<p>Perhaps I should have made it clear that I’m not objecting to monitoring US citizens who represent a terrorist threat. I <em>am</em> objecting to doing so <em>without a warrant</em>. </p>
<p>And I guess it’s a matter of opinion as to whether or not “ordinary people” are already experiencing “bad things”. I’m not thrilled that our government has been complicit in torture; I think it diminishes us all, and it saddens me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do it on a daily basis here at home; half my family is in Iran. We’re plotting things like, holiday visits and visas to the states and Canada…so far, so good. Thanks for your concern, but really, I think you are far too worried over the sanctity of our phone calls.</p>
<p>Do you, DMD77 or FF, get to decide if your musings are harmless?</p>
<p>Our Handles, do they have alternative meanings? Is “77” a code number? FF are you really funding a secret organization? Am I really outraged like McVey?</p>
<p>Could this post link me and now, YOU, to some organization or thought train that could lead to something else? Prove to us that you Do/Don’t support some ABC-XYZ…?</p>
<p>Who gets to define Heresy? Our M of C, will have fun winter break and mull the lessons of and celebrate birth of the (generally thought of) greatest heretic.</p>
<p>But, FS, you do understand that Bush is saying he can listen in on your calls without a warrant? And that he’s also said he can detain “war criminals” (even American citizens) without a trial for as long as he wants to? If you agree with both of those premises, what’s to keep Bush from deciding–without any judicial oversight–that you (or I or my Iranian neighbor) are a war criminal? Your innocence? How could you prove it without a trial?</p>
<p>dmd, I think you may have seen one too many conspiracy movies. But, besides that, how about addressing the other side of the equation - the real one - concerning terrorism and how to defeat it.</p>
<p>FF: probably have seen too many conspiracy movies. Of course, I could also be influenced by seeing my father’s best friends’ (both of them) names on Nixon’s “enemies list”. Presidents who abuse their powers scare me.</p>
<p>Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power to do anything you want to do is absolute. So far we’ve got the assertion that the “war on terror” means that the president gets to decide that American citizens can be jailed indefinitely, without trial, charges, or legal counsel; that the president can authorize invasions of American’s constitutionally protected privacy despite clear law to the contrary, and in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment – just because he thinks it’s best, and there’s no one with the authority to tell him to stop. The naive faith of those of you who trust GWB and his WMD-touting cohorts not to abuse that power is touching. There will always be an excuse to sacrifice liberty due to a threat to security. Absolute security is unattainable. There always has been a credible threat of violence to Americans in their own homes - and there always will be. And there has always been those who would exploit that fear. Surrendering hard-won liberty due to that fear is craven, and wrong.</p>
<p>You know, this isn’t the first president to use his power this way. I posted 200 years worth of similar decisions. Is it just because it’s Bush? Roosevelt interned American citizens. Why aren’t you concerned about that precedent? Clinton defied Congress. Where was the outrage then? </p>
<p>I love the selective outrage of the liberals. When it’s a democratic president, it’s ok to defy Congress or violate the Constitution. When it’s a democratic Congress, it’s ok to filibuster. When it’s a liberal Supreme Court appointment, she should get a free pass from Congress without answering questions. But put the shoe on the other foot and the outrage boils over.</p>
<p>My gosh, it’s almost Christmas and Kluge’s quoting Lord Acton anent GW Bush? (that’s a very fancy “TheDad word,” btw). Doesn’t this belong in the “Intellectuals” thread? So Kluge, anent all this intellectualism, did you catch on to that Vallandigham reference yet?(Nos. 16 and 18). If not, you’re several days behind Rush–I was cruising along in the Drivermobile and flipped from my “Charlie Brown Christmas” CD to hear what the big guy had to say about the president’s very entertaining news conference today–and there he was, talking about Clement Vallandigham and the jarring similarities between what this president is going through now and Lincoln experienced in the CW. Rush is usually a few days behind me, but he tries hard, and he’s always fun.</p>
<p>Speaking of Charlie Brown, one pundit I was reading this weekend compared the MSM/Democrat party conglomerate to the old Lucy pulling the football away routine. Another, more astute writer noted the much greater resemblance to Wile E. Coyote. In all honesty, if you package the NYT (and media acolytes) with the Democrat/base/party and throw in the Concerned CC Lefty Parents, you come up with something very much like poor old determined, deluded Wiley. Consider only a few examples: The ACME exploding phony Texas ANG records which carried you right off into the nearest canyon. The ACME Giant Slingshot Valerie Plame Scandal which failed to deploy, but splattered your credibility into the side of the nearest mesa. Then, in frustration and anger, you ordered up the ACME SECRET PRISONS and the ACME SECRET EAVESDROPPING Phony Double-Decker 400 Megaton Nookyular Device package…and now, having really, really stuck your collective necks out, are about to ride it down a very,very deep canyon, where only a big “poof” will be visible from above. I’d be worried about you, but you’re only cartoon characters, and will thus climb angrily back up, blackened and smoking, for another lame try. BTW, have you seen the latest Wilson/Plame photo? Apparently they’re being held in one of the secret prisons, and Valerie is only allowed to pose for the press wearing pajamas and bunny slippers…Joe looks worried. <a href=“http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2005/people/5.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2005/people/5.html</a></p>
<p>Well, I’m back off for more decorating, shopping, celebrating, caroling, and good deeds. Just wanted to check in on Dementia Central—cheer up, it’s the holiday season. Merry Christmas to all, and those offended by Merry Christmas, substitute Fitzmas, and don’t forget to check out the Cavalcade of Bad Nativity Displays----someone call the ACLU! <a href=“http://www.goingjesus.com/cavalcade1.shtml[/url]”>http://www.goingjesus.com/cavalcade1.shtml</a>
All the best,
Driver and family</p>
<p>It’s not ok that Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans. In my opinion, it’s among the most shameful actions our government has ever taken. In my case it has nothing to do with a “liberal agenda”. What this president has done time and time again since 9-11 is authorize actions that go against many of the fundamental premises our nation is founded upon. In a nation that purports itself to be above all others in terms of our respect for freedom, I am appalled by a president who so callously violates the basic freedoms of its citizens as well as those who we imprisoned. If another government treated American citizens the way we have treated detainees and those held at Abu Graib the outrage and indignation woud echo around the world. The arrogant hypocricy with which this administration conducts itself is in my opinion an embarrassment to our nation.</p>
<p>Well said Kluge and wharfrat.</p>
<p>
Spoken like a true Gestapo officer. Or maybe KGB. </p>
<p>We are not fighting Islamists so that we can become an autocratic security state run on social principles rooted in religious dogma. </p>
<p>Well…maybe FundingFather is, me and mine aren’t.</p>
<p>Well said, Wharfrat. Bandit, I personally think that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was worse than anything (that I know of) that GWB has done. I am definitely concerned about that precedent - is that where you think we’re headed next? The interesting point is that the exact same justification was given for that action as is being pushed by knee-jerk righties now - and it had no more actual validity then than it does now. If you scare people enough they lose sight of the necessary balance between freedom and security, and will support virtually any excess which seems even plausibly related to protecting themselves against the boogieman. Many nations have gone down that road, to their ultimate disgrace and peril. I don’t want to see the US be the next one to do so. But if true patriots don’t push back at the excesses of those in power there’s nothing to keep us from slipping into that abyss. There’s nothing “liberal” or “conservative” about it.</p>
<p>My point is simply, don’t trot out the gloom and doom just when it serves your larger purpose, to undermine the current administration. If Executive Orders are a problem now, they should have been a problem way before now. There are far greater issues in the Executive Orders that I listed than listening to phone calls.</p>
<p>For what its worth, innocent people ARE experiencing bad things. You can start with this:
<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1218-23.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1218-23.htm</a></p>
<p>This is NOT the first account of an aggredious rendition. And what makes this story unique may simply be the fact that the captors eventually realized that they had the wrong man and released him after 5 months. What about the people who are still being held? or perhaps who have already died in custody, in a system that provides no way of accounting for deaths. </p>
<p>It also needs to be remembered that there around a dozen publicly reported and confirmed cases of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq dying as a result of interrogation techniques used while they were in US military custody- from suffocation, beating, or hypothermia. At least the military has to account for bodies. Secret jailers in secret prisons don’t. </p>
<p>This is fascism, pure and simple.</p>
<p>That there are people who support such acts in the name of patriotism doesn’t surprise me at all. That’s basically the playbook for fascism. </p>
<p>The reason we have a constitution and laws is because we need them, always – and more in times of “war” than ever.</p>
<p>Bandit, you’re guilty of something that I’m getting increasingly annoyed with: those who think some of us attack the policy because we hate Bush. Wrong. We attack Bush because we hate the policy. </p>
<p>And it’s amazing that supporters of this administration never seem to think that these powers they’re fighting for might accrue to someone with whom they don’t agree. I dunno, perhaps they’ve been promised a 1,000-year Republican Reich. I suppose these powers would be useful, in the name of state security, of course, for determining who owns what weapons…so I guess <em>some</em> good could come of it.</p>
<p>CalMom, they just didn’t release him, they dumped him on a mountainside with no money or papers. But “Oopsies!” are just the cost we have to pay. And everyone else, too. And others have to conform to our rules of the game but we can do anything we want. Check.</p>
<p>“When innocent people start to experience bad things then it is time to reassess. Until then these slippery slope arguments in the face of a very realistic threat are just silly.”</p>
<p>Remember, it could be a FELONY (under the Patriot Act) for them to tell you about it if they do.</p>
<p>banditTX said: “My point is simply, don’t trot out the gloom and doom just when it serves your larger purpose, to undermine the current administration.”</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</p>
<p>Seems to me that all this administration has been doing is trotting out the gloom and doom since 9/11, using the gloomiest, doomiest scenarios to undermine public confidence, security and faith, not to mention the surplus, and then to justify every egregious act they’ve committed in the past four years. </p>
<p>Hello, Kettle?
This is Pot.
You’re black!</p>
<p>Sorry, back to the regular programming.</p>
<p>U.S.C. 18, Section 1809. Criminal sanctions </p>
<pre><code>(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law
except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law
by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that
the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not
authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this
section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative
officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the
electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to
a search warrant or court order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years,
or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section
if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of
the United States at the time the offense was committed.
</code></pre>