I give up on this damn joke of a government :rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12cnd-fisa.html

You know, this whole "security" issue is an interesting development in the political fabric. Everything about it is backwards. You have Republicans who are, granted, more in claim than in deed of late, for "less government" advocating giving very broad, unsupervised powers to government agencies. And you have Democrats, who generally posit government as the best solution to most problems, saying hey wait, you're giving the government too much power. Certainly, to some extent, some of the Dem resistance is purely political in nature (more about opposing Bush than granting the govt. more power), but nonetheless, there are enough vocal detractors for legitimate reasons.

A little background on myself, I got my undergraduate degree in political science, with a concentration on law. That is, of course, an utterly useless degree unless you go to law school, thus here I am. :) But anyway, I absolutely love this kind of stuff. Through some of the research I did, throughout American history the political parties tend to have seismic shifts, even flipping ideologies, about an every 40-50 years.

In the 1850s, right before the Civil War, the slavery issue killed the Whig party and power shifted to the Republicans. They dominated until the early 1900s, when the Progressive party swept into power on a mission to end corruption in government and industry. The Republicans were forced to adopt that ideology, and in doing so remained in power until the Depression. From then through the '60s, the Democratic party controlled via vast expansion of government, which was needed to meet the technological advances connecting the country and the world. Up to the 60s, the South was a solid block of Democrats. But as the race issue and Civil Rights came to a head, the national Democratic party and the Southern Democrats split, and slowly, to today, the Republican party picked up the sort of "moral conservative" we see today in candidates like Bush and Huckabee, both of whom play extremely well in the South.

Sorry for the long-winded expo, but point being, the timer on the historical clock is buzzing, and we're due for another major shift in politics. I think this election cycle is really highlighting that, with dissident candidates like Ron Paul getting passionate support by what is a relatively large percentage. I think it's most evident in the Democratic party, where political clout/experience and a well-known name, two things which traditionally win elections, are in jeopardy of falling to a very non-traditional, virtual nobody. On the Republican side, support is extremely fractured. McCain is too liberal for the South, Huckabee too morally conservative for most of the country; none of the candidates truly championed (beyond lip service) the party's traditional "limited government" views.

Coming full circle, the terror issue is one on which the parties are on opposite sides from what one would traditionally think they should stand on. Given the highly fractious nature of the 2000 Presidential election and more so the current primaries, I think the seismic shift is nigh. The question no one knows is what direction things will go, whether the current parties can absorb the changes, and just how big the change will be.

One thing's for sure - almost no one on either side is happy with the current parties, whether they generally agree with their "principles" or not. That can only last so long before something gives.



To weigh in on the Spying powers point - it's an extremely difficult question, one on which I'm glad I don't have to tag my name to a Yea or Nay. On the one hand, you have the possibility that such provisions would allow agencies to be less encumbered by legal formalities (court warrants, for example) which would allow them to react more quickly and secretly to intercept a potential threat that could save thousands of people. On the other hand, we're essentially granting the government a free pass to secretly spy on anyone they chose, for any purpose, at any time, for any reason, with absolutely no checks or supervision. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more offensive to the meaning of "Liberty." Are you really free if the government is listening and watching everything you do? How do we know these powers won't be abused now or in the future? We have absolutely no guarantees, and as the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I'm a Patrick Henry fan myself, "Give me Liberty, or give me death." But there are genuine merits to some amount of spying as well. I'm just glad I don't have to draw that line.

I am sure that others will chime in with complex answers to a rather simple problem.

The erosion of freedoms in the country has now been officially supported by the Democrats. You may think that losing freedom is the price we must pay to live in this world or you might think it makes us just as bad as those we are opposing.

People will almost always support an oppressive state if they are convinced that it makes them safer. The fact of the matter is that 9/11 and other attacks didn't need more intel: it was there all the time but lost in an ocean of information obscurity. Now, "security" is being used as an excuse to bypass our constitutional rights. As we now see, politicians on both sides of the fence vigorously support this erosion of freedom.

Even Justice Sutter said yesterday that torture of citizens is OK and legal if it is not classified as "punishment." The terrorists have won big time. Goodbye USA, it was nice to know you.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

The Franklin quote is quite appropriate.

Could you give me a cite or source for the Souter quote? Not because I don't believe you; I just want to read where he was talking about that / I'm sure that "torture of CITIZENS" would generate some pretty intense debate in my Constitutional Law class tomorrow. Thanks.

The Franklin quote is quite appropriate.

Could you give me a cite or source for the Souter quote? Not because I don't believe you; I just want to read where he was talking about that / I'm sure that "torture of CITIZENS" would generate some pretty intense debate in my Constitutional Law class tomorrow. Thanks.

Here's one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-13-scalia_N.htm?csp=34

Sorry, it was Scalia.

A related travesty:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gM4mwPQcU0j446qIew8P7ZmifwNgD8UP4GG03

The US government is getting ready to allow the use of spy satellites to, well, spy on US citizens. Democrats are again ignoring civil liberties and privacy concerns: they are expected to pass the Bush-Republican legislation allowing this.

As I stated years ago, once those floodgates are open nothing can stop the deluge.

I think that the terrorists have won.
We now have a country that condones torture and unlimitied spying on citizens.
The spying will evolve within a couple of decades into people having knocks on their doors in the dark of night because of something they said on the phone or an email they sent to a friend that doesn't meet the "accepted government policy".
All totaliarian regimes start off small.
The American public will sit in their homes and wring their hands.

In regards to the Scalia comments, a VERY important point is that he was not speaking in regards to citizens. US citizens have very different rights and protections than military captives. Be careful to keep that in mind, because that distinction changes absolutely everything. Therefore, it's a complete mischaracterization to say "Even Justice Sutter [Scalia] said yesterday that torture of citizens is OK and legal if it is not classified as 'punishment.'" What Scalia's saying is that the Constitutional "Cruel and Unusual punishment" prohibition refers to US citizens (and persons on US soil) arrested for crimes violating US law. The detainees in question are not US citizens, not on US soil, are not under detainment under US law, and most importantly, are not in any way governed or protected by the US Constitution. Further, most International law and treaties only focus on military members or citizens of other countries. Terrorists do not fall into either category. I don't mean to say that gives us reason to do anything we please, but neither are they afforded the protections and rights offered to Internationals and other militaries.

Spy satellites - very disturbing. I wish it were as much surprising.

In regards to the Scalia comments, a VERY important point is that he was not speaking in regards to citizens. US citizens have very different rights and protections than military captives. Be careful to keep that in mind, because that distinction changes absolutely everything. Therefore, it's a complete mischaracterization to say "Even Justice Sutter [Scalia] said yesterday that torture of citizens is OK and legal if it is not classified as 'punishment.'" What Scalia's saying is that the Constitutional "Cruel and Unusual punishment" prohibition refers to US citizens (and persons on US soil) arrested for crimes violating US law. The detainees in question are not US citizens, not on US soil, are not under detainment under US law, and most importantly, are not in any way governed or protected by the US Constitution.

Nope. The quote was (elaborated in other references) "Scalia, 71, said the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment "is referring to punishment for crime," not actions in the course of interrogations." That refers to citizens under the rule of the Constitution. If it refered to non-citizens, anything said in the Constitution would be irrelevent. At no point did he ever state that he was excluding US citizens.

Further, most International law and treaties only focus on military members or citizens of other countries. Terrorists do not fall into either category. I don't mean to say that gives us reason to do anything we please, but neither are they afforded the protections and rights offered to Internationals and other militaries.

You are right. But what we do reflects the type of people we are and the type of people we want to be. Right now, Bush & Buddies have denigrated everything the US used to stand for.

Spy satellites - very disturbing. I wish it were as much surprising.

Exactly!

Just to expand...

The BBC reporter started the conversation by asking Scalia whether torture would violate the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia says that would be "extraordinary," because that wouldn't be "punishment" for a crime under the 8th Amendment. The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" for crimes--but if the CIA or the police or the FBI haul someone in for interrogation and torture them, that's not "punishment."

"Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited by the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th Amendment in the prison context. You can't go around smacking people about," Scalia said. "Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to society? It's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth."

From: http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/02/does-terror-tru.html

The guy is obsessed with Jack Bauer and the TV show 24. This is scary, basing one's beliefs on a silly shallow-depth fictional character is dangerous. Especially with a writer's strike that delayed Bauer's crucial work for 120 days! Torture them! Better yet, I'm going to contact Harry Potter right now and see if he can help.

And where does "exact information that is crucial to society" end? If Bush & Buddies get everything they want to "protect" us, North Korea will start to look like an open society.

President Bush said Friday that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to extend a law that makes it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080215/D8UQQLEO0.html

I am in agreement with the president.

President Bush said Friday that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to extend a law that makes it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080215/D8UQQLEO0.html

I am in agreement with the president.

Unfortunately, the spying was extended by the administration well beyond "foreign" communications. Besides, when has Bush ever let the laws of this country get in the way of what he wants to do?

Unfortunately, the spying was extended by the administration well beyond "foreign" communications. Besides, when has Bush ever let the laws of this country get in the way of what he wants to do?

Can you please provide sources for these statements?

Can you please provide sources for these statements?

Gee, its the story of his administration! Normally I don't do this but I'm in a good mood today. Here are a few links to look at (out of tens of thousands) that have Bush doing outright illegal things. The very, very tip of the iceberg. Most are flagrant obstruction of justice (felonies). As I've asked before, where are the Republican battle cries of "Character Counts!"? Sleeping around doesn't even come close to the travesties of the dumbest (flat-out mentally impaired) president in American history.

Google this stuff for yourself. Make sure you have lots of time to dedicate to iit.

Leaking information about CIA operative Valery Plane. He did his best to obstruct justice and then, after only one minor player was caught, he gave Scooter a pardon.

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=183

Working hard to make phone companies immune from lawsuits dealing with the illegal domestic wiretapping they did for Bush. He has strongly hinted he will issue a full pardon for their illegal activities (and his, obviously) if the legislation is not passed. This is being debated at the present time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302323_pf.html

"Federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the [NSA-Bush] program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office." (Bush says he has reauthorized the program 30 times.) And, Turley continues, "it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0636,hentoff,74349,6.html

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

President Bush started the domestic surveillance program in the belief that his wartime powers and a resolution passed by Congress after Sept. 11 gave him the right to sidestep the law, even though it allows officials to wiretap first, if they seek a warrant within three days. Some members of Congress challenged this and in January asked for an inquiry by the Justice Department's ethics unit. In May, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility wrote to Congress that his office could not investigate because its staff members could not get security clearances. On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a Senate hearing that it was Bush himself who had denied the clearances and blocked the inquiry.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/07/20/bush_pulls_plug_on_probe/

Thank goodness his reign of terror is coming to a close. But hey, we have McCain, a Bush clone in full pandering mode. There are always the two democrats: the very close to cult-leader Obama and the old guard slippery Hillary. But in all cases, anyone is better than Bush and, by a wide margin, a lot more intelligent.
.

I find it interesting that you say Bush is "the dumbest (flat-out mentally impaired) president in American history," who, in the next breath, you seem to credit with creating one of the most exquisitely obscured law-breaking schemes in the history of the country, all without a Democratically-controlled Congress getting up in arms about it. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I hear liberals all the time slam Bush's intelligence, then turn around and talk about his masterminding these complex security and torture schemes. Pick one or the other; if he's such a moron, how can he control the country as a "dictator?" That just always amuses me.


The first link, humorous, but certainly not a news-worthy editorial. That point aside, if you're going to start getting pissy about pardons, you'd better get up on Clinton too.

All of the rest of the others fall on one subject - spying. In case you didn't notice, Congress overwhelmingly agreed with the President on that one. There is absolutely zero chance of anyone attempting to prosecute the President for an order to spy on calls "when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda" [FindLaw].

It's the Congress's job to keep Presidential power in check. If the Congress is going along with him, then it runs unchecked. So if you're going to get all up in a fit about something, be mad at Congress, b/c they're the ones who are rubber-stamping all of his programs either with legislation (the new NSA stuff) or with funding. That's who I'm pissed at. Bush has VASTLY expanded Executive powers, and the whole time Congress has just said "yes sir" and passed it right along! That is the breakdown of the balance of powers check.

In reading all of those, I saw no one citing any law that the President himself broke which constituted a felony. There's a lot of name calling and theatrics, but no law. Yell and scream all you like, but if it's not on the books, there's no law broken. I'd like to see anyone cite me an actual black-letter law and show that the President himself violated it. I've never seen it, and with as many Bush haters as there are out there, I'm pretty confident there isn't one.

So its ok to torture people that aren't U.S. citizens?
That makes a lot of moral sense.

So its ok to torture people that aren't U.S. citizens?
That makes a lot of moral sense.

Everything makes sense with our ethical government. :rolleyes: Personally, I think there are a lot of palms being greased, in the white house. The spying and eavesdropping better not include citizens, or we're all going to be in worse trouble than we're already in.