Bush lawyer argues that Americans have consented to monitoring

No, I am hoping to one day have Proportional Representation in the U.K.
Why do you think EVERYTHING is all about the USA? Even when I'm talking about where I live, which I did mention was NOT the USA...

I asked. Is there harm in that?

I know you don't live in the USA, I got that loud and clear. You said "Living in an essentially two-party state" and I thought you meant the US. Afterall you have more than two parties that are represented in your Parliament, do you not? More than 3? The US Congress has 1 Independent Congressman and 1 Independent Senator. The rest are Republicans or Democrats.

If I understand your Parliament, there are a great number of represented parties, though I see from Wikipedia that the big ones are Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats (making up about 10% of all members).

So forgive me for assuming that you were talking about the US when you say "get PR" and "two party sytem"

How have they been successful? I would agree, but for different reasons perhaps. I'm curious what way you think they've been successful.

Their attack is being used as an excuse to strip away the rights of every American, on an almost daily basis. I'm sure their aim was to do much more than kill innocent people, judging by the symbolic targets they chose, but I wonder if they knew, or suspected, that their attack would turn America into a police state.

In our efforts to 'protect our country against terrorism' (which I think is a bullshit excuse for what some wanted to do anyway) we've stripped away the very things that made our country great in the first place, and in the process made the rest of the world look on us as war-mongering, fascist tyrants.

And would you agree that we ARE "war-mongering, fascist tyrants" or do you think that is just a perception that others have?

I believe the current administration fits that shoe, but not Americans as a whole, or even as a country. I believe that's our current state, but not our ideal.

Idiot. I never said that it did. You're deliberately twisting my post. It's beneath you.

What I said is that they have already effectively removed one amendent, what will stop them from continuing?

The posts are there for everyone to see and make their own judgement.

EDIT: If you didn't intend to say that then I retract my assertion. I really thought you understood what I was asking.

The Fourth Amendment provides that we are afforded certain rights that cannot be overridden without due interaction of the judicial branch. Without proper protection by the judicial, the executive and legislative can pretty much do whatever they want without any avenue of recourse in regards to the rights afforded by the Fourth.

Maybe not the fourth. But the 1st and 2nd sure do.



Failing that...



The ability for the country's farmers to come to Washington toting their shotguns is something fundamentally guaranteed under the constitution. You can certainly "redress your greivances" at gunpoint.

So, as long as there is a Judicial branch working independently of the other branches, it seems like you have an avenue of recourse. Are you arguing that the Judicial branch has been usurped by either the legislative or Executive branch?

If your Fouth Amendment rights are violated or abused you can still seek recourse from the Justice system, right? A violation of FOURTH Amendment rights does not equal the elimination of FOURTH Amendment rights, does it?

Of course, I would argue that the question of Fourth Amendment rights violations in the case of the NSA program is still being debated, but I resepect your assertion (Kendra) that it has been violated

Would you agree that as long as ther is an independent judicial branch a citizen has a forum for redress of grievence of RIGHTS violations?

The problem here is people have different concepts of what is and is not protected by their privacy. If you wanted to install a transmitter, for instance, in someone's phone so you could listen in directly, you would need a warrent. But if you instead monitor the conversation at the phone company, you don't need a warrent because at the point the signal leaves your perview of property they don't need to consult you. But the result is the same and this is the arguement that is being made about violations of the 4th.

They're obtaining data that in one instance requires a warrent, but in another does not. I can only imagine it gets worse if you attempt to consider privacy on your computer. They would need a warrent to search your computer, but they can instead go to your isp and monitor your computer from there without one.

On the other side of this, the rationalization goes something to the effect of, 'because we can do it without a warrent, we don't need a warrent, even if we would in many other cases.' So they're rationalizing for a default position that is the opposite of what it should be as far as the 4th is concerned. If it's a case where there's a method and path to a warrent for our data, they should take that path rather than try to avoid it as a default position.

So I'm not arguing that the judicial has been subverted. I am arguing they are being completely ignored in the face of expediency. Without the warrent, the issue will never enter into the judicial system. That should be a requirement (and is in the 4th) if they want personal information (even if such information is given away to others on a daily basis).

So yeah, basically the 4th might as well not be there. (I think some of us would also just really appreciate the honesty our government would have to indulge in by simply requesting the removal of that amendment).

Taking 10 years to reach the Supreme Court (if they take the case, also after you've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal counsel), which has been politically stacked by the executive branch, doesn't exactly qualify for my definitions of "independent" or "forum to redress grievances".

Smaller courts do nothing; they simply rule and get appealed immediately.

Or get shut down by the NSA for "state security reasons".

It is really a sad state of affairs.

-Ghoti

If you happen to be declared an "enemy combatant," whatever the hell that means, you'd never get anything but a military tribunal. If every US citizen is a suspect and "enemy combatant" means whatever the administration wants it to mean, then no, you do not have a forum for redress. They will however re-dress you in a pointy hood while attaching electrodes to your ball sack.

BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Let's not be stupid. Your average citizen is not going to be adequately armed to take on the military or police. The age in which “the masses” would be able to overthrow the US government in such a manner has passed. Thankfully, we are also into an age where we really don’t have to. That’s not to say the Second doesn’t still have an important role, but it sure isn’t about taking out an unfavorable government anymore.

"Climate" sounds like such a subjective perception -- as we can see in this thread, there are those who want to slam their fist against the panic button and overreact to everything. How we go from genuine legal concerns over the limits of government all the way to "Holocaust" and "Guantanamo = Nazis" in one giant leap is just mind-boggling. Some people need a serious rhetoric check.


Agreed completely. Political elections are, after all, nothing but formalized popularity contests. So if you can make your opponent look bad, you gain fame and power. The problem is, the other systems running around work even worse. And in our country, both parties are equally adept at smearing and mud-throwing.


I think "dominated" is a misleading term. There are 231 Republican Representatives to 201 Democrats. The Republicans hold 55 Senate seats to 44 Democrat. Neither of those numbers are even close to a majority. And that was my whole point -- if Congress is just rubber-stamping the administration, what are those 201 Reps and 44 Senators doing with their votes? Maybe the fact that it's only been the left-wing media & blog outlets who have been screaming for blood, rather than Congressmen who are informed about the real legalities & issues?


Chip, you know I love you, but you're going to have to do better than hyperbole to make a case with me Nothing you mention can be boiled down into a buzzword, and terms like "illegal war" sound like a 60s protestor sign -- the real facts and issues are much deeper and wider. I won't engage in a battle of hyperbole, but I'm happy to discuss the issues with anyone who wants to be reasonable.


And this is a good example. The NSA is not rifling through your personal life. The phone records given to them did not contain personal data, only a row on a database showing the origination and destination of the call. The NSA's intent was to identify traffic patterns, establish a baseline against which they could screen out suspects -- not figure out where Chip is ordering pizza


Libby's been indicted already. And neither he nor Rove, to my knowledge, ever said she was an operative -- only an employee of the CIA, which is different. The NY Times outed her as an operative I believe. ~shrug~ Rove's fate doesn't concern me in the least.


Except for the annoying fact that the war is not unwinnable as long as Americans stick it out instead of tearing ourselves to pieces with disinformation and fear. Iraqi forces are taking more and more of the burden of their own defense with the ultimate goal of American withdrawal. We're much closer to leaving a democracy behind than any of the anti-war opposition ever gave us 3 years ago -- no one said it would be easy, and I'm not claiming that the Administration has gone about it right, but sonofagun it might just work.

The problem is, this isn't the kind of sanitary 90-minute TV-Video war Americans love. It's what most wars are since the 20th century - a messy political struggle, in this case against an insurgent minority with far more barbaric values than some here are accusing Bush of having. And, further, the Iraq war is only a sideshow in the larger anti-terrorism issue. It's not an 'excuse' for efforts to track terrorists domestically. They are unrelated issues. We need to stay the course in Iraq, and we need to be able to locate and identify al Qaeda cells inside our borders. Both.


I don't think that's accurate. Most Americans think the NSA program is within the law, which is far different than saying "domestic spying is A-OK".


I'm sure media such as the NY Times, the Atlanta Constitution, LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle will do everything in their power to stoke the fears and paranoia. They've spent 6 years grinding the anti-Bush mill already, and the fruits of their labor are beginning to pay off. Maybe they can get the job done before their subscription base completely falls through the floor.

There are many things that annoy and disappoint me about this administration, but conduct of the War on Terrorism is not one of them. It's been too easy for some people to forget what happened when our intelligence system failed and planes were hijacked 5 years ago. Leave it to Americans to grow timid at the sight of our own blood and spend more energy mischaracterizing each other than in doing what needs to be done to end the Dark Ages barbarism of Wahhabist terrorism.

Yeah, Yeah, I'm an obtuse idiot with my head in the sand who doesn't even see that our rights have been stripped from us by the ignorant war hungry facist redneck and his oil rich cronies.

Gotcha!

Thanks for the new sig line.

roflmao. It is my pleasure

edit: the only thing I would change is: "war hungry" should be "war mongering"

I don't know why I wrote war hungry..Anyway, i give you permission to change the wording so that it fits your view and suits your taste.

Hyperbole aside, would you not agree that there are some seriously questionable things going on which should be receiving a great deal more oversight then they're getting? Do you not think that secret prisons, torture, and domestic spying are a tad bit more serious than Clinton's hummer? If you compare the resources that were thrown at that, and the incredibly serious nature of current events (far more serious than a blowjob) shouldn't congress be engaged in at least as rigorous an investigation as was mounted during Clinton's presidency?



I think you're being naive by just swallowing the company line on that. When congress found out about the Total Information Awareness program they refused to fund it due to 4th amendment concerns. What we're finding out now is that they went ahead and did it anyway. If you think all they're doing is trying to arrive at some baseline of what "normal" calling patterns are I believe you're naive. Read this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html



Iraq really has nothing to do with the so-called "war on terrorism" and that they were so easily able to use that as an excuse to wage an unrelated war just proves the point that the war on terrorism is a catch-all. It's the excuse du jour. It's rhetoric just like the "war on drugs" and I think we all know how well that's going. Have we won yet? Even if Iraq turns out better than anyone dares to dream do you honestly think that would be the end of the war on terrorism? If you believe that I have some oceanfront property in Kansas I'd like to sell you.



It's all a sideshow in the larger issue... enriching the defense industry and pushing the neo-con PNAC agenda. Al Qaeda is not a highly organized secret society of comic book villians with red phones connected directly to Osama's secret underground laboratory. It's an ideological movement with no central infrastructure. The idea of "sleeper cells" lurking behind every bush and under every rock is absurd. It's pure fear mongering.

Terrorism has always and will always exist in the world and no "war" will ever change that. This isn't about responding rationally to a concrete threat. It's all about the philosophy of American hegemony being opportunistically promoted through the fear generated by 9/11, which has been very carefully cultivated since.

Aside from the 19 people who died on the planes I'd bet there were probably less than a dozen other people involved. Thinking of Al Qaeda as some kind of organized interconnected centrally controlled army makes as little sense as if you made the same claims about white supremacy. Lots of people might call themselves white supremasists but that doesn't mean everyone who does is part of some vast organized plan to take over the world with sleeper cells in every city. It's absurdist hyperbole. The threat posed by Al Qaeda in no way even remotely justifies the sweeping changes being made to our civil rights or the power grab of the executive branch. It's far more akin to the mob and organized crime. When was the last time organized crime was used as an excuse to invade other countries? Would anyone accept that as reasonable if they tried? Maybe if they start calling the mob "terrorists" instead.

First of all, Clinton wasn't in trouble for a blowjob or using cigars as sex toys. He was in trouble for perjury before a Grand Jury -- an important distinction. Second, the "torture" you allude to was either (a) more in line with harrassment or (b) absolutely not sanctioned by US policy, and the perps are subject to the UCMJ.

As for domestic spying, this doesn't even hold a candle to the excesses of the Hoover FBI -- and is certainly getting far more publicity because of the anti-Bush efforts of some media. When it's all said and done, the law does authorize the FBI, NSA and other agencies to conduct surveillance within certain limits. As long as individual US citizens are not being targeted without a subpoena, no law is being broken.


Or just maybe this isn't the huge deal some people are trying to make it into.


I'm not going to give the Administration credit for this concept because it was something I put together myself after extensive research on the topic, but I do think Iraq will have a major effect on the larger war, and here's why: The roots of terrorism actually lie in the primitive, superstitious ignorance that pervades the Arab world (thanks in large part to their own totalitarian leaders). The only antidote for that is, one, education; from education spring jobs and enlightened government. If you look at the demographics of the Middle East, the one nation that had (has) the most robust, educated middle class is... Iraq. It is the most fertile ground for planting the seeds of enlightenment and beginning the long process of defeating the ignorance and bigotry that is holding back the world of Islam. I think it's high irony that the opportunity to redirect the Islamic world will begin in the very region where Western civilization first began.

Bear in mind that there was a time, 1200 years ago or so, when Islam was the most enlightened, tolerant, educated faith in the world. (Far more than Middle Ages Christianity for sure). Yet something happened along the way that poisoned it and gave rise to Wahhabism -- we're not going to defeat that ignorance with bombs, but we can defeat it by eliminating tyrants like Saddam and clearing away the debris so that better things can sprout in the soil.

That's my opinion on Iraq, anyway, and I grant that it could go completely the other way. But that only makes it more important that we stick to it, make it work, and encourage enlightened Iraqis to participate in building their own governance. If they think we'll cut and run at the first sight of blood, they're not going to do it and I can't blame them. That's the only thing that makes it "unwinnable".


I've never made any such claim, but you know that. I do think that if Iraq turns out well (in another 4-6 years or so?) that it will begin a long climb back toward sanity for that region of the world. That and a peaceful, responsible Palestinian state would be the two greatest gifts to World Peace I can imagine. But it takes time. This isn't a fast-food McWar, it's a messy process in a chaotic region.


Chip, please, we can have this discussion without bandying about polemical catch-phrases like "neo-con" can't we?


You're close on the nature of al Qaeda. What it is, is a large support organization, loosely organized, that provides material and personnel support to angry young Moslems who want to kill Americans. They haven't exactly made it a secret that's their goal. And after dozens of successful attacks over these last years -- attacks which generally failed to get any response at all from the Clinton administration beyond some cruise missiles -- one would think that a smart government would finally take notice. 9/11 was not a disaster movie cooked up in Hollywood. It really happened. It's hardly absurd at all.


It has and will to a point, yes, but the history of terrorism tells us that it has never had the sort of pan-national participation and support that it has now under the guise of Islamic Extremism. Not even the IRA was this bloody.


I'm sorry you feel that way. It only tells me you're unwilling to put down the rhetoric and have a responsible discussion on the real issues, so I'm going to stop engaging I guess. I'm just glad the world isn't really that black and white, nor that hopelessly gone to hell.

I think that I'll take this same approach.

It has been a pleasure being a part of this discussion.