-interested, free consumers a whole hell of a lot quicker than an elite, anointed group of pointy headed know-it-alls. Disparity? No shit. People are different and have different capabilities. If we were all in a foot race together, would you expect that we would all cross the finish line at the same time? Of course not. Tell me how the comparison isn't also true in life and success.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 12/31/2005 @ 11:42pm
LIL' EICHMAN--You rightwing geeks must be illiterate:"forein aid"??? Don't tell me it's atypo. I see it too often: an illterate rightwinger spouting his shallow, unknowlegable opinion. That is because most rightwingers don't read books on serious subjects...they just get their thoughts from Hannity/Limgurger/O'Reilly etc. Well, let me tell you something about your worship of the magic of unrestrained capitalism: it is the law of the jungle. It leads to the strong companies gobbling up the weak, which leads to market consolidation. With the removal of antitrust laws, a few giant corporations control everything. Cartels replace competition. The corporations control the state. This is called fascism, and this is what happened in Germany and Italy in the period leading up to WWII. And this is what is happening here now. We are heading toward a corporate/ military fascist state. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history will pay a high price. And most rightwingers are ignorant of history, and everything else. But they have loud opinions anyway...
Posted by philbq at 01/01/2006 @ 11:12am
Lil' Eichman...let's see...one of the Nazi leaders was named Eichmann...how appropriate!!!
Posted by philbq at 01/01/2006 @ 11:30am
LEGBA
Class enemies? How would you know that? Well so be it. You wont win. Imperial projects???? Thats laughable. But believe what you wish.
Bloppy
How many times do I have to tell you to shhhhhhhs. Adults talking, "come on punk ass"??? lololol
Posted by CPT at 01/01/2006 @ 7:34pm
Adolf,:"If the West REALLY wanted to bulldoze the poorer nations of the world, we would cut off forien aid. Imagine the outcry if we did such a thing as stop giving away free money and handouts to poor, inefficient countries. We do it out of shear charity, but all of the countries on the take from us consider our money as an entitlement. It would be like refusing an inheritance to someone. They would be outraged
this is pure crap. most foreign aid is in the form of credits to buy military hardware. the money does not leave the country but instead goes directly to american defense contractors.
your ignorance is stunning and your pasionate defense of capitalism is touching, but I'll leave it to others to demolish that
.I suggest that before you jump in with both left feet you read this blog for a while, here we are far too sophisticated to buy your misinformed bullshit, verstanden?
that you would take as your handle one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century is very telling, as is my response: go fuck yourself you nazi swine. am I making myself clear?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 7:42pm
Johanne/PHILBQ
Yeah sure you guys are right, foriegn aid? Its all in the form of military aid to prop up the US supported govt.
You speak of crap? Look inward.
The US gives aid, its not our fault poorer nations govts dont appear to know how to use it, or administer it irresponsibly.
Posted by CPT at 01/01/2006 @ 8:31pm
LIL
You must have struck a chord
Posted by CPT at 01/01/2006 @ 8:33pm
LilEichman: I'm well aware that you probably couldn't understand the post, given that you didn't understand the actual context of the controversy in which Ward Churchill committed his gaffe. That's why you think calling yourself after Eichman is cute, when in reality, the only thing people are laughing at is your presumption. Does that sound snotty and condescending? I'm in good company. Look at your last post to me. What makes you assume I'm a dude, by the way?
Posted by Legba at 01/01/2006 @ 9:49pm
Lil', perhaps I misunderstood your handle, I missed your explanation, but you can see how it could be misinterpreted. my apologies for the invective. everything else stands
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 10:19pm
Cpt, I have a great idea!! You and "lil Eichman" can elope. I think that you both are a study in compatibility. He can clean up the kitchen after a sumptuous Hot Pockets and ketchup repast, and you can regale him with stories of your "near acceptance" in neo-fascist sewing circles. I find it all cute, and sort of lovely in a quaint sort of way. You make a fine pair!
Congratulations are in order.
Kisses,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/01/2006 @ 10:24pm
The US gives aid, its not our fault poorer nations govts dont appear to know how to use it, or administer it irresponsibly.
Posted by CPT 01/01/2006 @ 8:31pm
I will not allow you to make such un-American statements. Clearly our government invests its money in other countries just as rationally and effectively as it invests its money in the American economy. And you must be pointing to Iraq, that nexus of foreign aid and domestic subsidies, as the recipient of your ridicule. How foul of you to despoil the nobility of the US government in time of war. It's pistols at dawn, sir! (Actually I like to sleep in--I'm off tomorrow, so perhaps 9:30am?)
Is your point really that we throw money at poor foreign people and let the chips fall where they may? You think this is what the Rockefellers in the Senate and House do? You think perhaps we might just have embassies and American corporations in these countries that might just have a little leverage in how our money is spent? You think that meetings between foreign representatives and our state department representatives don't make clear just where our strings are attached? And do you think our spending in these governements is out of misguided compassion rather than steely eyed, opportunistic, economic self-interest?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/01/2006 @ 11:00pm
We as a nation only give about 0.01% of our GNI (gross national income) as foreign aid. The USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last four years, the dollar amount has been the highest. (Only in 2004 did they move up from last place by one.) The reason for that is simply that we have the largest economy on the planet.
CPT:
We usually administer a great deal of the aid we provide countries, and expect the aid that we give to those countries in need to be spent using American firms, rather than indiginous firms. Approximately 80% of the aid money is required to be spent with American firms. Therefore, the aid only works once, instead of numerous times by providing the multiplier effect of being spent with those indiginous areas. In actuality, for every dollar we "give" in the form of aid, due to the strings attached to the aid (in the form of requirements for where the money is spent, i.e. which companies are eligible to be employed for a given task) the recipient country only receives about 70% of the money in actual aid, whereas countries such as Ireland, Norway, Sweden, etc. do not tie their aid to use of domestic firms.
Add to this the fact that most of the aid we provide is not in the form of humanitarian aid, but instead is military aid. For example, we provide approximately $4bil in military aid to Israel on an annual basis.
Add to this the fact that the countries to which we do give aid tend to be more authoritarian in nature (due to our meddling in their sovereign politics, i.e. our penchant for overthrowing democratically elected officials). Also, the list of countries to whom we give aid steadily shrinks year to year.
You obviously know very little about the topic of US foreign aid. Research, then think, before you speak. You'll sound less like a dumbass like that.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/02/2006 @ 01:51am
I am still trying to understand how these guys can look at the gov't's own numbers and accounting and still either misunderstand, or purposefully misstate the reality. Either it is the height of hubris, or the height of stupidity. Simply 2 sides of the same coin.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/02/2006 @ 01:55am
Jorchy, I think it's important to add that the US gives an almost equal amount of aid to Egypt as it does to Israel. lest we give more ammunition to the conspiracists among us.also democracy has nothing to do with it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2006 @ 08:57am
JORCHIEM
"Add to this the fact that the countries to which we do give aid tend to be more authoritarian in nature (due to our meddling in their sovereign politics, i.e. our penchant for overthrowing democratically elected officials). Also, the list of countries to whom we give aid steadily shrinks year to year.
You obviously know very little about the topic of US foreign aid. Research, then think, before you speak. You'll sound less like a dumbass like that."
That last line of yours, is sage advice, you ought to practice what you preach. You will sound less, like a looney fringe radical, but then again maybe you wont.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 09:54am
TURNINGFOOL
">Yes, Abraham Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. <
So what? What Abe did is not any kind of legal precedent. It was never tested at the Supreme Court. One president's unconstitutional action does not justify another's.
Posted by TURNINGFOOL 12/31/2005 @ 8:47pm | ignore this person"
Actually it was, the Supreme Court deemed Lincoln's action, unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored them, and had an arrest warrent issued for the Chief Justice, Roger Taney. Taney never challenged Lincoln on the issue again.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 10:02am
JORCHIEM
"I am still trying to understand how these guys can look at the gov't's own numbers and accounting and still either misunderstand, or purposefully misstate the reality. Either it is the height of hubris, or the height of stupidity. Simply 2 sides of the same coin.
Posted by JORCHEIM 01/02/2006 @ 01:55am | ignore this person"
I think EXACTLY the same thing about your assertions. Almost everytime you post something. I am inclined to think, in your case, it is both hubris and stupidity, but more the former than the latter.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 10:09am
TJB
Naturally, I was referring to that portion of the aid that is given to the foriegn nation. It bascially goes to the differences we have between us.
I tend to believe that nations are responible for the state of the own countries.
People here tend to believe that the US is responsible for all the ills in the world. And that if you dont believe that, then you are "woefully inept at the understanding of history"
Sorry that dog wont hunt.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 10:22am
I tend to believe that nations are responible for the state of the own countries.
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 10:22am
I cannot respond in any other way: You have your head up your ass if you state such nonsense and support the war in Iraq. Way, way, way up. As you read this, imagine a rich baritione voice shouting this in your ear. Not that I have a rich baritone voice...
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/02/2006 @ 2:56pm
TJB
lolol, Is that satire or merely a cruel verbal insult? As you say.
Whats it like to be the ones with SOLE understanding of the way the world works? Lonely? People convinced of their absolute rightness often feel that way.
By the way, and I mean this sincerely for your intolerant views of others opinion, shove it up your arssse, imagine a rich Irish accent, you sanctimonious twit.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 6:50pm
"I tend to believe that nations are responible for the state of the own countries."
excepting Iraq of course, and any other country we have designs on
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2006 @ 6:57pm
You obviously know very little about the topic of US foreign aid. Research, then think, before you speak. You'll sound less like a dumbass like that."
That last line of yours, is sage advice, you ought to practice what you preach. You will sound less, like a looney fringe radical, but then again maybe you wont.
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 09:54am
Cpt
Interesting answer. You accuse the man of not knowing anything about foreign aid and then you just walk away. Now support, no links, no these are the classes I took in college and heres the texts we used...
Nothing
But then that is the substance of most your arguements
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 6:59pm
By the way, and I mean this sincerely for your intolerant views of others opinion, shove it up your arssse, imagine a rich Irish accent, you sanctimonious twit.
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 6:50pm
You know, it wasn't that long ago that a little pussy named CPT was whining and crying that people were being mean to him and calling him names and he wasn't going to talk to those people any more...
But with the new year comes new things.
and "hypocritical" pussy seems to be CPT's new thing
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 7:07pm
WILL C
You have to know your enemy, your mischaracterization of my earlier comments notwithstanding, its all about communication.
As with most problems in the world, the root can be found in failure to communicate in some way. Some of you only understand crass statements, in my effort to communicate more effectively, I dont mind from time to time, telling you in words and phrases you can understand.
You seem to mistake kindness for weakness, and ascribe those who speak like Bloppy a certain strength they do not possess. If that is you WILL, fine I wont tell no one.
But since as a liberal, you believe yourself to be the master of nuanced thinking, I would think that you could discern the subtle differences, and able to tell the REAL pussy here.
And in case you still cant tell, the pussy is you!
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 8:40pm
You have to know your enemy, your mischaracterization of my earlier comments notwithstanding, its all about communication.
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 8:40pm
I didn't mischaracterize your statements at all. But just for fun, why don't you point out where you think I did.
Here's your big chance to communicate?
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 8:59pm
But since as a liberal, you believe yourself to be the master of nuanced thinking, I would think that you could discern the subtle differences, and able to tell the REAL pussy here.
And in case you still cant tell, the pussy is you!
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 8:40pm
CPT!
Not the Pee Wee Herman defense!
I know you are but what am I?
I know you are but what am I?
Ha Ha Ha Ha
nice try Pee Wee
correction... Pussy
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 9:01pm
sorry...
Hypocritical pussy
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 9:10pm
Cpt, you are adorable. Have you put your "cabin boy" eichman to bed yet? Or is he still washing the aluminum foil food wrappers for reuse?
You are a bit odorish for this venue. Consider trying another place to ply your wares. And take your silly-boy acolyte with you.
(Psssst, you are still a punkass)
fondest regards,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/02/2006 @ 9:12pm
WILL C./BLOPPY
Pussy/Punkass?????? nah nah nee boo, I'm rubber and your glue, is this what you want.
You silly attempt to bait me into some school yard, double dog dare type of contest is beyond ridiculous.
It makes one wonder as to what your motivation is? Is your life that empty and void? To insult someone you dont even know and not just me, and the non-stop manner with which you keep at it? What can one say, but pathetic.
Hate to break to you guys, I ignore most of your posts and comments, so most of the time you guys are only impressing yourselves.
I guess you were big fans of that show jackass. right? no apologies, damn being civil, I am too cool for nice type stuff, right? Hey brothers, go ahead, whatever works for you.
Posted by CPT at 01/02/2006 @ 10:18pm
CPT, it may sound ridiculous, but our program has been successful. You are unable to suppress your bloated, stupid ego, and you respond. Your last post is all of the proof that I require.
Have you put the "cabin boy" in his box yet? We would all love to know.
CPT, I almost feel sorry for you-NOT
Love always,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/02/2006 @ 10:24pm
Cpt, jeez, I thought you were at least a little smarter.
Well forget that shit!
Cheers, (and some love)
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/02/2006 @ 10:27pm
Guys:
This namecalling is precisely what CPT wants, because it takes attention away from the fact that he makes assertions and doesn't back them up with fact. Back to my comments about US foreign aid... here are my sources. And CPT, try to refute them. I know you can't, but I'd like to see you try.
Regarding US weapons aid:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm
Regarding US foreign aid:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Regarding US foreign aid solely to Israel:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
The bottom line is this. These are facts that are very well known and almost universally accepted as fact, except by people who refuse to believe any statistics not produced by the Heritage Foundation. These numbers have been similar for over a decade, and well known for at least 7 years. Just because you don't believe them, CPT, doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, I have found in general that if you don't believe something, that is usually a good clue that it's true. It's almost like you live in Bizarro-World, and everything is backward.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/02/2006 @ 10:36pm
Jorcheim, Naw, I don't think CPT is a diversionary "plant". He is merely a neo-fascist "lounger" who didn't make the cut with the really "manly" winger web stuff. So, my vote is, let him stay, and we beat upon him without mercy. He is a pointless, numbnut punkass.
Love, bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/02/2006 @ 10:53pm
CPT, this is a test: true or false, dinosaurs lived in the same time frame as homo-erectus.
This is only a test.
Fondest,
bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/02/2006 @ 11:20pm
It makes one wonder as to what your motivation is? Is your life that empty and void? To insult someone you don't even know and not just me, and the non-stop manner with which you keep at it? What can one say, but pathetic.
Posted by CPT 01/02/2006 @ 10:18pm
Dude, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where I mischaracterized your statements. That was the high road post that I gave you. The one you conveniently overlooked.
But I also gave you a low road post. And, that's the bait you took.
So next time you want to come talk to me about "Pathetic", don't forget to stop by the barbers first.
Because I like my pussy trimmed.
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 11:57pm
Sorry, it's the New Year…
Hypocritical pussy
Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 11:57pm
Yep, Cpt, still the pussy
Loving you,
bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/03/2006 @ 12:04am
Cpt, where are your noble fellows? I can understand "eichmans" indifference to the battle, only because he has done serious time cleaning up your fast-food kitchen mess. However, the rest of your sorry pals have no excuse at all. Rio maybe so fixated on wartime glory that wasn't his, that he has become stoned with delusion. So, he isn't going to be any assist at all. Liberty is busy with his accountant, trying to make his self-proclaimed piety mesh with some deductible scheme. The only one left is the moronic NACL, whose penchant for journalistically laughable banners; is only exceeded by his utterly pointless copy.
Is this the army of the right?
Shit!!
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 01/03/2006 @ 12:17am
Much of tyhe power the British prime minister still wields today uinder Britain's so-called 'unwritten' constitution is the power they exercise by virtue of the Royal Prerogative. The set of powers included within this ambit include the power to make war and all the powers the UK monarch previously wielded. This means that although a prime minister might allow parliament to vote on an issue such as invading Iraq, a PM does not have to and any power exercised by virtue of teh royal prerogative is not subject to the scrutiny of the UK parliament. This is a ridiculous situation and one which only continues in Britain because most people think having a monarch is quaint, good for tourists and merely a nominal position; whereas in fact the problem with the monarch is the existence of the royal prerogative. It seems Bush is jealous of the UK PM's freedom and is attempting to replicate it. Let's hope he fails (and that eventually Briton's wake up to why their monarchy must be transcended and a proper accountable democracy put in its stead). Great work david corn.
Posted by waterfire at 01/03/2006 @ 06:48am
Most of these folks sound like loony fringe radical types to ol' CPT because he is so far right he can't see left to begin with.
Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/03/2006 @ 2:36pm
In the Hands of a police state, IT(Holocaust, Inquisition) COULD HAPPEN HERE!
TECHNOLOGY TO TURN ANY THING INTO OIL? iNCLUDING humans??
Posted by RESE 01/03/2006 @ 05:11am | ignore this person
heehee - ok rese, this is where you get all grey alieny...lol
hey, maybe this is a solution for hopefully-soon-to-be purged neocons - and no anwar drilling would be needed...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 11:45pm
I am hoping someone here can help me understand my dilemma:
First of all, I have an innate distrust for those who are in power. From my view they are inclined to do whatever it is that will keep them in the reigns. Especially when the group lacks idealism, as those with a romantic democratic vision, or with their eyes set on equality, or whatever it may be, tend to focus on attaining that vision and put power second. I think they would still try to hold on to power, though this is not the sole reason that a real idealist enters politics.
This is a broad generalization and it of course does not hold to the entire Bush administration, but their concern seems simply to be strengthening the position of their constituents, the most wealthy US citizens. It is hard to call that an ideal. Furthermore, they have in the past had very few scruples when it comes to their political machine (throwing mud, L I E I N G, falsifying news, avoiding questions, etc.) Quite simply, they seem primarily interested in power for themselves and their associates, and do not have any problem doing what it takes to achieve that power.
Now, from my studies of American history there are very many examples of what happens when there are no checks on an executive agencies surveillance practices. They have nearly always spied on their political enemies. For a few examples of this I suggest looking over "Terrorism and the Constitution" by Cole and Dempsey. So, given the character of this administration and the fact that they have been conducting surveillance in secret without any oversight, I think it is reasonable to say that there is a very strong likelyhood that they have been spying on political enemies as well as 'suspected terrorists' (for this arguments sake let us assume that it is legitimate to spy on these suspected terrorists)
Does anyone deny that they will do whatever it takes to come out on top in the 'game' side of politics?
So it confuses me terribly when people I talk to don't care about what the administration has done here, stating that they are just keeping us safe and that the people they are spying on are surely all terrorists, that they would not abuse this power. Doesn't that seem a bit naive? But I get this response from most people. Anyone who can help explain this rationalization for the laws the Bush administration has violated, please, help me.
Posted by Upstate at 01/04/2006 @ 1:29pm
UPSTATE said: [So it confuses me terribly when people I talk to don't care about what the administration has done here, stating that they are just keeping us safe and that the people they are spying on are surely all terrorists, that they would not abuse this power. Doesn't that seem a bit naive? But I get this response from most people. Anyone who can help explain this rationalization for the laws the Bush administration has violated, please, help me. ]
Naive to say the least. It's beyond understanding that Americans will so readily give up their freedom out of fear. We all know the phrase "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". And the Bushistas are at their shining best when fear mongering.
Posted by sfpolarbear at 01/04/2006 @ 3:17pm
SFPOLARBEAR,
Yes, they are quite good at inspiring fear. The thing is, I have literally NEVER met a person that is afraid they will die, or that one of their family members will, from terrorism. I hear it on tv, I hear it abstractly discussed, as in referring to some everymans fear of terrorism, but I have never ever EVER heard it come from the lips of a human being in real, everday face to face life. Personally I think it is parallel to being afraid for your life because of lightning or shark attack.
But then, I also live in New York...
Posted by Upstate at 01/04/2006 @ 10:00pm
Oh, it's probably been said above but...
"Yes, there is a war."
No, there really is no war in a legal sense... or "Yes, there is a war." in the sense that there is always a war.... but really the distinction between war and peace has lost constitutional significance.
Only the Congress could restore it, by declaring wars and by declaring the ends to wars, and by delegating presidential powers during wartime and peacetime, and so on.
Posted by humanbean at 01/05/2006 @ 2:47pm
So we don't cooperate. We put weird stuff on the phones and in email to keep them busy, scripts from Marx brothers films, conversations about Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, long readings from the Old Testament. They're going to do what they're going to do, let's mess with them right back.
Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/05/2006 @ 3:36pm
.
That paragraph is perfect. It suits these fora to a T. It is perfectly twisted confused and untrue.
Any power hungry British Prime Minister must envy the American president, not vice versa. The president has great power completely independent of Congress. Congress can be in the hands of the opposition party and yet the president remains a puissant chief executive in control of all the departments of govt and of the military. Whereas the Prime Minister has absolutely no power and is out of a job, at any moment a majority of Parliament fails to support him on any substantial issue.
The 17th century established that Parliament is Supreme. Then, beginning with George III's reign, a process began, brilliantly excavated by Louis Namier, in which the king's ministers, including his chief minister, slowly evolved into today's cabinet. It is the Parliament's creatures, rather than the monarch's. Today the Prime Minister, while yet subscribing to the fiction that he is the Queen's chief minister, represents the Parliament where he/she must have a majority. It is not he who declares war or makes peace, it is Parliament, even if, for form's sake, everything is done in the monarch's name. Any significant orders or words by the PM, opposed by the majority of Parliament, are illegitimate and bring his instant dismissal. He has no real power derived from his traditional title and standing, as the Queen's chief minister.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/05/2006 @ 9:53pm
security trumps liberty, as if this was some kind of abstract card game. we will never know for sure that we are secure, but it is quite clear when we have lost our liberties.
we were so surprised at 9/11, but when the attack was over, it was over, once liberties are gone they are gone for good. when Hitler was handed the emergency powers, he promised that everything would be as before once the emergency has passed, we know how that turned out.
Bush isn't even subtle about it, the war on terror will last for generations, the pres has unlimited war powers, conseqience you can kiss rule of law and constitution goodbye.
these guys must be stopped, now, ar every junction. no Alito, no patriot act, no more Iraq war, congress must assert itself, they represent the people, in theory anyway, who does Bush represent?
not the people, as his policies are rejected by a majority, according to polls. yes but he was re-elected some say. really? was he fairly re-elected? exit polls show otherwise, polls on his policies show otherwise.
it's not too late, I hope, if he is stymied at every turn, we may get to the next election with our democracy intact.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/07/2006 @ 08:20am
This just churns the old argument that Democrats can do what they want when in power and Republicans are held to a higher standard by the "objective" NYTimes and the rest of the "objective" media. The Democratic Party is not only the biggest bunch of whiners but hypocritical in their stance on this. Clinton and Carter BOTH performed wiretapping and searches of residences WITHOUT warrants. here's a tidbit from their officials:
Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution." And in the 1980 case of United States v. Truong, the Carter Administration successfully argued its authority to have conducted entirely domestic, warrantless wiretaps of a U.S. citizen and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the 1970s Paris peace talks.
In 1994, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick also asserted an "inherent authority" not just to warrantless electronic surveillance but to "warrantless physical searches," too. The close associate of Hillary Rodham Clinton told Congress that much intelligence gathering couldn't be conducted within the limits placed on normal criminal investigations--even if you wanted to for the sake of appearances. For example, she added, "it is usually impossible to describe the object of the search in advance with sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of the criminal law."
For those of you crying about FISA, there is a little document known as the US Constitution that overrides FISA. Artcile II of this document not only empowers the US President to oversee national security it makes it his responsibility to do so. In addition, under the Fourth Amendment it is pointed out the goverment shall make no UNREASONABLE searches and seizures without a warrant. I would say that tapping the phones of numbers we found in a terrorist training camp is certainly NOT unreasonable. I'm sure David Corn and the rest of his liberal friends ignored Clintons actions and have a sturdy "no comment" on Carter's actions as well. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Geck35 at 01/07/2006 @ 09:12am
I'm not feeling my usual chirper self this morning, but it was rather easy to find this on line:
United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President's executive power. In approving the district court's exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government's investigation became "primarily" driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
As for what Bell and Gorelick asserted, they can assert all they want. I've done plenty of asserting in my time, but neither mine nor theirs change the law. I suggest that instead of attempting to find Democratic precedents or bemoaning (quite laughably) the slant in the media that lets Clinton get away with...what? and holds Bush to impossibly high standards of conduct, you might try to justify Bush's actions on their own. Your interpretation of the FISA/Constitution/Bush Wiretapping relationship does not square with reality.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/07/2006 @ 11:31am
TJBEHRENS! you are missing the point. I have no problem with no warrant wiretapping done by Carter, Clinton or Bush. Each of these were done in the name of national security and NOT unreasonable!!(fourth amendment) Carter tapped men spying for Vietnam. Clinton tapped Aldritch Ames and had no warrant physical searches to break up drug dens. Bush has had wiretapping to break up possible terrorist attacks within the United States. In Bush's case he apprehended a man working for Al Qaeda that was going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge! I agree with each of these no warrant issues with EACH president, whether they are democrats OR republicans. I just find it completely hypocritcal that we did not have the same impeachment debate under Clinton when he was found to be doing the same thing that Bush was doing.
Posted by Geck35 at 01/07/2006 @ 3:59pm
If these searches are not "unreasonable!!", then the excuse for shoving FISA aside is what? Unreasonable. I don't give a flip about what violations of the law have been committed under previous administration. You might agree with such violations. If so, run for Congress and change the regulations. Until then, you have nothing but "well, he did it, too." to stand on. And you and the other apologists for domestic tyranny are sinking fast.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/07/2006 @ 5:51pm
TJBEHRENS1:
Very good point. I think the reason the Bush administration keeps circumventing oversight is precisely that... to circumvent oversight. The Bush administration, true to its roots as an illegitimate junta, believes that no law is above their prerogative. It goes back to other comments I have made here over the past few months. The Bush administration is something wholly different from other administrations in the past, in that they are a revolutionary movement. You can see it in their proclamations and their hubris. I just wish others could see it.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/07/2006 @ 9:53pm
Israel state sponsored terrorism leading to the illuminati......13 tribes [cytations.blogspot.com]
Posted by WORLDNEWS at 01/08/2006 @ 04:20am
GEECK35---Carter and Clinton spied on foreign suspects, not American citizens. Do not combine that with Bush's illegal spying on American citizens. There is a big difference. That is the propaganda device of the Bush defenders to say that "they all do it".
Posted by philbq at 01/08/2006 @ 8:47pm
PHILBQ:
Whether they all do it or not is the wrong argument here. I am actually in agreement with them in that there is a strong probability that, yes, those Democrats they cite did spy on Americans domestically (Project Echelon, for example). The real issue is this. It is wrong in every sense of the word for ANYONE, regardless of party, to surveil the citizenry. This act is a blatant abrogation of our right to privacy. We have the God-given right to agitate against the regime, if, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/08/2006 @ 9:52pm