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.