Congress goes off the deep end

First, note that the measure passed by congress, whose details you quoted, does not go as far as the President wanted.Second, note that those details are so flexible as to be meaningless. They grant a single office the ability to act independently without serious oversight. This is a real good one... Given the president's failure with regard to Iraq on that score, why would congress endow him with even more power, especially one where he can drag his feet in having to explain anything. "Later"? When is that. "Believe"? Does it have to be a credible belief? Who does the research to make sure it was well founded, and how does it get dealt with if it wasn't? I'm not sure what nation you are refering to. The first priority of the US gov't is to protect the RIGHTS of the people. Providing for the common defense, and so the people, is only part of that overall end.If their first priority is simply to protect people, then the gov't has the right to turn this nation into a prison, with no rights or freedoms, to keep people safe. Given the recent track records I am uncertain how you can make that claim. But let's put that aside for the moment.I am NOT a democrat. I am NOT ideologically opposed to reps. Perhaps you should keep that in mind when answering my posts.The problem with this legislation is not political in nature. It is not a dem/rep thing, though it is the reps advancing it at this time. That is why I am questioning reps, especially given its traditional stated opposition to such ideas (and I happen to agree with those traditional values). This is a problem about gov't itself.The legislation in question shifts power to a single gov't body with no clear oversight or means to address errors by that body. Specifically put, the legislative branch is granting power to the executive to effect rights of citizens. It is doing so by removing the traditional constitutionally charged duty of the judiciary to protect those rights, while at the same time asserting the executive has the power to infringe.If you don't see a problem with that, then I have to ask what you believe regarding separation of powers and the duties of the branches as set forth in the Constitution.You might note that congress just de facto made their own internal commitees replacements for the judiciary. In addition to ceding power to the executive, that last detail is part of another problem which is both the executive and legislative branches working to end the power of the Judiciary altogether.Now above you made a political statement. But you have to think about what this means when enough people vote FOR the democrats. The power shift remains the same for the office and then Democrats will have those rights.Given the amount of fury reps hurled against Clinton and his Attorney General for abusing rights, isn't there just a little worry about what is possible if people like them end up in such positions again, but with these new powers?

---

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

You're going to have to come up with a much better explanation of why wiretaps using warrants, including flexible warrants, are not sufficient.I can just as easily come back with, but we are better, and always will be and so don't need to undercut our rights to stop them. But he doesn't have to notify people. He has to notify indeterminate and insulated members of the legislature.We just went through a bunch of garbage regarding this type of notification earlier. It turned into a he said/ she said circus. Without transparency on this, we have no way of knowing if anyone was told, much less people that can actually act to make sure the power was not abused.That's not to mention that congress just de facto shifted oversight on warrants to the legislature which is not in their power to do. That power has always been held by the judiciary , and it would take an amendment by the legislature to change that fact.And finally, what does he have to tell certain congressional leaders? That something is happening, but not why until some indeterminate time later, with the only justification required for his actions being that he believed there was some connection between a and b. Given what just happened with Iraq where the executive branch failed on that score in spades... forgetting that they ALSO failed on that score for 9/11... why would the executive branch be empowered on the assumption of its ability to make such connections?

---

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

No, it's not. Just because something isn't conservative, doesn't mean it's liberal. Nobody. I see a lot less of that from the Democratic party. For instance, nobody made up a lot of false charges about Bush's history of wartime heroism. (Because no such history exists, I guess.)

Then you're no conservative. How did Reagan used to describe the phrase "We're the government and we're here to help"?

They're not working, the terrorists are succeeding. You mention at the end of your message how the executive branch failed on 9/11, maybe if they had this power they could've stopped it. Sure, you can say that. We all have opinions. But if I have to come up with a better explanation then so do you. Have we seen lots of success before this was passed? You seem to think we haven't so whats with all the neccessary explanation for something you agree with? Now you're typing about Americans in the first person but sometimes you make a point that you don't live here. Do you switch it up on a thread by thread basis?Are you saying that indeterminate and insulated members of the legislature are not people? If we have no way of knowing then we have nothing to discuss here. I think they did just shift the power. I guess so. They need more power becuase the terrorists are getting good, that's where the failures are comming from.

Liberal is definately an antonym to conservative.

quote:

---

Main Entry: conservative
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: moderate
...
Antonyms: incautious, left-wing, liberal, progressive, radical, revolutionary

---

sourceI picture it as a continuum from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. A policy that is less conservative, is more liberal. But I do agree that being non-conservative does not neccessarily mean being liberal. The tone was set for this thread before I posted. You're doing exactly what your bitching about.

I don't know what I am. What are you asking?

Allow me to repeat what you ignored: Just because something isn't conservative, doesn't mean it's liberal.Let me know when that sinks in. "Cold" and "hot" may be opposites, but just because something isn't cold doesn't mean that it's on fire. Your guys are in power. They're the ones doing these things. How is pointing that out a smear? Pointing out how Republicans smear is not a smear; it's a statement of fact.Just like a Republican, though, to confuse the two things. It's a simple question, how is it confusing? How did Reagan used to describe the phrase "We're the government and we're here to help"?What part of that question is difficult to understand? It's plain English, as near as I can tell. Reagan had a famous description of that phrase. When you go look up what it is, you'll understand the traditional attitude held by conservatives in regards to trusting the government.

1) I don't see how they are succeeding. They had a few temporal successes all over the world, and they lost a few times all over the world. In no sense has this nation as a whole suffered a devastating blow such that it might end as a republic and fall into their control.2) Lets assume for a second that we can count the fact that they have had a few temporal successes as some sort of strategic success. The argument that "maybe" the revoking of personal freedoms would have stopped such an attack is not enough to argue for such revocation. As it stands we know that the gov't had sufficient knowledge at the time to have prevented the attacks. They could have stopped it but failed to do so. Why is anyone to believe that armed with this new ability they would have acted any differently?3) If we accept the maybe argument, then what right isn't on the table? Clearly outlawing weapon ownership by anyone but the military and police forces might stop terrorist attacks. Clearly outlawing ownership of any sharp objects which could be used as a weapon might have helped stop 9/11. Clearly not allowing any travel by foreigners within this country might have stopped 9/11. Are these okay? If not, why is allowing warrantless wiretapping okay? Actually I don't. It's a right. That means anyone trying to get around it has to prove their case that it is critical. That's how important a right is. I'm an American. I have also spent many years abroad. Currently I'm not, though I may be coming back soon. I see no inconsistency here.I often discuss experiences overseas, including alternate ways of governing, or views of gov't which might be preferable. This is also not inconsistent. That's exactly what the founding fathers did. No matter how wonderful the US could be, the idea that no one else might have a good idea we could adapt, or could actually surpass the US in time, would be flawed. Technically speaking, yes they are people. But if the individuals slated for notification are not determined and insulated then they might as well be his pet rock for all the connection to the populace they would have/represent. In any case, my overall point was attacking the idea that he has to "notify" anyone, not that congressmen are people. I don't think I made myself clear. The open ended nature of required reporting meant that Bush and Co got to claim everyone that must be notified was notified. Then people not connected and allied with Bush and Co questioned that assertion. Without transparency and clarity of obligation that's exactly how this new power can be handled. The president talks to his cronies and claims that's enough. You'll have to explain how terrorists were responsible for Bush's mistaken assessments regarding Iraq, much less that tapping phones without warrants would help.Let's keep our eye on the prize here. I'm not asking why there should be wiretaps. I'm asking why they must be allowed without judicial oversight? Not even a sudden pressing need can be invoked as current warrants allow for flexible requests.What is being requested, and has in part been approved, is the ability of the executive branch to wiretap based on its own goodwill.

---

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

Ok. Allow me to repeat what you ignored. I was saying that something that is less cold is something that is more hot. WRT calling this legislation liberal, I was having some fun.If I look at some random legislation, I don't really know how to determine whether it is liberal or conservative. I don't know. I misread the word 'used'. I didn't realize you were asking how he had done something, how he used to do it. I thought you made a grammatical error. It was my mistake. But damn, take it easy man, jeez. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I haven't looked it up.ABE: I didn't vote for them. What does that have to do with the tone of this thread being set?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

You see it as our government failing. Whatever. Congress passed it. I'm sure they had reasons that they found to be enough. I'm not going to try to come up with the reasons here nor convince you that whatever reasons I can think of are good enough. I don't know but I don't think it would have hurt. Again, I don't know. Congress passed it. I don't know what reasons they had for passing it but I trust their judgement. Isn't that why they are in congress, to make these decisions? So he does have to notify people then. Do you think that Congress just totally overlooked this and passed something they didn't think they should have passed? It does seem to give him too much power. Its not up to me. I don't know. My explanation involved maintaining a positive image while also doing things that would be deemed 'bad'. Like, they don't want to have to tell everyone when they're putting some dishonest wiretaps on terrorists. I don't care if they do but I can understand them wanting to hide it. We have to keep the good guys image.

Well, fair enough.I'm sorry that apparently I've put a lot of words in your mouth, responded as though you had taken a position you didn't actually take. I hate when that's done to me so please accept my apology for doing it to you.That said, you seem to be attempting to snark the left, while at the same time avoiding any committment to a position, yourself. That's a little ridiculous. You really don't know what to think about the issues of the day? You should. It gets bandied about as one of the defining phrasologies of conservativism. You'll find it interesting, really.

Gosh, I don't know! Why, whatever motivation could a person have to seek the highest, most powerful and influential offices in the nation, besides a selfless desire to put his or her wisdom to the service of the American people?

??? That is not a response to what I said. Yes our gov't has failed on a number or occassions and is making a mistake with this. However the statement you made was that terrorists were succeeding.Outside of small moments where they achieve an attack, I don't see any success that is building toward anything. ??? So if congress passes a law against gun ownership you will be for it? It passed along party lines. I think they are viewing it as something they are giving to themselves because there is a rep president. When gov't changes hands I'm sure we'll hear complaints regarding its abuse. That's the kind of game dems and reps have been playing for years.I'm looking beyond the politics, at the underlying rights being lost and their relation to core principles.

---

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

no problem. I think its fun. They get wroked up pretty easily. The people I've met in person that are liberals are very annoying. They seem to be idealists. Also, a lot of them are whiny pussies. Its not that I'm drawn to the conservative side, its that I'm drawn away from the liberal side. I have not been involved in or payed attention to politics very much at all. You have to study a lot and learn about so much to commit to a position. I just don't care enough to put in the effort. I don't really know which position I hold, but more people call me conservative than liberal. And with my opinion on the liberals I've met, I might as well commit to the conservative side. You know, just so you don't think I'm ridiculous. I just don't pay attention to them enough. If I did, I don't think I have a problem knowing what to think. I gave it a quick look and didn't find anything. Got a link?This is all off topic so we can stop but I would like to see a link from you, if you would.