Off Topic Messages

So Say Goodbye, It's Independence Day

Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:27 am

This editorial was so well-written, articulating the feelings of the majority of Americans today, it's worth a look.

Where is Ike when you need him?

DJC

-----

Patriots, awaken
-
Tuesday, July 4, 2006


THE FOURTH of July is not just an occasion for throwback celebrations with parades, grilled food, cold beer and fireworks extravaganzas. It should be a moment for reflection on the vision and sacrifice that went into the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia on this day in 1776, and how well its principles -- and those of its most noble offspring, the U.S. Constitution -- are holding up today.

The health of American democracy, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, is not measured by how much red, white and blue is displayed on any given day. It is the sum of all who stand up to be counted when the defining freedoms of this republic are under assault.

Perhaps it is the lingering shock effects of Sept. 11, 2001, or maybe it is the complacency of a half-century of growing affluence, but too many Americans seem all too willing to ignore Benjamin Franklin's admonition about the danger of sacrificing essential liberties for temporary security. The Bush administration has been adroit at invoking the war on terrorism to justify policies that should be setting off alarms in this democracy.

At what point will Americans draw the line at these intrusions on civil liberties and usurpations of power by the White House? Revelations that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on phone calls and e-mails without getting the required warrants didn't do it. The disclosure that the government has compiled a vast database of Americans' phone records didn't do it. The hundreds of examples of President Bush's unprecedented expansion of the number and scope of "signing statements" in which he gave himself the option to ignore parts of laws he objected to -- such as torture -- didn't do it.

Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration's system for military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay that openly defied congressional law and international rules on the treatment of prisoners of war. So, what was the reaction in Congress? Regrettably, but not surprisingly in this era, there were immediate moves to give the president such authorization.

The White House response has been to turn these issues against its critics. In the latest example, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their echo warriors across the land have questioned the loyalties of the New York Times for disclosing an international-banking database to track the movement of money by al Qaeda. Never mind that the administration simultaneously gave the story to what it thought might be more sympathetic journalists, and that there is no evidence to support the Bush-Cheney claim that the revelations would do great harm to the war on terrorism -- or that any terrorist would be the least bit surprised that the United States is tracking the flow of money, as it vowed to do after Sept. 11.

This is about power. This administration wants to decide what its government can know about you, and what you can know about its government.

Americans did not undertake a revolution against the reign of King George III to create a government that would spy on its citizens, torture enemy combatants, detain suspects without charges for extended stretches on an island beyond reach of U.S. law, invade foreign countries without just cause and attempt to edit not only the press -- but laws that have been duly crafted and approved by our elected representatives in Congress.

This nation is veering too far from the course of its Founding Fathers. Two hundred-thirty years ago, the Declaration of Independence reproofed that a government's power is "derived from the consent of the governed." Those words ring true today.

If Americans are ceding too many freedoms under the guise of a war on terrorism -- which, by its nature, may never officially end -- it is because their absence of outrage is taken as a nod of assent.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not doing so to commission an annual party. They were making a covenant with history that requires day-to-day vigilance to defend the liberties it asserted. Honor them by speaking out.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... JNF321.DTL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:34 am

Doc wrote:articulating the feelings of the majority of Americans today..


And how would you know? If you speak for America, then this country is in deep trouble.

The facts are that you cannot let a week go by without yet another slamming of our president.

You have been living with your head firmly in the sand. The "spying" has been going on for many decades, it is only now, because yes you hate our president, that you "stand up for our rights" :lol: :lol:

Tard, count your blessings...and that is spelled U.S.A.!

P.S. With the immigration trouble...surely you can find it in your heart to switch places with someone that would be much more appreciative. :roll:

Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:51 am

genesim wrote:
Doc wrote:articulating the feelings of the majority of Americans today..

And how would you know? If you speak for America, then this country is in deep trouble.

Read carefully, Marky clown boy. The editorial articulates said feelings -- quite well, for those who possess the ability to read and comprehend. Opps! Sorry, that leaves you out.

You are correct, though, America is in deep trouble.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:22 am

Every opinion poll taken within the last two years finds the president's approval ratings in the low 40s at best which means the majority of Americans do not like what he's doing.

This is a very dangerous administration in not only its attack upon civil liberties but also its attacks on congress, the judicial branch and the press. Recently the administration has used words like "treason" to label the New York Times decision to publish information about a controversial program tackling terrorist finances. Some Republicans in congress have condemned the paper in a resolution. Some have even called for prosecution. Merits of the case aside, the press is not supposed to be an arm of the government. In the constitution, it is specified that there be no law abridging freedom of speech and the press because the press and free speech are supposed to be a check on administrative power. Things will not work the right way if the press has to check everything with the government. Criticize the decision but don't call it treason and don't threaten prosecution.

One of the hallmarks of the administration is it attacks and prosecution of media leaks and whistle blowers and its attacks on reporters, threatening and including incarceration, demanding access to sources. It really does make a chilling effect in the media.

This administration and this congress have been one unrelenting attack on judicial interpretations that overrule their laws on constitutional grounds. We constantly hear this roar against unelected judges. Yet again another check. The judiciary is not supposed to be another branch of the government.

Leaving aside the fact that this Republican congress has rolled over for every wrongheaded Bush initiative, the Bush administration has upended congress goes on its own with signing statements carefully crafted to allow the president to interpret and apply or ignore the law in any way he sees fit. Now Presidents have used the signing statement before but Bush has done it over 700 times more than all the previous presidents combined.

As terrible as the president is I don't think it's limited to the right. I think there is a disrespect or disregard for civil liberties as whole. You can see this in the asinine actions of some Democratic congress members pushing for a flag burning law instead of an amendment. Just like the more important warrantless wiretapping no one stops to consider the other countries that have adopted laws against flag burning or that employ wiretaps without a warrant. This list includes countries like North Korea and the former Soviet Union.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:41 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
genesim wrote:
Doc wrote:articulating the feelings of the majority of Americans today..

And how would you know? If you speak for America, then this country is in deep trouble.

Read carefully, Marky clown boy. The editorial articulates said feelings -- quite well, for those who possess the ability to read and comprehend. Opps! Sorry, that leaves you out.

You are correct, though, America is in deep trouble.



Correction....that should be Oops!


:wink:

Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:17 am

the squirrel wrote: Correction....that should be Oops!


:wink:


And he dumps on me when I make a typo!!! :lol: :lol:

Good one Doc!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:43 am

This is a very scary time in American politics. Both parties are out of control; very few members of each party are truly representing the best interests of American citizens. They are controlled by corporations and wealthy individuals. The politicians have completely put their own agendas in front of what is best for the nation and in front of what many U.S. citizens express they want and need. It is hard to imagine anyone having faith in either party at this point. The U.S. is crashing hard and there are no leaders in either party to stop it. LTB, if you truly believe the current make-up of the Democratic Party has positive and innovative answers for America's escalating problems, then you are as naive as genesim and all the other right-wing radicals on this board with their blind devotion to the Republican Party. The lack of legitimate representation by the President and Congress is currently spread throughout both parties. No one should fool themselves.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:04 am

midnightx wrote:... as naive as genesim and all the other right-wing radicals on this board with their blind devotion to the Republican Party.

No one can be more naive -- or just plain ignorant -- than ol' Marky clown boy. However, you are not far off the mark in your suggestion that there's no clear leader in either party to lead the US back to what it used to be about. And with 2008 presidental elections coming sooner than later, such a notion is very troubling.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:32 am

I don't claim that the Democratic Party is THE answer and nowhere in my post is that indicated. However, it's tough to blame a whole lot on that particular party because all the power is currently in Republican hands. We have a two party system for better or worse and the Republicans have mucked things up pretty well. It's time to let someone else have a chance. Also, let's recognize that this administration is unique in its abuse of power and its incompetence. Time after time a new bar has been set.

I don't need much innovation. How about just some respect for the constitution- get a warrant, leave the press to do its job, ban signing statements. Most of the harshest criticism of the president and of congress has been the most basic. The president threatened a veto of the Dubai ports deal even though he admitted he did not about the deal until he heard about it in the media. Would Al Gore have come up with the same determination on the deal as President Bush. I don't know but it seems to safe to say he would have at least read it. What would Al Gore have done about Iraq and the post-911 threat in America? I don't know but I know he wouldn't have invaded on the evidence that they had. That's not a leap to say that. It's been pretty well established that this administration was the only one that would have taken that action because they had an agenda that they wanted to go in Iraq.

I don't think it's a leap to say that while a democrat or a more moderate Republican would have all the answers there is a certain minimum standard they would have met.

That being said there is a lack of respect and appreciation for civil liberties from all quarters. Corporations and lobbyists exert way too much influence over both parties. And I wish both parties would put forth candidates based more on accomplishment, experience and intelligence than photogenic faces or personal charm. I wish both parties would concentrate more and lucidly explaining issues and how they affect our lives rather than boiling issues down to cheap slogans like "cut and run" and "lie and die". And I wish both parties wouldn't aim issues at the lowest common denominator with cheap distortions. (Sorry but the Republicans are the kings on this one.) If you vote against a bill for the war in Iraq it does not mean you're in bed with Bin Laden.

I wish the American people would step forward and demand their rights. I read a story a few months ago that in Arizona they're proposing an election lottery where you can win $1 million for voting. You need a lottery to get people to vote?

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Lieberman. There needs to be some vision there.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:49 pm

likethebike wrote:
What would Al Gore have done about Iraq and the post-911 threat in America? I don't know but I know he wouldn't have invaded on the evidence that they had. That's not a leap to say that. It's been pretty well established that this administration was the only one that would have taken that action because they had an agenda that they wanted to go in Iraq.



Saying that, in the UK we have a 'centre-left' government which fell over itself in their haste to invade Iraq. Blair was pretty close to the Clinton administration and was still responsible for pushing the dogdy dossier of evidence.

likethebike wrote:
That being said there is a lack of respect and appreciation for civil liberties from all quarters. Corporations and lobbyists exert way too much influence over both parties. And I wish both parties would put forth candidates based more on accomplishment, experience and intelligence than photogenic faces or personal charm. I wish both parties would concentrate more and lucidly explaining issues and how they affect our lives rather than boiling issues down to cheap slogans like "cut and run" and "lie and die". And I wish both parties wouldn't aim issues at the lowest common denominator with cheap distortions.



Again, we have a similar thing here. The UK government is unduly influenced by the need to keep big business onside - especially Rupet Murdoch. It really stems from the fact that the Labour party was hurt in the past and labelled anti-business. Therefore if you don't look out for the interests of big business then the people shouldn't vote for you!! But as long as there is big profits to be made then we can ignore pollution, global warming, poverty, ignorance, intollerance etc.

There is too much reliance on style over substance. If only a politician would stand up for what he or she believed in and fought off the flack then we might get somewhere.

Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:18 pm

USA is gone down hill since the 50's (no i am not that old).

Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:19 pm

Two steps forward, two steps back....

*************

I agree with quite a few of the general sentiments about Big Business dominating and often dumbing down our politics, and that we have a fatally-flawed Administration, but I can't say I agree 100% or even 50% with the S.F. Chronicle article posted by Doc. I still maintain that much of the left has "lost it" when discussing the President, not that they aren't often right.

It's a complicated issue and one takes too much comfort in just labeling "the other side" as right-wing nuts, all too wlling to throw their liberties out the door because of big-bad radical Islam, which by the way, has barely been mentioned here as the scourge that it is...

Today's revelations about London (those videotapes) and New York's Holland Tunnel are exihibit "A" that we are indeed in a time of war, no matter how flawed US leadership is, to say nothing of two active ground wars and the looming crisis in North Korea.

I've seen quite a few interesting articles on why Bill Keller and the NY TImes (et al.) should not have written that piece as well and they were interesting rebuttals.

I will say that the true conservatives in the US are in some ways more offended (as evidence by some articles I'v seen)in the periodical "The American Conservative") by Bush's Constitutional violations than liberals, who don't seem as wed to what folks wrote back in 1776 as conservatives are.

American conservative critics of Bush are probably a minority within the right, as the rest realize that. like LIncoln and FDR, it's not a simple matter when you are at war.

Here are two very different conservative takes:
********************************************

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... _dictator/

About Our "Dictator"

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist | July 5, 2006

In many quarters, it has long been taken for granted that George W. Bush is an aspiring dictator, ravenous for power and all too willing to shred the constitutional checks and balances that restrain presidential authority. Of course this kind of paranoia is routine in the ideological fever swamps . But you can hear such things said about Bush even in respectable precincts far from the fringe.

When it was reported in May that the National Security Agency has been analyzing a vast database of domestic telephone records for possible counterterrorism leads, CNN's Jack Cafferty went ballistic. Thank goodness Senator Arlen Specter was asking questions, Cafferty fumed. ``He might be all that's standing between us and a full-blown dictatorship in this country."

During the 2004 campaign, Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals told a lawyers' conference that the Supreme Court decision deciding the 2000 election for Bush was ``exactly what happened" when Mussolini and Hitler came to power in the '30s. And ``like Mussolini," Calabresi said, Bush ``has exercised extraordinary power -- he has exercised power, claimed power for himself."

A year before, Michael Kinsley wrote in Slate that ``in terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world."

Time and again the D-word or its equivalent has been invoked to describe the Bush presidency. On issues ranging from his ``signing statements" to the treatment of enemy combatants and his defense of the Patriot Act, Bush has regularly been accused of harboring totalitarian impulses. ``We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator," wrote Jonathan Alter in Newsweek last December. Just the other day, The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner warned that the Bush administration has been ``a slow-rolling coup d'etat" but that ``people are afraid to say so."

So when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last week, Bush's reaction was easy to foretell: He would show the ruling all the respect of a monster truck rolling over a VW Beetle. No doubt he would emulate one of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson -- another polarizing president whose enemies labeled him a dictator. It would be Worcester v. Georgia all over again.

Worcester was an 1832 case in which the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on the Cherokee nation living within its borders. Its attempt to do so, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the majority, was ``repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States." Jackson saw the decision as a challenge to his policy of Indian removal and sided with Georgia, which refused to obey the court's ruling. What the case is best remembered for today is Jackson's withering observation that the court's ruling had no teeth.

``John Marshall has made his decision," Jackson supposedly said. ``Now let him enforce it."

Fast-forward 174 years. President Bush learns the court's ruling in Hamdan has gone against him. A five-justice majority held the military commissions created by the administration to try the Guantanamo detainees are invalid, since they were never authorized by congressional statute. The justices seem to have repudiated Bush's claim that the Constitution invests the president with sweeping unilateral authority in wartime. ``The court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground," Justice Stephen Breyer pointedly notes in a concurrence. ``Congress has not issued the Executive a `blank check.' "

Whereupon Bush says -- what? ``The justices have made their decision; now let them enforce it?" Something even more acidic? Perhaps he repeats a statement he has made previously -- ``I'm the decider, and I decide what is best"?

Not quite. He says he takes the court's decision ``seriously." A few moments later he says it again. And then comes this: ``We've got people looking at it right now to determine how we can work with Congress, if that's available, to solve the problem." There is no disdain. No bravado. No criticism. Just an acknowledg ment that the Supreme Court has spoken and the executive branch will comply.

Some dictator.

It isn't 1832 anymore. Even presidents who are aggressive in their claims of authority don't flout Supreme Court decisions. Harry Truman relinquished the steel mills, Richard Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes, Bill Clinton submitted to Paula Jones's deposition. Al Gore conceded the 2000 election. Now Bush will acquiesce as well.

For better or worse, our legal system as it has evolved makes the judiciary, not the president, ``the decider." Bush presses his claims forcefully, as he is entitled to do -- but only to a point. We remain a nation of laws, not of men. For all the promiscuous talk about dictatorship, was that ever really in doubt?


Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another take from the right:

Image


June 19, 2006 Issue
The American Conservative



Reach Out and Tap Someone


The NSA’s surveillance program undermines the rule of law without producing real gains in security.

By James Bovard


The National Security Agency has been tracking the calls of millions of Americans and constructing the “largest database ever assembled in the world,” USA Today revealed on May 10. The nation’s biggest telephone companies have apparently turned over masses of personal records to the feds, allowing Uncle Sam to build up a database of the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls of Americans. The revelations blew to smithereens the Bush administration’s story that only international calls were being tapped without a warrant as part of its so-called “terrorist-surveillance program.”

Bush announced on the day the story came out, “The intelligence activities I authorized are lawful.” However, this may be the result of Cheney logic—that the Supreme Commander has the right to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the public. (The New York Times noted that Cheney and his top aides had been the most aggressive advocates of warrantless wiretaps and rounding up Americans’ phone data.)

In his weekly radio address two days later, Bush sought to quell the controversy: “This week, new claims have been made about other ways we are tracking down al-Qaeda to prevent attacks on America.” Yet unless one considers every American presumptively an al-Qaeda accomplice, the domestic phone intercepts have nothing to do with tracking down al-Qaeda. Bush also declared, “We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.” Unless the vast majority of Americans are guilty, there is no way to assert that the feds are not trolling through millions of innocent people’s lives.

The revelations buttress the claims of former AT&T employee Mark Klein, who revealed that equipment was attached to AT&T core operations that empowered the NSA to conduct “vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet.’’ The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) sued AT&T after Klein made his charges and after the New York Times disclosed that the NSA has been conducting warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans. In a deposition, Klein related, “In 2003 AT&T built ‘secret rooms’ hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company’s popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.”

The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 made it a crime for providers of electronics communications to “knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity,” and companies can face penalties of $1,000 for each customer whose privacy was violated. (Qwest was the only major phone company to refuse the government’s demand for information—in part because Qwest lawyers and executives recognized that disclosing the information without a court order would be illegal.)

The USA Today disclosures make it even more difficult to trust any assertion on surveillance by high-ranking government officials. On Jan. 23, Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be CIA chief, declared that the terrorist-surveillance program “is not a drift net ... This is focused. It’s targeted. It’s very carefully done. You shouldn’t worry.” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6: “Only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is, communications between a foreign country and this country.” These comments are reminiscent of Bush’s false assertions during the 2004 presidential campaign that no wiretaps were being conducted without a court order.

The administration’s credibility is also undermined by its tactics to suppress independent evaluation or investigation of its surveillance. The White House has continuously insisted that its terrorist-surveillance program has been thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department to determine its legality. (Prior to the Bush administration, the courts, not federal agencies, were supposed to be arbiters of the lawfulness of agencies’ actions.) But on May 10, Congress was notified that the Bush administration had effectively scuttled an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the agency’s watchdog, into “whether DOJ lawyers had behaved unethically by interpreting the law too aggressively—by giving a legal green light to coercive interrogations and warrantless eavesdropping,” as Newsweek reported. The Bush administration thwarted the investigation by refusing to grant security clearances to the lawyers investigating the department’s actions. Attorney General Gonzales announced that the OPR investigation was unnecessary because the department had already decided the warrantless wiretaps were legal—despite the objections of Deputy Attorney General James Comey and at least one Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge. Gonzales explained, “We don’t want to be talking so much about the program that we compromise the effectiveness.” He offered no evidence that the OPR had been infiltrated by al-Qaeda.

The Bush team is counting on the “national security” invocation to provide a get-out-of-jail card for any abuses. The Justice Department sought to get a federal judge to dismiss much of the EFF lawsuit, claiming that “the lawfulness of the alleged activities cannot be determined without a full factual record, and that record cannot be made without seriously compromising U.S. national security interests.” Thus, it is no longer safe to permit Americans to know what the government is up to. National security requires that the government have unlimited right to deceive the American people about how far it is intruding into their lives. EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston observed that the feds are “basically saying that no one could ever go to court to stop illegal surveillance so long as they claim it’s for national security. It leaves them completely unaccountable and leaves the communications companies that are colluding with them unaccountable.”

It is amusing to see Republican stalwarts and media stooges pooh-pooh concerns about the feds tracking each citizen’s phone calls. But how would the White House react if someone acquired and published all the records of incoming and outgoing calls to Karl Rove? Creating a database of all the phone calls made and taken by members of Congress could be helpful in future bribery and corruption scandals. Yet there is no chance in Hades that representatives and senators would ever permit other Americans to see such personal data—while many congressmen sneer at citizens who don’t want the feds to have such data on them.

Unfortunately, most Americans seem incapable of recognizing the danger of permitting politicians and government agents to compile dossiers on their personal lives. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken just after the USA Today revelation, “63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. ... 66 percent said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made...” Americans do not understand the implicit Miranda warning on any such surveillance scheme: any information the feds stockpile can be used against people the government does not like—or people the government seeks to silence or suppress. If Americans acquiesce to the feds warehousing their phone-call data, this will simply encourage the seizure of far more personal information. (The NSA indicated that the calling data is being shared with other federal agencies.)

The media reaction has been short and relatively mild. This is appalling, considering that the FBI appears to be using National Security Letter subpoenas (authorized by the Patriot Act) to round up the calling data of journalists suspected of having received leaks on CIA abuses. ABC News reporter Brian Ross suggested on his blog that the feds are tracking the calls of numerous newspaper and TV reporters to determine who was receiving leaks from government officials. Perhaps some journalists are afraid to criticize the government or perhaps they fear losing access to government officials—or perhaps they simply don’t give a damn.

The latest revelations are not the end of the story. Instead, they are simply one in a series of revelations of the feds ignoring both the statute book and the Constitution. Former NSA intelligence officer Russ Tice warned that people “are only seeing the tip of the iceberg” of domestic-surveillance abuses. Seymour Hersh reports in the new issue of The New Yorker that a government consultant informed him that “tens of thousands have had their calls monitored in one way or the other,” including the use of computers to listen for key words in their conversations.

The roundup of domestic calling records is part of a pattern of aggressive seizures of information by the Bush administration, which successfully pressured America Online and MSN to turn over the records of how millions of people had used their computer search engines. Google resisted similar federal demands, but the feds recently turned up the heat. The Justice Department claims the information is necessary to produce evidence to justify reintroducing the Child Online Protection Act, which has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Technology expert John Dvorak suggests that it is plausible that the government is gathering up the search histories for purposes unrelated to child-porn crackdowns.

The combination of the phone-call data and the online-search records would go a long way to creating Total Information Awareness (TIA). When the Bush administration first pushed TIA as a ticket to safety in 2002, a public uproar awoke Congress and forced the administration to formally shelve efforts to track almost every area of people’s lives. But the feds apparently ignored any congressional orders to cease and desist.

The terrorist surveillance program is the result of a personal edict issued by the president. What other National Security Presidential Directives might Bush have issued? How many laws must be violated before citizens recognize that the government is fundamentally lawless?

Image
___________________________________
From "The American Conservative."

James Bovard is the author of the recently released "Attention Deficit Democracy"and eight other books.

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:30 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
genesim wrote:
Doc wrote:articulating the feelings of the majority of Americans today..

And how would you know? If you speak for America, then this country is in deep trouble.

Read carefully, Marky clown boy. The editorial articulates said feelings -- quite well, for those who possess the ability to read and comprehend. Opps! Sorry, that leaves you out.

You are correct, though, America is in deep trouble.


You call me a clown???? :lol: :lol:

I am not the one who thinks an OPINION articulates the feelings/thinking of America in general. :lol:

The facts are that you bring nothing to the table so you just copy and paste and say....hey look, someone agrees with me, so that must mean thats how everyone "feels" :roll: ???

But if one disagrees.....oooooh watch out, cause every possible bullet will be fired back.

What a jackass. :lol:

You see my problem is this
I'm dreaming away
Wishing that heroes, they truly exist
I cry, watching the days
Can't you see I'm a fool in so many ways
But to lose all my senses
That is just so typically me
Baby, oh

Chorus:
Opps!...I did it again
I played with your heart, got lost in the game
Oh baby, baby
Opps!...You think I'm in love
That I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:41 pm

cs wrote:USA is gone down hill since the 50's (no i am not that old).


Yeah...I miss the good ol days when everything was censored, and the wives were baking cookies and staying mainly unemployed. :roll:

We should have stayed blind forever. Who needed a drugged out Elvis. Fairy tales should be eternity.

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:54 pm

genesim wrote:Opps!...I did it again ...
Opps!


This about a typo from the guy whose most recent blunders include misspelling "civilized," "recommend" and "receiving" and misusing "your"?

The fact that I looked at only six of your recent messages to find these makes me think you might want to put down your stones and tend to your own glass house.

Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:51 pm

A couple of thoughtful articles that I believe folks on both sides of the political/idealogical spectrum can appreciate:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... rican.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... terro.html

Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:15 am

elvissessions.com wrote:
genesim wrote:Opps!...I did it again ...
Opps!


This about a typo from the guy whose most recent blunders include misspelling "civilized," "recommend" and "receiving" and misusing "your"?

The fact that I looked at only six of your recent messages to find these makes me think you might want to put down your stones and tend to your own glass house.


Hey nimrod, how many times have I corrected people over such meaningless observations? Now look at how many times I have defended myself for my typos.

You have a deficient memory.

The stab at the scholar was just in joking, because he is of course the kind of ignoramus who would not only check and double check..and triple check his typos, but he would also judge someone for not doing the same thing!

Of course this will be lost on a Doc fanboy. To them he has no flaws. :roll:

P.S. Elvissessions.com. I want PROOF of your observations, not just the words. Please quote so all can see my supposed errors.

Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:47 am

genesim wrote:You call me a clown????

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck ...

Quack quack quack, Marky clown boy.

Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:29 am

Elvissessions.com. I want PROOF of your observations, not just the words. Please quote so all can see my supposed errors.


Why you want your ineptitude put on display I do not understand, but OK, whatever.

June 20

Now cut out the bullcrap and at least come back with something resembling civlized talk.


June 19

I would reccomend to anyone that is new to the truly great actor.


June 12

Your such a tool.


and

Furthermore they were recieving recognition.


Oh, and usual, you're wrong: I'm not a drjohncarpenter "fanboy," I'm a genesim "enemy."

Get your facts -- and your grammar -- straight.

Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:54 am

SUCKER

I actually went out and did something with my Saturday evening. :lol:

So you are my "enemy"???? A faceless person that you disagree with??? You really do need to get a life. :P

I don't even know you enough to call you anything to me tard.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

...But where are the clowns..... don't bother, their here.

Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:51 am

Oh, jeez, you wasted about four of my minutes.

Still plenty of time for dinner out and a movie, thank you.

If you'd like I can take 15 minutes more and catalog another 30 examples of your lack of education.

From what I can tell, if there's a "tard" among us, it's you.

Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:40 pm

Dude shouldn't you be doing inventory?

Go back to work. :lol:

That means NOW! :P