cthulu23

This is from the Washington Times

cosmoknight

Regarding your example of government versus privatization. One can choose another company for goods and services and remain in the country. One cannot opt out of a larger more infringing government and remain here. Taking another look at comparing the two from a different angle. Many in the left hate such entities such as Big Oil made up of despised companies like Enron. Why because they are large over baring monopolies who are self serving. Apply that to the government. The larger it grows the more potential for becoming corrupt and the more diluted you ability to change it is. In either case your fighting inertia and only by limiting the size can you effectively limits its overall decay.

MSD

He wouldn't let an attack succeed, I don't think he's evil. However, I don't think he'd hesitate to declare martial law if his advisors/cabinet (the ones in the government who we really should be concerned about,) told him that it would be the best way to go.

The less visible things, like barring "felons" (a list which is suspiciously composed of non-felons who happen to be minorities who would vote Democrat) from voting, and creating roadblocks to prevent minorities from voting are what will swing the election. I don't think Bush or his brother will call for an investigation of the practices that got him elected, no matter how unethical or blatantly illegal.

nanofever

And on that note *SHAZZAM*

" The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.

The effort to defy Bush and bridle the law's powers lost by 210-210, with a majority needed to prevail. The amendment appeared on its way to victory as the roll call's normal 15-minute time limit expired, but GOP leaders kept the vote open for 23 more minutes as they persuaded about 10 Republicans who initially supported the provision to change their votes.

"Shame, shame, shame," Democrats chanted as the minutes passed and votes were switched. The tactic was reminiscent of last year's House passage of the Medicare overhaul measure, when GOP leaders held the vote open for an extra three hours until they got the votes they needed.

"You win some, and some get stolen," Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the defeated provision and one of Congress' more conservative members, told a reporter.

Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department (news - web sites) documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.

"This new world we live in is going to force us to have some constraints," Wamp said.

The effort to curb the Patriot Act was pushed by a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans. But they fell short in a showdown that came just four months before an election in which the conduct of the fight against terrorism will be on the political agenda.

Besides successfully fending off the effort to weaken the law, the veto threat underscored the administration's determination to strike an aggressive stance on law enforcement and terrorism.

The House has voted before to block portions of the nearly three-year-old law, but Congress has never succeeded in rolling back any of it. Yet neither has Bush succeeded in his quest to expand some of its powers.

Supporters of the law said the Patriot Act has been a valuable tool in anti-terror efforts. The law, enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, gave the government stronger powers to conduct investigations and detain people.

"I would say, in my judgment, that lives have been saved, terrorists have been disrupted, and our country is safer" because of the act, said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a man President Bush (news - web sites) is considering to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites).

Otter and Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., led the effort to block one section of the law that lets authorities get special court orders requiring book dealers, libraries and others to surrender records such as purchases and Internet sites visited on a library computer. They contended the provision undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

"We are all in that together," Sanders, one of Congress' most liberal lawmakers, said of the anti-terror effort. "In the fight against terrorism, we've got to keep our eyes on two prizes: the terrorists and the United States Constitution."

The House voted last summer to block so-called "sneak and peek" searches the law allows without the target's knowledge and with warrants delivered afterward, but the provision never became law. Otter abandoned a similar amendment Thursday after it was ruled out of order for procedural reasons.

Thursday's showdown was over an amendment to a $39.8 billion measure financing the Justice, Commerce and State departments for next year, which passed, 397-18. The Senate has yet to write its version of the bill.

The House vote came amid Bush administration warnings of an increased risk of attacks this summer and fall because terrorists hope to disrupt the November's elections.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., read a letter from the Justice Department stating that "as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al-Qaida" had used Internet services at a public library. The letter mentioned no specifics, Wolf said.



"If we can stop what took place in my area," said Wolf, whose district is near the Pentagon (news - web sites), a Sept. 11 target, "then I want to stop that, because we've gone to enough funerals."

Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants. Those traditional investigative tools are harder to get from grand juries or courts than orders issued under the Patriot Act, which do not require authorities to show probable cause.

"We don't want tyranny," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

According to a list read by a House clerk, lawmakers switching their votes from "yes" to "no" included GOP Reps. Michael Bilirakis of Florida, Rob Bishop of Utah, Tom Davis of Virginia, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Nick Smith of Michigan, Thomas Tancredo of Colorado, and Wamp.

Some Democrats switched from "no" to "yes," including Robert Bud Cramer of Alabama, Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, and Brad Sherman of California.

___

The bill is H.R. 4754 "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ss_patriot_act

I remember stories of the "before time" when republicans were actual conservatives and they valued civil liberties and the Constitution. I wish these fascists in conservative clothing would step out and reveal their true colors. Yes, I am quite convinced that Neo-cons are fascists in disguise.

Support for Big Business - Check

Support for the Wealthy - Check

Spending like a drunken sailor - Check

Authoritarian society in the making - Check

Deeply Fundy-Christian - Check

Use of Orwellian Language - Check

Constant threat of danger to herd the masses - Check

This list could continue, but the point is that Neo-cons (Rummy, Cheny, Ashcroft, Wolf, Condy, ect) are not a conservatives. I predict that either neo-cons will be ousted from the Republican party or the party will split between conservatives and fascists in neo-conservative clothing.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

wonderwench

Nice tinfoil moment. Thanks!

The SAFE Act is still working its way through Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01709:

nanofever

My point was that BushCO will not allow anything anti-Patriot Act to pass. SAFE act will go down in flames just like the above act did. Their trackrecord on this issue proves my point.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

wonderwench

There is a self-fulfilling nature about such prophecies of doom and gloom. How about contacting your elected representatives to show your support for the SA?

I have.

ninjaz0r

"The head of the new US Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries Jr, wrote to Ridge urging him to ask Congress for emergency legislation that would allow his agency to reschedule the election if terrorists were to strike."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...0711180254&e=5

"Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek

Postponement of the elections still belong in paranoia?

__________________
If you lived in the Dark Ages, and you were a catapult operator, I bet the most common question people would ask is, "Can't you make it shoot farther?" No. I'm sorry. That's as far as it shoots.

ARTelevision

The point under discussion was creating phony pretenses for Martial Law. Having contingency plans for a citizenry that could be in the midst of massive triage, panic, or worse is a responsible thing to do.

__________________
create evolution

tecoyah

well, I'm kinda glad this was not moved to paranoia.


Top Stories - Reuters
Reuters
U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

2 hours, 33 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,


U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Journeyman

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion.day.delay/

CNN's reporting it too. I think I just shit myself.

What's the word on absentee ballots if this happens?

seretogis

Absolutely. The hysteria that the media is causing over this is akin to someone saying they are saving pennies for a rainy day, and then someone shrieking "WHAT? IT'S GOING TO RAIN?!"

I'll write this off as more political drama in an attempt to make Bush look bad. If this keeps up, I may have to change my vote from Badnarik to Bush.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Journeyman

Well, consider it like you would the prisoner abuse scandal of Abu Ghraib and the leaked memos from some of the administrations lawyers that argued for the legality of torturing enemy combatants as an interrogation technique.

Only this time around, they're arguing the legalities first and... well, we'll see.

Zeld2.0

Contingency plans are fine but I'd think cancelling an entire nation's elections on a smaller attack would make little sense. It'd have to be a pretty big attack to really shake an entire nation's chance to vote.

Show the world why our country is strong and brave by not bending to terrorists' plans.

I think it would make this country look like a bunch of cowards if a bomb or something went off and we all ran around like chickens with our heads cut off while the election is postponed.

ARTelevision

Contingency plans are necessary because one can not predict the nature or extent of the attack. A nuclear, chem, or bio attack could be on a scale that would require extraordinary measures. If those measures are not planned for in advance -- well, the fact is any responsible administrator has to make contingency plans for worst-case scenarios.

__________________
create evolution

pan6467

I agree wholeheartedly, however, the fact that they are looking into it gives a little more credence to the paranoia.

If a scenario where Bush is down by 5-10 points a week before the election and allof a sudden an attack happens and they choose to postpone the elections, do you not think people will truly wonder whether Bush did something or allowed the attacks to happen?

We have gone through Civil War, 2 World Wars, Depression, rebellions and other times in our history where we were unsure of what the future held, yet every time we proceeded with the election and the people voiced their desires.

I just think we need to be watchful and diligent over what happens in government in the next few months, and no matter what happens we should not postpone the elections in anyway (short of a severe grand attack, and then we must ask how that attack was allowed to happen).

I hope I can look back 4 months from now and call myself a paranoid fool who had no idea what he was talking about let alone thinking. I'll be the first to admit I was all of those if Bush is behind a week before the elections and the elections go ahead as scheduled.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ARTelevision

I hope we can look back in 4 months and not be in the midst of a bleak and dire situation in which our institutions are unable to respond because of a lack of excellent preparedness and in which the idea of timely national elections pales in comparison to the state of chaos inflicted upon our population by unimaginably insane attack.

__________________
create evolution

Zeld2.0

Basically, I hope in 4 months, everything goes normal and according to plan.

Kadath

Warning the public that there may be attacks at voting locations seems very likely to negatively affect voter turnout. I don't know if it's a deliberate action, but it doesn't strike me as impossible.

__________________
it's quiet in here

brombie

I think Paranoid is too strong of a word, a better one is cautious. That's what a find more and more people do these days and there's a reason for it. There is a pattern of behavior in our administration's behavior to support this.

I'm glad to see that there's a growing number of cautious people. It keeps the government honest. If you think these folks are too paranoid, then be glad that someone is covering your backside in case there's a knife heading right in there.

I certainly think that this has been a bit overblown. Afterall, the administration has been honest about not finding WMDs. Last week's bipartisan finding of the intelligence failure also shows that the government still works to some degree.

roachboy

agreed in general with much of the above that counsels caution in the face of paranoia:

what bothers me about this announcement (not so much the plan, but the announcement of the plan, that it was the lead story for cnn, that it can be watched travelling around the world today by looking at the papers) is the following:

that the bush administration has created a legal framework that makes it quite easy to declare a state of emergency.

that their practices lead me to think that this administration would almost prefer a state of emergency.

that almost every regime that has used a state of emergency to keep itself in power in a democratic context has promised elections soon, but they rarely happen.

that there is no administration i can remember that i would trust less in this context than that of george w bush.

and i would worry about the consequences of this scenario, simply because i do not think people would believe that explanations for the declaration of the state of emergency, were it to happen. this is a consequence of losing all credibility over the iraq war. i do not know how things would then play out. but i cannot imagine an other-than-ugly scenario.

and there is a cynical way in which i wonder if the announcement could be seen as a near-advertisement for an attack--if you want to really fuck things up, do it between x and y dates.....

but too i hope to find myself in mid movember 2004, looking back on this and think geez, there was a period of that could easily have been one of total paranoia and it would have been really easy to have gone there

maybe read through this thread, if i remember it is here
.....good thing nothing happened.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

It may also influence people to vote by absentee ballot so that they can ensure their own participation in the election.

tecoyah

Personally, I seriously doubt any of this would happen, as I am a pessimist, not paranoid. It is somewhat telling, taken in context, that this sort of thing is taken at all seriously by any but the conspiracy theory folks. I find it interesting that a relatively large portion of the population is willing to entertain the possibility of what comes down to a coup, in the United States. It definately says much about the perception people have of our current leadership.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

wonderwench

I, for one, am rather heartened that the majority of people have enough common sense to distinguish a contingency plan for extreme circumstances from a nefarious coup attempt.

Kadath

You do know that absentee ballots are only counted in the event of a close election, right?

__________________
it's quiet in here

wonderwench

Balderdash. That is a tinfoil hat perception.

Kadath

You're right. I have no experience in these matters, having worked at a county courthouse through two election days and having been good friends with several people in the Board of Elections office.

Your method of dismissing opinions that run counter to your own is getting extremely old.

__________________
it's quiet in here

wonderwench

I find the hystrionics and conspiracy theorizing to be just as stale.

ARTelevision

Ok enough with the acerbic and sarcastic back and forth.

We all lose.

Thread closed.

__________________
create evolution