Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 1:20 AM
18 online now:
4petdinos, AZPaul3, PaulK (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,886 Year: 8,922/19,786 Month: 1,344/2,119 Week: 104/576 Day: 5/99 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 181 of 220 (283337)
02-02-2006 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
02-01-2006 8:44 PM


godwin's law
The tone struck me to be remarkably like the speeches of Adolf Hitler

oops! you lose!

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


(edit: although it might be appropriate in this case...)

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-02-2006 06:17 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 02-01-2006 8:44 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by iano, posted 02-02-2006 6:33 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 182 of 220 (283339)
02-02-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 6:17 AM


Re: godwin's law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 6:17 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 220 (283348)
02-02-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Tal
02-01-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.
Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?

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

You are thinking of this too narrowly, tal.

You are thinking of the situation and not the power.

Let's pretend that Hillary Clinton became president.

Do you want her to have the power to wiretap anyone, for any reason, without any record of it or any approval required from any court?

Bush has declared that he has the power to do this, as the President, whenever he judges it necessary.

I get that you trust his integrity 100%, but what if a president came along that you didn't trust? Do you still think it's ok for an untrustworthy president to be able to secretly wiretap Americans for any reason without any judicial oversight?

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

We've all said the following multiple times, but I'll say it again, because you apparently are having trouble remembering that we said it.

WE WANT YOU TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AL QAIDA.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AMERICANS IN CONTACT WITH AL QAIDA.

But, if you are going to spy on Americans, you need to get a warrant so there is judicial oversight and that there is a record that you have done it and there was just cause for you to do so.

Otherwise, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

My question is, if Bush decided to not get warrants for some of the spying he did, was that because he spied on people without probable cause?

If he had the warrant, he'd be able to show that he was justified in spying, but because he didn't get it, we have no way of knowing if he abused the ability to spy.

No president is above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tal.

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2006 07:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 184 of 220 (283408)
02-02-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tal
02-01-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Is there anybody in there?
The entire charge is bogus.

You realize that that was a reference to YOUR charges right? I guess I do hope you are admitting that. But in case it isn't I want to understand your position.

You are claiming that anyone who stands against ANY plan which MIGHT result in losses for the enemy, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? That seems rather odd.

After all a plan to jail and or summarily execute all people who have travelled or talked to anyone of mideast descent, or are islamic, will likely result in getting some terrorist. So if Bush simply starts doing this and we catch him and say that isn't right (particularly without legislative and judicial checks on those acts) we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

You seem to have missed the point. No one is saying they wish AQ was here and tapping our phones, or that they wish AQ would win and so help them achieve that end in some direct manner.

What people are saying is that THEY HAVE RIGHTS, and neither AQ nor Bush should have the ability to VIOLATE those rights. They are standing against enemies foreign and domestic. Whoever comes to violate our rights is the enemy.

By the way an interesting historical note. AQ got its start when reps supported OBL and other rabid fundamentalists to overthrow Russian occupation of Afghanistan (sort of like our occupation of Iraq right now). Despite the fact that the Russians were helping the moderate majority make gains in education and civil rights, anyone opposing US support for rabid fundamentalist terrorist activities were criticized for in some way aiding and abetting the Russian menace.

Now here's where it gets real interesting. The big fear is that if we didn't support those rabid fundamentalists, the Russians would "win" and take over our gov't and we'd lose our freedoms. This gov't you see would be controlled by a central authority we'd have no direct control over, and no judicial oversight, and THEY'D TAP OUR PHONES.

Yeah, so the reps empowered religious maniacs to engage in terror tactics against russians so we wouldn't have to face a gov't that spies on its own population. 20- years later and reps are now saying we must accept the president spying on the population in order to save us from the religious maniacs they put into power in the first place.

I'm sorry, you were saying something bad about liberals?

This message has been edited by holmes, 02-02-2006 05:47 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 3:54 PM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Chiroptera, posted 02-02-2006 12:01 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 186 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 12:13 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 185 of 220 (283417)
02-02-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Silent H
02-02-2006 11:43 AM


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


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2006 11:43 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 186 of 220 (283425)
02-02-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Silent H
02-02-2006 11:43 AM


on scale
Just FYI.

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


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2006 11:43 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 12:24 PM jar has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2091 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 187 of 220 (283426)
02-02-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Tal
02-01-2006 2:24 PM


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

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

and like schraf said. what if next go round (assuming bushy doesn't proclaim himself king) we get some crazy liberal president who decides he wants to spy on fundies so that he can publicly shame them? you have to think about this in the larger picture. would you want any president to have this power or just bushy? if the answer is just bushy, then you really shouldn't support it. cause what if you're wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2091 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 188 of 220 (283427)
02-02-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
02-02-2006 12:13 PM


Re: on scale
lol. i had att wireless until they sold. some crazy government guy is gonna get my "butt sex butt sex butt sex bomb butt sex butt sex" conversations.

abe. i'm sure some other company might have had an agreement to use att servers. that's funny. no one is safe.

This message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-02-2006 12:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 12:13 PM jar has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2091 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 189 of 220 (283428)
02-02-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 6:14 AM


Re: Like I asked you before
i hate lincoln. we should exhume him and put his head on a stake.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 6:14 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 190 of 220 (283438)
02-02-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-01-2006 9:47 PM


Re: We are not at War
I've been giving this a lot of thought and there is no way can be in a state of war.

We are at war. The military is on a war-time footing. It was authorized by Congress.

September 14th Resolution:

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Authorizing the use of the Armed Forces sounds like war.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

An unusual and extrardinary threat is posed to national security...check.

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

President has authority under the Constitution...check.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Here is the money quote. Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appopriate force against those NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, or PERSONS HE DETERMINES....

Now for those of who quit reading at "terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept 11," read further: or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent future acts of terrorism...

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

And there is the War Powers resolution.

We are at war.

This message has been edited by Tal, 02-02-2006 01:12 PM


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-01-2006 9:47 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2006 1:14 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 2:25 PM Tal has responded
 Message 193 by Omnivorous, posted 02-02-2006 2:51 PM Tal has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 220 (283439)
02-02-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Tal
02-02-2006 1:10 PM


Re: We are not at War
Authorizing the use of the Armed Forces sounds like war.

Well, we authorized the Armed Forces to provide aid to Indonesia after the tsunami.

Were we suddenly at war with Indonesia? Or with tsunamis?

Here is the money quote. Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appopriate force against those NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, or PERSONS HE DETERMINES....

Sure. And the illegal wiretapping was neither necessary nor appropriate, so he didn't have the authority to do that. But, you know, thanks for proving that for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Tal, posted 02-02-2006 1:10 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 192 of 220 (283449)
02-02-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Tal
02-02-2006 1:10 PM


Re: We are not at War
107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Authorizing the use of the Armed Forces sounds like war.

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

quote:
Congressional Declaration of War
on Japan December 8, 1941

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

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

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


notice that bit where war is formally declared?

Here is the money quote. Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appopriate force against those NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, or PERSONS HE DETERMINES....

that's good, but you neglected "necessary and appropriate." and i don't see how that suspends either the fourth amendment or habeus corpus.

And there is the War Powers resolution.

We are at war.

or, you know, you could look up "war powers" actually means. "war powers" refers to congress's constitutional power to declare war. however,

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause


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


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Tal, posted 02-02-2006 1:10 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Tal, posted 02-02-2006 4:30 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 193 of 220 (283453)
02-02-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Tal
02-02-2006 1:10 PM


Re: We are not at War
Emphasis added:

Tal writes:

Here is the money quote. Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appopriate force against those NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, or PERSONS HE DETERMINES

So the illegal wiretapping was okay because Bush had it done at gun-point rather than with a warrant? The resolution authorized military force against terrorists et al., not illegal wiretapping against citizens.

Anyway, the WH has already argued they didn't need the resolution, so that's a lot of hot-and-bothered jabber for no good reason.

Also, the WH has told the judiciary that seizure of American citizens on American soil for detention indefinitely, without charge or recourse to an attorney or court, merely on the President's say-so, is not subject to judicial review.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't have a problem with that is treasonous to the founding ideals of our Republic, but...

O, wait...I feel an oracular moment coming on...

Bush will discover that telling Congress and the SCOTUS that they are not co-equal branches of government is a really bad idea.

As in REALLY BAD idea.

But we'll see: I notice your location is Ft. Knox. I did basic there about 35 years ago.

I'll bet you a double-time march up Heartbreak Hill and back from one of the old training company areas that ultimately both Congress and the SCOTUS will reject Bush's rationalizations and act to prevent recurrences.

Deal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Tal, posted 02-02-2006 1:10 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Tal, posted 02-02-2006 4:32 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 194 of 220 (283476)
02-02-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 2:25 PM


Re: We are not at War
yeah, no, this is what a declaration of war looks like:

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


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 2:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 4:50 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 195 of 220 (283478)
02-02-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Omnivorous
02-02-2006 2:51 PM


Re: We are not at War
So the illegal wiretapping was okay

It is legal. You are assuming it is not.


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Omnivorous, posted 02-02-2006 2:51 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2006 4:54 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 198 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-02-2006 5:03 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019