Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same As Bush: Lying Corporatist, Stealing Our Bill of Rights - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 06-23-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Could you summarize your views on telecom immunity really quickly? I would assume that it's simply "they were helping to find terrorists" or something.

1) The buck stops with Bush. If the law was broken he should be held accountable.
2) Telecoms acted in good faith.
3) It is reasonable to review phone records involving calls to/from known terrorists.
4) No evidence was produced showing anyone was actually damaged.
5) The litigation would be excessively costly with class action lawsuits.
6) The only real winners would be trial attorneys.
7) The costs of litigation would be passed on to American consumers.
8) US telecoms are already behind international competition, litigation would divert resources from investment.
9) The original legislation lacked clarity.
10) I would have done the same as Bush, given the circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I predict ace's response will be about justifying amnesty because continued litigation will only be about windfall profits for "trial lawyers", and those lawyers contribute to democrats, so.....

Wow, amazing. But, you were involved in many of the threads were we went back and forth on this.

Wanna predict what I am going to say when Obama, as President, is going to commit to troops in Iraq through his entire first term?

host · 06-23-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

1) The buck stops with Bush. If the law was broken he should be held accountable.
2) Telecoms acted in good faith.
3) It is reasonable to review phone records involving calls to/from known terrorists.
4) No evidence was produced showing anyone was actually damaged.
5) The litigation would be excessively costly with class action lawsuits.
6) The only real winners would be trial attorneys.
7) The costs of litigation would be passed on to American consumers.
8) US telecoms are already behind international competition, litigation would divert resources from investment.
9) The original legislation lacked clarity.
10) I would have done the same as Bush, given the circumstances.

Wow, amazing. But, you were involved in many of the threads were we went back and forth on this.

Wanna predict what I am going to say when Obama, as President, is going to commit to troops in Iraq through his entire first term?

Do you think "the terrorists" have been busy enough, in one recent year, to justify this level of "monitoring"?

Quote:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...l#previouspost
FBI Recorded 27 Million FISA 'Sessions' in 2006
By Ryan Singel EmailDecember 19, 2007 | 7:36:32 PMCategories: Privacy, Sunshine and Secrecy

At the end of 2006, the FBI's Telecommunications Intercept and Collection Technology Unit compiled an end-of-the-year report touting its accomplishments to management, a report that was recently unearthed via an open government request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Strikingly, the report said that the FBI's software for recording telephone surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists intercepted 27,728,675 sessions.

Twenty-seven million is a staggering number given that the FBI only got 2,176 FISA court orders http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2006rept.pdf in 2006 from a secret spy court using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

According to the math that means each court order resulted in 12,742 "sessions," all in regards to phone, not internet, surveillance.

FISA watchers have long wondered whether FISA warrants covered more than one person. Knowing how many calls or text messages the FBI captured could add a piece to the puzzle.

Unfortunately, nothing in the documents turned over yet to the Electronic Frontier Foundation explain what a session is. ...

The only reason we even know the limited info above, ace, is because of the litigation attempted against the telecomms. Are you incurious and trusting of your government, or indifferent about vigilance over the status of your rights, the respect the government demonstrates, in how it recognizes and preserves them? Why would you defer to the government....what is up with that? When did the earn your trust, or do you consider whether they earn it, or not?

ace, the buck does not "stop with Bush". The telecomms broke the law, as it existed at the time. The government has also broken the law, but different law.... the telecomms and the government had different obligations and exposure, under the law, because, in 1986, congress envisioned that the government would attempt to get information from telecomms without following the law.

People have been damaged....what is your right to be "secure in your papers...in your hone", worth to you, ace...do you value that right at all? "Secure" refers "unwarranted" government intrusion.... hence the term, "unwarranted"...without the legally required warrants....law in force at the time of the lawbreaking, unless a reasonable expectation that a massive data mining "Op", circa 2005, was justified by an "emergency level", threat to our domestic security. the telecomms are not even trying to assert that in court, as a defense....

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...165_nsa13.html
Telecoms may face trouble over phone records

By Seattle Times news services

Former Qwest Chairman and CEO Joseph Nacchio

WASHINGTON — Phone companies that shared their call records with the government may have violated federal law and could be on the hook for billions of dollars in civil liability, some of the nation's top experts in telecommunications law said Friday.

That's because Congress made it illegal 20 years ago for telephone companies and computer-service providers to turn over to the government records showing who their customers had dialed or e-mailed.

The information in those records enables U.S. intelligence agencies to track who calls whom and when, but does not include the contents of conversations.

Quote:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...-spy-cour.html
Secret Spy Court Repeatedly Questions FBI Wiretap Network
By Ryan Singel EmailJune 11, 2008 | 3:13:54 PMCategories: Surveillance

Does the FBI track cellphone users' physical movements without a warrant? Does the Bureau store recordings of innocent Americans caught up in wiretaps in a searchable database? Does the FBI's wiretap equipment store information like voicemail passwords and bank account numbers without legal authorization to do so?

That's what the nation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wanted to know, in a series of secret inquiries in 2005 and 2006 into the bureau's counterterrorism electronic surveillance efforts, revealed for the first time in newly declassified documents.

The inquires are the first publicly known questioning of the FBI's post-9/11 surveillance activities by the secret court, which has historically approved nearly every wiretap application submitted to it. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...-approved.html The court handles surveillance requests in counterterrorism and foreign espionage investigations. The inquiries add to questions surrounding how the FBI has used the broad powers handed to it by Congress in the 2001 USA Patriot Act, including the FBI's admitted abuse http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...suses_und.html of so-called National Security Letters to get stored telephone and financial records.

Among other things, the declassified documents reveal that lawyers in the FBI's Office of General Counsel and the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review queried FBI technology officials in late July 2006 about cellphone tracking. The attorneys asked whether the FBI was obtaining and storing real-time cellphone-location data from carriers under a "pen register" court order that's normally limited to records of who a person called or was called by.

The internal inquiry seems to have preceded, and was likely prompted by, a secret court hearing on the matter days later. Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the documents suggest that the nation's spy court shares the reluctance of federal criminal courts to turn everyday cellphones into tracking devices, in the absence of evidence that the target has done something wrong.

"I hope that this signals that the FISC, like many magistrate judges that handle law enforcement surveillance requests, is growing skeptical of the government's authority to conduct real-time cellphone tracking without probable cause," says Bankston.

In criminal cases, the government's attempts to get cellphone-tracking data without probable cause to believe the target has committed a crime were denied several times in 2005 by federal judges in New York and Texas.

According to the documents, which the EFF obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, an FBI general counsel lawyer asked on July 21, 2006: "Can we at the collection end tell the equipment NOT to receive the cell site location information?"

The lawyer added a note of concern that phone companies might be sending along cell-site data even when they aren't asked for it. "Do we get it all or can we, when required, tell the equipment to not collect the cell-site location data?," the lawyer asked.

Separately, the secret court questioned if the FBI was using pen register orders to collect digits dialed after a call is made, potentially including voicemail passwords and account numbers entered into bank-by-phone applications.

Using a pen register order, the FBI can force a phone company to turn over records of who a person calls, or is called by, simply by asserting the information would be relevant to an investigation. But existing case law holds that those so-called "post-cut-through dialed digits" count as the content of a communication, and thus to collect that information, the FBI would need to get a full-blown wiretapping warrant based on probable cause.

The FBI's encrypted wiretapping backbone network, DCSNet, connects 37 FBI field offices, according to some documents. Other documents suggest the network now extends to 52 field offices, including locations in Alaska and Puerto Rico. This enhanced image is based on black-and-white FBI documents.
Colored photo-illustration: Frank Rodriguez

On August 7 2006, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly took the extraordinary step of ordering the FBI to report (.pdf) on how its sophisticated phone wiretapping system,http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/06.../0806_fisc.pdf known as Digital Collection System, handled those extra digits and whether it stored them in a centralized data-mining depository known as Telephone Application.

The documents (.pdf) http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/06...dd_survey1.pdf show that the majority of FBI offices surveyed internally were collecting that information without full-blown wiretap orders, especially in classified investigations. The documents also indicate that the information was being uploaded to the FBI's central repository for wiretap recordings and phone records, where analysts can data-mine the records for decades.

EFF's Bankston says it's clear that FBI offices had configured their digit-recording software, DCS 3000, to collect more than the law allows.....

The law doesn't make it illegal for the government to ask for such records. Rather, it makes it illegal for phone companies to divulge them.

"I would not want to be the general counsel of one of these phone companies," said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and a former Justice Department lawyer who has worked on electronic surveillance.

In the first legal action to result from the disclosure that the National Security Agency may have obtained the calling records of tens of millions of Americans, two New Jersey public-interest lawyers filed a suit Friday demanding up to $5 billion from telecommunications giant Verizon.

Verizon and the nation's other major phone companies — AT&T and BellSouth — have neither acknowledged nor denied that they voluntarily turned over millions of records of customers' everyday phone calls after the Sept. 11 attacks. On Friday, the three companies issued carefully worded statements declaring their commitment to protecting consumer privacy and operating within the law.

Meanwhile, the former head of another communications company said through his lawyer that he refused to participate because he thought the program was illegal.

Qwest, a Baby Bell serving 15 million customers in Washington and 13 other Western states, was approached in the fall of 2001 to permit government access to its phone records, according to the attorney for Joseph Nacchio, Qwest's chairman and CEO at the time.

Nacchio refused to turn over the records because the government had failed to obtain a warrant or cross other legal hurdles to obtain the data, according to the lawyer, Herbert Stern.

NSA "intrusion"

Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, the lawyers who filed the federal suit against Verizon on Friday, said they would consider filing suits against BellSouth and AT&T.

"This is almost certainly the largest single intrusion into American civil liberties ever committed by any U.S. administration," Afran said.

The suit seeks $1,000 in damages for each record improperly turned over to the NSA, or up to $5 billion in all. The law gives consumers the right to sue for violations of the act and allows them to recover a minimum of $1,000 for each violation.

"No warrants have been issued for the disclosure of such information, no suspicion of terrorist activity or other criminal activity has been alleged against the subscribers," the suit alleges.

Peter Swire, an Ohio State University law professor who was the Clinton administration's top adviser on privacy issues, said the 1986 Stored Communications Act forbids such a turnover to the government without a warrant or court order.

"If you've got 50 million people, that's potentially $50 billion," Swire said. "I can't figure out any defense here."

Few details were known about how the records program works or what useful information the NSA may have gleaned from the data.

Law narrowly defined

The law does allow phone companies to hand over records in emergencies, but that was defined very narrowly until recently. Disclosure was limited to cases in which the company "reasonably" believed there was an "immediate danger of death or serious physical injury" that disclosure might help prevent.

"If this was a program ongoing for several years, then it's hard to say that there was a continuing reasonable belief of immediate danger over the entire time," Kerr said on his Web log.

As part of its renewal of the Patriot Act in March, Congress softened the language to the point where new disclosures of phone records arguably might pass muster, Kerr said. Phone companies no longer have to have a "reasonable" belief that death or injury lurks, only a "good faith" belief. They also no longer have to believe that such a tragedy is "immediate."

The 1986 law was passed when cellphones and the Internet were emerging. Section 2702 of the law says these providers of "electronic communications ... shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity."

"It is simply illegal for a telephone company to turn over caller records without some form of legal process, such as a court order or a subpoena," said James Dempsey, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology in San Francisco.

The 1986 law "was Congress' effort to create a comprehensive privacy right and to apply it to all forms of electronic communications," said Dempsey, then a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

The legal situation

Both Kerr and Dempsey said it is hard to analyze the legal situation because neither the Bush administration nor any of the phone companies has explained the legal basis for divulging the records. Under the law as written, however, "it looks like the disclosure is not allowed," Kerr said.

"If they did not have a court order, this is clearly illegal," said Kate Martin, a lawyer and director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

A separate provision of the law says the FBI director may demand "billing records of a person" if the director "certifies in writing" that these records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." But Martin noted it applies only to the FBI, not the NSA. Moreover, it focuses on those linked to a criminal investigation.

Bush administration officials may have argued they faced a national emergency. Many Americans feared another terrorist attack within the United States, and officials were eager to quickly gather as much information as possible.

"You can see how they could say that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," Dempsey said. "I don't understand how that could serve as a 'good-faith' defense for years afterward."

Cynthetiq · 06-23-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, the buck does not "stop with Bush". The telecomms broke the law is it existed at the time. The government has also broken the law, but different law.... the telecomms and the government had different obligations and exposure, under the law, because, in 1986, congress envisioned that the government would attempt to get information from telecomms without following the law.

People have been damaged....what is your right to be "secure in your papers...in your hone", worth to you, ace...do you value that right at all? "Secure" refers "unwarranted" government intrusion.... hence the term, "unwarranted"...without the legally required warrants....law in force at the time of the lawbreaking, unless a reasonable expectation that a massive data mining "Op", circa 2005, was justified by an "emergency level", threat to our domestic security. the telecomms are not even trying to assert that in court, as a defense....

It's worth plenty. But to agree with ace is to state that class action lawyers will net me a bunch of coupons to use those same services again, while the lawyers get paid salaries and bonuses.

That doesn't sit well with me either, I'd rather it be fixed, with no worry of litigation resulting in dollar payouts or losses, since I get to pay for it in the end.

Willravel · 06-23-2008, 11:50 AM

Thank you for clarifying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

1) The buck stops with Bush. If the law was broken he should be held accountable.

I'm sorry, but that's not how criminal prosecution works. I'm sure you've heard of "aiding and abiding" charges, which specifically deal with those not who were directly responsible, but rather those who were complacent or assisted in the crime. Bypassing FISA woudl be Bush's crime, and the telecoms broke the law in that it is illegal under all jurisdictions for a private citizen or company to record calls in which one is not a party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

2) Telecoms acted in good faith.

This is much the same as above, with one addition. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Just as one cannot say "I didn't know it was illegal to steal from a 7-11" a national phone corporation with an army of lawyers cannot say "well the president said it'd be okay".

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

3) It is reasonable to review phone records involving calls to/from known terrorists.

So then you can prove conclusively that all phone records that were gathered as a part of this were "terrorist phone records"? Of course not. Besides, FISA is there to approve these kinds of domestic surveillance methods based on merit. Bypassing FISA was done because there was not enough merit to approve these wiretaps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

4) No evidence was produced showing anyone was actually damaged.

If they listened to amy of my phone conversations or read any of my emails, I was damaged. And you had better believe I'm on several government lists because of my outspoken beliefs. Anyone who had their emails read, phones taped, etc. were damaged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

5) The litigation would be excessively costly with class action lawsuits.

So is the litigation against Enron. Should those victims just quit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

6) The only real winners would be trial attorneys.

This is incorrect. Any victory would provide legal precedent to keep future telecoms from circumventing the law and invading the privacy of their customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

7) The costs of litigation would be passed on to American consumers.

Consumers? You mean tax payers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

8) US telecoms are already behind international competition, litigation would divert resources from investment.

This would be the free market punishing those who didn't act in the best interest of their customers. I'd think you would support that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

9) The original legislation lacked clarity.

You should actually go back and read FISA, just as I have. It's clear as a bell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

10) I would have done the same as Bush, given the circumstances.

This isn't a reason.

aceventura3 · 06-23-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm sorry, but that's not how criminal prosecution works. I'm sure you've heard of "aiding and abiding" charges, which specifically deal with those not who were directly responsible, but rather those who were complacent or assisted in the crime. Bypassing FISA woudl be Bush's crime, and the telecoms broke the law in that it is illegal under all jurisdictions for a private citizen or company to record calls in which one is not a party.

This is much the same as above, with one addition. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Just as one cannot say "I didn't know it was illegal to steal from a 7-11" a national phone corporation with an army of lawyers cannot say "well the president said it'd be okay".

People get immunity all the time for cooperating in criminal investigations. I say if we have a problem with the law being broken go after the person most responsible. And like I said I think the telecoms acted in good faith, I think they thought they were doing the "patriotic" thing at the time. I think they were told by the administration they they were acting within their interpretation of the law.

Quote:

So then you can prove conclusively that all phone records that were gathered as a part of this were "terrorist phone records"? Of course not. Besides, FISA is there to approve these kinds of domestic surveillance methods based on merit. Bypassing FISA was done because there was not enough merit to approve these wiretaps.

At some point if Bush abused the civil rights of citizens, why haven't we seen the evidence of this. Lawsuits for the point of "fishing" for something is a waste.

Quote:

If they listened to amy of my phone conversations or read any of my emails, I was damaged. And you had better believe I'm on several government lists because of my outspoken beliefs. Anyone who had their emails read, phones taped, etc. were damaged.

I doubt Bush and Chaney really care what you order on your pizza.

Quote:

So is the litigation against Enron. Should those victims just quit?

I think the investors in Enron should have been "sophisticated investors", not mom and pop investors. To the degree that Enron execs were in violation of the law, they should be held accountable. I think they were. Nobody is going to be made whole from losses.

Quote:

This is incorrect. Any victory would provide legal precedent to keep future telecoms from circumventing the law and invading the privacy of their customers.

We will never have the exact same situation in the future. Plus the problem was in the lack of clarity in the existing law.

Quote:

Consumers? You mean tax payers?

Possibly both, but I meant consumers.

Quote:

This would be the free market punishing those who didn't act in the best interest of their customers. I'd think you would support that.

My interest is in finding and defeating terrorists. If I was communicating with terrorists, I would expect to be monitored. I expect what I write here is monitored. I expect that if I piss the wrong people off...

Quote:

You should actually go back and read FISA, just as I have. It's clear as a bell.

This isn't a reason.

The issue is when there is conflict with FISA and other legislation. I think Bush used war authority to defend his actions. Congress authorizing the use of military force, etc, was pretty open ended, don't you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Do you think "the terrorists" have been busy enough, in one recent year, to justify this level of "monitoring"?

Yes.

Keep in mind there is raw data and then there is usable data. I think your point here also supports the notion that we don't have intelligence people sitting around listening to my calls to my wife.

Willravel · 06-23-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

People get immunity all the time for cooperating in criminal investigations. I say if we have a problem with the law being broken go after the person most responsible. And like I said I think the telecoms acted in good faith, I think they thought they were doing the "patriotic" thing at the time. I think they were told by the administration they they were acting within their interpretation of the law.

So you're saying they're not guilty because if they were prosecuted they might turn on Bush to get immunity? I don't think there is any way to respond to something like that other than to say I expect a lot more from someone so seemingly certain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

At some point if Bush abused the civil rights of citizens, why haven't we seen the evidence of this. Lawsuits for the point of "fishing" for something is a waste.

The evidence was him admitting he bypassed FISA. As soon as he didn't use a warrant to eavesdrop, he was breaching civil rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I doubt Bush and Chaney really care what you order on your pizza.

They probably care when I instant message my Iranian friend who lives in Lebanon. They definitely care that I was very close to an Iraqi family up until they had to flee to Syria in late 2005, and spoke to them on the phone at least once a month until their power finally went down for good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the investors in Enron should have been "sophisticated investors", not mom and pop investors.

What was done was illegal, and took advantage of not just "mom and pop"s buy savy investors, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We will never have the exact same situation in the future. Plus the problem was in the lack of clarity in the existing law.

We will, in fact, likely have the same situation again because nothing was done to legislate it in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My interest is in finding and defeating terrorists. If I was communicating with terrorists, I would expect to be monitored. I expect what I write here is monitored. I expect that if I piss the wrong people off...

What we're writing now is public. My conversation with Omeed is private. Unless they have a legal warrant, they have no right to listen to my phone conversations. As for communicating with terrorists, there's no such thing as a "terrorist". There are militant extremists who utilize guerrilla tactics. "Terrorist" doesn't have any real meaning.

If they had the evidence to demonstrate that one or more parties was a "terrorist", they could have EASILY gotten a warrant from FISA, which in it's history has turned down less than 5 requests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The issue is when there is conflict with FISA and other legislation. I think Bush used war authority to defend his actions. Congress authorizing the use of military force, etc, was pretty open ended, don't you agree?

We're not at war, therefore war authority cannot be invoked. War authority only can be claimed between the time congress has declares war and the time the war ends. The war ended in 2003.

roachboy · 06-23-2008, 02:23 PM

the way the telephone surveillance thing works, ace, is by way of a fairly crude oracle data-mining system that operates off of keywords. so if you were talking to your wife and used some of the keywords, chances are that your conversations would be monitored. who knows what these parameters are? if there's no fixed definition of "terrorist" they could be anything.
if the parameters were fixed early in this lovely period of soft authoritarian rule, during which there was no particular distinction between those who opposed the bush administration politically and "terrorist" then they could be most anything.

so it is entirely possible that you--or any of us---could have been or are being monitored.

but then again, maybe not.
it's just like that.
if you exclude questions of principle--which you do--that's what you're left with.

======================

it seems to me that the crux of your argument is: you are quite sure that the "terrorist" is a coherent category because whatever it may mean, it doesn't mean you.

this is the reverse side of your assumption of "good faith" everywhere amongst those who you support politically---which is, in turn, the reverse of your assumption of "bad faith" everywhere amongst those whom you do not support politically.

this may cut to a premise-level disagreement: speaking for myself, i never found *anything* compelling or even coherent about the bush people's notion of "the terrorist"....apparently, you imagine that term to have a meaning.

it is obvious that most of the folk who have a Problem with the wire-tapping actions also have at the least doubts about the coherence of the notion of "terrorism"...

if this is accurate, then all we are "arguing" about the theological question of whether you believe in the mystical power of the "terrorist" to be many and one, everywhere and nowhere and to redeem the republicans from certain disaster, all at the same time. if the center of your support for the bush people was "national security" then it would follow that for you fear of an Enemy is a central motivation for your politics.

i don't think there is an Enemy.
i think there are legions who oppose the united states for political reasons, and who often have every justification for doing so as a function of the various policy choices which have enabled the "amurican way of life" to metastasize as it has over the past 30 years.
you no doubt do not share this view.

this may lead to another underlying matter of whether you can relativize the "amurican way of life" or not, whether you can see it as an outcome of systems which are not rational in the main or whether you see it in the way you see the chair you sit on, as necessary and inevitable and given because your ass is in it.

reversed: the "amurican way of life" is necessary because it's given, or its a result of larger-scale choices that have particular outcomes, intentional and not, good and not, and so is something that can be thought about as a problem and not simply accepted as given.

but if this is the differend, there really is no debate happening.

Willravel · 06-23-2008, 02:29 PM

Who was it that said "our enemies are never as evil as we think they are" or something like that? It keeps popping into my mind.

aceventura3 · 06-23-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So you're saying they're not guilty because if they were prosecuted they might turn on Bush to get immunity? I don't think there is any way to respond to something like that other than to say I expect a lot more from someone so seemingly certain.

The evidence was him admitting he bypassed FISA. As soon as he didn't use a warrant to eavesdrop, he was breaching civil rights.

They probably care when I instant message my Iranian friend who lives in Lebanon. They definitely care that I was very close to an Iraqi family up until they had to flee to Syria in late 2005, and spoke to them on the phone at least once a month until their power finally went down for good.

What was done was illegal, and took advantage of not just "mom and pop"s buy savy investors, too.

We will, in fact, likely have the same situation again because nothing was done to legislate it in the future.

What we're writing now is public. My conversation with Omeed is private. Unless they have a legal warrant, they have no right to listen to my phone conversations. As for communicating with terrorists, there's no such thing as a "terrorist". There are militant extremists who utilize guerrilla tactics. "Terrorist" doesn't have any real meaning.

If they had the evidence to demonstrate that one or more parties was a "terrorist", they could have EASILY gotten a warrant from FISA, which in it's history has turned down less than 5 requests.

We're not at war, therefore war authority cannot be invoked. War authority only can be claimed between the time congress has declares war and the time the war ends. The war ended in 2003.

You don't think we are at war, I understand that, but the Administration does think we are at war. The argument they used was on that basis. Those who think Bush violated the law and abused his authority should challenge that in court. Going after the telecoms is a red herring in my view. For some reason Democrats won't challenge Bush on this issue. Us going back and forth is merely an excercise in futility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the way the telephone surveillance thing works, ace, is by way of a fairly crude oracle data-mining system that operates off of keywords.

Yea, I saw that in a movie about 10 years ago. Think they made any updates ?

Quote:

so it is entirely possible that you--or any of us---could have been or are being monitored.

Yea, I once did a thought experiment on how my activities could be tracked (i.e. credit cards used, going to gym, using the internet, traffic cameras, etc.) during a one week period. It was amazing to me how easily someone could reconstruct my life that week, I can imagine if "they" actually tried to track me.

Quote:

======================

it seems to me that the crux of your argument is: you are quite sure that the "terrorist" is a coherent category because whatever it may mean, it doesn't mean you.

Even paranoid people have enemies, I saw something like that on a bumper sticker. "They" are il defined but "they" are real. In fact if you as some - our presence in Iraq caused more of "them" to exist - at least I think that is how the logic goes..

Quote:

this is the reverse side of your assumption of "good faith" everywhere amongst those who you support politically---which is, in turn, the reverse of your assumption of "bad faith" everywhere amongst those whom you do not support politically.

True, I could not of said it better. Problem is that I am usually right. Sorry, my ego again. I think I will do some research on my ego, I bet there is a pattern - a certain time of day or a moon cycle or something when it gets out of control.

Quote:

this may cut to a premise-level disagreement: speaking for myself, i never found *anything* compelling or even coherent about the bush people's notion of "the terrorist"....apparently, you imagine that term to have a meaning.

Perhaps it is the "police" action philosophy vs. being at war that is the root of our differences. We have clearly been the victim of terrorist, don't you agree?

Quote:

it is obvious that most of the folk who have a Problem with the wire-tapping actions also have at the least doubts about the coherence of the notion of "terrorism"...

if this is accurate, then all we are "arguing" about the theological question of whether you believe in the mystical power of the "terrorist" to be many and one, everywhere and nowhere and to redeem the republicans from certain disaster, all at the same time. if the center of your support for the bush people was "national security" then it would follow that for you fear of an Enemy is a central motivation for your politics.

i don't think there is an Enemy.
i think there are legions who oppose the united states for political reasons, and who often have every justification for doing so as a function of the various policy choices which have enabled the "amurican way of life" to metastasize as it has over the past 30 years.
you no doubt do not share this view.

this may lead to another underlying matter of whether you can relativize the "amurican way of life" or not, whether you can see it as an outcome of systems which are not rational in the main or whether you see it in the way you see the chair you sit on, as necessary and inevitable and given because your ass is in it.

reversed: the "amurican way of life" is necessary because it's given, or its a result of larger-scale choices that have particular outcomes, intentional and not, good and not, and so is something that can be thought about as a problem and not simply accepted as given.

but if this is the differend, there really is no debate happening.

I think, again, you describe the root of our differences. I do have a better understanding now. We will forever disagree because of our root difference in point of view.

Thanks for adding clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Who was it that said "our enemies are never as evil as we think they are" or something like that? It keeps popping into my mind.

Perhaps that is true most of the time. What about when it isn't, what do you do then? I will error on the side of - it ain't good to be our enemy and that our enemy needs to believe we ain't as evil as they think we are.

Yes, I know the above is full of moral problems and that I should be more evolved, etc, etc. But again, I am being honest with you, even though it makes me appear heartless. I really do have a heart, and my friends and family know I would sacrifice almost anything for them.

host · 06-23-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You don't think we are at war, I understand that, but the Administration does think we are at war. The argument they used was on that basis. Those who think Bush violated the law and abused his authority should challenge that in court. Going after the telecoms is a red herring in my view. For some reason Democrats won't challenge Bush on this issue. Us going back and forth is merely an excercise in futility.

Yea, I saw that in a movie about 10 years ago. Think they made any updates ?

Yea, I once did a thought experiment on how my activities could be tracked (i.e. credit cards used, going to gym, using the internet, traffic cameras, etc.) during a one week period. It was amazing to me how easily someone could reconstruct my life that week, I can imagine if "they" actually tried to track me.

Even paranoid people have enemies, I saw something like that on a bumper sticker. "They" are il defined but "they" are real. In fact if you as some - our presence in Iraq caused more of "them" to exist - at least I think that is how the logic goes..

True, I could not of said it better. Problem is that I am usually right. Sorry, my ego again. I think I will do some research on my ego, I bet there is a pattern - a certain time of day or a moon cycle or something when it gets out of control.

Perhaps it is the "police" action philosophy vs. being at war that is the root of our differences. We have clearly been the victim of terrorist, don't you agree?

I think, again, you describe the root of our differences. I do have a better understanding now. We will forever disagree because of our root difference in point of view.

Thanks for adding clarity.

ace, if I knew you in the 3D world, I'd be willing to bet....I'd give you 2 to 1 odds, in fact....that the first priority of this administration is to make you think "we are at war!".... lobbyist and McCain campaign aide, Charlie Black, explains why, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...98#post2473898 ......

Quote:

Last Updated: June 23, 2008: 2:59 PM EDT

....But we were asking McCain to rise above the news and look ahead to the day seven months from now when, he hopes, he'll be sitting in the Oval Office. We wanted to know what single economic threat he perceives above all others.
McCain at first says nothing. He sits in the corner of a sofa, one black, tasseled loafer propped against a coffee table. We're in the presidential suite on the 41st floor of the New York Hilton. McCain has come here - between a major speech on the economy in Washington, D.C., this morning and a fundraiser tonight at the 21 Club - to talk to us and to let us take his picture. He is wearing a dark suit, as he almost always does, with a blue shirt and a wine-colored tie. He's looking not at us but into the void. His eyes are narrowed. Nine seconds of silence, ten seconds, 11. Finally he says, "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

Not America's dependence on foreign oil? Not climate change? Not the crushing cost of health care? Eventually McCain gets around to mentioning all three of those. But he starts by deftly turning the economy into a national security issue - and why not? On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Absent that horror, however, the 2008 election will probably be a referendum on two issues that, according to every poll we've seen, trump national security in the minds of voters right now.

Willravel · 06-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You don't think we are at war, I understand that, but the Administration does think we are at war.

They can think I'm made entirely of butterscotch for all I care, we are not at war. The declaration of war was made by a vote of congress and the war was over May 1, 2003 as declared by George W. Bush on the USS Lincoln. If the war wasn't supposed to be over then, he shouldn't have said it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Those who think Bush violated the law and abused his authority should challenge that in court.

No one has the list, so no one knows who has been victimized. As soon as the list is made available, those on the list can file charges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Going after the telecoms is a red herring in my view.

I'm sure if your wife was raped and one of his buddies photographed it, you'd want the rapist AND the photographer. And if I had the audacity to call it a red herring, I hope you'd deck me one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For some reason Democrats won't challenge Bush on this issue. Us going back and forth is merely an [exercise] in futility.

If that's your view, TFPolitics is futile. Did you think we came here to share opinions and gain knowledge or to file charges?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps that is true most of the time. What about when it isn't, what do you do then? I will error on the side of - it ain't good to be our enemy and that our enemy needs to believe we ain't as evil as they think we are.

Al quaeda isn't out to get me or you. The organization which has been labeled al Qaeda was out to take down the towers in order to make a statement. Iraqi insurgents aren't out to get me or you. They just want our troops out of their country. Who else is there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes, I know the above is full of moral problems and that I should be more evolved, etc, etc. But again, I am being honest with you, even though it makes me appear heartless. I really do have a heart, and my friends and family know I would sacrifice almost anything for them.

I'd sacrifice anything for a stranger, but moreover, I'd sacrifice myself for the sake of my 'enemy'. If it meant saving the life of someone who wants to kill me, I'd give my life. Why? Because, imho, if there were more people like that there would be no more wars and I lead by example.

Yes, I'd take a bullet for George W. Bush knowing full well the consequences.

aceventura3 · 06-24-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, if I knew you in the 3D world, I'd be willing to bet....I'd give you 2 to 1 odds, in fact....that the first priority of this administration is to make you think "we are at war!".... lobbyist and McCain campaign aide, Charlie Black, explains why, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...98#post2473898 ......

Well, they are failing if their number one priority is to make "you" think we are at war. They succeeded if their number one priority is to make "me" think we are at war.

I am going to make it even worse. I thought we were at war before Bush was even elected President. In my view we were in an undeclared (on our part) war. Our enemy decared war on us and attacked us many times before our Congress authorized our Commander in Chief to use military force. It seem you have a text book view of war, where wars a formerly declared, with declarations, typed double spaced, in triplicate - everyone wears nice neat uniforms and carry well defined national flags. Some wars don't fall into those nice little text book versions of what you may think a war is.

Willravel · 06-24-2008, 09:28 AM

Legally, we're not at war. We were at war with the Iraqi government, but they were defeated and victory was proclaimed. Now? We're at war with "terrorists" (which is a blanket term for anyone who fights against us). You can't actually declare war against "terrorists", though. Without a properly defined enemy, there is no war, and as such the US is not currently at war and as such there is no war time authority.

Or would you like war time authority to be extended to the war on illiteracy and the war on crime? Because there is no difference between the war on crime and the war on terrorism so far as the law is concerned.

host · 06-24-2008, 10:41 AM

I highlighted this in post #19 on this thread, but...the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that, if I had posted a defense of the non-amnesty part of the bill passed in the house, last friday, the following criticism of the bill would be a key point for me to hone in on, if I was serious about supporting my opinion that the bill is, "not that bad":

Quote:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/g...l-part-ii.html
Sunday, June 22, 2008

A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part II

Guest Blogger

David Kris

....It is interesting to compare the pending legislation to the TSP as it may have been implemented just prior to, and just after, the January 2007 FISA Court orders. There appear to be two main differences. First, the pending legislation applies only to targets located abroad, while the January 2007 orders may have allowed surveillance of targets in the U.S. (as long as they were making international calls). Second, more importantly, the pending legislation focuses only on the target’s location (or the government’s reasonable belief about his location) not his status or conduct as a terrorist or agent of a foreign power. In other words, there is no requirement that anyone – the FISA Court or the NSA – find probable cause that the target is a terrorist or a spy before (or after) commencing surveillance....

So, what about it....dc_dux, I'm asking you because you probably know how to quickly compare this outrageous revision to the language in the recently passed senate bill, the bill the house passed before this one, and to the bill last August that became law for a year and will soon sunset. Is this a new loophole, put in this bill, that works to make the government free from having to justify any elements of probable cause to conduct it's surveillance?

Obama, at least his spokesperson, today....and the house leadership, are not lowering my level of concern:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...yer/index.html

UPDATE: I know I made this point earlier this week but I want to highlight it again to give context to Steny Hoyer's mentality. Fox News released a new poll (.pdf) earlier this week and look at what it found:

The Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats. I really wonder if this is the first time in modern American history when a Congress is more popular among the opposition party than among the party that putatively controls it. And this was taken before the FISA vote, so Hoyer's Congress is certain to become even more popular among the GOP....

....It also doesn't require warrants when the target is "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. and communicating with someone inside the U.S. The Government can tap into U.S. phone and email networks for the first time with no warrants of any kind.

How odd to see The Washington Times, National Review, and the far-right of the GOP celebrating a "great victory for the Democratic Party." I wonder why they're so happy about such a great Democratic accomplishment.

It still remains to be seen what Barack Obama will do. I was just on a conference call with Obama foreign policy advisor Dennis McDonough. The Huffington Post's Scott Bellows asked about Obama's abandonment of his rhetoric vowing to defend the Constitution in order to support this bill, and McDonough adopted the Hoyer line, claiming that this bill has all sorts of great oversight protections including the requirement that the Inspector General submit a report on Bush's spying program (audio is here). That's what now passes for oversight in our Government -- the Executive branch investigates itself when it comes to allegations of criminality. Whatever else is true, there's just no getting around the fact that Obama -- when seeking the nomination -- vowed to support a filibuster of any bill that contains telecom immunity, and his failure to do that here will be a patent breach of that commitment. There's still time for him to adhere to that promise.

...UPDATE III: Barack Obama, trying to be the Democratic nominee, in November, 2007 (h/t C_O):

Barack Obama just unleashed a corker of a speech that had students here at Converse College on their feet and cheering. . . . One of his most passionate passages was not in the prepared text. He promised to close down Guantanamo "because we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them. We will restore habeas corpus. We are not a nation that undermines our civil liberties. We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants."

Barack Obama, with the Democratic nomination secured, last Friday speaking on the warrantless eavesdropping bill:

But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise . . . .

aceventura3 · 06-24-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Legally, we're not at war.

What does law have to do with war? Killing, destroying property, taking land and resource by force are all illegal. Declare war, and it all becomes legal???
This is based entirely on the laws the war makers make, the winner then becomes legally justified, right?

I would not kid myself into thinking a country or people could fight a "moral" war. Nor do I kid myself about our history, everything we enjoy in this country is the result of war. The result of our past countrymen, killing, destroying property, taking property and resources by force. Now we have people enjoying the benefits of war, who want to say war is just or unjust, good or bad, legal or illegal, needed or not needed. We live in a world where you fight or you die, you make war or you risk your life and liberty. As long as we have something someone else may want, war is inevitable. You are either at war or preparing for war. Let's stop pretending we live in a world different than that.

Willravel · 06-24-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What does law have to do with war?

When you're Bush, it doesn't. When you're a patriotic president who loves the constitution and doesn't hate America, you follow the rules of war. War was declared against the government of Iraq. They were beaten. We are not fighting them now. War is over, and we're in a "conflict" which is not a formally declared war.

We are not at war. We are not at war. We are not at war.

aceventura3 · 06-24-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

When you're Bush, it doesn't. When you're a patriotic president who loves the constitution and doesn't hate America, you follow the rules of war. War was declared against the government of Iraq. They were beaten. We are not fighting them now. War is over, and we're in a "conflict" which is not a formally declared war.

We are not at war. We are not at war. We are not at war.

Name a President or ruler of any country who you think followed the "rules of war".

Willravel · 06-24-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Name a President or ruler of any country who you think followed the "rules of war".

Red herring.

aceventura3 · 06-24-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Red herring.

You know it is a baited question. You know what kind of world we live in. You know war is a part of human nature. You know the "legality" of war is defined by the victor. You know leaders do what needs to be done to win wars. What are we actually debating - nothing.

Willravel · 06-24-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You know it is a baited question. You know what kind of world we live in. You know war is a part of human nature. You know the "legality" of war is defined by the victor. You know leaders do what needs to be done to win wars. What are we actually debating - nothing.

"Human nature" is a gross simplification and misrepresentation of human behavioral systems. So simple, in fact, that it's entirely meaningless and devolves into basically an excuse to do things not considered civilized or moral. On top of that, it's a biblical term, which brings all of these ridiculous connotations that do nothing but distract from the topic at hand.

Regardless, without rules, wars will become uncontrollable. That's when the really bad stuff happens. Have you ever seen a woman raped, have her gentiles mutilated and then murdered after spending hours bleeding in agony? That happens. A lot. Perhaps you can attribute that to human nature, but I call it war crimes and I say that no victory is worth that.

aceventura3 · 06-24-2008, 04:06 PM

Here is what I know any question I ask will be a red herring, or you will simple avoid answering.

A wartime leader defines the behaviors of his troops. A leader by definition gives order where there would otherwise be chaos. War crimes are defined and upheld by the victor.

We are clearly at the base level of this issue, your comments about legality and war, rules of warfare, etc, indicates to me that if you were a wartime leader, you would be defeated.

Willravel · 06-24-2008, 04:13 PM

War crimes are defined by laws and conventions signed by the warring parties. In the case of the US, we've signed the Geneva Conventions and are legally obliged to follow those conventions to the letter whether we're at war or not.

If I were a wartime leader, you'd be screwed because I'm a pacifist. Still, there would be a decent chance of winning because I (unlike most wartime leaders) seek to understand why my enemy fights. Considering that every conflict that the US has been involved in since WWII has essentially been unnecessary, maybe we could use an ambassador instead of a warrior.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

"Human nature" is a gross simplification and misrepresentation of human behavioral systems. So simple, in fact, that it's entirely meaningless and devolves into basically an excuse to do things not considered civilized or moral. On top of that, it's a biblical term, which brings all of these ridiculous connotations that do nothing but distract from the topic at hand.

Regardless, without rules, wars will become uncontrollable. That's when the really bad stuff happens. Have you ever seen a woman raped, have her gentiles mutilated and then murdered after spending hours bleeding in agony? That happens. A lot. Perhaps you can attribute that to human nature, but I call it war crimes and I say that no victory is worth that.

thanks for the human nature thing... as you like to chime in that it's not a discussable point but yet it still seems to be a truism about humanity. Humans war. Humans like to hurt, maim, and kill other humans.

Controlled War?

how about more oxymorons like Jumbo Shrimp.

Waxing nostalgic about the honor of battle with lines of infantry is silly. War is war.

Quote:

Have you ever seen a woman raped, have her gentiles mutilated and then murdered after spending hours bleeding in agony?

What we're now talking about raping Jews and having her Shabbos househelp mutilated, tortured, and killed?

Since you asked the question.. have you?

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If I were a wartime leader, you'd be screwed because I'm a pacifist.

Here is another red herring, but I can't resist.

What is a pacifist?

I did look it up but I don't understand it. Since you are one, perhaps you can help.

Quote:

pac·i·fist
–noun
1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare conscientious objector.

pac·i·fism n.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

How does a pacifist think they can accomplish the elimination of war or violence as a means of resolving disputes?

How would violent crimes be addressed by pacifist?

I have a few other questions, but before I go through the effort we can start or end with these.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is another red herring, but I can't resist.

You asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What is a pacifist?

Someone who practices nonviolence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How does a pacifist think they can accomplish the elimination of war or violence as a means of resolving disputes?

Eliminating war is pretty difficult. Ending a war? That's possible. The nice thing about being nonviolent is that it's really difficult for your enemies to explain why they need to kill you. Had the British continued their occupation of India when Gandhi was at his peak popularity, there could have been riots back home. This can logically be extended to any violent conflict, including Iraq. If the US soldiers all left, they'd have no violent recourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How would violent crimes be addressed by pacifist?

Imagine we're at a bar having a beer and some guy stumbles into me, wasted to shit. He yells "Get out of the way". Normally, a person would reply. Me? I let him go on his way. Let's say someone breaks into my house when I'm home. I look down, calmly say "I've not seen your face, take what you like". He has no need to be violent against me.

dksuddeth · 06-25-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Eliminating war is pretty difficult. Ending a war? That's possible. The nice thing about being nonviolent is that it's really difficult for your enemies to explain why they need to kill you. Had the British continued their occupation of India when Gandhi was at his peak popularity, there could have been riots back home. This can logically be extended to any violent conflict, including Iraq. If the US soldiers all left, they'd have no violent recourse.

Do you know what happens when pacifists attempt to end wars?

Lots of them are murdered.

But back to the topic, could this be why the dems approved the new retro immunity?

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics...votes-on-fisa/

Quote:

In March, the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for telecoms that assisted the NSA in illegal wiretapping. Most of us have wondered what happened to change the minds of 94 Democrats. What happened between June 20 and March 14 to change 94 Democratic hearts and minds?
The answer might well be simple: money. Could it be that simple?

Here’s the bottom line:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems
of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint
during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). ( MAPLight.org)
Of course the average amount received is a bit misleading. A few of the very prominent Dems who changed their votes took a lot more than $8000. According to this website,
Nancy Pelosi [CA], Speaker of the House, allegedly received $24,500.
Steny Hoyer [MD] allegedly received $29,000.
James Clyburn [SC] allegedly received $29,500.
Rahm Emanuel [IL] allegedly received $28,000.
Frederick Boucher [VA] allegedly received $27,500.
Gregory Meeks [NY] allegedly received $26,000.

Democrats and Republicans.....not much difference really. yay for us.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Do you know what happens when pacifists attempt to end wars?

Lots of them are murdered.

But back to the topic, could this be why the dems approved the new retro immunity?

yep...

murdered...you can't predict what someone will do, even if they don't NEED to doesn't mean that they won't.

Nicole duFresne was murdered in my neighborhood.

Quote:

In the early morning hours of January 27th, 2005, duFresne, Sparks, Gibson and Nath were returning home from a night of celebratory drinking. DuFresne had just gotten a new interim job as a bartender at the Rockwood Music Hall. As the group was walking down bistro-lined Clinton St. on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, a group of five young men and two girls approached them. Rudy Fleming demanded money. Sparks pushed his way past, at which point Fleming swung with both hands, striking him across his left temple with a Taurus .357 magnum, which he had been holding pointed downward at the sidewalk. According to Sparks neither he nor anyone else in the group had realized that Fleming had a gun. Another robber, Servisio Simmons, reportedly said, "It doesn't have to be like this. My friend's buggin'. We just want the money."

Fleming took Gibson's purse and cell phone and gave them to the girls, Ashley Evans and Tatiana McDonald. duFresne turned to Sparks who was dazed and bleeding profusely from his left eye, asking if he was OK. He indicated that he was and said "Let's just go". Nath took Sparks by the arm and they ran away, north on Clinton toward Rivington. Gibson turned to follow.

One witness testified that duFresne confronted Fleming, pushing him. Another witness testified that it was Fleming, rather, who shoved duFresne, and that she never touched him. There was a consensus among witnesses that duFresne shouted "What are you still doing here? You got what you wanted. What are you going to do now, shoot us?" Fleming fired once at point blank range, the bullet striking duFresne in the chest and exiting through her back. From further up the block Sparks and Nath ran back, only to find duFresne on her back in the street. She died a few minutes later in Sparks's arms, as Gibson and Nath knelt beside them.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Do you know what happens when pacifists attempt to end wars?

Lots of them are murdered.

So when you have a gun or weapon of any kind, you're magically immune to death?

Coalition deaths in Iraq are now 4109. Wounded sits at about 30,333.
Coalition deaths in Afghanistan are now 788.

aceventura3 · 06-25-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You asked.

Thanks for answering my questions. I imagine it is difficult being a pacifist in a world filled with violence.

dksuddeth · 06-25-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So when you have a gun or weapon of any kind, you're magically immune to death?

Coalition deaths in Iraq are now 4109. Wounded sits at about 30,333.
Coalition deaths in Afghanistan are now 788.

no, but your odds of surviving go up dramatically when you're armed as compared to when you're unarmed.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Thanks for answering my questions. I imagine it is difficult being a pacifist in a world filled with violence.

The only difficult part for me was the transition from whatever I was before being a pacifist to being a pacifist. I had spent years in martial arts essentially learning how to beat people when I realized that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

no, but your odds of surviving go up dramatically when you're armed as compared to when you're unarmed.

I'll tell you what, show me a verifiable comparison between the history of nonviolent protest vs. violent protest measuring success compared to fatalities. Until then, your response is speculation at best.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The only difficult part for me was the transition from whatever I was before being a pacifist to being a pacifist. I had spent years in martial arts essentially learning how to beat people when I realized that I wasn't comfortable with the idea of violence.

I'll tell you what, show me a verifiable comparison between the history of nonviolent protest vs. violent protest measuring success compared to fatalities. Until then, your response is speculation at best.

Why don't we ask Tank Man how successful his pacifist protest has been? I'm sure he can speak ad naseum about how successful his protest was as there were zero fatalities.

Oh we can't. No one steps forward to admit being him. Claims of him being executed are speculated.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 10:45 AM

There's no evidence that he was executed. Anyone can pull a gun. It takes real bravery to stand in front of a tank. That guy is my fucking hero.

The_Jazz · 06-25-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

There's no evidence that he was executed. Anyone can pull a gun. It takes real bravery to stand in front of a tank. That guy is my fucking hero.

I've been to Tianamen Square. You would never know that there was any sort of disturbance there. No bullet marks, no bloodstains, no nothing. Not a thing out of place.

The Chinese know how to run a country, at least when you compare Eastern Siberia and Mongolia to Beijing, which is the route I took.

He may be your hero (and I'm 100% behind that sentiment, actually), but he is almost certainly dead and almost equally certainly died a gruesome death after being tortured for an extended period.

The Chinese leared how to run a country from the Soviets.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

There's no evidence that he was executed. Anyone can pull a gun. It takes real bravery to stand in front of a tank. That guy is my fucking hero.

Right, no evidence. Crisp and clean and no caffine. No one can even corroborate the total amount of people killed from the entire uprising. Why? Because the government cleaned it all up.

So Tank Man, where are you? Why don't you answer the call to your fans?

If he's so brave, why doesn't he continue to speak out? or come forward at all? Why would he be in hiding? I'm sure in 17 years he could have escaped the country found refugee status or political asylum in some western country.

Because if he's still alive he doesn't have the guns some one else does and fears for his life.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 10:59 AM

It's really only a question of whether your life is for you, or for all of humanity.

Let's go ahead and assume that the man died while leaving us an indelible image of the power of peaceful resistance. If he's got his life constituted not for himself but for all humanity--or even just all of China--then his death is well worth it.

Gandhi's life wasn't for himself. Reverend King's life wasn't for himself. Their lives were handed over to a bigger concern than their own survival, and they were willing to lay themselves down in service of that concern.

This thread is now officially Far Afield.

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

It's really only a question of whether your life is for you, or for all of humanity.

Let's go ahead and assume that the man died while leaving us an indelible image of the power of peaceful resistance. If he's got his life constituted not for himself but for all humanity--or even just all of China--then his death is well worth it.

Gandhi's life wasn't for himself. Reverend King's life wasn't for himself. Their lives were handed over to a bigger concern than their own survival, and they were willing to lay themselves down in service of that concern.

This thread is now officially Far Afield.

Martyrs are great, especially if it's not me. I'm not willing to give my life to a greater cause. I'm more interested in my own cause. More power to those that are willing to martyr themselves. Suicide bombers seem to think that they are laying themselves down for a greater cause.

Thank you for the reminder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

But back to the topic, could this be why the dems approved the new retro immunity?

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics...votes-on-fisa/

Democrats and Republicans.....not much difference really. yay for us.

No politicians aren't different. I'm not surprised that Obama waffles on an issue. He's a politician. It's part of the definition of the game of politics.

I really don't know why Americans are surprised and shocked that things happen with lying, graft, corruption, embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism. It isn't much different than any other countries, the biggest difference is that we have due process to criminalize their actions and can remove them from office since they don't serve uncontestable life terms in office.

It seems to me that many think that politicians are above being human.

Willravel · 06-25-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Martyrs are great, especially if it's not me. I'm not willing to give my life to a greater cause. I'm more interested in my own cause. More power to those that are willing to martyr themselves. Suicide bombers seem to think that they are laying themselves down for a greater cause.

Thank you for the reminder.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for comparing the man in Tienanmen Square to a suicide bomber. You're also completely incorrect in comparing them. A suicide bombing is an extremely violent act. Standing in front of a tank with a briefcase is a singular act of nonviolence.

ratbastid · 06-25-2008, 11:36 AM

Cynthetiq, I'm disgusted that you'd reply to "Gandhi and Dr. King" with "suicide bomber". I'm looking to see if there's another word to describe my reaction, but there's really not: I'm disgusted.

Were you deliberately trying to be offensive? Are you so desperate to score points in this argument that you're going to lump the two paragons of NON-violence into the same group with suicide bombers? Really??

dc_dux · 06-25-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Right, no evidence. Crisp and clean and no caffine. No one can even corroborate the total amount of people killed from the entire uprising. Why? Because the government cleaned it all up.

So Tank Man, where are you? Why don't you answer the call to your fans?

If he's so brave, why doesn't he continue to speak out? or come forward at all? Why would he be in hiding? I'm sure in 17 years he could have escaped the country found refugee status or political asylum in some western country.

Because if he's still alive he doesn't have the guns some one else does and fears for his life.

Lech Welesa who led the peaceful Solidarity anti-government movement in Poland is alive.

Vaclev Hamel who led the peaceful "intellectuals" anti-government movement in the Czech Republic is alive.

Cory Aquino who led the peaceful yellow revolution in the Philippines is alive.

The leaders of the peaceful rose revolution in Georgia are alive.

Nelson Mandela is alive....happy 90th birthday!

/end threadjack

06-23-2008, 02:23 PM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the way the telephone surveillance thing works, ace, is by way of a fairly crude oracle data-mining system that operates off of keywords. so if you were talking to your wife and used some of the keywords, chances are that your conversations would be monitored. who knows what these parameters are? if there's no fixed definition of "terrorist" they could be anything. if the parameters were fixed early in this lovely period of soft authoritarian rule, during which there was no particular distinction between those who opposed the bush administration politically and "terrorist" then they could be most anything. so it is entirely possible that you--or any of us---could have been or are being monitored. but then again, maybe not. it's just like that. if you exclude questions of principle--which you do--that's what you're left with. ====================== it seems to me that the crux of your argument is: you are quite sure that the "terrorist" is a coherent category because whatever it may mean, it doesn't mean you. this is the reverse side of your assumption of "good faith" everywhere amongst those who you support politically---which is, in turn, the reverse of your assumption of "bad faith" everywhere amongst those whom you do not support politically. this may cut to a premise-level disagreement: speaking for myself, i never found anything compelling or even coherent about the bush people's notion of "the terrorist"....apparently, you imagine that term to have a meaning. it is obvious that most of the folk who have a Problem with the wire-tapping actions also have at the least doubts about the coherence of the notion of "terrorism"... if this is accurate, then all we are "arguing" about the theological question of whether you believe in the mystical power of the "terrorist" to be many and one, everywhere and nowhere and to redeem the republicans from certain disaster, all at the same time. if the center of your support for the bush people was "national security" then it would follow that for you fear of an Enemy is a central motivation for your politics. i don't think there is an Enemy. i think there are legions who oppose the united states for political reasons, and who often have every justification for doing so as a function of the various policy choices which have enabled the "amurican way of life" to metastasize as it has over the past 30 years. you no doubt do not share this view. this may lead to another underlying matter of whether you can relativize the "amurican way of life" or not, whether you can see it as an outcome of systems which are not rational in the main or whether you see it in the way you see the chair you sit on, as necessary and inevitable and given because your ass is in it. reversed: the "amurican way of life" is necessary because it's given, or its a result of larger-scale choices that have particular outcomes, intentional and not, good and not, and so is something that can be thought about as a problem and not simply accepted as given. but if this is the differend, there really is no debate happening. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-23-2008 at 02:26 PM..

06-24-2008, 04:06 PM	#61 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Here is what I know any question I ask will be a red herring, or you will simple avoid answering. A wartime leader defines the behaviors of his troops. A leader by definition gives order where there would otherwise be chaos. War crimes are defined and upheld by the victor. We are clearly at the base level of this issue, your comments about legality and war, rules of warfare, etc, indicates to me that if you were a wartime leader, you would be defeated. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-23-2008, 02:29 PM	#48 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Who was it that said "our enemies are never as evil as we think they are" or something like that? It keeps popping into my mind.

06-24-2008, 09:28 AM	#53 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Legally, we're not at war. We were at war with the Iraqi government, but they were defeated and victory was proclaimed. Now? We're at war with "terrorists" (which is a blanket term for anyone who fights against us). You can't actually declare war against "terrorists", though. Without a properly defined enemy, there is no war, and as such the US is not currently at war and as such there is no war time authority. Or would you like war time authority to be extended to the war on illiteracy and the war on crime? Because there is no difference between the war on crime and the war on terrorism so far as the law is concerned.

06-24-2008, 04:13 PM	#62 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	War crimes are defined by laws and conventions signed by the warring parties. In the case of the US, we've signed the Geneva Conventions and are legally obliged to follow those conventions to the letter whether we're at war or not. If I were a wartime leader, you'd be screwed because I'm a pacifist. Still, there would be a decent chance of winning because I (unlike most wartime leaders) seek to understand why my enemy fights. Considering that every conflict that the US has been involved in since WWII has essentially been unnecessary, maybe we could use an ambassador instead of a warrior.

06-25-2008, 10:45 AM	#73 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There's no evidence that he was executed. Anyone can pull a gun. It takes real bravery to stand in front of a tank. That guy is my fucking hero.

06-25-2008, 10:59 AM	#76 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	It's really only a question of whether your life is for you, or for all of humanity. Let's go ahead and assume that the man died while leaving us an indelible image of the power of peaceful resistance. If he's got his life constituted not for himself but for all humanity--or even just all of China--then his death is well worth it. Gandhi's life wasn't for himself. Reverend King's life wasn't for himself. Their lives were handed over to a bigger concern than their own survival, and they were willing to lay themselves down in service of that concern. This thread is now officially Far Afield.

06-25-2008, 11:36 AM	#79 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Cynthetiq, I'm disgusted that you'd reply to "Gandhi and Dr. King" with "suicide bomber". I'm looking to see if there's another word to describe my reaction, but there's really not: I'm disgusted. Were you deliberately trying to be offensive? Are you so desperate to score points in this argument that you're going to lump the two paragons of NON-violence into the same group with suicide bombers? Really??