You're one hundred percent correct. The problem is the modern concept of the "living, breathing constitution". If the constitution does not mean what it's authors intended, then it means nothing. Yet when Bork put forth the idea of original intent, he was vilified as a neanderthal and "Borked". The Left twisted the Constitution beyond all recognition to achieve its own ends. Now we're all paying the price.
Hardly, it authorized the use of force against Iraq to resolve the WMD issue. That congress authorized the president to use of force against terrorists is not a declaration of war, either. On phone tapping: This kind of profiling is an invasion of privacy. Who we talk to and how often we talk to them is as private as the contents of a telephone call. People should reasonably expect their associations to be private. They certainly shouldn't expect them to be scrutinized by the government. The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish. By that logic emails can legitimately be read/logged because they travel over the internet. I'm wary of using analogy where there is so much evasion, but to me it is analogous to renting a house: you don't own the house, but you have reasonable expectations of privacy when you are in that house. Phone lines are rented in much the same manner.
You are not supposed to do anything. You have demonstrated that you ally yourself with the gullible, the foolish, the undiscerning, the self-righteous, the uneducated, the absolutists, the arrogant, the hypocritical. Therefore you are not supposed to do anything. You are expected to continue with pea brained ignorance supporting policies that detract from America's reputation, demean her greatness, diminish democracy, foment terrorism, embarass her friends, give succour to her enemies, and fly in the face of most of what the founding fathers stood for. It must take severe myopia to adopt such a position.
Fraggle Rocker: I'm with you on everything except the religion part and my take on that is different only to the extent that I believe that freedom of religion must include the freedom to not be forced to choose one of the same ones as everybody else. On this I agree. Attacks by terrorists are a problem for the USA of the same order of magnitude as attacks by Mother Nature. I cannot agree here. We can both realistically and theoretically stop a terrorist attack. Mother nature is what it is. The only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to limit the damage. Immigration was never a big economic issue in the USA until recently, because immigrants had to work their butts off to make it here. It was always an issue of racism, first the Irish and Italians, then the east Asians, finally the Latinos. It is not a issue of race. It is an issue of legality. Legal immigrants are always welcome, always. If we didn't have welfare checks and those other redistributions of our money by the government to which you have already objected, most of the objections to immigration would abate. Wrong, it would merely return to those who are abusing it. It really has nothing to do immigration, as far as I am concerned. It has to do with redistribution of wealth by forcing one to pay for the other. I find the education part amusing because so many Americans don't really take advantage of our educational system; they get the diplomas but not the learning. There is a reason. It is called dumbing down society. It is called worry over self-esteem. It is called having large amounts of psychologists on campus, instead of smaller classrooms and more teachers. It is called lack of corporal punishment, thus permitting disruptive behavior to continue in the classroom.
Since there is no oversight of this illegal program, you don't know what they are doing with the information. Remember Watergate? They might be doing what they say they are doing, and they might not. They might characterize you as a terrorist for recieving a call from someone connected with terrorism. That connection could be a simple mistake like a wrong number, however you get stuck for several years in a detention camp until they get it all sorted out, meanwhile you lose your job, wife, family, house, credit rating, right to vote, ect. That is a real danger. It isn't consistent with the principles under which this nation was established. The government has no business recording who your friends are for no reason.
Neildo: What did you say earlier? Something about a business transaction? Both sides having something each other wants? I want the phone number and the phone company wants my money? Dual-ownership? Still different, I understand there are some similiar terms. If the government subpoenas itmeized phone calls and found something worth looking into, then they have to issue a warrant to trace calls. Okay, I understand that that is part of the problem. The government is saying that they can trace without a warrant. Believe me, I fully understand that and the problems with it. What I am saying is that such instances are happening with respect to those suspected of terrorist activities not innocent Americans. I would definitely be crying foul if there were a consistent abuse of this kind of action. I am not talking about mistakes, rather consistent abuse. Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then? Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms. Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Prove it!!!!
V. child: That congress authorized the president to use of force against terrorists is not a declaration of war, either. I am sorry, but what is force if not war in this situation??? The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish. You are inferring, because I have never implied this.
spidergoat: Since there is no oversight of this illegal program, you don't know what they are doing with the information. I will grant you that statement, but then that was also an admission that you have no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. So therefore, you are complaining for the sakes of complaining. They might characterize you as a terrorist for recieving a call from someone connected with terrorism. That connection could be a simple mistake like a wrong number, however you get stuck for several years in a detention camp until they get it all sorted out, meanwhile you lose your job, wife, family, house, credit rating, right to vote, ect. That is a real danger. Again, I will grant this. However, again, I will also say that until there is an absolute honest case of this on a consistent basis. Everything is conjecture at this point.
The evidence of wrongdoing is the collection of the information in the first place without a warrant, which was admitted. Knowing who you call is wiretapping. We are talking about the basic principles of a free society, the rule of law, and the slippery slope away from it. Republicans complain all the time about the nanny culture of Democrats, but they aren't like your Mom watching everything you do so you don't talk to strangers. It's hypocritical. I guess you would have no problem with me standing on the edge of your property aiming a rifle at your windows? No harm done, right?
1) It's not force, just the authorisation of force. Hence, not a declaration of war. 2) You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan. The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish. You said: "First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number)" The reasonable inference here is that you think this goes some way to negating privacy concerns, isn't it?
"You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan. " Raids are one thing, but a 3-year war is another, and completely illegal- 1973 War Powers Resolution, Sec 5 (b): Remember, the authorization to punish and remove the Hussein regime is a "mission accomplished".
Um, it was all over the news when it happened. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anways, here are two quick articles found: And here's a video clip on ABC news about it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina guns - N
Voodoo Child: You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan. That, of course, is not an act of war because? You said: "First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number)" The reasonable inference here is that you think this goes some way to negating privacy concerns, isn't it? You may infer, but I still have not implied. Again, the collection of data is wiretapping. Anymore, then my reviewing your latest transaction at the grocery store. Balls in your court,now. Surely, you will have something to respond with. I left it open for you.
Please reread what you wrote, if you doi not understand the depth of ignorance, as well as hypocrisy, of your statement. Then, I submit to you the problems in America may be beyond repair. What do you think I would do? And,if I did your response would be? Hint: It has nothing to do with republkican and democrat.
hypewaders: Raids are one thing, but a 3-year war is another, and completely illegal- In short, as we continue to work towards Iraqi independence we have not right to respond to terrorist attacks while there. Thank you for clarifying!
Anytime- By your twisting of the concept of law then, the world and all its people are already under the legal dominion of the USA, resistance is terrorism, and war is peace. Only I want nothing to do with this insane scheme, because on this path lies our destruction at the hands of all those who will ever repudiate our self-annointed authority.
Declaration of war, I believe the term was. A declaration of war is announcing the intent to engage in prolonged military fisticuffs. An attack, does not a declaration of war, make. And just who interpreted Clinton's actions as a declaration/act of war? Not even the Sudanese. The authorisation of the use of force is not a declaration of war. A military blockade is the use of force. It is not necessarily a declaration of war. The secret abduction of a foreign national is the use of force. It is not necessarily a declaration of war. There are many precedents that demonstrate this point: french bombing of rainbow warrior, assassinations of Hamas members and Reagan's bombing of Libya are a few examples. Is there another way to interpret this? Would you like to clarify your reasoning? You think the collation and analysis of a person's telephone contacts by the government is analogous to you looking at my grocery list? That's not exactly analogy of the year. However, inspecting my groceries is a minor invasion of my privacy and for that reason is considered impolite.
That's not what "order of magnitude" means. Risk management is part of my profession. There are several components to the process. Estimating or measuring the consequences of an event happening is only one of them, but it is an important one nonetheless. The fact remains that the likely consequences of a terrorist attack are similar to those of Mother Nature's temper tantrums, the difference being much less than a factor of ten, which is "one order of magnitude." Estimating the probability of occurrence is another important part of risk analysis and management. 9/11 was a statistical outlier that is not reasonably likely to happen more than once in a lifetime, even in the Middle East where larger-scale terrorist attacks are more easily mounted. The worst of the typical terrorist attacks cause about as much death and destruction as the worst of the typical Florida hurricanes and California earthquakes. Nonetheless the typical terrorist attack occurs with much less statistical frequency than the typical Act of God, as insurance companies like to call them. The "expected value" of the negative consequences of these events is not equal. We will, in aggregate over the course of time, be much harder hit by meteorological and seismic disasters than by terrorism. Therefore, objective risk analysis suggests that we will accomplish more by directing our attention to nature. The other key task in risk management, for the purposes of this discussion, is risk avoidance or mitigation: either preventing the event from occurring or reducing its consequences. This is the issue you are addressing by suggesting that prevention is easier for terrorist attacks whereas minimization of damage works better for natural disasters. Yet this is precisely what we're doing with Jersey barriers, prohibitions against large pointed objects on airliners, and the relocation of high-profile government agencies to the Virginia and Maryland suburbs where they're not surrounded by hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders. But okay, I'll take the bait. What can we do to prevent terrorism? How about not sticking our nose into other nations' business. Our entire country is less than 250 years old. The conflicts in the Middle East have been brewing for five times that length of time. It is hubris to think that we have the wisdom to resolve them. Supporting members of one religious or ethnic group over another--and then changing our mind periodically--gives the whole population a meddlesome outsider upon whom to focus their hatred. How about a sensible national telecommuting policy which would dramatically reduce our consumption of petroleum. At this point I don't think that protecting our supply of oil is our only reason for stomping around the Cradle of Civilization in our cowboy boots and shooting everything that moves, but it is one reason. Out of sight, out of mind. If we weren't over there, they'd be less interested in coming over here. Yes, the Brits started the current chapter in this saga with their re-drawing of "national" boundaries to include fragments of groups who have nothing in common but their hatred for each other and their handling of the Jewish/Palestinian issue at the close of WWII, but no one denies that we're Britain's most loyal ally and in any case our chess-like machinations in the region during the Cold War put us in the same camp in the eyes of the people who live there. Ceasing to make enemies in a part of the world whose culture and politics we clearly are incapable--and perhaps unwilling--to understand is a good long term mitigation strategy for terrorism. As for short term strategies, domestic surveillance cannot possibly be effective and it will have the major drawback of making enemies of many of our own citizens who think the government already went way too far in exceeding its Constitutional power in the 1930s. Poppycock. The definition of "legal" immigration wasn't even firmly established in the public consciousness when they were railing against the Irish and Italians. The Chinese railroad workers were brought over in conformance with the legal codes of the time, but they were the victims of harsh racism. A third or more of the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into "relocation" camps were citizens. The racism I witnessed against Latinos in the Southwest was entirely focused on their appearance and culture and was applied equally to people whose families had lived in this country since it was their country. It doesn't seem like we're really disagreeing here. Everything in moderation and everything in balance, my friend. Children really do need to be instilled with self esteem. Starting with my generation, far too many Americans have grown up substituting swagger and rebelliousness for it. The fact that several generations of clueless and largely absent parents have not been doing their job raises the provocative question of who is going to do it. As a nation we have decided that the nation will try to bail us out of the epidemic of brattiness using the same arguable principles it used to justify bailing us out of the epidemic of polio. As a libertarian I am uncomfortable with this but as a practical American I must wonder what else we can do under the circumstances. As for corporal punishment, again, everything in moderation and balance. Children absolutely must not grow up believing that they can do anything they feel like without worrying that they'll make somebody angry enough to hit them. They'll end up voting for politicians who don't worry about whether America is making the rest of the world angry and the rest of the world will start hitting America. Oh wait, that's already happening. But it's easy to overdo corporal punishment and it's far too well established that physically abused children become adults prone to violence. One empty-handed spanking and maybe one slap on the smart-mouth per year is plenty for most kids and it should be performed by the people who love them most rather than by government employees.
Fraggle Rocker, well said, mother naturer is mother nature, and the kids today think mouth substitutes for expiearence.
