| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13063
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:40 pm: | 
|
Innisowen raises another good point. WW-II saw volunteers from all ranks of life. All kinds of people saw it as their duty. That isn't happening now. That says a lot.
Not even congresspeople's kids are in the military.
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 788
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
The reason for having warrants is that it is the only way to say, you can do this surveillance sometimes, but it will depend on each individual circumstance as to whether it is warranted or not.
It's called checks and balances, people. You can say, "I don't mind it as long as they use it for the right reasons." Let's dumb it down a little: warrants are there to make SURE those "right reasons" are the only time it's used.
Doing away with warrants ONLY serves to open up surveillance for other purposes beyond the "right reasons" of the day.
You can say "people who aren't doing anything wrong have no reason to mind." However you can also say, "people who are conducting surveillance for the right reasons, should have no reason to mind getting a warrant to do so."
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 432
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Innis, It makes no sense to me that we invaded Iraq to take, use, appropriate, whatever, their oil. They are barely 5% of the Middle East's oil production. I've made jokes sevearal times about invading Venezuela. They have real quantities of Petro down there.
Tom, You used the Chicken little rebuttal...lol! I think we're arguing semantics here. What qualifies as wartime, what's not...I'd like to have a clear exit strategy from Iraq, I'd like to hear an announcement one day that terrorism ahs been defeated, and the war is over too. This is a different playing field, different ballgame, etc than WWII or any other conflict BTW, how do you feel about the interrment camps of WWII. That was wartime, right? That was a serious erosion of civil liberties, but we somehow managed to not revert to the stone age.
As far as the children of privelege not serving thing...that goes back to the Roman Times. I'm sure I could dig up instances of sons of congressmen, etc getting nice cushy desk jobs instead of combat in any war we've been involved in. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13064
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
But terrorism won't be defeated. That's kinda like hoping firepower will be defeated. It's not an entity, it's a technique. How can we defeat it? We can't. I think the best we can do is to erode the incentives to commit terrorist acts, i.e. to do our part to make the world a better place.
I feel the internment camps of WW-II were a big mistake, and that's the prevailing view, if I'm not mistaken. Saying we managed not to revert misses the point. We didn't continue the practice because we recognized what a big mistake it was, not because we're glad (or indifferent) that we had the camps.
Perhaps the kids of Roman emperors didn't serve in the army. I don't know. But the children of rich and powerful people served in WW-II, so I don't buy your rebuttal. The bigger the participation, the more it indicates wide support for the war.
You continue to fail to justify the breach of the fourth amendment by failing to define the end of the times that justify the act.
And see argon's point, too. I find it compelling.
|
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:10 pm: |
|
I'm sorry, but forget about 9/11 for a moment. Weren't we ALWAYS fighting terrorism? Was terrorism ever acceptable? THE WAR ON TERROR is just a FOX NEWS title for what our current administration is doing.
Now are we at war? DAMN STRAIGHT WE ARE. We are the aggressors. We entered two countries without permission, and overthrew their governments. The U.N. (our puppets) didn't agree with it. Much of the world doesn't agree with it. In fact at election time only 51% of our population (I'll be generous and say more than 51% just to shut up the right wingers) supported it. But it's 3 years on in the war, and there has been so much corruption in the Republican party that YOU ALL KNOW that right NOW LESS than 51% of our population is behind this war.
I say it's time to AT LEAST begin the discussions of removal of US forces from these countries. Oh wait, there is civil war, all our efforts are for naught. We are going to have to stay for another (fill in the blank) years. How much is this war costing us? Thanks Republicans FOR BALANCING OUR BUDGETS! You're the best!!!
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Grrrrrrrrr,
Read Kevin Phillips' new book, American Theocracy, for a different insight on the value and purpose of Iraqi oil. Phillips was a seminal strategist for the Republican Party. His book will give you a different point of view.
While Iraq's oil is 5% of the middle east's "production," it is far greater than 5% of the region's CAPACITY. In addition, the oil is obtainable under simpler, less complex drilling methods.
I didn't see where you responded to my point about the willingness and readiness of the Bush-Cheney families and hangers-on to sign up for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, but perhaps I overlooked that. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Grrrrrr.
I want to correct myself and you.
Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves.
Iraq has 9% of the world's proven oil reserves, not 5%.
We're not talking production here. We're talking reserves.
Interesting that we've rattled our sabres in Iraq, and that the administration is rattling its sabres about Iran.
But of course we would never be motivated by a thirst for oil or a Texas petroleum kingpin's desire to get more oil fields under the belt. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4891
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
"...getting a warrant for a terrorist suspect is pretty freaking easy."
So, if it's so freaking easy, why bother? I don't get the problem. Lets say the government did get these warrants ahead of time. Who besides the government and some government judge would know about it anyway.
And, who's going to complain about how the government discovered a plot to blow up the George Washington Bridge without a warrant, OBL? This is all pretty silly, IMHO...
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13074
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
I'm very sorry, Art, that you don't understand the importance of civil rights and of protecting the people from the government. I would hope the importance were obvious, but apparently not.
Did you notice that FISA allows retroactive warrants? What's to stop the government from fulfilling its legal requirements if warrants can be obtained retroactively?
Please see argon_smyth's post for a simple explanation.
|
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 6:01 pm: |
|
AJC, because doing it Bush's way is illegal and makes everyone who cares about their personal rights scared. It smells of "abuse of power" and "big brother" all wrapped up in one. I have already felt a deterioration of my civil liberties...this is just the evidence of it. Evidence that Bush didn't want us to know about, so we better find out who the whistle blower is so the public doesn't find out what other laws we are breaking and which of their other rights we are trampling. That sounds familiar. Lets find out who blew the whistle (watch out how many Scooter Libby's are there to cover for your sorry azzes? Judging from the bulletin board, I'd say TONS).
I think Tom R. and Argon just a few posts above gave EXTREMELY compelling reasons why you should get warrants. Just tell me when was the president above the law? What happened to checks and balances? What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Spy on me without a warrant then YOU are the one who is guilty. You are the one abusing your power. I find it despicable that you want to justify bad decisions just to safe face for your party. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4892
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:12 pm: |
|
"Evidence that Bush didn't want us to know about,..."
Who's this "us" you're talking about? I'm sure Bush would tell you, me, and the congress if we asked, it's just the bad guys he didn't want to know about this stuff... I mean the President didn't lie to anyone about what he did.
Come on Blew, what's to hide here? Can you give me an example of what these, "EXTREMELY compelling reasons are why we should get warrants?"
I don't buy this stuff that warrants are the only way to do this, especially in today's fast pace world where minutes can make the difference between life and death.
We really don't have time to have "ONE" judge tell our police authorities it's OK to spy. And, after the fact, is already after the fact. Why bother? If a mistake was made, someone gets punished.
If the government authorities believe there's a need to check someone out, then let them. If they're wrong then sue them for damages...
Listen, I agree we need checks and balances, but everyone already knows what the right and wrong reasons for spying are. If we spy for the wrong reasons, then when they get cought someone gets punished for it. BTW, this has nothing to do with one party or another... |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13080
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:10 pm: |
|
He did lie, by not warning us.
Look at the word "warrant". As a noun, it's rather abstract. But as a verb, it's clear. The search is "warranted" i.e. justified. A warrant is a paper verifying that the search is justified. Now, under King Bush, the removal of a requirement for a warrant says that he doesn't have to justify his actions. And we should be comfortable about that?
Fast pace? Again, retroactive warrants are obtainable. They are not impediments. And remember, impediments can be a good thing.
Art, we really really really don't want to give ANY agent of the government unlimited power. Really.
If the government authorities believe there's a need to check someone out, then let them.
Exactly. Let them document the need with a warrant.
If they're wrong then sue them for damages...
That's what all the protestation is about, Art, OK?
I'm saddened and dismayed that you don't understand the need to limit the government's power. Saying checks and balances are good until you want to lift them is a self-contradictory statement. Do you believe in them or not? If so, require warrants. If you don't require warrants, then you don't believe in checks or balances.
|
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Bush did NOT TELL US HE WAS DOING THIS. Ommission is a lie IMO. It was found out by a whistle blower. He wanted to continue breaking the law and spying on people forever. And if he wasn't caught we wouldn't even know he was doing it. THAT IS A PROBLEM. That is illegal. That is an abuse of power. I'm innocent. I don't want people spying on me unless they can justify their actions. I appreciate checks and balances. And AS EVERYONE HAS SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN and you AJC refuse to acknowledge (for I can only assume to cover the azz of your party) is that it is extremely easy ESPECIALLY in this political climate where TERRORISM IS PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE, to get a warrant. It doesn't take forever. There is no reason for this EXCEPT because Bush wants power (spying whenever he wants) that he isn't supposed to have. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6010
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
It smacks of Nixon's enemy list. |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 433
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Innis, I will read that book and report back. I don't see how "the willingness and readiness of the Bush-Cheney families and hangers-on to sign up for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan" is germain to the "no blood for oil" argument. I don't buy the "PR move for wider acceptance of the war" bit.
Tom R., When it comes down to it, you're right. Maybe I'm naive to not see the next step as the secret police rounding up political opponents. Maybe someday big brother will be watching all of us. Apparently he's already watching AlleyGator...
I still say we should invade Venezuela... |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13085
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
The erosion will probably take longer than that, in smaller steps. It won't stop unless we object to it. Who else is there to protect our rights?!
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Grrrrrrrr:
Some random thoughts---
You might not "buy" the argument about having Bush and Cheney family members and hangers-on sign up for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's up to you.
However, even a Bush supporter must admit that it rings hollow when neither Cheney nor Bush (both had "other priorities" than active line service during the VietNam war) can offer a single, solitary example of one of their crowd serving in the war to spread freedom and democracy.
You would think (at least, I would think) that they would encourage family members and hangers-on to serve such a noble cause.
In that vein, have a second look at the percent of the world's proven oil reserves in Iraq and Iran.
Then read Kevin Phillips's book.
Then remember that US forces surrounded the Iraqi Oil Ministry and secured and impounded maps, charts, notes, specs as steps 1-10 in conquering Baghdad, but failed to assign one single, solitary soldier to safeguard the Ministry of Finance and gold and currency reserves, to impound arms caches in the Ministry of Defense and in and around military bases, or prevent the looting of priceless works of art in the key Iraqi museums.
OK, so tell me I don't understand our priorities. Tell me instead that some things happened and some things failed to happen because the operation was badly planned and executed.
And I will say, yes, you're right. As incompetently planned and badly executed as every maneuver in this war since March 2003.
And that, my friend, is exactly, precisely, the problem.
And I won't even dwell on the chaos and lack of follow-up in Afghanistan that has caused tons of Afghan opium to come back on the streets of the US and Europe.
Dwelling on that would be petty.
|
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:50 am: |
|
Grrrrrr.... I don't see myself as a paranoid person or some conspiracy theorist. Most of the things I say I think are grounded in some form of reality. I do see an erosion of my rights and a overreach for power by the current administration. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 791
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
I can only come up with two logical reasons for needing to bypass the warrant process.
1) You are nearly certain a warrant would not be granted if you applied for it
2) You do not want a record of what you've done
If the problem is truly that obtaining warrants is too timely, the process could be expedited. Art's "matter of minutes" argument is quite laughable considering the backlog of intelligence analysis the CIA currently faces. These things happen "in minutes" only on TV.
What other logical reason can there be to bypass the warrant process? Logical, please, not political, if you can help it.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13093
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
argon_smythe, maybe a need for a warrant in minutes is unlikely, but it seems conceivable. Maybe it isn't needed often, maybe it hasn't been needed yet, but one day it will be.
And in those cases, the government can obtain a retroactive warrant. That takes care of the argument of needing to wiretap quickly without a warrant.
Therefore, there is no excuse.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
C'mon, we all know Bush broke the law and he should be punished. His administration will be remembered for its reckless misuse of power, and giving the finger to due process.
Art sounds like he would be comfortable in Stalin's USSR. |
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Although, I noticed Art has flown the coop. I wish he would have participated in the discussion instead of posting and running. Maybe he couldn't defend his position??? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13102
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
He'll be bock.
|
Blew
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Tom is that your best Ahhhhnold impression? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13105
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Yes, I'd prefer if you could do it.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4897
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
"Maybe he couldn't defend his position???"
That will NEVER happen pal! I'm all fired up after the Presidents talk today. He's on the money...
Actually, it's Libby's birthday today and we're going away in a few minutes for a stay at a great B&B in Toms River. I'm already in trouble for posting on her special day, but listen to Reingold.... I'LL BE BACK!  |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
What exactly are you "all fired up" about? |
Freshwater Films
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6027
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
go to the AP website RL to see what bush had to say. some gems include..
Quote:"Nobody likes war, he said. "It creates as sense of uncertainty in the country. War creates trauma."
Quote: "I didn't want a war," he said. "To assume I wanted a war is just flat wrong."
Quote:The president again said he did not believe that Iraq was sliding into sectarian civil war, as a former Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said over the weekend.
"We all recognized that there is violence, that there is sectarian violence," Mr. Bush said. "But the way I look at the situation is, the Iraqis looked and decided not to go to civil war."
uh...ok...
And happy happy anniversary to you ajc, have a GREAT TIME WITH LIBBY
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Freshwater films:
Your quote of what De Prez said:
"We all recognized that there is violence, that there is sectarian violence," Mr. Bush said. "But the way I look at the situation is, the Iraqis looked and decided not to go to civil war."
Nice of them: they didn't "declare" a civil war on each other. Therefore there can't be one.
Why did De Prez decide to leave his brains in the Lincoln bedroom before holding this press conference?
That has to take its place among the dopiest, most asinine, "feets don't fail me now," "how can I avoid this question" responses that the good George the Second has uttered at any press conference in his five years of mis-managing the country.
"Not going to civil war" reminds of the sardonic quote sarcastically attributed to Edward III: "You soldiers who are going out to fight the Hundred Years War." |
Freshwater Films
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6030
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
I don't write that stuff, I write fiction...oh wait... |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 106
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Everyone is concerned about civil liberties and that is a good thing. But wasn't it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the Constitution is not a suicide pact? Or something like that. One thing I have missed in all the media discussion of warrantless wiretaps is who is being listened to. Maybe I should read the book by James Risen. If anyone has some examples, please let me know.
So, who then is being wiretapped? Americans? OK, but which Americans? Are my 80 year old Aunt Matilda's chats with my mother being monitored? I doubt it. (I would feel sorry for the guy who had to make transcriptions of those gabfests). I have had several dozen letters printed in the Star Ledger with my name attached. Most of them were critical of Democrat and Republican pols and policies. Is anyone listening in on my conversations? Unlikely. But what if a guy named Mohammed emigrated from Pakistan to Paterson 9 years ago? And what if he went home for a visit last summer? Would it bother me if someone was keeping track of his calls? Not really. Just get the warrant filled out correctly and listen away. Ah, but doesn't this come perilously close to profiling?
Yes, but I don't really have a problem with racial/ethnic/religious profiling. It is a perfectly good tool and if we are going to be serious about the threat of terrorism, we are going to have to overcome our squeamishness in this area. Membership in a group is a perfectly valid criterion for making judgments about an individual's potential behavior, lacking any concrete details about said individual's background. Profiling is probably universal. I'm sure Indians profile Pakistanis, Chinese profile Japanese, etc. I think Israel profiles everyone.
If you look at a ticket agent sideways, you're not getting on an El Al plane. So what's the big deal?
Looking at what I have just written, I realize that if there is such a thing as MOL Hell, I have just consigned myself to one of the lower circles for all eternity. But I think these issues are really connected. You can't talk about wiretaps (warrantless or not), without talking about who is being wiretapped. And you can't talk about who is being wiretapped without raising the profiling issue, in one way or another.
Cheers
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13116
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
So, who then is being wiretapped?
Excellent question. Without warrants, we cannot obtain the answer to that question. And that is central to our objection. It is central to the objection that the constitution's framers had, too.
A warrant is a document that says, "Look, I gotta do dis, 'K?"
ajc says we can sue if it's done wrongly. How will we know when someone is wiretapped wrongly without warrants? Without warrants, there are no records.
|
Freshwater Films
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6032
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
I can say with some certainty that when my brother calls me from Indonesia they are listening. |
Free SLK!
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 436
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Since I saw the other day that they're still trying to get Leonard Peltier out of jail, I thought I'd give this a try... |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
AJC, I'm waiting (anxiously) for your well thought out reply. You're back now, right?
>>BUMP<< |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4909
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 2:27 am: |
|
Why are you so anxious? Has it been 36 hours Alleygater?
Don't worry, I'll be ready when the time is right, will you? Listen, I have bigger fish to fry, so take another Cialis pal... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page