I would hardly consider this ham fisted approach to law enforcement as Machiavellian. More like Nixonian. Clumsy. Stupid. Dangerous.

So how is domestic spying dangerous to you?
.........Your children?
.........This will prevent terrorism?

Wal-Mart Turns in Student’s Anti-Bush Photo, Secret Service Investigates Him

Federal agents visited a college senior two months ago because he requested a book written by Mao Tse-Tung.

Colorado Band Singing Dylan Song Seen as Threatening President Bush

High school student grilled by US Secret Service over artwork

Secret Service Questions Student for Anti-Bush T-Shirt

Secret Service agents visited Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old male students in connection with comments they had allegedly made during a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq.

Nah!.......nothing wrong with this picture......their just protecting us
Yea.....that's the ticket
Squash that dissent early.......that'll show them foreign terrorists
And it's all nice and legal.....the lawmakers said so!
Morality? what's that got to do with anything?

hmm, they should build that aspect into a law instead of just doing it. is there a case where legislators were told that they needed to enact such a provision and refused? was it even suggested?

another argument i heard was relating to the urgent nature of the searches/taps. as already mentioned, the law allows for retroactive warrants. the approval is basically a rubber stamp, even moreso for the doomsday scenarios used to justify these secret procedures.

i don't think vague language about doing "anything necessary" legally trumps all specific laws that stand in the way. if no laws are being broken, i would hope either 1) they aren't doing what has been alleged or 2) they have a better justification. gonzales has demonstrated his flawed legal understanding before...as a result our country has had to deal with many problems concerning torture.

how is "anything necessary" vague? Its pretty clear to me. A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G necessary. What congress gave the president following 9/11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. He was given the powers to do whatever he needed to catch people involved in 9/11 and al-qaeda and to prevent any future terrorist attacts. Since they gave him this power "he" can spy on people suspected of having terrorist ties. Not just ordinary americans, but people with suspected ties. You have a problem with our government listening in on calls between suspected al-qaeda in the US and agents outside the US?

spying on and harassing ordinary americans is what they are doing.
see my above post for just a few examples
also add anti-war groups
also add envirmentalists
also add political enemies
This is where they have crossed the line

it is vague in application. if this statement is to be streched as far as possible, you can indeed apply it to anything. in that case, why enumerate various powers through legislation? this phrase holds more weight than much more specific laws on the books (FISA) or any law anywhere...! there has been a lot of debate over the mechanics of the patriot act in the last month. yet this short phrase renders volumes of material superfluous? the president actually possesses unbounded power and priviledge to do whatever he wants, even something blatantly unconstitutional or illegal (even torture, assassination, etc.), provided it can be said to prevent terrorism?

that is ridiculous. this statement can not give the president power to do anything under the sun. there must be limits. in my opinion, these limits can be found in better established laws.

i don't "have a problem" with the gov't protecting us from terrorists. surely if they are doing this, the FISA court will grant them permission...just as it has thousands of times before. i don't understand why they wish to bypass this simple procedure.

This thread doesn't have anything to do with that. we have 5 previous pages on this thread about how bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps. I've read the links you posted before. We've discussed them before. When the secret service is called because someone has a suspicion they have to check it out. Thats their job. If you notice, the only instance where the secret service came without being notified by another party beforehand was the library case. Book's on a list, person's background is suspicious, so they check it out. No one was beaten or thrown in prison. And none of that has anything to do with bush authorizing wiretaps.

Yes, and by receiving the authorization from congress to do anything necessary FISA allows the president much lattitude in what surveillance to undertake.

Except to have unwarranted taps on US "persons".

I disagree, I think it sets a disturbing pattern, especially the one you point out about the book and library..... and there were a few on there that were news to me, so if they were debated here I missed them.

Anytime we have "books" on any freaking list that makes the government take notice, becomes a time when government has become too powerful and too "big brother-ish".

It is apparent reading these, the taps and other items that have been posted in the past..... that Bush is using whatever powers he has not just to combat terrorism but for his own gains and at his own whims.

These are interesting times indeed, they are scary, intriguing and yet overall the same as any other, yet we make them to be bigger than they are, because we wish to be a part of history. The problem with making them bigger than they are..... is that sometimes they become self fulfilling prophecies, sometimes they are bigger than we make them, because we focus on something else and sometimes things are truly as bad and as big as we make them, yet seem too outlandish and too big to believe.

Bush's Administration, I fear falls into all of the above scenarios, with a heavy dose of the latter scenario.

It has everything to do with this administrations criminal activity.
The thread title is: Did the Bush admin break the law?
The wire taps are being done to anti-war groups,
enviromentalists,animal rights groups,students, and political enemies
It goes to show the environment of overreaching
dissent squashing, fear mongering, criminal activity
Perpretrated by this current adminstration.
But it gets worse.....
Ever stop to think about the future?
If this precident is allowed to stand
The next adminstration maybe opposed
to your viewpoint.....

is 'anything necessary' a free ticket to violate standing precedents and laws?

That's because your party is being run by people who do not believe in what your party claims to, and used to, believe in - namely fiscal conservatism. That's really not a bad concept, but unfortunately, somehow the leaders of your party have redefined it to mean "shift funding from what we don't like to what we do, and call it budget cuts, and then lower taxes so we end up with a net loss."

The old republican party would never have endorsed that approach.



I'm curious as to your reasoning there - how can you think that when the terrorist who attacked us is still running loose and we're making little to no effort to catch him - and in fact we're spending much more energy in Iraq, who didn't attack us, than we are going after bin Laden, who did.


Sorry, I am outraged. Any time you take the constitution and say "we must not deviate from the instructions of this document unless we REALLY feel like it" you are making a mockery of the founding philosophies of this country.

Stripping people of thier civil rights is NOT defending America because it is changing America into something that its founders, and its citizens, would never want.



Why? With Rove as the puppeteer a goat could pull off shenanigans like that. Bush IS dumb. Either that, or he's a damn good actor. But you don't need a smart person when that person is the figurehead who is being controlled by people sitting in the wings, namely, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.




This is an example of the hypocracy your party is famous for. I've never noticed any republicans giving a democrat a break when he's in power. Don't whine when the democrats do the same thing to you. I also find it interesting that right after you accuse the democrats of whining you whine that they're being mean to your president.

I don't believe this is a complete list, so I will ask for additions. How has the perception of the United States changed since 2001?

- We torture prisoners
- We have suspended habeus corpus
- We kidnap "suspected" terrorists on foreign territory
- We have acquiesed to FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA spying on US citizens
- We have corrupted the press with paid propaganda and the threat of exclusion
- We engage in "preemptive" war (the worst oxymoron)

The corruption of this administration is simply a symptom of a larger cause.

The sheeple continue to graze on sparse grass, content in their ideology.

This quote sums up my feelings.

It doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that, and Elphaba's list is everything America used to be 100% against.

Pretty much every nonpartisan expert on these issues has come down hard on President Bush for this. At the very least, he mistakenly overstepped his authority. Alternatively, he intentionally broke the law while lying to the American people about it. The White House's explanation of this revelation has been so weak and defensive that I'm betting this is only going to get worse for the President the deeper we look.

I agreed with everything till that right there.

I am the eternal optimist, I believe in the PEOPLE (we, none of us are sheeple). We are a nation that has proven time and again when the need arises we stand up.

This administration preyed on people's fears after 9/11 to get all they wanted, and now the truth comes out and they are no able to contain it. Change does not happen overnight, the case will be built and we will have justice, it just takes time.

The people will take notice and do something. It takes time for the people to get riled up enough before they demand justice.... and the time is now at hand. The administration is totally losing control and their pathetic excuses are no longer holding water.

Serious question ..

Do you see terrorism as a criminal threat or a military threat ?

Yes, but we are also a nation that has proven time and again that we will sit around and refuse to educate ourselves about the problem until it is a ridiculously large one. The situation we're in right now wasn't hard to predict. I called it LONG before Iraq was invaded. It was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that they had NO justifiable evidence for WMD's, which of course meant they had NO justifiable reason for the war (and you didn't even have to look that hard to see how shaky the WMD fairytale was - just watch Colin Powell's bullshit speech to the UN on the subject to see how flimsy their case was).

And then last year, even though we were chest deep in manure already, the American people (probably) elected the guy again. (I say probably because there ARE some issues revolving around the Diebold voting machines that will probably never be investigated and therefore the '04 election will ALWAYS be questionable) I'm the first one to say Kerry wasn't great, but good grief - Bush was a KNOWN failure, yet he waltzed right back into office. And as I predicted back then, 3 months later people started waking up.

The people always wake up too late, and that frankly frustrates the hell out of me.

So yeah, I'd say "sheeple" is often an apt term.

As you say, perception. And what shapes perception ?

Who's opinions mean something to Joe Average ?

Mainstream news media, stand-up comics, celebrities and cartoonists.
Sounds simplistic, but its true.

Ooohh, and wait, what side do they lean to I wonder ?

Also, I live in South Africa and my perception hasn't changed. I believe in what America stands for and believe in her intentions for the middle-east and the world.

Nixon used to refer to the 'silent majority' - myself and millions others worldwide form part of that group.

Because its a socially-established meme (through repetition) that bush=hitler its actually socially unacceptable to support the Bush administration, which means that polls won't tell the whole story, because people are reluctant to admit their support.

America's worldwide support would be just fine if her own citizens could look past their utopian ideologies and face the harsh realties of the modern world.
An America united behind president Bush ('we support the troops' doesn't cut it) would have seen the Iraq well on its way to peace and prosperity already.

The fact that liberals are so commited to ideology above reality that they would actively undermine their own armed forces is reprehensible to me.

Thank God liberalism didn't have such a shrill voice in the 40's.

stevo, this is a sequence, in chronological order, of what I "know" about the possibility that Bush has "broken the law". It appears that Bush, himself, in an April 20, 2004 speech where he tried to persuade his audience that the Patriot Act should be strengthened and renewed, and his Atty General nominee, Alberto Gonzales, in his sworn senate commitee testimony on Jan. 6, 2005, while answering questions put to him by Senator Feingold, were both untruthful about ongoing wire-tap policies that they had authorized, and implemented.

Please read these excerpts, or the whole linked pages, and comment about what you disagree with in the excerpts, as well as in my comments above, and why. I want to gain a sense on how far apart our views on this issue actually are, before I post questions about what your comments here. Maybe you have read different reports than I have, and maybe there are things that I am citing here that are new to you.....

That's a broad and loaded question and no matter how one answers someone can point and say "see he"s easy on terrorists........ or ..... "see he puts catching terrorists above our civil rights."

It's a little bit of both, depending on the strength of the organization and where we are with the "war" on them.

We must protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic but we cannot sacrifice all that we believe in to do so. If we choose to go that route then the enemy has won far more than we ever will.

Does this answer give any legitimacy to the illegal actions and fear mongering this administration has done?

Absolutely not. We must find ways to battle without sacrificing the rights and way of life the enemy seems determined to destroy.

There were ways to legally perform these wiretaps and the President refused to adhere to them. Why?

That's exactly the problem right there. Your ideological outlook demands that you straddle the fence on an issue like this.

It wasn't even slightly loaded. Because its very important to answer this question one way or the other and not prevaricate and tie yourself up in knots as you consider the pros and cons (not that due consideration is wrong - just that at the end of it a decision must be reached.)

If you think its a criminal issue , then so be it, its an understandable, (if injudicious) point of view.

This is my point in a more general sense. - To actually make a decision on where you stand and then stick by it seems to be beyond most liberal ideology.

Like Kerry's flip-floppin' and Senator Clinton's playing the numbers, you haven't made a choice yet. You believe you don't really have to make a choice, don't you ? Your sense of personal morality is preserved because you feel you're on the 'good' side of the issue. The side of reason and moderation and due consideration.

However that can only ever satisfy your ideological moral viewpoint.

In the real world Joe Al Queda says - "yippee, the libs in the states are putting forward the exact viewpoints we need them to. Anyone got a phonecard for the US?"

I jest there, but you get the picture. No matter what your ideological point of view is, at the end of the day it comes down to physical activities performed by individuals - these activities you can make easier or harder. Its your choice.

Oh, and the answer to your 'why' question appears to have been answered already : Pure and simple expediency. Or do you have some proof of another motive ?

OOO so because of my ideology now that gives the president the ok to commit illegal acts???????

Like the way YOU didn't post all of what I said..... you took out just what was useful to you hoping noone would see the rest.

Timothy McVeigh was a criminal and shopuld have been tried as such, because he was pretty much small time.

Al Quida is military because they are a tad more organized and their tentacles reach far and they can do far more damage.

However, fighting neither gives the president the right to justify breaking the law.

What because I don't agree with you you are going to attack me and my beliefs?

How soon until, what I just said, is grounds for the president to wiretap me?

Do I have to drink Bush's piss and believe it's lemonade like so many on the Right do?

And if I don't? If I stand up and say what is going on is wrong and needs to be stopped..... am I going to be considered the enemy????? I have already on here been accused of being a terrorist sympathizer, a non patriot, told to move elsewhere and so on.

I have been personally attacked and had someone on this board use my gambling addiction to do so (Been recovering for 6 proud years) and I'm the bad guy????

Been told I am wanting to be a martyr because I choose to work and better my life than use the system and quit to pay my medical bills..... and I'm the bad guy?????

Been told because I speak out and exorcise my RIGHT to speak out and express my displeasure with Bush and the government.... and I get accused of being anti-patriotic, a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer and so on.... and I'm the bad guy????

This is my country also and I have just as much right to believe and speak out as you do.... don't like it keep supporting Bush and turn me in as some form of criminal for my beliefs.....

I defer to Rekna's Ben Franklin quote as that pretty much says it all:

BTW what is your definition of "a terrorist"?

Well, since you asked...

So no real decision one way or the other then ?

You don't have to sacrifice all you believe in, but you do have to recognize that the situation has changed - globally, and as you must well know, the compromise for the sake of security is always at the expense of freedom, without exception.

Trouble is you look down the road and think that every change to accomodate security will lead to a fascist state.

'Fear Mongering' ? So there really aren't international terrorist organizations who will stop at nothing to kill and maim their ideological enemies, with their ultimate aim being the complete destruction of the non-islamofascist world? That was just made up ?

So here's the real truth, the perceptive break that liberals have with conservatives. Liberals believe that the threat is exagerated, conservatives believe we don't take it seriously enough.

Only one can be true though. Wonder which it is ?

I love that 'must find ways' what does that mean in real terms ? when you're not willing to give up any of your freedoms at all ?

Another liberal trait - lots of things we shouldn't do, not many suggestions about what we should do.


Yeah, but read that quote carefully. The key word is 'essential' what essential liberties have you lost.

As to being accused of non-patriotism etc. It may seem cruel or nasty for you ta have been labeled in such a way. But if you believe that fighting your government will protect your country more than fighting the evil ideology it faces - then you are certainly not being patriotic, and whether you like it not, whether its done for the 'right reasons' or not, whether its 'speaking truth to power' or not is immaterial - you are harming your nations efforts.

For every action there is a consequence. You may not like the fact that your beliefs are an aid and comfort to the enemy but that doesn't stop it from being true.

And lastly :

No, its your ideological outlook that convinces you that the actions are illegal.

So you label and attack and who cares... your side is right I'm wrong....

Is that what you want to hear....

I offer clean debates and not one Righty takes me up on it.... hmmmm

You didn't address the personal attacks against me did you?

It's all or nothing with you isn't it?

Sorry to say but the world is in shades of gray not black and white.

I refuse to have anyone tell me that illegal wiretaps are being done for my own good.

I would rather run the risk of getting killed by a terrorist and living the way I choose than to allow my rights and freedoms to be trampled over by an egocentric president and his self righteous followers.....

sorry.

I'm tired of being attacked in other threads for my beliefs.... I'm tired of the Right picking and choosing what I say and adding their meaning to it and ignoring the rest.

I am tired of being stalked by someone on these boards, making snide personal attack remarks. I am tired of people using my personal life and issues on these boards to pick fights... there's no debates...... I offered to have one in another thread not 1 taker.... wonder why. Because maybe the Right can't... all they can do is attack and make things personal?

I'm tired of having my patriotism and my beliefs questioned by self righteous assholes who keep telling me I'm unpatriotic, I'm a terrorist sympathizer I'm.... whatever because I refuse to believe I have to give up ANY of my God given rights to appease them.

The president broke the law.... but let's ignore that and attack those who speak out.... it's old it's bullshit and it is tearing this nation apart faster and far more effectively than any fucking terrorist ever will.

Ideology above reality? I don't agree. We've been spouting reality since before this debacle of a war began. Iraq was doing just fine without us going in the in the first place. And don't give me any "well Saddam was a bad man and he had to go so we had no choice but to invade" crap. Everytime some sheep spouts this from their mouth I reply with why are Castro, Kim IL Sung, Hu Jintao still in power? I have yet to receive an answer.

Just in case you don't remember, Bush had approval ratings of 85% right after 9/11 happened. The entire country was behind him in the goal of capturing Bin Laden. Now, four years later, he has since pissed it all away with his underground policies and secret agendas. All in the name of "security”. Hogwash. Bush did it to himself.

I also don't think that liberals purposely try to undermine our armed forces. I'm curious to where to got this perception. If anything, liberals are more responsible with our armed forces by using them when there is an actual need instead of fabricating evidence to send them to their premature deaths.

Grey, you need to understand that if any piece of America is destroyed; including all the freedoms that we currently have, then the terrorists have won. Once we turn our state of freedom, democracy, and liberty into a police state, they have won. We have laws and procedures that allow us everything we need to do to engage the enemy in this war but Bush chose to circumvent those procedures claiming that they would take too long. That's ridiculous since the courts can approve surveillance warrants in a matter of minutes if necessary. There was no reason for Bush to circumvent the system. The only reason he did it is that he knew it would be illegal. He even goes to the point where he got desperate to keep the story from breaking out. See this link. NSA officials even demanded that their names be taken off the order to eavesdrop because they questioned the legality of the order.

You want to know why I fight my government? I fight my current government because they are liars. Because they are crooks. Because they are cold-blooded murders. I fight them because they are against everything that this country stands for and that they try and justify every illegal action they do by hiding behind their 9/11 curtain by sending Bush on TV every week or so (notice how the intervals between the "please keep supporting the war" speeches have gotten shorter and shorter since Bush's approval rating has fallen further into the toilet) "pleading" his case to America trying to get the sheep in line with speeches that he didn't write. If we allow Bush to get away with this, then this is the beginning of the end of this great nation. I don't agree with the way my country was founded (on the backs of indigenous peoples) but I believe in the IDEA of America. The idea that ALL its citizens shall have life, liberty, and freedom from persecution. Bush does not believe in any of these things. I knew that the day he took office and on last Saturday, I believe that his admission was the straw that finally broke the camels back.

I believe in America. I believe in freedom. That makes me and anyone else who agrees with me TRUE patriots.

Now this is a problem I definitely have with most rabid left and right wingers. The unending inability to see anything more than two answers, right or wrong, left or right. There is NOTHING that is a cut and dried black or white answer when you consider large issues, i.e. terrorism or choose any other major issue. People talk about the political divide in america and how its tearing the nation apart but its those two radical sides that are causing it.

anyway, back on topic.....

Before you get on me about bringing up Clinton and Carter, wait. Its not about "well, look what Clinton did." Its about "If it wasn't illegal then, why is it illegal now?"
continue.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
It seemed to be OK when presidents clinton, carter, and even reagan issued executive orders to gather intelligence on US citizens without a warrant. But Mr. Bush does it and every liberal blows his top.

He's trapping you and you're falling for it. He's trying to get you side tracked arguing over what a terrorist is. If he can keep you mired in that maybe we will forget that the real issue is what a presidential crime is. You have to watch out for these tactics, because that political machine is VERY good at obfuscation and distraction. That's how they managed to get enough of the people behind the Iraq war to go through with it - by using smoke and mirrors to make it look like Saddam was a threat to us. Unfortunately not enough people saw through the deception in time. And now that their deceitful and imperialist, not to say criminal, actions have gotten them backed into a corner they're putting the machine into overdrive trying to distract everyone from the real issues long enough so they get away with it. Again.

Stevo stevo, those were done by DEMOCRAT presidents, not evil Hitler Bush. :lol:

I just saw those myself and was gonig to post but you beat me to it :)

Poppinjay I was refering to the big wacky left picture, not just this specificly. Plus if you read above, apparently Clinton and Carter decided do to the same type of thing by executive order. Oddly no one complained then.

I already answered that here post #57 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ge#post1962298

Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. And NO PRESIDENT is above the law when it comes to the rights of the people.

This quote came from your own National review article:

Quote:

Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court.

So in the end, yes, it is still illegal.

All the Carter stuff just puts into action the FISA court, who falls under its authority.

NIce try though to try to paint me as hypocritical.... but won't work.

Here, let me provide the "reasoning" for that, before they say it again:

It's called a free pass for stonewalling long enough. If you REALLY want to poke a gigantic hole in liberal logic, consider that anything Clinton did should be forgotten, but tax money should be given to any descendant of an American slave.

I think his quotes above were what he was referring to as "destroying my arguments," or some such nonsense, but I lost interest in talking to him because of the above.

Terrorism is a criminal threat and should be dealt with as such. Treating it as a mililtary threat simply serves to legitimize the terrorist's actions.

The military response to 9/11 and other terrorist actions has done more than anything to support Al Qaida's position that the US is an imperialist force with designs on controlling the Islamic nations (i.e. the Middle East).


The prevaritcation of others on this issue stems not from the unwillingness to do anything about Terrorists it stems from a lack of understanding about root causes of terrorism in the Middle East, the fact that terrorists in question are not a unified force and that the attacks being labelled "terrorist" are happening to both civilian and military targets.

It is being presented to most people in America (via the media) in a rather confounding way. Grey2000 you confuse a lack of clarity with a lack of conviction.

All you are doing is trying to distract from the issue at hand by discussing something else... Arguing that Clinton did this, Clinton did that... is like saying, "But Jefferson owned slaves!!!"

OK. Clinton did some questionable things while he was in power. Why didn't people spend more time look at these things when he was in power rather than focusing on his blowjobs.

In the end, it is the past and (I think) we are *all* interested in making a better present and a better future (though we may disagree on how to get there).

First:
Clinton and Carter did NOT authorize warrantless searches of Americans

A FISA Court Judge resigns in protest

Spying Program snared purely US calls


So, what happened to the Republicans being strict constructionists of the Constitution? Our founding fathers would declare a new revolution against this government.
This is the kind of overreaching government they were fighting against.

In this case it doesn't really matter if Clinton was a serial killer. My point is that there is a LONG standing precedent for this kind of executive order. Now one could argue that presidents have too much power in their executive orders and I would agree, but the chest thumping here is about the 'illegal' action which are apparently legal.

Lots of people did. Unfortunately what they conveniently ignored as that the proviso in the executive order was that the AG could NOT commit such activity on a US citizen and had no right to examine a citizen's property, phone records, physical being, or conversations except with a warrant. The order was entirely about FOREIGN investigations, and a good order considering the times we've been through.

So far, the tapping under Bush has ENTIRELY been of US citizens. ENTIRELY. How many terrorists so far have been US citizens? How many received aid from US citizens?

Sigh....

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Ustwo, as posted just a few posts back,

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

In case you missed it:

if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Siiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhh::::::::::::::::: :rolleyes:

I noted something similiar in another thread.

I think it is just human nature to make an argument by slipping in an assumption without examining it.

This is not a "left" or "right" phenonemon, it just apparently is.

Likewise, the complaining when someone does it.

*feeling particularly introspective this am*

Ummm so you are saying Bush didn't have the approval of the Attorney General?

Whats your point here?

The AG did not make the certifications.

Ugh this is where a guy in a British military uniform should come in and say....

"I'm stopping this sketch because it has become extremely silly."

I don't get that. Why? With a certification, there's a record. If something gets screwed up, there's a record of what happened, or why it was approved.

So had the AG made the certifications for Carter, would he have broken the law?

If the AG made the certifications for bush, he wouldn't have broken the law?

What are you trying to get at here?

We're in total agreement. My purpose was to point out that some presidential powers and misdeeds didn't bother the left until January of 2001.

funny how much more certain the conservatives are here about the illusion that this is all hunky dory and that they have sorted out all legal issues than are the actual people involved with this.
it is also interesting to watch how the right defenses modulate: cheney talks yesterday in terms of a longer-term view of executive power and here you have the conservatives here taking the same line.
"sponteneously" of course.

the argument about executive power as the right woudl frame it here is a non sequitor in general and false in its particulars. superbelt pointed out the main flaws already. typically, these do not register with the right, which persists in its usual lather rinse repeat mode.


in the real world, there is no such certainty:

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122000685.html

but whatever--this is obviously only in a small measure about information and its evaluation, and in much greater measure about how hard folk on the right find it to introduce ANYTHING critical of the bush people into their political lanscape. sad, really.

Okay so I've read through most of this post and it scares and angers me. People will go spouting off about there "Oh so untouchable rights" yet are willing to sacrifice NOTHING what so ever to have them. They want to sit on there butts at home with more crap then most anyone in the world has because it's "Their right" to have these nice things. What did you do to earn these wondrous rights I ask??? Your For Fathers fought and died for them, they sacrificed there time and lives to do so. Yet you can't stand the thought of someone listening in on your calls to some country, where the hell ever it is or read those oh so important e-mails that God forbid someone see, because it will totally ruin your life when they read it or listen in and say "No he's not planning on killing innocent people" and never once think twice about it. It’s not some average Joe we’re talking about. These are people who are trained, and tested over and over again to get their jobs with background checks that are worse then the worst audit. These people can and will keep your secret fling with the dancing clown a secret, because it’s there job to do so. If you are planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge though there going to cause you some problems.

Did Bush break the law, yeah if you, or I, or any other average Joe did it, but when your the NSA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any other organization DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to catch those who don't want to be caught NO NO and NO no law was broken. Do we as a nation really expect the above-mentioned organizations to get a warrant for EVERY wiretap they want? These are the guys that have to sneak in the shadows to catch the BAD GUYS. How else are they going to catch these people? The very reason for a government agency is to not be seen. If your not doing anything wrong then you have Nothing to worry about. Hell you will never even know they are/were there.

Yeah I'm sorry some people got grilled over what they said, did, or wrote. That's all that happened though they got grilled. If they were innocent then nothing happened. I'd rather have them be a little too careful then not careful enough. Think of the parent who goes through their kids stuff because they think they’re on/or drugs doing or something they shouldn't be. Are they wrong when they find drugs, guns, or a letter on how they plan on doing something completely wrong that could harm them or others? Should we punish that parent for violating their child’s right to privacy? Then we'll give the kid back the drugs, guns, or what ever and tell them to have a nice day. Now that child will fill safe knowing that their rights are being protected to the fullest extent possible.

Now yes in the Utopian society that some think we live in the parents can simply go up to there 100% morally right kid and say, "Hey Billy/Suzie are you smoking crack?” and yes in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack." Just remember in that Utopian society there will be no drug, guns, or problems. Now it the real world where I live unfortunately this won't happen, so mom and dad have to do a little looking into things on there own. Not all have to do this but more do then don't. It's the same with the government, and if your doing nothing wrong then you have no worries.

Please remember this is only about the wiretaps.

Please don't take my writing (as miss spelled and grammatically incorrect as it is) to be open hostility, I only meant to show how vehemently I feel about this subject. Every one has there own opinion and I can live with that. If I came off harsh I’m sorry. Mods if you want me to change this please let me know and I will.

using jamie gorelick as your precedent kinda goes against the demonization she rightfully earned during the 9/11 commission concerning who built the invisible wall between intel and law enforcement, don't ya think?

Are you surprised? They just repeat the right wing mantra. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true.

Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....

If Carter then used that cert for domestic spying, yes.

If Bush used that cert for domestic spying, then yes, though there is no order in place that duplicates that order.

Bush's wiretapping has been entirely domestic. How can it be that 100% of the wiretapping that is supposed to involve foreign interests is domestic?

Do my 6 years as a marine count? :rolleyes:

and we can add one more individual to the rank of 'serf' who believes he's a servant of the government instead of the government serving the people.

in the Utopian society you happy people live in Billy/Suzie will happily say, "Why yes mom/dad I was/or have been smoking crack."

I SO want to make this my tagline.

Clinton and Regan gave Willravel a million bucks....

Yeah because the 4.5 with two deployments to Iraq that I have count, and yeah I still have 3 years left on this contract and am In Korea away from my family for the third holiday season. Semper Fi

I forget who said it, "Only by serving can we truly serve." I expect it to go both ways because without one you don't have the other.

By all means feel free.

the premise of this thread is not a legal question--it is not about the (obvious) problems the bush squad has caused for themselves by their excessively enthusiastic take on their own j.d. legal memos---it is not whether there are grounds for a formal investigation and potentially formal charges against the administration--though there are obviously grounds for an investigation and i would not be surprised to see that this ends up being the Real Mistake, the one that the administration cannot talk away....

the real premise of the thread is the question of whether the extralegal arguments are compelling--these extra-legal arguments center on the "war on terror" and its psychological correlates.
this question can be reduced to a matter of relative paranoia.
do folk on the right feel more special than the rest of us because they imagine "terrorism" is a constant direct threat to them personally--this in the face of all evidence to the contrary----what it involved with this question for conservatives?
they never---ever--address the matter, but it is crucial to every last response above that even tried to defend the bush administration.
it is the centre of this debate, such as it is.
yet no-one addresses it.
all you get is a series of various indices of the extent to which the matter operates psychologically for individual conservatives.
that's it.
it is like a "fact" in conservativeland.
what causes this sense of "terrorism" to vary with political affiliation?
what justifies it?
are certain types of information sources more likely to present "terrorism" as a constant, real menace than others?
how do these information souces line up politically?

fact is, folks, that there is nothing "objective" about your sense of this fiction called the "war on terror"---there is no agreement on what it means, this "war--no agreement on the nature of the adversary--no agreement about the danger posed to civilians by it--no agreement on causes--no agreement about anything, really.

what justifies the separation of the notion of "terrorism" from the arrangements backed by the americans internationally?
that is, on what basis does anyone, anywhere accept the argument floated by the bush people sine 9/12/2001 that "terrorism" can be understood as something other than a political response to aspects of globalizing capitalism on the one hand and american foreign policy on the other?

it would seem to me that if you want to combat "terrorism" you would have to advocate basic changes to the international capitalist order and to american foreign policy, particularly in the middle east.
which means that you would have to know what the americans are doing, and what they are blamed for.

the right seems totally uninterested in such matters, presumably as a function of a politically sanctioned type of ignorance.
yet the folk on the right wonder why others do not buy their arguments. they do not buy them because of all the extra stuff involved with even starting to take them seriously----which conservatives seem incapable of laying out and debating.

but for any of the conservative arguments to be valid at all, there has to be some kind of coherent view of the question of "terrorism"--for these arguments to hold in this kind of debate, that view of "terrorism" would have to be introduced as a major premise and defended as such--as things stand, all it is is an arbitrarily invoked bit of background information the only interest in which is its persistence across rightwing views expressed in this thread.

the right does not have a compelling claim that the bushsquad's survellance actions are legal---i have read through the various attempts above to argue this point, and i find none of them even interesting, much less compelling.
what it comes down to is a sense of whether the bush squad is justified in its actions based on raison d'etat.
period.
and so around we go.

I have no problem sacrifing anything, if I believe in the cause and it is done legally.

Ummm not at all. One thing has nothing to do with another, nor does it weaken the argument at hand in the slightest.

They were only monitoring calls going to or from OUTSIDE the US.

John Schmidt served under President Clinton as the associate attorney general of the United States. He believes bush was well within the law to authorize those wire taps.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

That remains to be seen. They were also monitoring supposed internationa e-mails. I have a bbc e-mail addy that ends co.uk, and yet I live in DC. So my e-mail can be monitored. Likewise, several companies in my business keep e-mail and web accounts based out of Micronesia because of the .fm tag. These happen to all be American media organizations who can now be monitored.

That's just a microcosm of a bigger problem, being that if I pick up a phone in my home and call Canada, the US government should have absolutely no right to listen in.

As far as whether they've monitored domestic-domestic conversations, they won't say exactly and we'll have to see what happens in the Specter hearing.

Ah, but what is "legal"?

Hitler's extermination of Undesirables was "legal" because he made the laws.

Yet I believe you wouldn't do it because you didn't "believe" in it.

Likewise, I think you would probably fight against it because you believed in the cause even though it was "illegal".


And thus is the problem with saying things are legal/illegal without some consideration to the larger framework of "right" and "wrong".

Individuals are inclined to do what they consider to be "right" if they believe in it strongly enough, regardless of legality. This is true whether it is a French freedom fighter or an abortion clinic bomber. Where the "legal" aspect enters is what the majority ends up believing and deciding to make "legal". Hitler was a charismatic leader who persuaded the masses to make him the "legal" ruler and by extension, rule maker.

This is where I believe the only real comparision between Bush and Hitler can be made. Bush also has a vision of what he believes it "right" and he is trying his hardest to persuade the American public to back him which leads naturally to a Congress that will make his actions "legal". He is also showing that he is trying hard to interpret the existing rules to make his actions "legal".

I don't think anyone would disagree with his larger "good" of making America safe from terrorism, but the devil is in the details. Ultimately, history will tell us who was right and who was wrong.

Bfore I go to work..... I have one thing to say..........

Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....Give Willravel a million bucks....

Hehe I think the title of this thread needs to be changed based to fit the current tone.

Replace ' Did the Bush admin break the law?'

with....

'We hope the Bush admin broke the law.'

We are arguing over technicalities, unknown data, and legal issues NONE of us have the slightest knowledge over.

My stance has always been Bush did what was necessary in light of the 9/11 attacks, the technicalities of the case don't matter to me, frankly I wasn't worried if they were illegal, as I feel it was the right thing to do (though I never thought they were illegal in the first place). Now that more and more information is pointing to the fact that they were not illegal as presented, it seems the switch is to find what ELSE they did, hoping to find something illegal, not because of any fundamental outrage but as a way to 'get Bush', basically they want to go fishing.

Well cast your lures away folks, this is an issue where the American people will again react not in outrage over Bush, but in outrage over those who weaken the security of the nation in their quest for political power. Maybe when this is all said and done, 11 months from now when it seems that SOMEHOW the Republicans gained in the midterms we can start a thread in paranoia about how Karl Rove leaked the wire tap story hoping for senate hearings which made the Democrats look like obstructionists yet again for another election.

Let’s see how the people react when a court rules that a known terrorist is going scot-free because the surveillance is ruled illegal. Why not go through the extra few minutes to get a warrant to make sure we have these bastards and they can’t get away?

So you hope, but it won't go down that way :D

Since this thread is checked all day, I'll put this here. I'm out for the rest of the year. Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year, you all!

Hmm... I think we've heard that quite a few times. This administration seems to get as close to breaking the law as they can. In their minds, they have never broken the law and even if they did, it's the best thing for us and an investigation would only help the terrorists. You don't want to help the terrorists, do you?

They lied about aluminum tubes
They lied about Sadam trying to buy uranium
They paid Armstrong Williams to write fluff pieces for them
They paid Jeff Gannon to ask softball questions to them
They leak information to discredit critics
They cover up the fact that they leaked information
They lied about torturing people
They hold american citizens without trial or access to lawyers
They accuse crtics of being traitors with regularity
Now we see that they possibly abused wiretap powers.


When is enough enough?

I'm willing to reserve judgement on the potential wiretap abuses until we know for sure but the only way to know if to have a full investigation by an independant counsell.

I've already provided solid evidence, in quotes from Bush and Gonzales, on government web pages, that demonstrate that neither official is trustworthy in their statements about wire-tapping authority. Bush's comments were in front of a live and televized audience of the American people, and Gonzales spoke while he was under oath before a senate committee.

Your "take" on this is a bit of a stretch, Ustwo!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=222

The answer Bush gave at this press conference two days ago, is bullshit.
Very similar to the BS he spoke in Buffalo on April 20, 2004, and the BS that Gonzales gave under oath to Senator Feingold on Jan. 6, 2005.

If you take these men at their word, Ustwo, you are naive and you demonstrate only a casual embrace of your guaranteed rights spelled out in our constitution.

This administration is 'not guilty' in the sense that OJ was 'not guilty'

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, the Democrats would certainly want you to believe that President Bush is a criminal. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one, final, thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and gentleman, this is Chew-bacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca… LIVES …on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE.
Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the President of the United States, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed democracy, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.

Apparently I'm not the only one thinking this way....

you don't think that ripping the number 2 official in the clinton DOJ for her part in the BS legislation that divided the intel and law enforcement allowing 9/11 to happen and then supporting her arguments about eavesdropping on US citizens while end running around FISA is counterproductive in the slightest?

Talk about breaking down contexts of arguments in to contexts of time periods combined with macro global conflicts in micro judicial definitions of legalities and illegalities as it concerns presidential powers according to the constitution etc. and blah blah blah.

are you a fan of chaos theory by chance?

So you're saying that we're supposed to give up our freedoms for temopary security? I think that you need to read our constitution and understand what is says and what it means.

And understand this quote too (it been said a lot in this thread but it bears repeating until the sheep of this country understand it and stand up to dictator Bush.)

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Benjamin Franklin

What the hell are you talking about? :hmm:

Are you trying to imply that wireptaps that violate the fourth amendment have no justification in this case?

But that's where you're wrong. The forth amendment is clear. We do know that the wiretaps were conducted all on domestic soil. We do know that they were conducted against American citizens. Whether you like it or not, if there are American CITIZENS who happen to sympathize with terrorism, you still cannot circumvent the law. Once you do that, then we're no better than they are. The FISA court can approve warrants in minutes. We can still catch them before they cause any damage. There was no reason for Bush to circumvent the courts.

Which is basically the same argument O'Reilly and Limbaugh make every day. Lefties want terrorists to go free. Lefties want terrorists to attack. All in the name of bringing down Bush.

It's all a lie, but it's easier than thinking.

Read this thread poppingjay, there are a number of Chiroptera Luna who think the terrorists should go free.

Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread. You switched from "hoping" someone would be set free, to "thinking someone should be set free." I have yet to see anyone jump up and down with joy over the idea of terrorists, or questionable terrorists being set free. What I have read supports the position that some posters think that a given US citizen would have to be let free if their 4th Amendment rights were violated, pursuant to the various stipulations.

I can appreciate your position that you don't care if the law was broken, although you don't see that it was or believe it have been, due to the fact that you feel it is the nation's best interest. There are two clear possibilities. 1. Law was broken, and that has consequences. 2. Law was not broken, end of discussion. From what I've seen from reading about the authorization, that's a very broad interpretation to say that Congressional authorization to use necessary force in response to the terrorist threat of 9/11/2001 covers the abrogation of the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, but I suppose we shall see.

I personally am glad this debate occurs, regardless of the outcome. Its the only way for our liberties to remain intact in a de facto sense. I am not worried about this giving away our "playbook" to terrorists, so to speak. The only terrorists / bad guys who would be ensnared by phone conversations are those too stupid to be aware of the prevalent case law regarding wire taps. If these idiots thought about it for a second, they wouldn't discuss it over the phone in the first place.

In short, if the administration or the Congress or the intelligence agencies feel they must break the law to stay one step ahead, then that's a decision they have to make. When they make that decision, they are (to be redundant) breaking the law, and there are consequences to those actions.

Another typical action from the Republicans. Like when the Democrats voted down 'Murtha's plan' It really pissed me off to hear the talk show hosts flat out lie about that shit.

Yep, they play dirty. No question about it. Democrats are no angels (politics is politics, no matter which side of the isle you're on), but the current batch of Republicans appear to have very few scruples when it comes to tactics.

It works, in the short term. Their boy is in the white house, and they're the ones stomping around congress. Problem is, that sort of tactic bites you in the ass, over the long term. That's what we're seeing over the last couple months--right-thinking Americans are starting to cut through the politics and call it like they see it.

American Left: We think those terrorists 4th amendment rights were violated. If so they should go free.

J.Q. Public: Pardon?

American Left: Don't you see, Bush is acting like an emperor (Ustwo note, such language was used in this thread) he must be stopped he is voilating the constitution!

J.Q. Public: So you think that the known and proven terrorists should go free?

American Left: Yes of course!

J.Q. Public: Ummm......What should he have done instead?

American Left: Used the Patriot act! Thats why he got it!

J.Q. Public: Arn't the democrats blocking the patriot act?

American Left: Yes because it violates our civil liberties!

J.Q. Public: So without the patriot act what should we do to stop terrorists in this country?

American Left: ..... Don't you get it?! Bush sucks!

J.Q. Public: I see.... (votes republican...again)

American Left: FUCK MIDDLE AMERICA! (again)

http://www.tinotopia.com/log/images/...le_america.jpg

A similar argument could be exaggerated in the other direction:

Bush makes arrests based on illegal wire taps
Liberals: Um, what're you doing? Thiose wire taps are clearly illegal. Why don't you just try to stop terrorism using legal means? Why do you think it's necessary to break the law in order to protect those who live under the law?
Conservatives: OMG RUN THERE'S A TERRORIST BEHIND YOU!!!!
Liberals: *turns around*
Conservatives: *runs away*

Because I refuse to believe that you are an utter moron I'm going to call you out on this one. I am not saying that bad things done by Clinton do not matter. I am saying they have no bearing on whether or not today's president should be allowed to flaunt the law at will. "Well he did it too" is not a valid reason for letting Bush get away with something.

Now, as I said, I don't think you're a vacuous idiot. I think you know and understand what I just wrote. But, in the tradition of obfuscation and misdirection that your party has become so good at, you are attempting to make it look like I said something that I did not say.

Unfortunatly for you, the rest of the people here on TFP are also not terminally stupid, so they're not going to fall for it.

Oh, and by the way I never said money should be given to descendants of slaves. I don't think it should. Sorry to ruin yet another of your baseless attacks.

The ACLU has managed to get some heavily edited information through the FIA.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105M.shtml#1

My apologies for going a bit off topic, and I have no love for PETA, but I believe this is a Hoover response to constitutionally protected desent.

At this point, the question of whether actual laws were broken is less interesting to me than the question of what the political and PR fallout will be. Remember that "political capital" that Bush crowed about after his re-election? That shit is spent. Are we looking at three years of Bush on the defensive?

RB, there was no "political capital" with a vote as close as that one. No second term, war-time president ever got such low numbers. It was a great sound bite, however.

Ustwo....I wince as I read the "content" of your posts, and I observe that you ignore the challenges that I direct to you, accompanied as they are by linked excerpts to reports published by "newspapers of record" and the ruling government's, own web pages.

The quote box above indicates to me that you are hopelessly "outclassed", here, yet you continue to deny and distract from what is actuaully, and finally being reported by MSM, after an admitted delay of more than a year.
I urge you to bring the level of your discourse nearer to the level of the following research that I am posting here for the examination of all interested members. Please endeavor to counter it, and equally worthy material posted by other members, commensurate to the level of your education and abilities.
All we know of you is what you have told us....and sir....you do yourself an injustice that directly conflicts with who you have told us you are.
<b>Maybe getting congress to grant presidential authority for warrantless searches would be "would be difficult if not impossible", because it goes against the wishes of the majority of American voters, and is fucking unconstitutional. These
lawless thugs admit that, in the face of the knowledge that congress would not approve of it, they "did it, anyway!</b>

Translation: <b>The elected legislators who represent American voters in congress would "jeaopardize the program" by voting against providing presidential authority for warrantless eavesdropping. So...they did it...sectretly....ANYWAY!</b>

Guess what just came to light: Bush not only broke the law, he lied about it.

This is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#">this April 20, 2004 speech</a>, conveniently posted on the White House website:

That's a lie. At the time he gave this speech, he had already given authorization for court-order-free wiretaps, and he intended to give more such authorizations.

Okay, you big Clinton-dragger-uppers: if lying about getting a blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor, what do you call it when the President lies about violating his citizen's constitutionally-protected civil rights? Actually, Bush has skipped misdemeanors, and headed straight into felony territory.

Even if you DON'T believe he broke the law, you can't really deny the above public comment is clearly a lie, and about a gravely serious matter.

He did lie (proof above), and continues to lie, and it's time that someone heald him responsible for his lies. WE NEED TO GET THIS UNDER OATH. If that happpens, he's pretty much scewed. If someone has the balls to ask him to make a statement under oath and he lies, he's screwed. If he won't answer, he's screwed.

I already posted a large excerpt from Bush's April 20, 2004 Buffalo speech on this thread, and I linked to it, further excerpted from it, and commented about it in further posts, <b>on this thread</b>.

<b>RB</b>... in your opinion, should I bother to participate here? Do I have to dole my posts out in Macnews style chunkettes...ala USA Today?

Sorry if it seems that I'm picking on you....but you re-posted something that I covered already, quite thoroughly here, along with Gonzales's testimony under oath, which contained similar misleading statements as Bush's April 20, 2004 ones!

but not under oath... the lie about the blow job is EQUAL to the lie from Martha Stewart, a lie under oath. lie all you want in public, but when in front of a grand jury and you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, well you can't lie then.

Link your articles, and simply quote the highlights. I've never skimmed through one of your posts, but I imagine many have. I know it's bs that you have to do it, but you have to communicate in a style that other people can understand. People are generally too lazy to read a half a dozen articles that support your argument. And you're right to get pissed that the Buffalo speech was ignored in your post, and clearly read in someone elses. I'd be pissed too.

Bush's lie may not have broken the law, but it was more serious than Clinton's lie since it had to do with our own privacy rather than his.

Sorry for the repeat, host. This thread has gotten so long and sprawling, I didn't realize I'd already seen that. Still, I think it bears pulling out and highlighting.

I'm going to reply to host's direct questions to me in PM.

I have duplicated Host's posts on three or more occasions in the past, and I have had a couple of mine duplicated in this thread. My errors were due to reading too casually and hope I have corrected that. My duplicated posts can only be due to the sheer size of this thread. It must be a Politics first, that we have stayed out of trouble for so long. :)

Why is this a bad thing? The republicans have managed to snow the public into following their insane policies by repeating lies, half-truths, and innuendos over and over and over. If you repeat it enough times it must be true. Why should not we, who have the advantage of having the truth on our side, use the same tactics? Hammer the points into the bloody ground. Maybe then people will open their eyes and see things as they are before it's too late. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?