Kuvas,
To disagree and dissent with national policy does not infer that you are disloyal or love our system of govenment any less than those who agree with the policies. Few policies are ever likely to garner universal assent, and minorities play an important role in policy making by arguing their points and trying to persuade the majority to change or compromise. The two party system has done an admirable job of keeping dissent alive.
Washington, and even Jefferson, feared the divisiveness of party politics. Both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans held extreme views and belived that their "party" alone should hold office in perpetuity. It didn't work out that way, and that was a very good thing. The country needs minority views, it needs dissent and for every sitting administration to be criticized. Conservatives don't want to stifle the Liberal wing, but that doesn't change the fact that our enemies use our open political system to their advantage.
To the radical Islamic terrorists all opposition to the policies that are focused against them is not only welcome, but provides their best hope of victory. They don't cherish dissent as the foundations of an open society, but see it as a weakness to be exploited. They play upon that weakness with their propaganda and with their public displays of terrorism. Americans, they think, have become dissapated, soft and unwilling to accept the blood-costs of fighting for an ideal. Islamic terrorists are proud to die for their cause, and believe that makes them stronger than Americans who become upset at the loss of every life. Like the the Communists before them, this bunch will gladly use our open institutions and humanistic values against us. They haven't the human or material resources to defeat the West, so they believe God will give them victory by the exploitation of the "sins" of Western culture.
*************
The sky is not falling, and no one should expect to wake tomorrow morning to an American Police State. It is true that during times of crisis there are restrictions and some limitations on civil rights. The Founders recognized that effective response to threats, especially on a military nature, require strong central leadership. The lack of a strong central govenment and an executive authorized to set and pursue policies in a timely way, was one of the central faults of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution gives the Executive the powers needed to set national policies and pursue them, even with military force.
The Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and it has been suspended in the past. Very rigorous govewnmental censorship has been imposed during virtually every American conflict. In each instance, the opposition party screams that we will soon be living in a dictataorship, and that the administration pursuing the National good is a conspiracy of ego maniacs who are mad for power. Its not easy being President during times of crisis when everyone is looking over your shoulder, giving advice and complaining that THEY would do things differently. During past times of crisis, administrations DID make mistakes and some innocent people were unjustly deprived of the full civil rights we cherish during times of relative peace.
Actually, no one should have been surprised to learn that NSA has at its fingertips the capability of monitoring virtually every electronic signal generated on the face of the earth. That's what they were created to do, and they have performed their collection mission admirably. It is an inherent problem that critical data is hidden in the trillions of signals generated every day. NSA's capabilities are unsurpassed in collection of data, and its programs to identify and focus collection on only those parties most likely to generate useful intelligence are far better than almost anyone supposes. The terrorists have learned to their sorrow that it is dangerous to send messages using electronic means.
Any cipher can be broken, sometimes it requires really vast computational power and time ... but in the end no encrypted message is really safe. Short encyptioins with random complex keys are much safer than lengthy messages with a simple substitution key. Codes are much harder to break, but they are more unwieldy and more prone to decrytion error. As the enemy becomes more sophisticated it becomes more difficult to trap complete plans being talked about between high level managers. Inference and small clues taken from a wide collection of sources become the raw material for our analysts. Occasionally, we capture a courier with messages to operational personnel, or we come into possession of computers that can be stripped of information. The focus of all of NSAs collection has to be focused on a relatively small number of people/organizations that are regarded with good reason as being part of the terrorist networks we are fighting.
We have already made it almost impossible for our intelligency services to do their jobs. By restricting our ability to gather HUMINT, we tied one hand behind our backs and paid for that by not having the best intelligence available prior to our last involvement in Iraq. Intelligence is not effectively conducted by observing all the jots and tittles of normal behavior.
Ticomaya wrote:
The damage being done to your Liberty is miniscule. Tell me again how your Liberty has been eroded to such a degree that it outweighs the benefit of listening in on terrorists calling their partners overseas?
And you know that these persons are terrorists how? If you KNOW they are terrorists then wouldn't it be EASY to get a court order to listen in on their conversations. I am sure that there are FISA judges on call 24 hours a day.
Quote:
Never mind answering that. I already know you believe you shouldn't have to be inconvenienced in order to protect our country from terrorism.
There is a difference between being inconvenienced and attacking our liberties. An inconvenience would be to temporarily raise my taxes to pay for the war on terrorism but it appears you can't be inconvenienced with that.
Quote: You are of the mind that all we need to do is sit back and believe we have the best country in the world, and all will be fine ... the terrorists will eventually leave us alone. Your pathetic liberal philosophy makes my skin crawl.
I am not sure how deciding that liberty is important equates to doing nothing about terrorism. A rather large strawman there Tico. Why don't you pour gasoline on it and start it on fire during your hystrionics.
Quote:It will take another terrorist attack in this country to get you libbies to wake up to the fact that terrorists want to kill you. Then, I imagine we'll hear caterwauling and clamoring from you that government didn't do enough to protect the country from the terrorists. The fact is, you aren't willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a goal worth achieving. That's the sad truth of the matter.
Straw. Gasoline. Fire.
parados wrote: The argument is that they need to intercept QUICKLY so they have to avoid a court order. The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption and they have to KNOW the source before they know who to crack argues directly against the need to monitor without a court order.
Agreed. But then I never said that any monitoring should have been done without a court order either. IMO, with the existing paranoia (some of it apparently justified) even a hint of monitoring U.S citizens is a huge political mistake.
fishin' wrote:parados wrote: The argument is that they need to intercept QUICKLY so they have to avoid a court order. The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption and they have to KNOW the source before they know who to crack argues directly against the need to monitor without a court order.
Agreed. But then I never said that any monitoring should have been done without a court order either. IMO, with the existing paranoia (some of it apparently justified) even a hint of monitoring U.S citizens is a huge political mistake.
I knew your opinion fishin, I should have been clearer that it wasn't addressed to you.
I didn't want anyone else to use this as the reason why the govt had to act quickly since it argues the opposite.
Ticomaya wrote:You don't think the President has a duty to protect the American people?
No. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Who gave him the authority and the responsibility to protect the American people?
Quote:You do realize that is not a view shared by all your leftist friends who were so eager to blame Bush for not doing enough to protect the American people prior to the 9/11 attacks?
You know my friends? Which ones are the leftists and when did they blame Bush for not doing away with our civil liberties sooner?
Quote: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.
Yes, so you've done your morning reading and now are parroting the administration's line. Did you read the legal argument behind this sever power grab?
Quote:I'll ignore your contribution to the endless supply of lawyer digs you lefties try to send my way.
Again with the lefties. I'll reiterate that a desire for a small, unintrusive government is a conservative principle.
Quote:Yes, let's put safeguards in place. I've already said several times I only feel this program is appropriate in emergency situations.
Those safeguards were in place in the form of a special court whose only job it was to approve surveillance. Your boy set about removing those safeguards.
fishin
Justified "paranoia"?
I think I could live with any administration forwarding almost any ideology...GIVEN maximal transparency in that government's operations. That transparency itself provides the citizens' check on misuses of power.
This administration isn't much interested in transparent operations and consistently seeks to hide and obfuscate what it is up to (not to mention setting up and paying for propagandists...you know the cases I refer to).
According to the watchdog group, OpenTheGovernment.org, 2004 saw a record 15.6 million new documents classified, an increase of 81% over 2000. 64% of Federal Advisory Committee meetings in 2004 were completely closed to the public.
There's no question that this administration is not only more secretive than any previous, but there's also no question that this administration has a philosophy of minimal transparency to its citizens. It was, after all, Cheney and Rumsfeld who got Ford to take the real teeth out of the Freedom of Information Act ammendments in 74.
WASHINGTON - President Bush, brushing aside bipartisan criticism in Congress, said Monday he approved spying on suspected terrorists without court orders because it was "a necessary part of my job to protect" Americans from attack. The president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.
"I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand," Bush said.
Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton _ without naming them _ to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/19/D8EJEORG1.html
So testy, our president. I can just hear the impatience in his voice when he says, "I just described limits on this particular program..."
How easy his job would be if it weren't for those irritating people who challenge what he says...
Quote:The Myth of the Different War
By Larry Johnson
George W. Bush may have been a mediocre student in college, but he clearly mastered Orwell's works, especially 1984 and Animal Farm. How else to explain his reliance on repeating catch phrases that are misleading and, at times, outright false, while trying to shape and mold American public opinion to support his policies?
Previously Bush juxtaposed the phrase "9-11" with Saddam and convinced a majority of Americans that Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center towers. Even though there was no truth to the charge, the President, even to this day, continues to use the 9-11 attack to justify the war in Iraq.
Now we are confronted with a new phrase,"the war on terror is a different kind of war and must be fought outside the normal conventions of war". This rational is being offered up to the American people by the President, along with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and other Republican mouthpieces to justify violations of habeas corpus, torture and wiretaps outside the FISA process.
So, how is this war different?
Let's start with casualties. While terrorism is a threat it does not begin to compare with real war. Fewer than 10,000 people have died in that last four years from international terrorist attacks. During the same period of time in World War Two more than 52 million people perished. How about the Korean war? More than 55,000 UN troops died there during a four year period. North Korean and Chinese losses were much higher.
So, let me see if I have this logic straight--we justify violating the conventions of war in order to fight an uncoventional threat that has not come close to killing the number of people who died in the so-called conventional wars?
Well, we must admit that the enemy is sneaky and does not congregate in mass formations like conventional armies. That is true. But this fact calls into question the President's claim that in contrast to the Clinton Administration, who relied upon law enforcement and intelligence tools, he is going to use military power to fight the terrorists. Sounds great on a campaign stop, but the reality is quite different.
Since Donald Rumsfeld authorized the U.S. military in January of 2003 to "find, fix, and finish" Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups around the world, the U.S. military has not bagged a single major target. Instead, the key terrorist leaders, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who have been captured or killed were nabbed through intelligence and law enforcement efforts. Our military is too big, too bulky, and too slow to effectively attack and destroy the existing terrorist networks around the world. The terrorists do not offer "good" military targets, i.e. well organized commands with massive infrastructure. They operate in cells and fully integrate themselves with civilian populations. As we saw with the destruction of Fallujah, even wiping out a city does not wipe out terrorism.
President Bush is using fear to scare Americans into looking the other way as he tries to justify his declaration of an imperial Presidency entitled to do whatever he wants as long as he can say, "I'm protecting Americans from terrorism". If we continue to allow our fear of terrorism to be used as an excuse for torture, unconstitutional imprisonment, and domestic spying without judicial review, we are on the precipice of the totalitarian world feared by George Orwell and offered to us by the amiable George W. Bush.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/115930/13
Today Bush said 'Sadamosama.' Nice slip there. The doublespeak that he uses in order to avoid talking about any specifics is interesting to watch, yet terrible to behold.
Cycloptichorn
woiyo wrote:The president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens"
Phrased like that, that's basically forever. Face it, America is the most powerful country in the world. There's always going to be people out there who want to kill Americans. Might as well suspend civil liberties right now, on that logic.
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:kuvasz wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?
The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.
I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.
A by-product of his actions? Cite the time and place that kuvasz's actions have created this by-prodcut. Cite the SPECIFIC harm. Hypotheticals don't count. it must be specific and provable.
Sorry Tico but your silly claim is just that, silly. There is no evidence that disagreeing with the President has caused harm to anyone let alone harmed them "willfully."
After you cite the specific harm to your or any one else's civil liberties brought about by this eavesdropping program. Cite the time and place that it has interfered with your civil rights. Hypotheticals don't count. It must be specific, and provable.
There's no evidence that this program has caused harm to anyone.
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:The damage being done to your Liberty is miniscule. Tell me again how your Liberty has been eroded to such a degree that it outweighs the benefit of listening in on terrorists calling their partners overseas?
And you know that these persons are terrorists how? If you KNOW they are terrorists then wouldn't it be EASY to get a court order to listen in on their conversations. I am sure that there are FISA judges on call 24 hours a day.
I understand you can get a FISA warrant in hours.
parados wrote:fishin' wrote:parados wrote: The argument is that they need to intercept QUICKLY so they have to avoid a court order. The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption and they have to KNOW the source before they know who to crack argues directly against the need to monitor without a court order.
Agreed. But then I never said that any monitoring should have been done without a court order either. IMO, with the existing paranoia (some of it apparently justified) even a hint of monitoring U.S citizens is a huge political mistake.
I knew your opinion fishin, I should have been clearer that it wasn't addressed to you.
I didn't want anyone else to use this as the reason why the govt had to act quickly since it argues the opposite.
I don't agree with your post, parados, for the simple reason that it makes no sense.
The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption has no bearing, one way or the other, on whether there is a need to monitor without a court order.
Ticomaya wrote:The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption has no bearing, one way or the other, on whether there is a need to monitor without a court order.
What's the need you see to monitor without a court order? I mean, if getting a FISA warrant can be done in hours, and is basically a rubberstamp procedure (is that what you said earlier?)?
FreeDuck wrote:Ticomaya wrote:You don't think the President has a duty to protect the American people?
No. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Who gave him the authority and the responsibility to protect the American people?
Art. 2 of the Constitution. And, as it turns out in this case, Congress.
FD wrote:Quote:You do realize that is not a view shared by all your leftist friends who were so eager to blame Bush for not doing enough to protect the American people prior to the 9/11 attacks?
You know my friends? Which ones are the leftists and when did they blame Bush for not doing away with our civil liberties sooner?
I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.
The easiest way to spot a liberal is when they don't wear a disguise. In that instance, they'll be the one wearing dreadlocks that smell like a combination of giant buds of marijuana and dried sweat, and carrying one of their children in a hemp baby sling.
However, when they are masquerading as productive members of society, it becomes a little harder to pick them out. But I usually know 'em when I see 'em.
For instance, this time of the year, they are usually the one's saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."
FD wrote:Quote: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.
Yes, so you've done your morning reading and now are parroting the administration's line. Did you read the legal argument behind this sever power grab?
Actually, that was last Friday's morning reading.
FD wrote:Quote:I'll ignore your contribution to the endless supply of lawyer digs you lefties try to send my way.
Again with the lefties. I'll reiterate that a desire for a small, unintrusive government is a conservative principle.
Yes it is, and one I share. Let the government do the things it is there to do ... such as protect its citizens from terrorism if possible.
nimh wrote:Ticomaya wrote:The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption has no bearing, one way or the other, on whether there is a need to monitor without a court order.
What's the need you see to monitor without a court order? I mean, if getting a FISA warrant can be done in hours, and is basically a rubberstamp procedure (is that what you said earlier?)?
Actually, it was someone arguing on your side that described it as basically a rubberstamp process.
If it takes hours to get the warrant, and you don't have hours ...
Ticomaya wrote:FreeDuck wrote:
No. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Who gave him the authority and the responsibility to protect the American people?
Art. 2 of the Constitution. And, as it turns out in this case, Congress.
Article II gives him neither. Congress gave him the power to attack Afghanistan, not to subvert the 4th amendment.
Quote:I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.
The easiest way to spot a liberal is when they don't wear a disguise. In that instance, they'll be the one wearing dreadlocks that smell like a combination of giant buds of marijuana and dried sweat, and carrying one of their children in a hemp baby sling.
However, when they are masquerading as productive members of society, it becomes a little harder to pick them out. But I usually know 'em when I see 'em.
This says a lot about you.
Quote:If it takes hours to get the warrant, and you don't have hours ...
The law allows listening in without a warrant and notifying the court after the fact -- up to 72 hours, so tell me again why they administration needed to go around the court.
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.
For instance, this time of the year, they are usually the one's saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."
Oh, really? You might want to rethink your stereotyping. Some may be Jews or Hindus or Moslems, and they may even be conservatives...
Quote:For instance, this time of the year, they are usually the one's saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."
O'reilly apparently defines your reality these days.
Don't you nuts realize that the word 'holidays' is a combined form of 'Holy Days?' That every time someone says that, they are acknowledging that these are Holy Days for the dominant religion in our nation?
I get it, though; if it isn't Christian, it isn't a real religion, so...
Back on topic, though: you asked me to point out where the program was being used against those who oppose Bush's policies, and not against suspected terrorists; I did so a few pages back, and would like you to explain why these taps were put on people that were not specifically suspected of terrorism; and why a Judge was not put in to intervene in those cases which were not emergencies.
Cycloptichorn
D'artagnan wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.
For instance, this time of the year, they are usually the one's saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."
Oh, really? You might want to rethink your stereotyping. Some may be Jews or Hindus or Moslems, and they may even be conservatives...
Well, most - if not all - lefties I know (they are actually not US-style liberals but really socialists) are either Evangelicals or Catholics like me.
And we of course say "Merry Christmas".
