Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 12-17-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping
Bush Also Urges Congress to Extend Patriot Act

By Peter Baker and Lexie Verdon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 17, 2005; 12:12 PM

President Bush today acknowledged that he had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international communications of Americans and other domestic residents with known links to al Qaeda.

The controversial order has been approved by legal authorities in his administration, Bush said, and he added that members of Congress had been notified of it more than a dozen times.

He defended his decision to sign the secret order, calling the program a "vital tool in our war against terrorists" and "critical to saving American lives."

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," a stern-looking Bush said. "Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends, and allies. . . .And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups," Bush added.

The disclosure of the program, first reported in yesterday's editions of the New York Times, raised strong protests from congressional leaders of both parties, and key members of Congress yesterday called for hearings into the president's action.

Bush today also strongly urged the Senate to pass the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Key provisions of the law are scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but concerns have been raised recently its effect on the possible erosion of Americans' civil liberties. Yesterday, with the news of the NSA domestic eavesdropping program reverberating around Capitol Hill, opponents of the bill in the Senate blocked efforts to pass renew the Patriot Act.

"That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

Noting that the act expires in two weeks, he said, "The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks."

The president used his weekly Saturday morning address to the country to talk about the growing furor over the NSA secret eavesdropping program. In a sign of the interest in the speech, instead of the usual taped radio speech, the president spoke live this morning and it was carried on television. The speech ran about seven minutes, slightly longer than his usual radio addresses.

He chastised the news accounts, saying, "The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Bush said that he authorized the program "using constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief." He argued that the program is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, and used "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

"The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time," Bush said. "And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad."

He said the surveillance is reviewed about every 45 days and fresh intelligence about the subjects is considered. Those involved in the reviews include the "nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president." The NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general, are also part of the review, he said.

"The American people expect me to do everything under my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said, "and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the president of the United States."

Bush took no questions after his comments.

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?

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 11:40 AM

I watched the Bush speech referred to in that article
when Bush said

Quote:

"The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have

Enemies meaning the American people,
defenders of the constitution,
and congress

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

flstf · 12-17-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

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.

Elphaba · 12-17-2005, 12:39 PM

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.

Lansky · 12-17-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

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

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

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-

Quote:

Hijacked by the 'Privocrats'
August 5, 2004

By Heather Mac Donald

Even as the Bush administration warns of an imminent terror attack, it is again allowing the "rights" brigades to dictate the parameters of national defense. The administration just cancelled a passenger screening system designed to keep terrorists off planes, acceding to the demands of "privacy" advocates. The implications of this for airline safety are bad enough. But the program's demise also signals a return to a pre-9/11 mentality, when pressure from the rights lobbies trumped security common sense.

The now-defunct program, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or Capps II, sought to make sure that air passengers are flying under their own identity and are not wanted as a terror suspect. It would have asked passengers to provide four pieces of information -- name, address, phone number and birth date -- when they make their reservation. That information would've been run against commercial records, to see if it matches up, then checked against government intelligence files to determine whether a passenger has possible terror connections. Depending on the outcome of those two checks, a passenger could have been screened more closely at the airport, or perhaps -- if government intelligence on him raised alarms -- not allowed to board.

Privacy advocates on both the right and the left attacked Capps II from the moment it was announced. They called it an eruption of a police state, and envisioned a gallimaufry of bizarre hidden agendas -- from a pretext for oppressing evangelical Christians and gun owners, to a blank check for discriminating against blacks.

Contrary to the rights lobby, Capps II was not:

• A privacy intrusion. Passengers already give their name, address and phone number to make a flight reservation, without the slightest fuss. Adding birth date hardly changes the privacy ledger: The government and the private sector have our birth dates on file now for social security and commercial credit, among numerous other functions. Far from jealously guarding their name and address, Americans dispense personal information about themselves with abandon, in order to enjoy a multitude of consumer conveniences. (Anyone with a computer can find out reams more about us than is even hinted at in the Capps II passenger records.)

• A surveillance system. Neither the government nor the airlines would have kept any of the information beyond the safe completion of a flight. The government would have had no access to the commercial records used to check a passenger's alleged identity; those would have remained with the commercial data providers contracted to provide identity verification.

• A data mining program. This misunderstood technology seeks to use computers to spot suspicious patterns or anomalies in large data bases, sometimes for predictive analysis. Capps II had nothing to do with data mining; it was simply a primitive two-step data query system.

The advocates' most effective strategy for killing off Capps II was to bludgeon airlines into not cooperating with its development. Northwest Airlines and Jet Blue were already facing billions of dollars in lawsuits for specious "privacy" violations, trumped up by the advocates in reprisal for those airlines' earlier cooperation with the war on terror. No other airline was willing to take on a similar risk and provide passenger data to stress-test Capps II. Without the capacity to be tested, Capps II was doomed.

The Department of Homeland Security has already shown itself a weakling in bureaucratic turf battles; its capitulation to the "privocrats" means it is all but toothless. It was just such a cave-in by the Clinton administration that eased the way for the 9/11 attacks. Under pressure from the Arab and rights lobbies, the Clintonites agreed in 1997 that passengers flagged as suspicious by the then-existing flight screening system would not be interviewed. Allowing security personnel to interview suspicious flyers, it was argued, would amount to racial and ethnic profiling. On 9/11, the predecessor to Capps II identified nine of the 19 hijackers as potentially dangerous, including all five terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 77. But pursuant to the rights-dictated rules, the only consequence of that identification was that the hijackers' checked luggage was screened for hidden explosives. Had the killers themselves been interviewed, there is a significant chance that their plot would've been uncovered.

Since the demise of Capps II, the privocrats have tipped their hand: Their real agenda isn't privacy, but a crippling of all security measures. Leading advocate Edward Hasbrouck has decried both a voluntary "registered traveler" option, in which passengers agree to a background check in order to circumvent some security measures, and physical screening at the gate. Bottom line: Any security precautions prior to flight constitute a civil liberties violation. It is mystifying why the government should pay heed to people who so disregard the public good.

It is difficult to know where we go from here. There is no way to keep a terrorist from flying without first trying to determine who he is. Yet the most innocuous identity verification system prior to a flight is now seen as tantamount to illegal surveillance. With the rights advocates back in the saddle of national security, al Qaeda can blithely get on with its business.

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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

roachboy · 12-17-2005, 01:36 PM

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?

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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

Lansky · 12-17-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

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

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.

dksuddeth · 12-17-2005, 02:58 PM

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?

Willravel · 12-17-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

There can be no real freedoms without real security.

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.

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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.

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

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

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Eloquently worded as usual.

Elphaba · 12-17-2005, 03:38 PM

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

Link

Thanks, alpha phi

Quote:

Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives
By Scott Shane
The New York Times

Saturday 17 December 2005

Washington - A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency.

From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. That stance has given the administration leeway for decisive action, but it has come under severe criticism from some scholars and the courts.

With the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney, legal theorists in the White House and Justice Department have argued that previous presidents unjustifiably gave up some of the legitimate power of their office. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it especially critical that the full power of the executive be restored and exercised, they said.

The administration's legal experts, including David S. Addington, the vice president's former counsel and now his chief of staff, and John C. Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, have pointed to several sources of presidential authority.

The bedrock source is Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the "executive power" of the president, including his authority as commander in chief of the armed forces. Several landmark court decisions have elaborated the extent of the powers.

Another key recent document cited by the administration is the joint resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for Sept. 11 in order to prevent further attacks.

Mr. Yoo, who is believed to have helped write a legal justification for the National Security Agency's secret domestic eavesdropping, first laid out the basis for the war on terror in a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."

That became the underlying justification for numerous actions apart from the eavesdropping program, disclosed by The New York Times on Thursday night. Those include the order to try accused terrorists before military tribunals; the detention of so-called enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret overseas jails operated by the Central Intelligence Agency; the holding of two Americans, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, as enemy combatants; and the use of severe interrogation techniques, including some banned by international agreements, on Al Qaeda figures.

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, declined to comment for this article. But Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, explained the logic behind the assertion of executive power.

"After 9/11 the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people," Mr. Berenson said.

He said he was not familiar with the NSA program, in which the intelligence agency, without warrants, has monitored international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of people inside the United States. He said that he could not comment on whether the program was justified, but that he believed intelligence gathering on an enemy was clearly part of the president's constitutional war powers.

"Any program like this would have been very carefully analyzed by administration lawyers," Mr. Berenson said. "It's easy, now that four years have passed without another attack, to forget the sense of urgency that pervaded the country when the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoking."

But some legal experts outside the administration, including some who served previously in the intelligence agencies, said the administration had pushed the presidential-powers argument beyond what was legally justified or prudent. They say the NSA domestic eavesdropping illustrates the flaws in Mr. Bush's assertion of his powers.

"Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat," said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme."

Even if the administration believes the president has the authority to direct warrantless eavesdropping, she said, ordering it without seeking Congressional approval was politically wrongheaded. "We're just relearning the lessons of Vietnam and Watergate," said Ms. Parker, now dean of the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as CIA general counsel in 1995 and 1996, said he was dismayed by the NSA program, which he said was the latest instance of legal overreach by the administration.

"Clearly the president felt after 9/11 that he needed more powers than his predecessors had exercised," Mr. Smith said. "He chose to assert as much power as he thought he needed. Now the question is whether that was wise and consistent with our values."

William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the NSA revelation came as a shock, even given the administration's past assertions of presidential powers.

"I was frankly astonished by the story," he said. "My head is spinning."

Professor Banks said the president's power as commander in chief "is really limited to situations involving military force - anything needed to repel an attack. I don't think the commander in chief power allows" the warrantless eavesdropping, he said.

Mr. Berenson, the former White House associate counsel, said that in rare cases, the presidents' advisers may decide that an existing law violates the Constitution "by invading the president's executive powers as commander in chief."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 typically requires warrants for the kind of eavesdropping carried out under the special NSA program. Whether administration lawyers argued that that statute unconstitutionally infringed the president's powers is not known.

But Mr. Smith, formerly of the CIA, noted that when President Carter signed the act into law in 1978, he seemed to rule out any domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

"The bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States" if an American's communications might be intercepted, President Carter said when he signed the act.

By asserting excessive powers, Mr. Smith said, President Bush may provoke a reaction from Congress and the courts that ultimately thwarts executive power.

"The president may wind up eroding the very powers he was seeking to exert," Mr. Smith said.

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

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 04:01 PM

from above article

Quote:

Mr. Yoo, said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response."

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

dksuddeth · 12-17-2005, 04:11 PM

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.

Lansky · 12-17-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

ratbastid · 12-17-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there is no question that the white house understands (why anthropomorphize the building?)

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

Willravel · 12-17-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Eloquently worded as usual.

Great compliment! Thank you very much!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanksky

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.

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).

Ustwo · 12-18-2005, 01:16 AM

Quote:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.

Just so we have the full speech.

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

Oh and...

Quote:

Columbus truck driver Iyman Farris pled guilty in 2003 to helping Al-Qaeda plan terrorist attacks in the US, and is was an admission that stunned his ex wife.

Geneva Bowling says, "It's still hard for me to believe that he did."

Two years later, Bowling knows that Faris was caught after agents monitored the couple's phone without a court order. She told the Associated Press, "If you're asking me if I think that's fair, I think it is."

Constitutional lawyer Benson Wolman says there's a reason court orders are required before the government can listen in on you; there must be probable cause you've done something wrong.

"While most of us aren't going to be victims of wiretap or eavesdrop, it's important to now that if the government can do it to the worst of us, it can do it to the best of us," says Wolman.

Supporters of the secret wiretapping order say desperate times since 9-11 call for desperate measures.

"In the perfect world we would just continue with laws as they were prior to 9-11 and we are unable to combat with due diligence and continue to face this new challenge. The fact is we can't do that," says one supporter.

A lot of lawmakers say they're troubled by this sort of domestic spying. The Senate has promised to hold hearings on it.

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

Hardknock · 12-18-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm trying to care here, but mmmm can't do it.

Maybe thats why. All the monday morning quarterbacks and whine about liberties they never lost, and the same people would have been whining if we didn't do 'enough' to stop an attack. We haven't had a successful terrorist attack on the US since 9/11, and quite frankly I'm shocked (as would be most of the pundits if you asked them in 2001) and I still think we are 'due'. Perhaps it is such programs which have helped us prevent such attacks. I do hope the lefts constant mewling about necessary actions don't become such a distraction that we have more people die, perhaps they can come up with better ways to prevent such attacks in the future, or does the left just accept them as inevitable in a free society and schedule more sensitivity training for the police? Or perhaps more money for 'first responders' so they can buy more body bags, sutures, and hire more grief counselors.

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

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.

pan6467 · 12-18-2005, 01:35 AM

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.

tecoyah · 12-18-2005, 04:41 AM

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.

pig · 12-18-2005, 08:08 AM

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.

JumpinJesus · 12-18-2005, 08:18 AM

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.

Lansky · 12-18-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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).

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!!!

...

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.

alpha phi · 12-18-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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!!!

...

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

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

pig · 12-18-2005, 11:50 AM

I hate to be that guy, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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!!!

...

.....
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.

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!!!

Ustwo · 12-18-2005, 12:15 PM

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.

pig · 12-18-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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. "

ratbastid · 12-18-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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!!!

...

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.

pan6467 · 12-18-2005, 03:06 PM

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.

Quote:

Lawmakers Demand Domestic Spying Probe By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago

Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings.

"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker Dennis Hastert to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.

Bush acknowledged Saturday that since October 2001 he has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts.

The New York Times disclosed the existence of the program last week. Bush and other administration officials initially refused to discuss the surveillance or their legal authority, citing security concerns.

Administration officials said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.

"That's a legitimate part of the equation," McCain said on ABC's "This Week." But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Reid said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush "has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties."

Several lawmakers weren't so sure. They pointed to a 1978 federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for domestic surveillance under extreme situations, but only with court approval.

Specter said he wants Bush's advisers to cite their specific legal authority for bypassing the courts. Bush said the attorney general and White House counsel's office had affirmed the legality of his actions.

Appearing with Specter on CNN's "Late Edition," Feingold said Bush is accountable for the program regardless of whether congressional leaders were notified.

"It doesn't matter if you tell everybody in the whole country if it's against the law," said Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to define the standards they're using to establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., called that troubling. If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive," said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. "But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war."

The existence of the NSA program surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Renewal of the law has stalled over some its most contentious provisions, including powers granted law enforcement to gain secret access to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.

Democrats have urged Bush to support a brief extension of the law so that changes could be made in the reauthorization, but Bush has refused, saying he wants renewal now.

LINK:

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

Lebell · 12-18-2005, 04:01 PM

Knock off the personal comments and sarcasm or the thread is closed.

dksuddeth · 12-18-2005, 04:24 PM

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.

Willravel · 12-18-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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!!!

...

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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.

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

Lansky · 12-18-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My scholastic area of expertise is phychology.

omg

Quote:

An anarchy is not a society, but the lack there of, therefore the rest of your post is based on an incorrect assumption.

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?

Quote:

Lone anyone lives in an anarchy.

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

Lone what lives where, how?

Quote:

Anarachy does exist and it can even be successful.

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.

Quote:

If you read my posts fully before responding to them, we will be able to understand each other much better.

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

/returning to planet earth

snowy · 12-18-2005, 07:36 PM

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-18-2005, 07:46 PM

Lansky,

under normal conditions I would PM you but other members have tried to steer you away from personally attacking posts by other community members.

Please do not make your post personal and post on the thread subject with respectful discourse. If you cannot then you will be uninvited from the community.

Consider this your first warning.

Lansky · 12-18-2005, 08:05 PM

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."

Willravel · 12-18-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

omg

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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?

Anarchy is not a type of society, but the lack there of. I hope that is more clear than my previous statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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

A man living alone, seperated from any society, is anarchy. He rules himself and is under no rule from another person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

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.

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.

12-17-2005, 01:36 PM	#127 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-17-2005, 02:58 PM	#130 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-17-2005, 04:11 PM	#136 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-18-2005, 01:35 AM	#142 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-18-2005, 04:41 AM	#143 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	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. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-17-2005, 12:39 PM	#124 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

12-18-2005, 08:08 AM	#144 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	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. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-18-2005, 08:18 AM	#145 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	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 can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

12-18-2005, 12:15 PM	#149 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-18-2005, 04:01 PM	#153 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Knock off the personal comments and sarcasm or the thread is closed. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-18-2005, 04:24 PM	#154 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-18-2005, 07:36 PM	#157 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	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. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

12-18-2005, 07:46 PM	#158 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Lansky, under normal conditions I would PM you but other members have tried to steer you away from personally attacking posts by other community members. Please do not make your post personal and post on the thread subject with respectful discourse. If you cannot then you will be uninvited from the community. Consider this your first warning. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-18-2005, 08:05 PM	#159 (permalink)
Lansky Loser Location: Absentia	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."*