Congress goes off the deep end

It says he has to notify the intellegence committees. I don't think one member of a committee is the committee. You're trying to make this look worse than it is. Thats not the oversight we were typing about. Its like your moving goalposts now. Their jurisdiction specifically mentioned their oversight. They could change it again. That is not it.This discussion is really starting to bore me. I don't really feel like justifying every clause in this legislation to you.

I probably won't.Doesn't look interesting to me. Plus, I'm not gonna want to take the position of defending the use of torture.

Especially when they're unrealistic. It must be nice.

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying [/sarcasm] The Golden Rule is not going to work against terrorists.Although, I could say that if I was the terrorist who knew where the bomb was, I would want the enemy to torture me to find out where the bomb is so all those people wouldn't die, so technically, I would be doing onto them what I would want done to me Lets not get into a torture discussion on thread about wiretaps.

I don't care. You'd probably last about a minute before you hung up out of complete boredom.

Heheheh... shows what you know. Bush and Co just got done arguing against the claim you just made. The few members of the committee that were informed and did not share information made a mixture of claims that they did inform a few others (though not all), and that as long as someone in their group was told (they themselves) it was fine anyway.Once again the lack of definition leaves it completely open to these kinds of games which the administration has already indulged in.To repeat, given the nontransparency of the system, that means a party could simply not inform the oppositional members, and claim later they did, turning it into a he said she said issue. There is no sense that any of this "notification" must be formally documented and there will be "national security" claims to prevent the public from finding out. I don't know what to say. I am not the one shifting goalposts. The legislation is about warrantless wiretaps correct? If so, then they are de facto handing the ability to grant warrants to the executive branch, with oversight by themselves. There is nothing in the constitution which allows the legislative body to change such powers and oversight, except through amendments.Furthermore the only oversight they list as belonging to them (outside of this specific legislation) is to make sure that intelligence activities meet constitutional demands. That does not mean that they have the power of the judiciary, which is the actual check. It is simply a mechanism to ensure things won't have to go to the courts later.With this legislation they have granted themselves oversight of notifications, with no power or check by the courts. True enough. But until it is changed they right is gone and you have set precedent that rights and divisions of power can be changed by partyline acts of congress. Fine. Your argument seems to consist of not wanting to be bothered thinking about things anyway, and so letting others do it for you. I can't really fight that logic.

---

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

go ahead and start your new thread. this one is, technically, about congress going off the edge of the cliff with this piece of shit legislation. Related, I'll admit, but not quite right here. looking forward to it (the new thread, that is)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I don't know anything about that. I guess if committees aren't working then they need to be changed but that is leading the discussion off topic as well, and another topic that I wouldn't want to discuss. /yawn /nodI'm all math and science. I don't know much about social studies and nothing about politics. Well, if it passes it passes and they'll have the power so it doesn't matter. But it still has to pass. Again, I just feel like you're overeacting. That's true. Well, not so much the thinking part, its more of the doing that I'm not interested in.I'll let the government run the country. Most of the stuff that goes on doesn't affect me at all anyways, I'll just continue running the rat race, living the American dream, yippee.

What I don't understand is if you aren't interested in a subject, and know little about it, why would you post in a thread on that topic? Then you weren't paying attention to the criticisms of the legislation. They can pass this and then face real challenges in the courts. They are passing something that may end up getting overturned anyway, either as a whole or evidence in individual cases. Well like I said I can't argue against that. But it does make me nervous if the general voting public starts feeling that way. A democratic gov't only functions well if the people are a part of that gov't and have an interest in it.

---

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

I didn't have anything better to do. Besides, you called out for an explanation and nobody replied so I thought I'd give it a shot. The last election was the first time I voted, and not because of age restriction.I just don't feel that affected by the government. I do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no problems. The only time I look to the government is when I need an authority. That depends on what you mean by well. I bet a lot of poiticians wish the people were less of a part and less interested, so they could get away with more. I guess that would not be functioning well by your definition but it would be functioning well for the politicians.

Fair enough.You seem almost like an existentialist. In any case purely apolitical, which means we live on different planes of existence.I doubt we'll see eye to eye on much, and it worries me, most likely because I view growth in that attitude as resulting in politicians getting away with more.Frankly I could not imagine looking to a gov't for authority. Have you ever been close to people in office? Even as a scientist?Ah well, I can't say you are wrong in how you want to live. Enjoy!Edited by holmes, : frankly

---

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

quote:

---

The Golden Rule is not going to work against terrorists.

---

Oh, so the golden Rule is optional for a Christian, only appled when convenient?

quote:

---

Although, I could say that if I was the terrorist who knew where the bomb was, I would want the enemy to torture me to find out where the bomb is so all those people wouldn't die, so technically, I would be doing onto them what I would want done to me

---

What on earth makes you think that we would restrict the use of torture to known terrorists?

quote:

---

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying[/sarcasm]

---

Well, what were you actually saying, then?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't care. You'd probably last about a minute before you hung up out of complete boredom.

---

OK, let's set this up.Please e-mail me all of your phone numbers.I am serious.

quote:

---

I just don't feel that affected by the government. I do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no problems. The only time I look to the government is when I need an authority.

---

Most people living under Saddam Hussein led quite normal lives unaffected by their government, too.But for a small minority of Iraqis, life under him was Hell on Earth.To me, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" is a profound ethical principle and one I personally take to heart. I also believe that it was incorporated into the ethics of the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.If your principles and ethics are not affected by the knowledge that our government is starting to remove our civil rights just because you don't think that you, personally, will be affected, then I suppose that you and I have very different principles and ethics.We also have very differing views on how much to trust those in power not to abuse that power. History both ancient and current provides ample reason to distrust.

quote:

---

I just don't feel that affected by the government. I do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no problems. The only time I look to the government is when I need an authority.

---

The Salt Lake Tribune - Utah News, Sports, Religion & Entertainment