Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace: raison d'etat would cover claims of over-riding "security" interests.
what i mean is straightforward: i think the administration is in significant legal trouble because they chose to ignore fisa.
i think their central claim regarding the law itself is worthless.
but i think they could have a defensible position of "national security" on the basis of the first patriot act--if they pursued the warantless wiretaps after the 2nd, however, they are fucked.
this assuming that a case went to court and received treatment that you or i might get and not the treatment meted out by far right judges who owe their jobs to the administration.
at any rate, that's all hypothetical.
so maybe there are fewer than the 3,000 violations cited in the critique of the bush administration i quoted earlier.
as for your absurd charge that "the left"--what the fuck is that?--takes no stand on principle and only "hates bush"--that, sir, was even less worth the time it took to type than most other elements. you want the principles?
the bush administration has used the general hysteria that followed 9/11/2001 for its own political purposes since the afternoon of that day.
i oppose everything they have done.
all of it.
"principle" style statements:
there is no terrorism.
there is no war on "terrorism".
there is no "nation"
there is no democracy in america to be exported.
what there is is an administration with a dangerously authoritarian outlook presiding over a socio-economic order that is rapidly sliding into decadance, irrelevance, collapse. nothing the bush people have done offers even the beginnings of a coherent assessment of the situation, not to mention a coherent response to that situation.
so there is no place within the discourse were are collectively hobbled with that allows for anything like a "stand on principle."
the stand on principle is the refusal to accept this limited and limiting state of affairs.
so from my viewpoint, ace, your "principled positions" are nothing of the sort.
this is one of the reasons i do not interact with you in general .
i think that a wise position, and i am returning to it now.
|
The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning, from my point of view, (similar to many others as well) is you give a reason why you don't interact with me in general, yet you interact with me and then you have the need to tell me why you don't interact with me, in general of course. I don't understand that. If I don't interact with someone, I don't interact with them, period.
So people on the left are constantly complaining about Bush, yet do nothing. You and others seem to think this issue is such a clear violation of the law and an abuse of power, yet nothing happens. If I thought what you and others thought, I would work tirelessly to do something to correct the situation. All we get from the left is talk. You either believe what you say and act on it, or the talk is just "blowing smoke".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm afraid the only thing simple here is naiveté.
|
True, I have never been the subject of illegal government spying where the government tried to damage my life. I don't know what that is like. But, I take it that you do, so I will read on.
Quote:
|
How have I been harmed? Maybe I should put you in the shoes of those being monitored. I'[m assuming you live in a house of some kind, and that you didn't build that house yourself. Let's say that before you moved into or were born into your home, cameras were installed everywhere: kitchen, living-room, bathroom, shower, bedroom. Let's say someone has access to everything on that camera, and decides to spy on you and your family, without knowledge and permission. Let's say that you find online sex tapes and shower tapes of you and your SO. That's an invasion of privacy, and it's wrong.
|
Those cameras placed in my home, the intrusion of my privacy, and tapes posted online would be my damages. I would have to investigate to determine who was responsible in order to take action against them. I am with you so far.
Quote:
|
Now imagine that private conversations that you have, not intended to be heard by anyone but you and the other person on the phone, are being listened to by the government who is just looking for any small sign of something. Let's say that, over the phone, I say "the president should be tried for murder and sentenced to life in prison" or "I wish Bush could live a day in Bagdad". Nothing illegal about that, but you get put on a potential terrorist list because of your assertions.
|
I have heard about innocent people incorrectly put on lists and incorrectly being suspected of crimes. Normally those people have legal recourse and can present evidence of innocence.
Quote:
|
I don't belong on any lists, and I won't be on any lists. I love my country, and the idea that I can be considered a potential enemy because I think the president is a dolt is outrageous and my phone being tapped is a personal injury. If I'm being monitored, I'm being harmed.
|
I agree. We have gotten to the harm part. I wonder whats next, I'll read on.
Quote:
|
He authorized it. He's responsible.
|
I am still with you.
Quote:
|
Like the intent of Iraq was liberation?
|
Ohhh. You lost me, here. The intent of Iraq was to kick Sadaam's a$$, and then to use Iraq as the front in the war on terrorists.
Quote:
|
How about they serve you a big steaming pile of bullshit and call it apple pie? They earn my trust. They don't just get it for free like you.
|
Now, not only am I lost, but i think you insulted me, but I am not sure.