:lol: someone must make a wiki page :D

In the process, this is what I have so far:

Shakran's Law (also Shakran's Law of Clinton Relations analogies) is a new adage of internet culture that was originated by Shakran 9screen name of user on TFP, tfproject.org) in 2005. This law state that: "As a discussion about the legality or morality of any President George W. Bush's actions grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving President Bill Clinton's infadelity and sexual relations approaches 1."
Although there is no formal rule, most dismiss a post and possibly even thread once the comparison has been made. It is considered ridiculous and exaggerated to compare the contraversial actions of President George W. Bush, including but not limited to possible stolen elections, a lack of necessary defences that could have hepled to prevent the 9/11 tragety, the misinformation about ties from al Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq, the misinformation about Iraq posessing weapons of mass destruction, and the placing of unqualified friends of the president to positions of power.

External link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=98845&page=3

Now someone needs to put this on wikipedia, and list me as a source! That's Willravel. With a 'w'. :thumbsup:

/end threadjack

needs to be expounded upon alot more but a definite change that needs to be made is removing the reference of President GW Bush and replacing that with any republican leader.

Sweet! I've never had a law named after me before. Now I know what Newton felt like ;)

i think it should be more general. as conservitive and liberal discussion continues the probabilty that clinton's bj will be used to counter liberal points approaches 1.

That might be too general. The law as I see it is that as conservative and liberal discussion continues the probability that clinton's blowjob will be used to excuse republican wrongdoings approaches 1.

Nice one Shakran...

I already did, a couple weeks ago!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...32#post1947332

Like minds eh shakran?

Well it's not surprising that two people would come to that conclusion. The more trouble Bush and his cronies get into the more we hear Clinton's name being weakly bleated in yet more sad attempts to distract us from the real issue.

That kind of smoke and mirrors BS works for awhile, but eventually the people always wake up, see how things are crumbling around them, and demand change. Unfortunately they never do this in time to avert major damage, but you can't have everything I guess ;)

To get somewhat back on track, and this is gonna surprise you guys, but I'm going to answer this with a very firm "I don't know"

I haven't had time to study this case enough, but i can tell you what I think based on what the facts are:

Did he confess after being faced with the evidence gathered through the surveillance?

If so, then yes, in order to preserve our constitution, he should be released. If we keep him in jail we've effectively killed the constitution, because we are admitting that it can be flaunted any time we want. Stripping the constitution of power would kill it. We may as well pack up and ask England to take over again.

If, however, he confessed when he was caught and before they told him about the surveilance, then keep him in jail. He independently confessed to the crime, and we don't even have to use the surveillance evidence.

However, find the guys that put him under surveillance, and the guys that gave the order, and put THEM in jail for flagrant abuse of power and violation of constitutional rights. Actually we should do that whether the terrorist stays in jail or not.

My apologies for missing the first opportunity to second the motion. :)

Isn't it interesting that folks are speaking out now; congress, senators, the msp? It almost makes me believe that "we, the people" still have some say in this business of government.

Doin' the Snoopy Happy Dance. :thumbsup:

Well this is the guy who gave the order
While these guys looked the other way
Not to mention... the NY times withheld the story for over a year

......some watchdog


http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9007/cartoonw4lq.jpg

I know it's really sad and the media is in a dark place which has terrible reprocussions and is truely hurting the US, but that picture is adorable.

If this is true and they used evidence not related to the wiretap, then:

1) so long as evidence used was acquired legally then he should be imprisoned.

2) why the need for the wiretap though?

3) 1 out of now what is being reported as hundreds possibly thousands being tapped the question is what are they being tapped for?

4) If you have that much evidence the case for a warrant would have been slam dunk?

I still see NOT ONE RESPONSE FROM THE RIGHT why the simple task of getting warrants was not followed..........

Let's see.......

Fla. the DA and AG get warrants for Limbaugh's illegal doctor shopping and he fights that it is against his civil rights....... the hypocrite even has to get the ACLU involved to protect him. He turns to an organization he rallied against but when he needed it ..... he didn't hesitate. :lol:

San Francisco the PEOPLE vote not to allow guns in their city and gun rights activists living everywhere else bitch about their civil rights being stepped on and the NRA threatens lawsuits. The NRA say they are for the rights of the people but now they are suing because voters voted and they feel the majority of the people are wrong? :lol:

But now it is ok for government to illegally wiretap people and those who complain or get tapped obviously have reason to be, but fuck the judges and the warrant processes. :thumbsup:

So now we apply Constitutional rights to just people we want? :hmm:

Amazing I thought all rights were equally granted to everybody in this country because the second you start deciding who gets what rights and who doesn't we ultimately all lose our freedom.

Freedom and justice for all.......... not for selected people.

But if you're Bush or a NeoCon..... that means nothing I guess.

I'm one of those who fall on the side of security first. I believe the government, in these dangerous times, should have the power to fully investigate potential national security risks.

While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state, I am for these types of investigations, if they could stop terrorist activities, such as blowing up the brooklyn bridge. I don't feel that my civil rights are being violated by the spirit of these investigations. It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns.

Food for thought:

"While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state"

"I am for these types of investigations"

that's a total contradiction

"It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns"
But they are, random wiretaps do exactly that

squakk : Heather Mac Donald Said :squakk

Heather Mac Donald defends torture and prisioner abuse

A good commentary on the Racist Bush puppet Heather Mac Donald

That is an interesting link to Ms. McDonald's ideology. I enjoyed reading more of her thoughts on the matter, as they mirror my own.
I believe she - and others like her - are correct in their thinking. So, therefore, I don't think what Bush did violated the spirit of the times.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :cool:

Abraham Lincoln for one. Doesn't make it right though.

This discussion is about whether or not Bush broke the law. There's not a whole lot of room for opinion in that. Just to remind everyone:
He either did, or he did. No opinions about it.

There is a world of difference between
"the spirit of the times"
and the law.

Many Evil things have been done throughout history
"in the spirit of the times"
That Does not make them justifiable

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700456_pf.html

yet another bad day for cowboy george and the mayberry machiavelleans.
in these remarks not only do you get the same rationale being floated by the white house as you saw the right try out here yesterday, but there is also a dollop of the defense against fake intel problems as well--congress knew too---there is no question that the white house understands (why anthropomorphize the building?) that the surveillance was illegal--the opinion from the justioce dept was no doubt of the same hypernarrow and utenable character as the torture memos that shaped another delightful area of bushpolicy---

the justification is not legal, it is raison d'etat.
you cant make that kind of argument in a context where the public does not believe you. raison d'etat as defense presupposes "traction"--when it gets none, it collapses right away---it is not a logical argument, it is an appeal to hysteria.
such are the wages of lying to the american public about war.
poor cowboy george, out there being hoisted on his own petard.

i am a bit curious about the radical divergence in worldview between the conservative set and the rest of us with reference to the appeal to emotions/hysteria/paranoia: it seems that the conservatives here in the main have a very different understanding of the "war on terror" than others do.

questions:
do you really believe that the analogy between the "war on terror" and the cold war is viable?
does that analogy not grotesquely alter the character of this phantom enemy "terrorism" making it something unified when it is not, altering its organization to mirror that of a nation-state, changing its scale to equal that ussr (processed through the fever dreams of the extreme right in america)?

it is evident that this phantom enemy "terrorism" is not and cannot operate within a conventional war scenario---so there is no continuity between events/attacks/whatever---if that is the case (and it is, look around), how do you justify acting as though the situation was wholly otherwise? in other words, what basis is there for the argument that any and all violations of law on the part of the bush squad in areas of "security" are justified because of the magnitude of the threat? what threat?

it is clear, both from the bushspeech and from the posts defending him that used the same "logic" here that there is a direct relation between the sense of threat and support for these policies. what i see in conservative defenses is something like you find in anarchist publications that gather information about strikes etc., together in order to argue that revolution is a constant possibility just below the surface of things--the result is a constant state of ennervation and a rationale for refusing to integrate at other levels into the social order around them. if you assemble enough infotainment geared around generating/structuting a sense of being-threatened, you can develop a finely pitch level of hysteria without a problem.
the question are the results of this kind of assembly of information (filtering of information, selective usage of it, etc) is operational amongst folk on the right andnot operational elsewhere?
which follows which: does supporting the bush administration lead to indulgence in this sense of paranoia, or does a predisposition toward this kind of paranoia factor into support for bush et al?

I watched the Bush speech referred to in that article
when Bush said
Enemies meaning the American people,
defenders of the constitution,
and congress

Ugggggg........
shining the light of truth is irresponsible in criminalland

I think that the problem with terrorism and terrorists is that they do operate like phantoms. If they would stand up and be counted then they would be much easier to take out. GW probably figures it is better to prevent any further 911's at almost any costs rather than face the people after another large scale attack takes place.

I suspect after the next 911 type attack that we will see a further erosion of civil liberties. The people will demand results and woe be to the polititian who preaches civil liberties instead of doing everything possible to get the bastards responsible and prevent future attacks.

Raveneye and samcol have shed additional light on the mysterious Mr. Faris. Having been caught in the act, Bushco resorted to their familiar ploy of fear mongering.

"We saved the bridge, we saved countless lives, it was necessary for the safety of the American people!" When, in fact, the illegal wire taping collected none of this information. I am so sick of being fed bullshit by these people.

Sure thats true. But taken in context (real threat of terrorism), more vigilant domestic intelligence activities are to be expected. Look at how much crap the intelligence services got for missing the 9/11 attacks. Now they get blamed for being too vigilant! It's a constant war of wits between terrorists and governments all around the world. The terrorists plot to attack - the governments plot to stop the attack. Under these circumstances, the rules simply cannot be absolute, since terrorists don't play by the rules. A certain amount of flex must be allowed to address the asymmetry of terrorism. It is a genuine surprise for me to hear Bush publicly admit to certain aspects of governmental oversite - extremely surprising in fact. Perhaps just a sign of the times.

More food for thought-

More fear mongering
Bush says let me violate your rights
or I will unleash another 911 style attack
.....Erm That is Al cia da will.
not buying that lie anymore
Live Free Or Die

some degree of heightened surveillance might be a good idea, but there is no reason why that surveillance should go outside existing legal strictures.
there is no state of emergency, nor is there any justification for a state of emergency.


i have been thinking since the afternoon of 9/11/2001 (i remember this clearly) that it seemed most likely to me that the entire organization that planned those attacks were on the planes, that there was no basis for thinking in terms of wider conspiracy simply because none was necessary to explain the events.

the war on terror is a war on ghosts.

the interesting thing about this war on ghosts is that if you assume that the point of the attack was not purely symbolic (which is a stretch, but folk make this jump all the time regardless of its illogic) and was instead to disrupt the "amurican way of life" then it seems to me that bush-hysteria is the logical extension of the attacks and not a preventative.

in other words, this administration, with its assumption of a state of emergency and its violation of law upon law in the name of national security, is the best ally such organizations could possibly have. you could even extend this into a rationale for the iraq war, which might have been thought about as a way to make the rest of the "war on terror" appear rational, appear more war-like, so as to rationalize responses that otherwise could not be justified. of course, this was all predicated on fiction, but no matter.

the administration itself completes the work that they assign to these folk "terrorists"---disruption of the way folk live in the states (again assuming this motive is not arbitrary--i think this is a wholly arbitrary motive, which is more about american narcissism than about a rational assessment of the politics behind an action like the attacks on 9/11/2001)---that folk on the right choose to live in paranoia, in fear is the opposite of a victory over an phantom enemy--it is rather the extension and fulfillment of the project the right assigns to "terrorists" themselves. that the bush squad has tried for 4 years to instrumentalize this project for its own political purposes is transparent--except for folk who really see the world they live in in the about-to-explode terms that the bush administration lays out in order to justify its arbitrary responses.

these responses are arbitrary because there is no event "war" in a conventional sense that can function to make strategy coherent.

contingency is a bummer for folk who are afraid of it. accidents on the highway, natural disasters, meteors, comets, spontaneous combustion, showers of frogs, terrorist attacks. there are an unlimited number of contingent events that you could be afraid of. you could talk yourself into never getting out of bed if you follow this line to its conclusion. contingency is just that--you cant plan it away. you can prepare in some ways to reduce possibilities or impacts, but these preparations cannot be understood as a strategy because of the matter of continuity.

so what to do?

That surveillance did not need to go beyond the law

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._12/007789.php

The law makes allowances for emergancys
The administration chose to go beyond the law
to set themselves above the law

On the subject of intelligence gathering (aka 'spying'), I wonder if you are equally offended by the age-old (and sometimes outright illegal) methods of espionage used by secret agents the world over, such as setting up fake business fronts, eavesdropping, email monitoring, false identity/working undercover, document tampering, computer hacking, bribery, etc.

While it is fashionable to offer up pithy romanticisms such as "live free or die", it is prudent imo to acknowledge the need for a comprehensive and effective information gathering apparatus. There can be no real freedoms without real security.

Say I'm on the street and 4 armed men come in to rob and shootup the place in the hopes of killing a dozen people, so I pull out my illegal gun and get lucky enough to kill them before they can kill any innocent people, guess whos still breaking the law and going to jail?

What you are suggesting is oxymoronic (and that's not me calling you a name). The security of which you speak hinders freedom (as due process is a universally understood freedom for Americans), thus the amount of freedom is antithetical to the amount of security. In other words, the relatrionship between freedom and security is diametrically oppositional. Anarchy is the purest form of freedom, and authoritarian or totalitarian rule is the purest form of security.

The crimes of the Intelligence community are appaling
that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself
How does crime againt foreign entities provide security?
It just pisses them off.....

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

What is "Real Security"?
Spying on peacefull anti war groups?
Having our borders wide open?
while punishing legal immagration.
while antaganizing could be enemies?
Clogging up investigative channels,
with what granny checked out at the library?
Under security there is no freedom
they are at odds
nothing is secure
a tree could fall on me at the park tommorow
should I live in fear? stay home in a plastic and duct tape room?
NO

Bill Moyers did a documentary on the Secret Government 1987
an excellant watch BTY
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3281.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3282.htm

Funny :hmm: you should call live free or die a pithy romanticisms
as it is one of the most patriotic calls to duty by
General John Stark, New Hampshire most distinguished hero of the Revolutionary War

If we forget our history we a doomed to repeat it

Eloquently worded as usual. :)

This is an interesting article that discusses how the administration may have attempted to justify illegal wiretaping through current law.


Link :thumbsup: Thanks, alpha phi

I haven't read the language of FISA, but from what is stated here this law has been broken by Bush.

from above article
That totally usurps the oversight of congress.
Criminal?............Yes.
Unconstitional?....Yes.
that undermines our entire system of goverment
A coup by executive order.

Give it up for partisan politics people. Both sides deferring to a single executive power, probably because they're not smart enough think on their own.

If the gun is licensed to you, I would say you have a very strong chance of being judged as acting in self-defense. Another example, if you shot and killed 4 terrorists (bombs strapped across their waists) trying to enter a nightclub, you'd be hailed a hero, I would think.

I have to admit I have no idea what you are trying to say here. To my mind, anarchy is self-enslavement masked as freedom. As political theories go, it is Fool's gold. Anarchy exists soley in the minds of individuals - it cannot possibly have a widespread, working model in the real world. How on earth are you going to construct any sort of functional, orderly society based upon the tenet of lawlessness? ALL societies, whether democratic, communist or dictatorial, are based upon obligation and responsibility; this obligation is upheld through law enforcement.

I would suggest the oxymoron lies in your court - or else I misunderstood you completely.

Poetic device known as "synectoche". Using the part to stand for the whole. In this case, the container for the thing contained. The example my favorite English Teacher gave of synectoche is "I hit her with the milk". It's not the milk so much as the bottle that he hit her with--thing contained for the container, in that case.

/grammar geek threadjack

:D Great compliment! Thank you very much!
Self enslavement is psychological, we are taling about governmental enslavement. These are two VERY different things. Anarchy is considered by my history prof (back up roach?) to be the puirest form of freedom, and the complete lack of security. Anarchy has existed. When anyone lives outside of a governmental influence and alone, he is an anarchy onto himself. You don't construct an ordered society with anarchy, that's the point. Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle. I make my rules, you make your rules. Each man woman and child is their own country. You can make temporary or permenant arrangements with other people, but you are only heald to your own ruyle, and them their own. Law enforcement is impossible without a cohesive princepal (such as rule of law).

Just so we have the full speech.

Oddly I trust the President in this case more then you guys :icare:

Oh and...

http://www.10tv.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable

Ustwo the local kool-aid drinker. There's always one. :rolleyes:

Bush is a criminal. He admitted it today. He has no respect for Article 4 of the constitution. He thinks that he's above the law. He uses 9/11 as an excuse for everything that he does. I've written my representatives in congress and I encourage everyone else to do the same. We shall not let this stand.

So all the Right can do is focus on 1 case the other few hundred or so illegal wiretaps don't matter. Where's the justification in them? I see 1 being justified ONE CASE. And even that is not justified.

This is what warrants are for. WTF do we even have a Constitution or checks and balances or 3 branches if we allow the president to break the Constitution?

Why did we not get warrants?????? The Right has yet to even answer why warrants were not needed or asked for....... all they can do is to keep trying to instill fear that the taps were needed.... yet they cannot prove jackshit. Nor can they justify anything.

The Right refuses to answer, the Right cannot point to any other case of the wiretaps.... just harp on the one and drink Piss while Bush tells them it's lemonade and they ask for more.

Why not give a list of everyone they illegally wiretapped and show the people the cases and how the taps "helped"....... let's see the evidence gathered and let's hear the reasons why no warrants were asked for.

I will now support Impeachment proceedings.....and this saddens me more than I can say. A line has been crossed in my mind, which I have consistently moved to avoid this conclusion, perhaps I have been fooling myself , or I may just be afraid of the implications. By signing off on this action, the President of the United States has broken the oath of office, and this is unacceptable in my mind, as I see the constitution as law. If not the only law right now that keeps the federal branch in check. If we allow this action to go unchallenged.......we are handing a blank check to an administration that has a history of removing civil liberties......Not a good Idea in my opinion.

I think this is a classic example where one can do what they think they must do, but they must be prepared to pay for it. It seems that a law was broken, knowingly, and that has consequences. Mayhaps you would say "but we can't be protected otherwise," and that might be an interesting discussion. However, to commandeer an argument used against small time drug dealers - these guys knew the score when the decision was made. That's the only way to protect our rights - draw a line in the sand somewhere. That line, as tec puts it, would seem to have been crossed. I would personally prefer the current administration be yanked over the collosal screw up they've made of this entire "war" effort; but if this is the thing that gets the wedge in, fine.

Regardless, I think it's going to tend to be a moot point until congressional term limits and serious revision of the way that $$$ is involved with politics is undertaken. Otherwise, I highly suspect this will simply be a revolving wheel. The government will treat us like sheep, because they can and it's in their best interests, etc.

The administration is claiming that they operated under the law and that this policy was justified by constitutional authority yet when asked, are unable to cite what constitutional authority they have to circumvent the 4th Amendment. The constant claims that they are protecting the American People and preventing another terrorist attack have become so commonplace and cliche that these justifications no longer hold any sway over most of the public. They've overplayed that card to the point that it is now comical to hear them use it as a justification for anything. This they have done to themselves by using it as an excuse for any and all actions.

I watched Condoleeza Rice try to tap dance her way out of answering Tim Russert this morning on "Meet the Press." Russert would ask what constitutional authority the President has for eavesdropping without a warrant. Her response was, "He has constitutional authority to do this." Tim Russert would say, "No one has explained where in the constitution this authority comes from." Rice would answer, "Well, he has constitutional authority."
"From where?"
"I'm not a lawyer, Tim."

They are unable to cite constitutional authority because they have none. Instead, they trot out the same, tired excuse.

Their supporters have now painted themselves into a corner with this incident. Having backed this administration through the lies, the threats, the unjust war, the fear mongering, the patriot baiting, and the stripping of civil liberties, they now find themselves in need of supporting a blatant breach of the constitution. They know its unsupportable, but they have no choice. Admitting now that the President has violated his oath of office would force them to re-evaluate their support all along. This is not about to happen, so they find themselves having to support violations of law by this administration to the point absurdity.

I have to admit one of my pet peeves is poor spelling. And you say you are college-educated?
I'm not sure you got your money's worth, to be honest with you!!! :lol:...:hmm:

But seriously, the purest form of enslavement really is anarchy. Societies are by definition made up of institutions, and institutions require rules to exist. For example, slavery and imperialism are both institutions with long historical practice. Neither rests on anarchy, voluntarism, or equality - and neither produces equitable outcomes. Both, however, are premised on clear (if informal) rules understood by all parties that prescribe roles, constrain behavior, and shape expectations. In the absence or Rules, you are left with a roomful of men without purpose, aimlessly shuffling about, bumping into walls, bumping into eachother and creating precisely nothing (besides nothing). Ancient cavemen even had rudimentary systems of rules and institutions. Nevertheless, I understand the romantic appeal of anarchy as an instrument of clarity and comfort in an environment perceived as indifferent and even hostile.

society

• noun (pl. societies)

1 An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization

2 A formal association of people with similar interests

3 The state of being with someone

4 The fashionable elite




http://img2.uploadimages.net/962226offtopic.gif

Why are still changing the topic instead of answering the
Question this thread poses?.........Can't justify your answer?

I hate to be that guy, but...

A for spelling, F for grammar, etc.

Now, for content - I personally fail to see how any of the rest of your paragraph backs up your premise in the first sentence; at least in light of the last thing that willravel responded with...unless you're agreeing with his semantic definitions of slavery, in which case ain't it just a beautiful day and such and such?

Back to the original stuff in the thread topic: I would love to see this administration and all of Congress get a serious bitchslapping. Supposed to work for us, as public servants...and yet they would seem to be giving us the old DVDA and wasting our $$$. YAY!!!

Ironicly nothing illegal seems to be happening here, I'm sorry so many of you don't like it, but it is to be expected.

After reading through the last several posts, for some reason this quotation came to mind, you can fill in the blanks to your taste I suppose.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

ummm...and he was hitting the hitting while it was hitting, and benji yelled and lurch lurched, and he was hitting the hitting while it was hitting? aside from that, nice insult, but of course, i could care less. i thought this had to do with an untraceable claim of executive privelage and authority, and the provisions of the 4th amendment, no? that's not illegal? hmmm...

Now, since you like quotes and I think Faulkner is way overstated, how about this one:

"Do you know that a national home decorating magazine wants to do a four-page color spread on this building?" Dorian asked.

"If you had any sense, you would realize that that is the ultimate insult," Ignatius snorted. "

You're a rookie, so I'll tell you this directly: here at TFP, we strive to a higher level of discourse than this. Personal attacks and insults like this aren't tolerated.

Even GOP senators believe Bush has crossed the line....... Yet there are still those Rush Limbaugh wannabes that choose to drink Bush's piss and be told by him it's lemonade.

How pathetic they are to sell out the country for the sole reason of their hatred for the left. They would rather let Bush destroy the Constitution than to admit they have a problemed president in the WH. One who has consistently lied to the people, refused to obey laws and acts as though he has to answer to noone....... However, last I checked this is a representative democracy and he is answerable to the people.

How sad they look defending these actions when members of their own party are calling for investigations and saying the president overstepped his authority.

How can they live with themselves...... oh that's right those fucking tax cuts can buy a whole new conscience and some new toys so you can feel good about all this. Bribery and greed work both ways..... Bush bought and sold your asses when you bowed before him for your piddly assed tax cuts that the states and cities will take...... Hope the money keeps you warm when your party loses everything and the people turn away from you in droves because of this man, his ego and his self righteousness.


All he had to do was get warrants..... but he believes he is above the law.


LINK:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

After hearing all the news shows today it appears that with the FISA act of 78 and the PATRIOT ACT Bush had all the authority to order taps, but not without FISC warrants. If the hearings show that Bush broke the law, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I'm not and english major. I used spell check on my papers. I graduated with honors from a well respected private college. Spelling isn't high on my list of important things. As long as people understand me, its really not that important. I'm not looking to get my posts published (unless someone wants to, in which case PM me and I've give you the thumbs up :thumbsup).
My scholastic area of expertise is phychology. History, philosophy, and government are more like hobbies to me, but I am not a novice. Anarchy is the opposite of enslavement, and there is not a bit of wiggle room in that fact. An anarchy is not a society, but the lack there of, therefore the rest of your post is based on an incorrect assumption. Lone cavemen did live in anarchy. Lone anyone lives in an anarchy. Anarachy does exist and it can even be successful. If you read my posts fully before responding to them, we will be able to understand each other much better.
Look up anarchy in the encyclopedia for further info.

/end threadjack

omg

Good Christ, man, what in the sam-hell is 'an anarchy'? Now it's a pronoun? Have you actually seen 'an anarchy'? Can you describe it? Does it have whiskers? What is the meaning of this bizarre syntax?

WhiskeytangofoxtrotWhiskeytangofoxtrotWhiskeytangofoxtrot
WhiskeytangofoxtrotWhiskeytangofoxtrot
WhiskeytangofoxtrotWhiskeytangofoxtrot
Whiskeytangofoxtrot!?!#*^!??*$#@!?????

Lone what lives where, how?

Sir, would you care to provide a real-world example of this?? I can't make out wtf it is you are trying to say.

I did...I'm...at a loss...maybe we should drop it...


/returning to planet earth

Lansky, both ratbastid and Lebell have pointed out to you that personal attacks are unacceptable to us members of TFP. You've already made the point that will makes occasional spelling mistakes, but so do we all.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Sorry...I was a bit thrown by the...unorthodox...syntax.
Got a little excited - too much so-dee pop perhaps.

"If the splitter of hairs has a sharp enough knife, the fact of life itself can be chopped into nothing."

?
Anarchy is not a type of society, but the lack there of. I hope that is more clear than my previous statement.
A man living alone, seperated from any society, is anarchy. He rules himself and is under no rule from another person.
If I were to drive to the airport, get on a plane, fly to the South Pole, and make up my residence no where near any other people, this would be anarchy. I would be living under no rule but my own. The same was true of any man who lived alone in an area not under the jurisdiction of any governmental system. I imagine some time in the history of the world, this has happened.

Can we please end this thread jack now? If you want to continue to discuss this, I'd be glad to do so in a thread about anarchy.

Therein lies the problem.

How many Congressmen knew? And will they be to busy covering their own asses for allowing this to happen, thus letting Bush off.

Given the past events, unless there is a huge outcry, Congress will make a little noise and do nothing substantive. After all is not the game to protect your own ass? Screw the country, they have their Congressional pensions and lifelong benefits to worry about.

I guess while I was having a weekend this thread continued on. Thats good. I even missed a bannination, but from skimming over the poor guy was being attacked for his grammar, I didn't really think he was asking for it, but I don't really know the full story on him. Good luck to this week's rookie.

I've gone through and read from where I left off, and I've pretty much come to a conclusion. I feel the terrorists are more of a threat to me than my government. Others feel the government is more of a threat to them than terrorists. Then, others don't even believe terrorists exist. Then, others do, but his name is George Bush. I guess that sums it up, right?

It's not that easy, noone here said terrorists do not exist..... you're trying to persuade your audience with false presumptions and innuendoes my friend.

Easiest thing in the world was for Bush to get warrants, they even have a secret court for the president to do so. It would have been legal and noone could have done a damned thing about it.

Instead, he put himself ABOVE the law, even members in his own party are saying it, and in doing so he broke the law.

Again, I ask what of the rest of those who were tapped? Why did he not get the warrants? If these suspects were truly all "terrorists" then he would have had no problem getting the taps.

So, the questions that need to be answered and have to be answered is "why did you put yourself above the law, why did you not file for the warrants, Mr. President?"

Until he answers those truthfully and shows just cause, he broke the law, and this was far more damaging than a BJ.

Another question one could ask is, why was he so stupid in telling anyone he broke the law? My guess is that he believed nothing would be done to him and he bragged about it.

Stevo... I'm not sure I see it as you do.

I think most here do feel the terrorists are a threat, however, they also feel that the rule of law must be obeyed. Given that there were steps to do what Bush did legally, why would he feel the need to break the law?

In this case it isn't a matter of feeling threaten by the governemnt rather it is holding the government up to the same laws by which all Americans must abide.


To add to this, clearly what we have here is a partisan issue for some. Many have felt that this Administration has been pushing the legal limits on many issues and changing laws to give themselves more power in other areas. Further, the Administration has stretched the truth in order to get into a war that the Administration really wanted.

People who view the government in this fashion have felt powerless for some time. The law has been on the Administration's side. The spin has been going the Administration's way and the media hasn't been asking any of the tough questions.

If the President broke the law, can you blame these people for grasping at the one crack in the Administration's armour that has presented itself?

In the end this is about more than Bush breaking the law just as it was more than Clinton just lying under oath.

AHEM:

No, a man living alone, sepArated from any society, is not 'anarchy', he's a hermit. And he goes to jail if he breaks the law.



"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is truly thankful and has nobody to thank."

Spelling Nazi BeGONE!

Stevo, do you feel that the president is above the law when it comes to fighting a war on terror?

If he doesn't live under the jurisdiction of a government (as I specifically stated in my hypothetical situation many times), who takes him and to what jail? Absence of any form of political authority is anarchy. If there is a place on the planet that has no governemnt (and there are such places) and a single man lives there completly alone, this is a real life example of anarchy. There is no authority. If you don't understand this, go start another thread about it and I'll explain it again. This thread is about whether or not the Bush administration broke the law.

Also Roachboy did not mean there are no terrorists when he referred to the war on terror as a war on ghosts. He meant that the war we are fighting is inproportionate to the threat by terrorism, and that people have exaggerated the threat terrorism poses.

s/lansky:

anarchy/anarchism--not the same.

anarchism is a political movement geared toward instituting forms of collective self-organization.

anarchy is a state characterized by the absence of order.

the two terms are not interchangeable.
they resemble each other, but only superficially.

if you want to argue against what anarchists propose as an alternative form of self-regulation, then fine, but it would help your position if you got the basic terminology straight and gave at least some indication that you were actually informed before you did.


as for my post you quote out of context in a way that indicates to me that you did not read it carefully and so did not understand what the argument was---so in a manner i have come to expect from conservatives, you substitute what you want to see (we call that a straw man) and then go after that, kind of.

everyone has pet peeves.
one of mine is superficiality.
just saying.

Ah now you gotta love Bush. When in hot water make sure you can blame, blame, blame.

It's a GOP congress, President Bush..... you're going to sacrifice seats now because you want scapegoats. That's right tell Congress you're vbreaking the law, threaten them and then claim they authorized you to.

So what if they did? Are you telling us you have no backbone to say, "Now wait a minute, we need warrants, my job is to protect the Constitution."

All you needed were the warrants sir...... you are not above the law, no matter how many tax breaks you give, no matter how nasty you get calling people "unpatriotic" "enemy sympathizers" and whatever. You are answerable to the people sir, and it is time you get punished for breaking the law.

Stop blaming Congress.... you are the one who ordered the laws to be broken.

LINK: http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/w...ist=washington

If this is the case, Mr. President, then why did you NOT get the warrants????? Why did your break the law??????

then there must be no reason at all to renew the patriot act, since bush and the AG are going to ignore the 'ex parte' clause of it anyway.

Bush knows he broke the law. The PATRIOT ACT gave him the authority he needed to do these wiretaps and get the warrant after the fact, he just chose not to and therein lies the broken law.

Isn't this issue kind of like the question 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?'

If there are no warrants for these wire taps, doesn't that give them the ability to say they never really happened and there's no real way of tracking how many they are doing or who they are spying on.

there may be no court documents, but there will be NSA docs as well as white house papers. Hell, even the program outline and the EO that Bush signed is evidence.

Back to your first post...

So with the knowledge the legislative and judicial branches of government the president conducted an act deemed vital to national security. The lefts response to this would be farcical if I didn't know it was the usual 'lets try to get Bush from this angle' type of thing.

I would say it was madness if I didn't know so many put their ideology as a priority to the nation as a whole.

Still no reason why you did not get the warrants, Mr. President. Why is that? Who exactly are you "spying" on?

Ah, and the thinly veiled threats towards the leaker. What did you expect to break the law and have noone stand up and expose you?

A "shameful act", Mr. President, while what you have done is beyond contempt? You broke the law, sir, you should be impeached and jailed, perhaps in one of your own little "secret prisons".

Threatening, Mr. President? Are you sending messages that the leak will be made an example of? An example of what happens to people who come forward and show the illegalities you are committing as president, sir?

But by all means, Mr. President, keep this program going. Allow the people to see how egomaniacal and truly revolting you are.

LINK:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-


GOTTA LOVE THIS!!!!!


Mr. President, sir, we will always have enemies that want to destroy the nation and kill us..... are you proposing that as long as you are in office this shall continue, even if we destroy Al Quida and capture Bin Laden (you know that man you seem to have forgotten about).

Are you telling us that you are above the law and need no stinking warrants?

And who meets your criteria Mr. President?

Are you spying on members of congress that speak out against you? Are you targeting individuals that publicly ridicule you?

You and your supporters have claimed that those who speak out against you, are "traitors", are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", are "non-patriots" and "hate America".... so by the qualifications you give, sir, these poeple, who are exorcising their right to free speech, could be tapped????

If the taps are so important why do you not get the warrants, Mr. President?
Why? Answer the question.....

YOU are answerable to the people, sir, regardless of what you believe. It is time you answered the questions, and stopped threatening, attacking and became a man of responsibility and of honor?

Or are Honor and responsibility not covered in your job description?

Wake up America, it's time to stop this man.

He talks of "legal processes, and yet he cannot, will not and laughs about his refusal to go through legal processes for warrants??????

WTF........ and what is scarier even still there are people drinking his lemonade over all this. While senators in HIS OWN PARTY are saying he crossed the line.

Rather the lemonade than the cool aid of the left.

I hope its fresh squeezed lemonade, I also like it when you use sprite/7up to make it.

my question would be 'did you have warrants issued, whether ex parte or not, for these wiretaps'?. If he did, great. I've got no problem with it anymore because that would be completely within the law.

so many as in BOTH right and left?

This line keeps getting thrown around bolded and highlighted as if it was evidence of Bush's corruption. I just spent some time reading the 1978 FISA http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h..._50_10_36.html and I don't see where bush broke any law. If anyone cares to point it out to me, that would be great.

I guess its going to come down to what kind of court approval. Did he need a warrant or is passing a piece of paper to the judge sufficient?

Dunno, don't care is my take on it. What it seems you are asking is 'did the president break a technicality' and have no real great indignation over the concept.

Undoubtedly there are those on the right such as that, but they don't post here. I can honestly say that had Clinton or Carter, or had any other Democrat done this I would feel the same way. I would NOT be in here complaining about the loss of privacy (and isn't that what we are really talking about here?) of suspected terrorists.

I would be far more worried if we were only doing what we have been able to read about, because in that case we would be pretty screwed.

see, this is why there is due process.
the bush squad will benefit from it---their guilt or innocence can be determined through formal procedures.

it is funny how, each time new revelations about the conduct of this administration points toward legal problems, that conservatives turn into miniature trial lawyers and the arguments along with them move toward pretend trials in the public sphere. this is funny because the administration they are defending has so little use for due process. but this is just another one of the many many---um---inconsistencies in rightwingland on this matter.

here is an analysis of the legal situation from the 17/12 ny times.
i dont take it as definitive, but it at least seperates the legal and political problems that the bush squad has created for itself.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html

No need to even display the pretense of announcements of the suspension of the bill of rights, the rest of the provisions of the constitution, or the next session of congress. George W. Bush is now "the law".

Are you just going to sit back and watch as no articles of impeachment are drawn up in response to the coup d'etat of the executive branch?

It's finally over, folks. Constitutional, representative government, <b>lost!</b>
So....what will it be....it seems that there isn't much time to decide? The house of representatives is about to adjourn for an extraordinary length of time....until January 31, 2006, to afford Tom Delay extra time to possibly get past his Texas criminal trial, in the hope that he can somehow be re-elected to his "leaderhip" post.

Do we wait 45 days...only to watch the new congress do nothing in the face of Bush's coup? I predict that we will! We've grown too soft and complacent to embrace the risks of taking the law back into our own hands, by any means necessary...the same way our president took it away from us......
<center><center><img src="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/image.php?u=53414&type=profile&dateline=1132035323">

meanwhile, elswhere in bushworld:

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121801006.html

it appears that walt kelly kinda anticipated this one: " i have seen the enemy and he is us."

Taken from Stevo's link.........


So NOT one of the people tapped were American citizens, or legal alien? These taps were all done on foreign owned property? All these people, who were not US Citizens (or legal aliens), all lived in housing owned by Al Quida?

The law is wishy-washy, granted, but it makes clear that this provision for non warrant surveillence only applies to non-US "persons" (not just citizens). Therefore, even if 1 just 1 US citizen (or legal alien) was tapped, it is illegal.

But thats not the whole thing...what's this mean to you, maybe we're both interpreting it differently...

From what I see, it means that if the person is of the US (citizen or legal alien) that a warrant would have to be applied for.

It is very murky, but from how I read it and it looks very clear, the non-warrant surveillence cannot be applied to "US persons" which, I would assume means citizens (of course), and legal aliens.

If this were not the case, again, I argue they could have done this to Columbian drug lords, Mafiosa, or basically anyone. So I think that is why they made it clear no "US person". Everything else appears murky and is open to court interpretation, but then again, I am not a lawyer.

From your part, I believe it is saying that the "secret court" has no jurisdiction over "US persons" and therefore the warrants would have to be applied for.

Interesting points Stevo.

From Leon H.....

To me it's still illegal. When they can only point to 1 case, the FISA law prohibits ANY wiretaps on US persons without a warrant.

IF they are using the Patriot Act as defense saying that allows illegal wiretaps as a "defense", then I would argue that part of the Patriot act is illegal in and of itself and should never be renewed.

Now, if this "30 second phone call" is being used also, I would argue that you obviously are already tapping and therefore could have filed the warrant as the tap happens, or as argued above even AFTER the fact. But Bush refused to get any warrants at all, which leads me to question why?

Sorry, I just can't drink Bush's piss and pretend it's lemonade...... some on the Right can but I tend to believe it is their blind hatred for the Left rather than their love for Bush that allows them to do so.

This was obviously written by someone defending Bush, so it is just as biased as though attacking him. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth and we should find it, and if he is guilty we should prosecute to the fullest extent..... IF he didn't then we need to look at the loopholes he used and make sure they are extremely narrow and cannot be abused.

(Something the Bush supporters seem to totally ignore, if Bush goes this far and sets a precedent, the next President, may decide to take it further and so on. When we give ANYONE a power such as this (if in fact we have given it) then we must make a priority of making sure it can never be abused.)


P.S. When posting an article you're supposed to add your thoughts to it and show the link. Not trying to be a prick, just letting you know the rules.

It's a good thing the president is immune from prosecution while in office, because he just admitted to a crime that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

I'm SO sick of the "9/11 changed everything" justification. Fine, make your goddamn illegal wiretaps. Don't listen to the advice of the 9/11 Commission, who just FLUNKED your ass on actually taking steps to make our country safe, but make illegal wiretaps so the people you catch will have to be let go.

It would have been trivially simple for him to get a legal groundwork for this action. But His Imperial Highness doesn't need to do that. Laws schmaws. We're post-9/11 here!

You didn't hear/read the Q and A session did you. One thing the pesident pointed out was they were legally only able to monitor calls that were sent out of or into the USA, not inside the USA itself. They could monitor calls to France but not calls from NY to LA. For someone so blatently breaking the law, why would they follow this policy? Perhaps, again, no laws were in fact broken.

Really rasbastid whats your beef here, if it was a simple technicality why bitch and moan like its the end of the world? You don't seem like a moonbat so I'm wondering why the blind hate?

wow its 2005 and people are still stuck on this terrorism thing... i gues bushes plan worked. we have always had terrorism, and always will.

the guy should be let free, because his rights were violated. pretty soon theywill be able to watch me shit for the frear that i might kill someone with my toxic ass.

this post is indeed very childish, but thinking we can fight terror is childish also... i did not know that sadam was a terrorist to the usa.

the us is like an empire.. and every empire fails.

+1 to free the terrorist

But this doesn't fit neatly into my assesment. Perhaps number 2? obviously not 3 since pcakes clearly states we have always had terrorism. maybe number 4, but thats a stretch.

Duck and Cover. Duck. and. Cover.

Quick its a bomb!

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/po...rtner=homepage

interesting.
the fbi in this case, not the nsa---but you know how it goes in conservativeland--everyone who opposes your politics in an enemy, a traitor, a "defeatist" (a fine leninist terminology)...i expect that for some of the more thoughtful folk on the right this would be a problem---even as i expect fully that the lumpenconservative set will assume that statements from the administration resolve this problem as well. particularly given the track record this administration has created for itself relative to telling the public the truth.
o yes there is every reason to trust them.
no concerns at all about abuse of power under the guise of the "war on terror"---once again, anything goes for the right so long as it's their boy at the helm.

on the other hand, it is not inconcievable that the far right would be able to extend its concern to militant groups beyond its fringes--after all, limbaugh et al made martyrs of the militia folk involved with ruby ridge, the fundy whackjobs involved with waco, etc.
so it appears that in the case of neofascist organizations and christian fundamentalists, the right is most concerned about civil liberties--but only when a democrat is in power.
more often than not you get a kind of bland libertarian social ideology espoused when you squeeze something coherent from a conservative on the topic of political mobilization.
from that you would expect a concern with the right to dissent.
--but not if a republican is in power.

if a republican is in power, anything goes.
everything is justified.
critique is disloyalty.
this kind of position really seems to hobble otherwise intelligent folk, just as it does ustwo. from the conservatives above, the working assumption seems to be that it is inconcievable that a republican administration can do anything wrong.
so this is what the Heroic Individuals of conservative economic and social ideology are really like--total party loyalists who like to pretend their loyalty is connected with rugged individualism.
strange stuff indeed.

I'm amazed at how many continue to "drink the lemonade" and proclaim it fine, better than the alternative. So, fast forward a coupld of years, we have a known terrorist in custody, then we're letting him go. Why? Illegal eavesdropping.

Sure, we could have done it right. Why bother though?

The fact that this administration must KNOW that every questionable wiretap could likely lead to a terrorist being let free when we know he's guilty is as bad as unlocking the doors. And it really makes me think that they're really much more concerned with gathering information on political enemies rather than catching terrorists.

That's what he said. He's the only one saying that. Every other interpretation of the law seems to be clear that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens is illegal no matter where the destination or source of the calls. Forgive me, but I'm not real inclined to go with the accused's interpretation of the law.

Good, good, turn it toward me again. Maybe you should start a thread about all the blind hate you keep seeing around here. You know, get it out of your system so you can stick to discussing the issues?

This is totally off-topic, but since we're talking about my blind hate, I'm sort of interested in what Bush COULD do to lose your blind, puppy-like affection? From where I'm sitting, the guy has crossed SO many lines... It honestly seems to me like any reasonable, thinking person would HAVE to see through it all by now. But you and others like you seem to just open wide and swallow whatever hand-waving he offers about his infractions. So what would it take? Would he actually have to strangle an Iraqi baby on live TV for you to have any change of opinion about him?

I really don't believe anyone on here believes there are no terrorists. The problem existing is the fact we have a president who puts himself above the law and in every action claims he does it because he's fighting terrorists.

I think some of us don't buy into that reasoning. Get the warrants, keep the bad guys in prison. Do it the right way.

Breaking the laws we hold as what sets us apart from all other nations, the laws we have had men fight and die for, the laws we hold as sacred, is wrong and erodes away the rights we have and hold so dear.

It's like in '04 when they would raise the alerts for the sole purpose to scare people. It's wrong.

Wiretapping illegally is wrong. The President has many many tools in his possession to do it legal and in the right ways. Yet this president refuses to.

The question shouldn't be whether or not he can..... the question should be why is he not using the LEGAL means, why is he doing this and subverting the laws that are in place?

He doesn't have my puppy like affection. I think he is blowing it domesticly by not pushing for REAL budget cuts to bloated programs. The house would approve it, the senate would block it, so its a lost battle, but such needs to get into the public eye before we can change a few more senators, he has just made this aspect worse with the 'compasionate conservative'. I THOUGHT that was an election year lie, I HOPED it was just fluff, but it seems he is in fact a man of his word, which I both admire and in this case regret. I am upset with the republican party as a whole as they backed off of the tough talk after the 1994 'revolution' (thanks Bill) and have done very little meaningful reduction in government.

I do think he is handling the war on terror quite well, I think the whines about losing civil liberties is a bunch of B.S. No one here is really outraged it just a new angle for the left to work on hoping it will 'stick'. Its been a constant stream of attacks to the point its just noise.

I find it amusing how Bush is called an idiot and later the same people claim he is able to pull of moves that would make Machiavelli proud. Its been hysteria on the left since they lost power and lost control of the debate and while I'm glad they have been exposed to the American people for what they are at last, I am sad that the facade of civilitiy and in some cases sanity is gone. Perhaps it is just a symptom of society becoming more impolite, or perhaps its a deeper and dangerous divide, time will tell.

This line has been quoted before and it is the authorization of force congress gave the president. Thats all he really needs to spy on agents of international terrorism. Conversations between suspected al-qaida agents in the US and their overseas counterpart were spied on, and you people are upset? I don't care if they were US citizens or british royalty, he didn't need a warrent.

Agreed, whole-heartedly.

I have been against the actions of the Bush administration on this front since USA PATRIOT was pushed through Congress after 9/11/2001.

What has happened to American citizens' civil liberties in the past 20 years - through administrations on both sides of the aisle - has been absolutely unconscionable. At least in most of those cases those losses have been at the hands of Congress - whom we can hold responsible. When the losses are at the hands of the Commander In Chief, and are done through seemingly-illegal Presidental Orders, then I think there's only one action to be undertaken: impeachment.