Pathetic Senate Democrats
If the President of the United States appeared on your doorstep and asked you to do something both you and he knew was illegal, would you do it?
I ask this question, because that is what is at stake in the showdown over the FISA law, warrantless wiretapping, and giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law at the request of the federal government. In other words, if the president does it (no matter what "it" is) is it therefore legal? This question was famously asked of Richard Nixon, and we all know what he had to say about it.
Put another way, are we a nation of laws, or a nation of money? If you do something illegal (whether you are an individual or a corporation), can you bribe your way out of it later by handing out wheelbarrows full of cash to legislators so they will "retroactively" provide you with amnesty for your wrongdoing?
Because the law is clear. The Fourth Amendment is clear on warrants. The original FISA law is clear on wiretapping -- you always need a warrant, every single time. And the Constitution is crystal clear on the issue: "No . . . ex post facto law shall be passed." I've written about the after-the-fact nature of "granting immunity" before, and I still think it's pretty easy to see that our Founding Fathers did not want America to ever do such a thing.
I actually am getting nostalgic for when Republicans talked about the following:
Rule of law
Strict interpretation of the Constitution
Personal responsibility for your actions
Moral relativism being evil (a thing is either right, or wrong -- it does not depend on the circumstances)
Remember those halcyon days of yore? When you couldn't interview a Republican without one of those issues coming up? It seems, in the ultimate moral relativism, that everything depends on what is being discussed when you talk to them now.
But I expect Republicans to toss out their long-held beliefs in defense of anything George W. Bush does. We've seen it time and time again, so I really don't expect anything different from them.
Democrats, on the other hand, should not be carrying water for the White House in an election year. They should be fighting for their principles and standing up for what they believe in as strongly as is humanly possible.
Sadly, they're not. Depending on which vote you pay attention to, over a dozen Democrats have rolled over (once again) in fear of being labeled "soft on terrorism." The Senate's site provides the full list of who voted against stripping the telecom immunity out of the bill, and who voted for final passage of the bill (with the immunity intact). Check to see what your Senator did, and let them know what you think about it.
While John McCain managed to make both roll calls (unsurprisingly, he voted with the Republicans both times), Hillary Clinton skipped both votes. Barack Obama voted to strip the immunity out of the bill, but then disappeared for the final vote. It is worth noting that the usual excuse of being "on the campaign trail" does not apply here, because today's primaries (Maryland, DC itself, and Virginia) are all a stone's throw from the Senate chamber. So where was Hillary? So much for "leadership" and "experience" and all of that -- she was too chicken to put her votes on the record, in fear of them being used against her later in the campaign. Obama likewise has no excuse for missing the final vote, which just brings up the subject of his numerous "present" votes in Illinois all over again. And neither candidate has even mentioned the issue at all in a recent speech, as far as I know. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Democratic Party's leading candidates for president to show us exactly how they'd stand up to Bush and the Republicans... and there is a resounding silence from both of them. This does not bode well for what either of them would do as leader of our country, I have to say.
One Democrat who did show leadership on the issue today was Russ Feingold, who gave an eloquent speech on his position, which can be read on his Senate web site, if you are unsure about what this issue means and why exactly it is an abomination. It's a great speech, and well worth a read.
All hope is not lost, though. Because the House passed a version of the bill which did not include the retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecommunications companies. Because the Senate bill is different, it now goes to conference committee. What gets voted out of committee will be voted on again by both the House and Senate. It's a slim reed to cling to at this point, but hopefully House Democrats will stand firm against Bush and the GOP.
Because the Senate Democrats have shown -- yet again -- that it doesn't really matter which party is "in control" of the Senate, because they're going to do exactly what Bush tells them to do, even in an election year.
There's only one word to sum up this situation.
Pathetic.
-- Chris Weigant
UPDATE -
I meant to put this in the main article, but it slipped my mind when I was writing it (OK, I got so enraged I forgot about it...)
FireDogLake has an online petition you can sign to urge House Democrats to do the right thing. Check it out!
-CW
It seems to me that the senate is being run by the Republicans and not by the Democrats as they always get what they want in the end. I can only hope that the house will stand firm but I am not expecting anything from them. It does appear that the rule of law and the constitution are only to be followed when it is convenient.
...Stan
Is it even SLIGHTLY possible that Democrats passed this because it is the BEST thing for the country??
I mean, look at it..
If it's a choice between listening in on terrorist's calls to Americans and letting LA or NY go up in a nuclear cloud, what is the lesser of the two evils there???
It does appear that the rule of law and the constitution are only to be followed when it is convenient.
No, it appears that the rule of law and the constitution are not suicide pacts that must be followed to the letter into death..
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Just ask FDR... Just ask Lincoln...
Michale.....
Michale,
While I agree with you that we must fight terrorism, I think the Democrats are acting out of political fear rather than actually trying to stop terrorism. They are afraid of being called "weak" by Republicans.
What bothers me about the new FISA bill is that it is not just about listening in on terrorist calls. We already had a legal system in place for monitoring foreign calls with court approval.
What I object to is granting the government permission to spy on anyone they want to. I give credit here to the NY Times for framing this as what it is, "spying" - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
But this is something you don't hear much about in the argument. It's confusing what the bill actually involves. But reading the fine print, it seems to give the government the ability to spy on anyone for any reason without any oversight.
If the law were designed to target only terrorists, it would be much easier to support. But it targets everyone. And doesn't seem to include any checks and balances other than "trust us, we know what we're doing."
If the government were really interested in fighting terrorism, they would listen to experts like Bruce Schneier - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html.
It's tricky, though, because we all want to fight terrorism. None of us want to aid terrorists. But I have to say I was disappointed with Democrats for not taking this stand and asking, is this the best way to fight terrorism?
I think they should have at least made Republicans show some evidence that this type of broad-based spying works. Maybe it's out there, but if so, I haven't seen any. And the Democrats, likewise, need to suggest better ways to fight terrorists and show evidence that wiretapping everyone isn't effective.
Best
Dave
While I agree with you that we must fight terrorism, I think the Democrats are acting out of political fear rather than actually trying to stop terrorism. They are afraid of being called "weak" by Republicans.
If this is true, then CW's label of "pathetic" certainly does apply..
But it targets everyone.
It has to.. Or else it would be ineffective...
If we state, "we will listen in on everyone except clergy.." then we will have terrorists use that to their advantage... Or "we'll listen in on everyone except Jacksonville Jaguars fans" and pretty soon, all the terrorists will be dressing in teal and black...
Any exceptions to any kind of anti-terrorist laws will be exploited by the enemy.. Now, I grant you.. If we are talking about penny-ante shoplifting or other minor issues, I agree that the rights of the individual supersede such draconian tactics..
But we're not talking about a kid shoplifting a candy bar...
If a terrorist evades the law, hundreds, thousands, possibly even MILLIONS of innocent men, women and children could die...
That is why any and ALL actions (up to, but not including terrorism itself) should be employed..
Anything less and we run the risk of another massacre that would make 9/11 look like a picnic...
Michale.....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPN9UG0&show_article=1
Jeezus H Chreest!!!
Another requirement of the Democrats new interrogation techniques is that ALL requests must be ended with the word "please" and that word, under penalty of law, MUST be preceded with a "Pretty"... :^/
Way to go.... Maybe the Dems next action will be to invite Bin Laden in for tea.... :^/
Michale.....
FYI - I sat down to brunch with Bin Laden last week and he's really more of a coffee person.
I'm curious Michale, why stop at wiretapping then? Why not put video cameras in everyone's houses? Better yet, why not put chips in them that record their every conversation and chart their location? Or, I know how to 100% stop terrorism. We lock every person in the world into a 12 x 12 foot cell; this would guarantee it.
I mean, you could make the same argument: millions of people will die if we don't put video cameras in everyone's homes. Maybe it's worth it?
Ok, I'm being facetious and probably a bit of an @ss, but a security expert like Bruce will argue that there is no way to 100% stop terrorism. You literally would have to put everyone in their own cell. So where do the trade offs end?
I'd much rather see us set a positive example for the rest of the world on how to deal with the terrorists. For example, if we had pursued Bin Laden instead of invading Iraq, this would have set an example of how to properly deal with terrorism. But at this point, do we ever hear anything about going after him?
I'd much rather put our anti-terror tax dollars to best work and go after him rather than invading Iraq or spying on Americans.
Bin Laden doesn't seem to be making a lot of calls to America these days. I mean other than to set up our brunch last week. Why is it again that we want to let the government spy on everyone? Will this really catch anything? Has it in the past 6 years?
Nothing. Nada. Zero. If it had it would have been on every front page in the country.
Respectfully yours,
Dave
Michale -
Two things. One, if an American soldier were waterboarded by an enemy, and we later caught the enemy, would you want to see him punished for doing so? If the answer is "yes" then HOW are we supposed to legally do so if we are doing the same thing? Maybe that wasn't put as well as I could, but I think you get the idea.
Secondly, the FISA law was passed when we faced an enemy with THOUSANDS of nukes pointed right at us. We're not talking about just one city being decimated, we're talking the entire country being radioactive glass. And yet back then, Congress passed the FISA law that we lived with until Bush. I'm just saying, you keep bringing up the spectre of a city in ashes, and yet we lived with that every day in the Cold War. And we managed to do so without throwing out the Constitution. We are allowed to tap terrorists' phone calls. That's not what the issue is. The issue is do we reward mega corporations for breaking the law (even though Qwest refused to do so) just because they give Senator Jay Rockefeller (and others) loads and loads of campaign cash? Do we reward (rich) lawbreakers with amnesty, just because they can bribe enough members of Congress? That, at least, is the main issue for me at this point in the debate.
-CW
Oh boy, looks like I got me work cut out for me this morning. Hope I don't have a word limit.. :D
@akadjian
First off, I tried to read Bruce's ideas, but the link is broken. So I can't speak intelligently to his ideas...
So where do the trade offs end?
To answer that question, we would have to establish common ground as to what each of us holds dear and how we prioritize them.
For example, I know that many people hold the 4th amendment VERY dear. You are probably one of them..
I am sure you also hold the lives of innocent men, women and children very dear as well..
So, how would you prioritize that??
Speaking for myself only, I simply cannot see myself being so selfish as to think that my own personal privacy is more important to me than the possibility of a nuclear cloud over LA or NY..
Bin Laden doesn't seem to be making a lot of calls to America these days.
But Al Qaeda does seem to be making a lot of calls to and thru America.. Shouldn't we know what they are saying??
I put out a scenario a while back that no one seemed to want to address...
Would you incarcerate 1000 men for 48 hours, knowing that 999 of them were innocent, to prevent a nuclear bomb from going of in downtown LA???
To me, that question is a no-brainer...
Has it in the past 6 years?
Has there been any terrorist attacks in US-proper in the last 6 years??
"Nothing. Nada. Zero."
And you cannot say there has not been attempts, because there has been. But they were prevented by good solid intel. And where do you think that said good intel came from?? From "illegal" wiretaps and from torturing terrorists...
Like it or not, we simply cannot be "a positive example for the rest of the world" in the war against terrorists... We simply cannot be and survive..
It's really that simple..
And, for the record, you didn't come across as an @ss... :D
@CW
if an American soldier were waterboarded by an enemy, and we later caught the enemy, would you want to see him punished for doing so?
Depends. If the "enemy" is a terrorist, I think that there will be lots more to punish him for.. If the "enemy" was, say a Russian soldier during a declared war then different rules apply...
The simple fact is that we gain NOTHING and lose EVERYTHING by trying to make nice with terrorists..
Even though we ARE at war and the terrorists ARE the enemy, this is not a conventional war. The "gentleman" rules of WWII do not apply in this war..
We (ostensibly) followed the "rules" during the Vietnam war even though the enemy did not. Look what that got us..
If it's a choice between the comfort of a known and proven terrorist and the saving of hundreds, thousands or millions of innocent men, women and children... Well, the choice for me is easy...
Regarding your second point, you are correct. But the concept of MAD was in play and it held that we were dealing with (basically) rational men who did not want to die..
It is a completely different enemy we are facing today and the FISA rules that were made to counter a CONVENTIONAL warfare threat are outdate, outmoded and downright dangerous..
As far as rewarding the corporations for breaking the law, let me put it to you another way..
Let's say you are driving down the road, merrily on your way. You stop at a traffic light and suddenly this strange man jumps into your car. He shoves a badge in your face and orders you to run the light and follow that green car ahead. He tells you that there is a very bad man in that car and that, if you don't help the cop catch him, many people will die..
So you, being the civic (no, not Honda!! :D) minded person you are, step on the gas, blow the light and proceed to follow the evil man in the green car.. You race down at breakneck speeds and somehow, miraculously, get the car stopped. The cop in your car jumps out and arrests the evil man and all is good and right in the world. The cop from your car comes up to you and says, "You did a fine job. THank you for helping me. I know you probably burned a lot of gas doing that, so here's a hundred bucks for your time and trouble.."....
Now, up roars a uniformed cop in a marked patrol unit. He jumps out of his car and approaches you. You look at him, expecting more praise, when he suddenly grabs you, throws you up on the hood of your car and cuffs you.
"I have been following you since you blew that red light! You're under arrest for speeding, reckless driving and endangerment..", he yells!
"But I was helping!!!" you state...
As the uniformed cop snatches the $100 bill from your hand, he says, "Helping, eh?? Looks like to me, you just did it for the money!!"
You turn to the undercover cop you helped and say, "Do something!!"...
The undercover cop says, "Sorry, you broke the law. I know it was a good reason and all, but.. hay.. The law is the law..."
That situation is pretty analogous to the Telecomms/FISA situation..
Sometimes, the wrongs things MUST be done to prevent GREATER wrongs.. It's the bedrock foundation of our entire Law Enforcement system..
Michale.....
I have said it before and I have seen nothing to date that would indicate that I am wrong.
Sometimes, most times, the end DOES justify the means..
Michale.....
Thanks, Michale & Chris. I'm enjoying the lively discussion. It's helping me work out my own views on this topic.
I have trouble with the "end justifies the means" argument. I have trouble with it because if I take the case that you presented and could absolutely KNOW that I'd save lives, I'd probably agree with you. I'd lock up the few to save the many.
But this situation is different. These tactics are not making us safer. And there's no evidence to show that we're saving the many. If anything, I think they're making us less safe.
With waterboarding, for example, I think that terrorists are more likely to torture captured prisoners if we ourselves torture prisoners. Not only that, but most evidence from the FBI and other Army professionals seems to indicate that reliable evidence is not gained from torture. See:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/
(this time, link should work :)
Likewise, there is no evidence that NSA eavesdropping has stopped any terrorist attacks or potential terrorist attacks. And it diverts resources from efforts on the ground that would be more productive:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/post_1.html
These efforts to me are like invading Iraq. They are done in the name of fighting terror rather than actually fighting terror. As even Alan Greenspan admitted, Iraq was about the oil. Not about fighting terrorism.
If we really wanted to fight terror, we should be going after Bin Laden. We should be listening to the experts. We should be concentrating our efforts on intelligence on the ground. We should be working to develop relationships with other countries to fight terrorism. And we should not be ceding away our own rights out of fear. Because if we do that, then the terrorists have won indeed.
And yes, I do believe in laws. Even for the President. If laws don't apply to our President, then we are not a democracy. If the President wanted to eavesdrop on people without anyone knowing it, he should have proposed this as a law. Or, he should have used the measures that were already in place to eavesdrop. He could easily have gotten court approval. The FISA law already existed. Why were these measures not sufficient?
Best
Dave
p.s. Whups. For some reason the link in the previous post had a period at the end of it:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html
These tactics are not making us safer.
How can you say that with all the evidence to the contrary???
I think that terrorists are more likely to torture captured prisoners if we ourselves torture prisoners.
Tell that to Nicholas Berg. Understand this.. Nothing we do or not do will garner us any different treatment at the hands of terrorists... As I said above, we have EVERYTHING to lose and NOTHING to gain by stopping coercive interrogations..
They are terrorists.. It is what they do... You would have more luck at better treatment if you were nice and friendly to a rabid bear...
Not only that, but most evidence from the FBI and other Army professionals seems to indicate that reliable evidence is not gained from torture
As many anecdotes as there are that claim torture doesn't work, there is equal evidence to support that it does... The British Airlines operation is one such example..
Even if one allows for the possibility that torture only works in one out of 100 instances, isn't that ONE INSTANCE enough to at least have the option available???
Doesn't it make sense to have EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION available to save lives??
Likewise, there is no evidence that NSA eavesdropping has stopped any terrorist attacks or potential terrorist attacks.
Of course it's not widely reported that it is, in fact, effective.. If you have an enemy would you want him to believe that he is being listened to??
Again, I point to the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11... Surely you don't believe that is the result of just dumb luck or that the terrorists have given up completely, do you???
As even Alan Greenspan admitted, Iraq was about the oil. Not about fighting terrorism.
Even if true (and I am not saying it is) so what?? Oil is such an ingrained part of our lives, to have it disrupted in the manner it COULD have been would have destroyed this country..
There were many reasons for Iraq. Some stated, some not stated...
And we should not be ceding away our own rights out of fear
What rights have you ceded?? Since 9/11 the only rights that Americans have lost was the right to take hair gel on an aircraft...
Is that really such a big sacrifice for a safer country??
Ben Franklin said it best.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Americans have given up NO "essential" liberties and the safety we enjoy is FAR from "temporary"...
If the President wanted to eavesdrop on people without anyone knowing it, he should have proposed this as a law.
That would kind of defeat the idea of "people not knowing about it", eh?? :D
When you speak of laws, you must concede that our laws are ever changing. They are constantly being updated to account for the changing times. As I have mentioned many times, the drug laws of the 60s were not equipped to handle the onslaught of designer drugs like LSD etc etc.. Ergo, new laws had to be crafted..
The FISA laws of the cold war were not up to the task of combating this new enemy we face. Therefore, they have to be updated..
You mentioned that you would be amiable to incarcerating 999 innocent men, if you were sure that it would prevent a nuclear catastrophe... What if you were only 50% sure?? Hell, what if you were only 20% sure.. And what if you DIDN'T incarcerate those 1000 men and New York went up in a nuclear cloud..
You ever read FAIL SAFE?? Or see the original movie??
Sometimes really REALLY tough calls have to be made..
I'll take a look at Mr Schneier's link and see what it's all about...
Michale.....
OK, I read it.. And I have to say that I am really REALLY glad that Mr Schneier is not in charge of any CT operations or agencies..
His entire advice can be summed up thusly..
"Don't worry. Be happy."
The threat IS real, whether people want to face it or not.
Refusing to be "terrorized" (I call it prudent, but whatever.) is NOT a defense against terrorism..
Everyone of those instances that Mr Schneier states could have EASILY gone the other way. Can you imagine the outcry if his "Don't Worry, Be Happy" philosophy was employed..
Stating from the comfort of his barco-lounger, it's easy to say, "Don't be terrorized"...
When you are on the front lines of CT Ops, reality has a tendency to kill you, whether you choose to be terrorized or not..
Michale.....
By the bi, I hope I didn't come across as an @ss.. I really am not, but there are somethings that I am really passionate about...
This is one of them..
Michale.....
Nope. Not at all. I completely respect your opinion. I just like to talk politics as much as you, but at the end of the day, I always try to remember that I can still sit down and have a drink with people :). And I know you're one of these people because you can joke about things in the middle of a discussion.
Some liberties lost:
- Habeas corpus (people can now be held indefinitely for no reason; this is usually typical of dictatorships and not democracies)
- Privacy (w/ the new FISA bill)
- Rule of the people - President Bush has throughout his administration used signing statements to ignore Congressional laws that he couldn't stop and thus ignore the will of the people
I'm glad you brought up that Ben Franklin quote. I couldn't agree with it more. We are giving up not just pieces, but foundational pieces of our democracy.
The right to privacy is expressed in the 3rd Amendment of the Bill of Rights - privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches.
And the writ of habeas corpus was written into our Constitution. This writ has historically been used to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.
As for the British Airlines example ...
- Did the Brits torture anyone to crack this case? Or even use illegal surveillance? The best account I read seemed to indicate that they solved it through hard work on the ground. Traditional intelligence.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
I'm with you that we should use the most effective methods possible to stop terrorism. I just don't think torture and spying on people are the most effective methods. The evidence I've seen seems to be quite to the contrary.
And we could use surveillance under the old FISA law; they just needed to ask for a court approval. Why isn't this effective?
Hope I'm not being too passionate either. Now I'm off to get a drink :)
- Dave
p.s. You make a good point about that Bruce Schneier article. It doesn't sum up his entire perspective very well. His argument is basically that he wants to use more effective methods to secure our country (so in that respect, I'm "borrowing" or as I like to say "elaborating" on his viewpoints :).
NOTE:
Don't have time to jump into the fray here, but just wanted to let everyone know it's OK to type "ass" if you feel like it. It won't be filtered out...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
-CW
@CW
Oh.. OK
ass ass ass ass ass ass ass :D
Yer right.. It works!! :D heheheheehehehehehehe
I crack myself up....
@akadjian
I always try to remember that I can still sit down and have a drink with people :)
As long as yer buyin', I'll be happy to chug a few.. Hell, I am happy to chug a few even if *I'm* buyin!! :D
Some liberties lost:
-Assuming you are an American Citizen, you have not lost your Habeas Corpus rights.
-Theoretical IE.. You COULD possibly lose your privacy in the future.. (I'll come back to this..)
-Again, a theoretical loss of liberty that really isn't covered in the Bill of Rights..
As to your loss of privacy... Consider the alternative?? I am assuming that you don't routinely take calls from terrorists bent on murdering innocent men, women and children.. So, really your only loss of privacy COULD come into play if a moronic terrorist mis-dialed a number and got you instead..
Now, I have to ask you.. Would you be upset to provide information to authorities regarding a terrorist??? Also, keep in mind that the new FISA laws aren't designed to spy on US to US calls.. They are simply designed to give the government to authority to listen in on foreign calls that go THRU the US without a warrant. US Intelligence services already have the authority to listen to calls outside the US without a warrant. But, due to today's technology, that is not longer sufficient. Now, you have calls that go from BumFuq, Egypt thru the US to Shavurbush, Phillipines.
On the one hand, since those are foreign calls, no warrant is necessary. But, since they go thru the US, a warrant is necessary..
You see why an update in the FISA rules is needed??
The laws have not kept up with the changing times. Just like we needed new drug laws in the 60s (lots and LOTS of new drug laws.. :D ) these days we need knew CT and surveillance laws..
I am really at a loss to understand why all the hoopla.. It's not as if Bush is doing anything different than what Presidents have done since Lincoln...
Trying to protect this country...
We are giving up not just pieces, but foundational pieces of our democracy.
No, we are not.. As an American Citizen, you have all the rights and liberties you have had for ages...
Well, with the exception of carrying hair gel on an airplane... But, unless your an Elvis impersonator, I really don't see the hardship...
And the writ of habeas corpus was written into our Constitution. This writ has historically been used to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.
And, as the SCOTUS has ruled in Hamdi v Rumsfield, the right of Habeas Corpus is guaranteed to all American Citizens and NOTHING has been done to change that...
- Did the Brits torture anyone to crack this case?
No, but the Pakistanis did... They then gave the information to the British who then surveilled the suspects. Surveillance, I might add, that would have been COMPLETELY illegal in the US. But the British have a better mindset when it comes to dealing with terrorists and terrorism. And the British public (by and large) are completely accepting of such actions that serve the greater good... Ever see a movie called THE FINAL OPTION?? British SAS tore out a guys wall in his apartment to kill a couple terrorists that had taken hostages... Granted, it's only a movie, but the mindset of the British public was accurate...
And we could use surveillance under the old FISA law; they just needed to ask for a court approval. Why isn't this effective?
Because, A-It takes time and these kinds of OPs are fleeting and spur of the moment and instant decisions must be made or people will die. And B-When you have to go thru the courts, dozens of additional people learn about it. The chances of a leak and people dying increase exponentially to the number of people know know about it..
His argument is basically that he wants to use more effective methods to secure our country (so in that respect, I'm "borrowing" or as I like to say "elaborating" on his viewpoints :).
I may have been a tad overly sarcastic in addressing his comments, but what I took from his article is that he doesn't want authorities to take these things so seriously because, if we do, then the terrorists win...
Perhaps..
But, if we DON'T take these things seriously, a lot of innocent people die...
And the terrorists still win...
Michale.....
I know I come across as a sarcastic twit.. I have tried long and hard to cultivate that image.. :D
But seriously, I know where ya'all are coming from...
You are afraid that, if you give the government these powers, they will use them for nefarious purposes..
But... What if you are wrong??
Look at it this way..
If you support the needed CT methods and the government mis-uses them, it WILL come out.. And, if that were to come to pass, I would be MORE than happy to provide you the rope so that we can string them up by their testicles...
BUT....
What if you DON'T support the needed CT methods and you see NY or LA go up in a nuclear cloud??
If I am wrong, the renegade government will surely get their comeuppance...
If YOU are wrong, millions of innocent men, women and children could die...
Surely with the stakes so high, you can see the need to give your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government the benefit of the doubt...
And if you say that Bush wasn't elected, but that he was appointed by the SCOTUS, I will surely whack yer pee-pee....
Michale.....
Fear. Fear! Fear!!! Fear!!!!! You're all going to die unless I get what I want, says the President. Don't be responsible for the deaths of millions! Act now! You're aiding the terrorists if you don't act! Don't side with the Defeatocrats! We must invade Iraq to stop terrorism! Terrorists will rejoice throughout the world if you don't act! Women will die! Children will die! Dogs may die! Babies! Unborn babies! Innocents! Small animals! Can you dare to take that chance?
FISA was signed into law in 1978. It's been updated several times since including in 2001 by a Republican Congress that could have given the President even more spying capabilities. Bush signed current version allowing wiretapping without a warrant in 2007 and is now trying to renew it to include immunity for the telecoms. That means for 6 years he put millions of people at risk. Some of them babies. Also probably, a cute dog or two.
This is very serious. Because if you think I'm responsible for killing millions of people, what do you think about our President? I mean, isn't he more responsible since he's ... well, he's the President? He's the guy making the actual decisions, I'm just a guy typing at my computer who is trying to kill millions.
I was going to ask, how long do we listen to the President telling us we're going to kill millions, aid terrorists, and cause the end of the world before we don't believe him? But your previous reply speaks for itself. At least 7 years. As for me, I don't believe him.
If you ask me, he doesn't give a rats ass about preventing terrorism. He just brings it up any time he wants to play politics and beat the Democrats and get his way. He throws a terrorism tantrum. If he really cared about stopping terrorism, why hasn't he talked about going after Osama bin Laden for years? Remember that guy? The terrorist?
Remember how Rudy Giuliani used 9/11 in every sentence to get himself elected. Same thing with our President. Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. Let's invade Iraq.
But you seem to believe him. Or at least believe he somehow has our best interests at heart. So we are at odds and will have to agree to disagree. It seems pointless to discuss any further. I don't have any movies to prove my argument. And clearly, I'm incapable of disproving a hypothetical. Besides, why would you want to argue with a baby killer like me anyways?
So Ben Franklin and I are headed to the bar to get a drink and kill millions of people.
Cheers
Dave
Of course I believe the President. Insofar as the threat is real and steps must be taken..
He has all the information.. He was elected to make exactly these kinds of decisions..
Regardless of all that, just look at the consequences...
If I am wrong, the President and his cohorts will be found out and they will go to jail...
If you are wrong, millions of innocent men, women and children could die..
So, when faced with two bad choices, isn't it just smart to chose the lesser of two evils???
Just think how you would feel.. I know if I opposed the CT powers and something really bad happened, I would feel like complete kaa-kaa...
But maybe it's because I have been on the front lines of CT, working LE and Security most of my adult life. I have seen first hand, the consequences of too little intel and too little prevention and too much of "Don't worry, be happy"... It ain't a pretty picture...
You can choose to not believe the seriousness of the threat and to fight measures that could save lives.. I truly hope you are right...
But my experience tells me that you are not right and that what you are advocating is dangerous..
But hay, here's a beer raised up in hopes that you are right... Because, if you ain't we might as well get shit-faced.. :D
Michale.....
To anyone who is still out there,
This discussion has been fascinating to me for many reasons, but one of the most interesting is that it's interesting to step back and look at some of the tactics often used by the pundits.
Here's a quick list of some of these tactics:
1. Narrow the discussion to 2 choices: yours and a clearly wrong argument. This way your argument looks better.
2. Restate the opponents position as well as your own (corollary to number 1)
3. Appeal to emotions
4. Broad generalizations not supported by facts
5. Claim the territory of the responsible adult
Here's some examples:
1. Narrow the discussion to 2 choices - Michale narrows the choices at the end to a) agree with me and the administration or b)"You can choose to not believe the seriousness of the threat and to fight measures that could save lives."
In this (a) vs. (b) universe, of course (a) seems more rational. But that's not what was being argued at all. My actual argument is: terrorism can be fought effectively without restricting our civil liberties.
But by completely ignoring this and replacing it with her own "you are choosing to not believe the seriousness of the threat," Michale's position seems more viable.
2. Restate the opponent's position - Bruce Schneier argues that we should use the most effective method to fight terrorism - intelligence on the ground. Michale restates this as a "Don't Worry Be Happy" mentality. This makes it easy to be against Bruce. Trouble is, that's not what he's saying.
Again, the actual argument has been replaced with something that seems less rational: "Don't Worry, Be Happy."
3. Appeal to emotions instead of reason -
"If YOU are wrong, millions of innocent men, women and children could die."
Millions of people could die because George Bush hasn't gone after Osama bin Laden, too. You could say this about almost anything in the terrorism speculation game.
4. Broad generalizations not supported by facts -
Here's a few:
- "And you cannot say there has not been attempts, because there has been. But they were prevented by good solid intel. And where do you think that said good intel came from?? From "illegal" wiretaps and from torturing terrorists."
- "It is a completely different enemy we are facing today and the FISA rules that were made to counter a CONVENTIONAL warfare threat are outdate, outmoded and downright dangerous."
5. Claim the territory of the responsible adult -
The thinking behind this is to establish a brand. Republicans are responsible adults and anyone else is crazy and irresponsible.
In this case, Michale has portrayed herself as acting to save millions while portraying my opposition as potentially killing millions.
George Bush does the same thing. He is "fiscally responsible," while Democrats are "out of control" spenders. Inconsistent with the Clinton budget surplus and the current budget deficit, but when have conservatives let silly things like facts get in the way.
So how should we react to these types of arguments? Here are a few best practices:
1) Don't get angry - Ann Coulter argues that if you can make a liberal angry, you've won. It has become a common tactic to try to make liberals angry. This doesn't make sense to me, but then again, Ann Coulter never made sense to me.
2) State your values - People are smart. And few are happy with Bush. If our principles are solid, we can win over voters.
3) Work on constantly building the framework for our values. We need a rock solid base for talking about progressive principles. It should be simple to understand and communicate.
If conservatives "cry wolf" enough, their tactics start to seem like just that, tactics.
Both versions of the FISA bill protect equally well against terrorism - see Glenn Greenwald for comparision: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/14/fisa_101/index.html
The principle difference is that FISA provides safeguards for our rights, while the Protect America Act offers no oversight.
Millions are not going to die if the Protect America Act expires. This is solely a tactic that President Bush and others are using to advance their agenda and save the telecom companies from possible lawsuits. He screams terrorism, Democrats roll over.
We cannot change the minds of ideologues. But we can change ourselves and stand firm and try to help others in Congress "stand up."
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." - Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
Do you realize that you spent all that time and {cyber-space} addressing how I address an issue and not ONE iota of energy went to addressing the issue or the problem??
Why is that???
The simple fact is, I understand your point of view. You are young, idealistic and haven't really been out in the real world.. You don't understand that the treats are real because they have never touched your life..
Therefore, it is easy (probably TOO easy) for you to be blase' and idealistic about the situation..
Let me tell you a story. It's a true story..
While out on patrol one night, I backed up another officer on a "deuce" (DUI).. It's SOP, even if there is no hint or threat of violence. By the time I was 10-6 (on scene), everything seem'ed to be Code 4 (kopesetic). The office in question decided to let them off with a warning and advised them to go straight home. I didn't concur, but he was the on scene officer and it was his call...
Thirty minutes later, AID (Accident Investigation Division) was called to a POV-POV accident (POV=Privately Owned Vehicle). The Duece that we had just had contact with, had run a light and smacked into another vehicle, killing the driver and a three year old...
The officer who had let the Deuce off never rode patrol again. Last I hear, he was near retirement as a desk jockey...
My point??
Sometimes, idealistic people believe they are doing the right thing by being "nice" to perps... But, as so often happens in REAL life, those perps end up doing very VERY bad things..
Now, how do we translate that into this discussion.. You want to be "nice" to the terrorists. You want to give them the benefit of every doubt imaginable and then some...
But what you don't realize is that, by being "nice" you risk unimaginable consequences..
I hope you NEVER have to be put into a position where your idealism costs someone their life...
You say "Millions are not going to die if the Protect America Act expires.".....
What if you are WRONG??? Can you live with that??? Would you WANT to live with that???
Michale.....
Hahaha. If only I were young. I'll take that as a compliment though.
I don't see it as idealism at all, however. Both laws provide for appropriate counter terrorism measures. Bush never complained that the 2001 law was inadequate until suddenly, he's under fire for violating it.
Now, suddenly he's claiming that millions will die if we don't pass it. Why was it ok before and suddenly, not now?
The answer is that this bill has little to do with any new methods to prevent terrorism and is all about providing retroactive immunity for the telecoms and for the President.
Millions will not die and our ability to fight terrorism is not hindered in any way if Bush doesn't get his way.
So in the case where both are providing appropriate measures, I'm voting for the one that includes protections for our rights and civil liberties.
If President Bush is so concerned about people's lives, here's a way he could save millions. And there's no uncertainty. He could make smoking illegal. This would save millions. Why isn't anyone trying to fight a War on Smoking?
For one, it's not a "wedge" issue. It doesn't get people like us at odds with each other. It is not politically charged.
Again, I believe that if we want to fight terrorism, we should actually fight terrorism and not just use it as a political tool. This is not an idealist argument. This is a a very practical argument that I believe would actually increase our ability to fight terrorism.
This is not in any way advocating being nice to terrorists. Why do you keep painting me that way, Michale?
If the President is really so concerned about fighting terrorism, then why isn't he spending as much time on that as he is on protecting himself and telecom companies? Why doesn't he spend as much time fighting terrorism as he does fighting Democrats?
Just an emotional aside. How would you feel, Michale, if someone said that you were "being nice to terrorists"?
I'm guessing this would make you angry just like it does me or anyone for that matter.
I could very easily make this argument. I could say that the new Protect America Act is pure distraction. It is all about immunity for large corporations and the President and has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This takes us away from any actual efforts to prevent terrorism and aids the terrorists. Playing politics is not going after terrorists.
Just for the record, I'm not accusing you of this. I have more respect for people than that. I'm willing to discuss and argue with you all day, but if it comes down to "you're with the terrorists" then I'm out.
I'm not nor will I ever accuse you of being nice to terrorists and would appreciate the same respect.
Yours,
Dave
Bush never complained that the 2001 law was inadequate until suddenly, he's under fire for violating it.
And why did Bush have to violate it?? Because it wasn't adequate..
Hind site is always 20/20.. At the time, it was thought that the law was sufficient. Then it turned out it wasn't sufficient. So it must be updated.. And hence we are back at the 1960s drug laws that weren't sufficient to counter new drugs, so it had to be updated...
What is at issue is that the Democrats, SOLELY FOR POLITICAL REASONS, are saying that the old laws are sufficient, when it is obvious that they are not..
Why was it ok before and suddenly, not now?
Circumstances have changed...
Millions will not die and our ability to fight terrorism is not hindered in any way if Bush doesn't get his way.
What do you base this statement on??
I have over 25 years in Security and Law Enforcement. I was an FSO that served in many overseas postings throughout the Middle & Far East. I have been a military liason to the Israeli military and also have served as an MI analyst during the first Iraq war...
I can assure you with complete and utter competence AND confidence that the proposals that are being put forth by the Democratic Party (for COMPLETELY political reasons, I might add) are completely inadequate and will not only HINDER our pursuit and elimination of terrorists, but will actually make it easier for the terrorists to kill Americans.
Whether or not this will result in the death of millions remains to be seen.
But make NO mistake about it. What the Democrats propose will make such an outcome MORE likely, not less...
So in the case where both are providing appropriate measures, I'm voting for the one that includes protections for our rights and civil liberties.
And yet, not one law has been passed nor one law has been proposed that will curtail your rights...
So, you apparently put civil liberties as a higher priority than security..
On that, we will simply have to disagree...
If President Bush is so concerned about people's lives, here's a way he could save millions. And there's no uncertainty. He could make smoking illegal. This would save millions. Why isn't anyone trying to fight a War on Smoking?
Yer preaching to the choir on this one.. :D As far as I am concerned, ALL tobacco products should be outlawed and destroyed...
But there is too much money for the greedy corporations and ALL politicians are afraid of the tobacco lobby. In this regard, the GOP is as bad as the Dems...
Again, I believe that if we want to fight terrorism, we should actually fight terrorism and not just use it as a political tool.
And who is most guilty of using the fight against terrorism as a political tool??
The Democratic Party...
That is not to say that the GOP is innocent of this type of crap. They aren't...
But I would MUCH rather this country err on the side of unnecessary restrictions rather than err on the side of less safety..
If you err on the side of unnecessary restrictions, the WORST that can happen is the ACLU gets their titties in a knot..
If you err on the side of less safety and security, the WORST than can happen is a nuclear cloud over NY and LA...
To me, the choice is clear..
This is not in any way advocating being nice to terrorists. Why do you keep painting me that way, Michale?
Because what you advocate gives advantage to the terrorists.. No torture, no surveillance, no pursuit... All of those things that the Democrats are pushing gives advantages to the terrorists...
While I guess "being nice" to the terrorists is a bit of a misnomer, it's actually a more polite way of saying:
"Aidn' 'n abettin'"
-Sheriff Farley, MY COUSIN VINNY
How would you describe it???
Why doesn't he spend as much time fighting terrorism as he does fighting Democrats?
If only the Democrats would let him..
If only....
Just an emotional aside. How would you feel, Michale, if someone said that you were "being nice to terrorists"?
I would look at my arguments to see how someone could come to such a conclusion...
I could very easily make this argument. I could say that the new Protect America Act is pure distraction. It is all about immunity for large corporations and the President and has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This takes us away from any actual efforts to prevent terrorism and aids the terrorists. Playing politics is not going after terrorists.
If the Democrats would quit playing politics by going after the Telecomms whose only crime is doing their patriotic duty, then the Administration wouldn't have to be distracted from the War on Terror...
Do you honestly believe that the Democrats CARE about what the Telecomms did or did not do?? Of course they don't..
All they are about is "BASH BUSH" and "GET BUSH" as a way to make their entire base forget the fact that they (the Democrats) are impotent to deliver on the very promises that gave them control of Congress...
I'm not nor will I ever accuse you of being nice to terrorists and would appreciate the same respect.
Fair enough. Accept my sincere apologies. In the future, I will be more precise in my verbiage..
What I had meant was this.
The laws that you support do not give our intelligence and military apparatus sufficient power to protect this country. If the Democrats have their way regarding these laws that you support, they will make it MORE likely that innocent men, women and children will be killed by the hundreds, thousands and even possibly, millions.
Our leaders have been democratically elected by us in order to make the decisions we cannot, or choose not to make. Doesn't it make sense to let them do their jobs, rather than hamstring them???
Michale.....
"But I would MUCH rather this country err on the side of unnecessary restrictions rather than err on the side of less safety."
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
I have already addressed this.....
1> What "essential" liberty have you given up?? Answer.. Not a one...
and
B> The safety you enjoy is far from temporary, as it has lasted the last 7 years or so...
Michale.....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1
Interesting quote from the above article..
"....the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program."
That is what it all boils down to...
If you haven't been harmed, why are you bitching and moaning??
The POTENTIAL for harm is not enough to negate the beneficial effects of the program..
Hell, you give a cop a gun, he could POTENTIALLY go out on a rampage and kill you..
Does that mean we are not going to give ANY cops guns??
Just because something bad could POSSIBLY, MAYBE, PERHAPS, SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE happen is NOT a reason to get rid of a law that has so many tangible benefits in the here and now...
Michale.....
"Just because something bad could POSSIBLY, MAYBE, PERHAPS, SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE happen is NOT a reason to get rid of a law that has so many tangible benefits in the here and now."
Wow. You're all over the place. Didn't you just spend 10 pages talking about how you wanted to give up our 4th amendment rights because POSSIBLY, PERHAPS, SLIGHTLY POSSIBLY millions of people could die?
Watch as I turn your argument around.
"Just because something bad could POSSIBLY, MAYBE, PERHAPS, SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE happen is NOT a reason to get rid of our 4th amendment rights and the rule of law that is the basis of our Democracy."
Now you're saying that hypothetical situations don't count. But I'm sure you have a very sensible explanation. Most likely it has to do with millions of people who will die and a personal attack on me as an idealistic youth.
I am not saying that a hypothetical situation doesn't count..
In the CT field, sometimes.. MANY times, one has to choose the lesser of two evils..
In this particular instance, we have two choices.
We can chose that yes, somewhere, somehow, quite possibly, maybe someone's civil rights will be curtailed.
Or, we can chose that yes, somewhere, somehow, quite possibly, maybe a nuclear bomb will explode in LA or NY killing millions of innocent men, women and children...
Now, you tell me... Which is the lesser of two evils???
Think long and hard about it, if you must..
Me?? I can answer unequivocally and without reservation in a cold-ass'ed second...
Michale.....
Well, in the freedom field, there is no such thing as freedom or Democracy or rights for some. There is no such thing as being "above the law". Once this starts to happen, we cease to be a Democracy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Our government under George Bush has become a rogue government. A government above the law. A government willing to break the law whenever it feels like it, all in the name of terrorism. It's not even about preventing terrorism, it's just in the name of terrorism. Just like invading Iraq was in the name of terrorism, not to actually prevent terrorism.
Michale, I honestly respect your passion and empathy for the victims of terror. But I believe in this case we would be compromising our freedoms in the name of terror.
We speak so much about fighting for freedom in other countries, I think it's about time we start at home.
And we end where we started.
Best
Dave
I understand and heartily applaud your idealism.. I really do.. I used to be the same way..
But seeing the results of such idealism put a real damper on the appeal of it...
Principles and idealism are a nice thing. But they mean diddley squat when looking at the torn, broken and ripped apart bodies of the idealists...
Such idealism MUST be tempered with the reality of the world we live in.
It's fine and noble to die for one's principles... Such a person, misguided though they may be, is a person to be respected...
But, to impose one's principles and make OTHERS die for them...
Well, that's just selfish...
A government is not above the law. A government **IS** the law...
A democratically elected government makes the decisions so we don't have to...
You don't agree with the actions of the government, fine.. Make your displeasure known at the ballot box. But, as an American it is your DUTY to support and defend the government that is freely and democratically elected..
You may not agree with it.. Fine. There are MANY aspects I don't agree with Bush and his administration on.. There were MANY MANY aspects I didn't agree with Clinton on. But he was my commander in chief and it was my duty to support him..
The people are the REASON for democracy and they are the INSTRUMENT of democracy...
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE.....
Democracy has spoken in the form of the Bush Administration... If you don't support your freely and democratically elected government, then you do NOT support democracy. PERIOD
It's THAT simple....
Michale.....
I also believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to set an example built around developing communities of trust rather than become a security state.
If you're on an island with 8 other people, the best way to make sure there's no crime is to know you can trust everyone. And to let them know they can trust you. This is how societies function. It's also how businesses do business. They work to build trust.
By leading by example and not succumbing to fear we stand strong and are more likely to win allies and build our community of trust.
The world was shocked and in outrage over 9/11. At this critical juncture, we had everyone in the world on our side. The opportunity to build worldwide support against terrorism was never greater.
Yet our leaders decided to use the event to pursue their own agenda in Iraq. This is not about bashing Bush or Republicans. Because the Democrats were just as complicit in authorizing this move. As a result, we lost our worldwide leadership role and we squandered the opportunity.
It used to be that other countries looked towards the U.S. for a model of a free country. Now they don't believe anymore. I think we've done an unbelievable amount of damage to the cause of freedom worldwide. Why? Because we use the term so loosely in Iraq when Iraqi freedom is not why we are fighting.
I believe that the fight for the moral high ground is about as important as it gets. And that's why I keep writing. Because I'm trying to figure out how best to say this.
And that's how I read Ben Franklin's comment. I read it as him upholding freedom as the highest ideal worth fighting for.
Kennedy was hitting on something similar when he said: "You have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Fear is our biggest enemy. Terrorists killed several thousand people. But fear has this nation of 300 million in a uproar and at each other's throats. I think we need to respond to the fear. We can't forget the terrorists and we should work to prevent future incidents as much as possible, but we shouldn't destroy our principles and way of life for it.
Our country used to be the world leader in the freedom business. I think we can lead again.
But no matter what we do, no matter how advanced technology gets, there will always be a risk of terrorism. Always. It is simply not 100% preventable.
So I'm for building our worldwide presence and trust and leading through example and using measures that don't compromise our freedom. The alternative is a security state in which we're all running around scared and cowering in our bunkers.
Not asking you to agree. We're long past that point. At this point, I'm still writing because I'm just trying to figure out myself how to best say what it is that I feel. So I thank you for helping me with this.
Cheers
- Dave
"If you don't support your freely and democratically elected government, then you do NOT support democracy. PERIOD."
Absolutely not. The right to disagree with a government is also one of my rights under our Democracy.
"A government is not above the law. A government **IS** the law."
I use government to our President. He has placed himself above the law. No one should be above the law. That may be an impeachable offense. Isn't it about time some checks and balances came into play?
It would be nice to see the other part of our government, the Congress, act in the best interests of the people and not wealthy telecoms.
I also believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to set an example built around developing communities of trust rather than become a security state.
Well, I don't mean to be mean or rude, because you seem to be a really nice person.
But the simple fact is, that is definitely NOT the way to fight terrorism at all, let alone the best way.
However, I will grant you that your way is the best way to PREVENT terrorism from starting...
But as for fighting terrorism?? Your way would only breed more terrroism...
If you're on an island with 8 other people, the best way to make sure there's no crime is to know you can trust everyone. And to let them know they can trust you. This is how societies function. It's also how businesses do business. They work to build trust.
Exactly my point. If you start with 8 other civilized people, then what you propose WILL work..
But take those same 8 other people and predicate that 4 or 5 of them are homicidal maniacs who would as soon eat your liver than look at you.
Do you want to try and build trust with them and hope you live long enough to get out a "Please don't hurt me"??
Or do you want to first insure your own and the other innocent people's safety by putting those animals into the ground?? And THEN start building trust with the survivors..
By leading by example and not succumbing to fear we stand strong and are more likely to win allies and build our community of trust.
That only works on Vulcan, during the Pre-Reformation era...
And that's how I read Ben Franklin's comment. I read it as him upholding freedom as the highest ideal worth fighting for.
But, like many idealists, you don't look at the cost..
You have already stated that you would incarcerate 999 men you KNOW to be innocent, if it would prevent a nuclear bomb from going off.
How do you reconcile THAT with your statement that "upholding freedom as the highest ideal worth fighting for"
Not asking you to agree. We're long past that point. At this point, I'm still writing because I'm just trying to figure out myself how to best say what it is that I feel. So I thank you for helping me with this.
Always a pleasure. :D
Absolutely not. The right to disagree with a government is also one of my rights under our Democracy.
Abso-fracking-loutly.. No one is saying you can't disagree. But what goes on with the Left goes way, way, WAY beyond simple disagreement.
As I mentioned before, I disagreed with Clinton on many many issues. But I always supported his decisions..
It's kind of like the Respect/Admire discussion I had with someone else here...
You can respect someone without admiring them. I respect Hitler's oratory capabilities. They were frighteningly effective. But I don't admire the psycho son of a bitch...
So it is with disagreements and dissent. You can disagree with the Administration. You can make the talk show circuit and say why there ideas are bad, wrong and all that other garbage... But what you CAN'T do is not support your freely and democratically elected government.. You CANNOT actively sabotage or subvert your government..
It would be nice to see the other part of our government, the Congress, act in the best interests of the people and not wealthy telecoms.
How do you know they are not?? None of us have all the information. And, in the absence of that information, shouldn't our government, in a time of war, be given the benefit of the doubt??
Again, always a pleasure.. :D It's been a while....
Michale.....
"You have already stated that you would incarcerate 999 men you KNOW to be innocent, if it would prevent a nuclear bomb from going off."
The difference is knowing. This implies proof. But we don't know anything. That's the trouble. That's why I'd rather not argue about MAYBE and WHAT IF this happens. Again, there is no way to 100% stop all terrorism all the time.
Ok, so you're on the island. 1 of those people have committed a crime. Let's call him Osama. There is proof that he has committed this crime. But two other people on the island have something you want, let's call it oil. So you claim they are terrorists and go off and kill them instead. The rest of the people on the island know that they are innocent and Osama is guilty. You then go ask the rest of the people on the island to help you catch Osama. What would your reaction be?
Now in real life, we're talking about a scale of something like 4.9999 billion good people to a few thousand homicidal maniacs. If we let these few determine our actions, we will be controlled by terror.
The idea of rights and innocent until proven guilty keeps up our good relations with the overwhelming majority of people.
We should punish the people who are guilty, but if we don't use due process, we risk losing the overwhelming support of the good people in the world.
As for respect vs. admire. I respect the office of the President. But when the person holding that office violates our laws and then tries to cover it up, he loses my respect.
As for subvert or sabotage. I'm just blogging. The same as you. Words on a page. I'm not killing or bombing anyone. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- Dave
BTW - For the record, right now I don't respect most of the Democrats either. Why? Because they're not standing up for what they believe in.
The more they stand up and believe in something and clearly tell the American people what they believe in (instead of caving to political pressure), the more respect they will earn.
The difference is knowing. This implies proof. But we don't know anything. That's the trouble. That's why I'd rather not argue about MAYBE and WHAT IF this happens. Again, there is no way to 100% stop all terrorism all the time.
No, there isn't.. But, when compared to the possibility of death of millions of innocent people, what is a little personal privacy?? Does anyone REALLY miss taking Hair Gel on an aircraft so much??
Ok, so you're on the island. 1 of those people have committed a crime. Let's call him Osama. There is proof that he has committed this crime. But two other people on the island have something you want, let's call it oil. So you claim they are terrorists and go off and kill them instead. The rest of the people on the island know that they are innocent and Osama is guilty.
Let me tweak your argument a little to be more accurate..
Instead of a beach, you are on a different planet. A Class Y "Demon Planet" with an atmosphere of methane, sulfer and ammonia. And, instead of Oil, let's say that the two people that you want to label terrorists have the only functional oxygen producing machine available. And there was tenous evidence that they are seeking to align themselves with "Osama" who's "crime" was to murder everyone aboard your starship and caused ya'all to crash land. Regardless of that, they are really maniacal psychopaths who simply CANNOT be allowed to own and control something that is vital to the survival of the entire group. So, you play up the Osama Link because you know it will make it easier to do the right thing..
You then go ask the rest of the people on the island to help you catch Osama. What would your reaction be?
I would think that, "Hay.. I need that oxygen as much as anyone does. And I really don't like how Osama murdered all my friends and co-workers.. So, hell ya, I'm in!!!"
Now in real life, we're talking about a scale of something like 4.9999 billion good people to a few thousand homicidal maniacs. If we let these few determine our actions, we will be controlled by terror.
Let me ask you something.
Say you are walking down the street and you see a man ahead. He is belligerent, drunk and is swinging a baseball bat at anything that comes near him.. So, you cross the street to avoid the psycho.
How would you describe your actions??
Would you describe your actions as "prudent in the face of reality"???
Or would you describe your actions as "being controlled by terror"???
Every law we have on the books could aptly be described as "being controlled by terror"...
We are "terrorified" that a psycho will take a gun and kill us and our family. So we have laws against psychos getting guns. Ooops, I guess the psychos with guns "win" because they terrorized us into making laws against them..
We are "terrorified" of drunks getting into cars and killing people... So, we have laws that punish people who get drunk and drive. Ooops, I guess the drunks "win"...
Now doesn't that facetious and ridiculous?? Of course it does..
Just as facetious and ridiculous as people saying that, just because we pass laws to combat terrorism, that that must mean we are "terrorized" and that the terrorists have "won"...
What you call "being controlled by fear" is simply a prudent response to reality...
We should punish the people who are guilty, but if we don't use due process, we risk losing the overwhelming support of the good people in the world.
This brings us back to the choice... Due processs?? Or hundreds of thousands of very innocent and very dead men, women and children..
You mentioned before about knowledge and intel being the key. You said that you would incarcerate 999 innocent men for 48 hours if you KNEW for a 100% fact that it would prevent the nuclear destruction of New York City.
But, what if you were only 50% sure?? What if you were only 20% sure???
On the one hand, 999 innocent men will be inconvenienced for a couple days. On the other hand, NYC goes up in a nuclear cloud..
Isn't it a no brainer that, even if there is only a 10% chance that inconveniencing those 999 men will save NYC, that IT'S WORTH IT!!!???
You say, "NO".. OK fine.. Your choice..
But what if your wrong... Can you live with that??
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.... Or the one.."
Everything in this world worth knowing, you can learn from Star Trek... :D
As for respect vs. admire. I respect the office of the President. But when the person holding that office violates our laws and then tries to cover it up, he loses my respect.
Fine, don't respect the man. I can understand that.
But, if the office of the president issues a law, do you respect that??
As for subvert or sabotage. I'm just blogging. The same as you. Words on a page. I'm not killing or bombing anyone. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I was using "You" euphemistically to describe those people who do actively try and subvert the Office Of The President Of The United States.. Pelosi for one..
Regardless of that, as we can see with Obama, words have great power... They should be wielded wisely...
Michale.....
Hahah. Love the Star Trek reference.
"Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor not a stage magician."
Good stuff.
Since you brought it up, what about the Prime Directive? :) "The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations."
You just knew I'd go there, didn't you? ;)
As for the laws against drunks and psychos, yes we have laws, but these laws include due process. I'm not arguing that criminals should never go unpunished, just that there should be a balance between liberties and prevention.
"But, if the office of the president issues a law, do you respect that??"
The office of the President doesn't issue laws. This is the power of the legislative branch. Checks and balances were built in to prevent the recurrence of another king.
About Pelosi and company trying to subvert the President. What I dislike about both sides is when they play political games.
But in this case, I've honestly gained some respect for the House because they have stood on a principle. Whether you like it or not, they are standing on the principle that it's not best to hand the President a blank check for surveillance and to exempt companies from the law.
In fact, I think people would have more respect for them if they stood on their principles more often.
Consider Republicans for a second and their position on less government. Like it or not this was a principle and for a while they seemed to stand for it. They lose support when the facts don't seem to back up the principle. Government has never spent more nor been bigger. Not agreeing or disagreeing with their viewpoint, just pointing out that when they stand on principles or appear to stand on principles, people seem to respect them more.
There needs to be disagreement and different viewpoints in our government. That's when our government seems to work best. To me, it's a shame that so many of the Democrats have dropped their principles and that there is so little disagreement with the current government. That some of them are starting to recognize this and stand for something and that the Democratic party seems to be reforming itself are cause for hope.
Live long and prosper,
Dave
We have gone round and round on this.
Call me lazy, but I decided to repost someone else's thoughts regarding the subject.
This is a repost of Mike Baker's column. Mr Baker is (oh horror of horrors) a Fox News Contributor..
I have included the commentary verbatim, with the associated link.
(Aside to CW. If there are copyright concerns, feel free to delete this.. No harm, no foul...)
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,331316,00.html
Terrorists and Morality
Tuesday , February 19, 2008
By Mike Baker
Just the other night, while having our usual Wednesday happy hour at the office with the handful of PWB staffers either still gainfully employed or not currently incarcerated, one of the interns asked if I thought it was morally okay to be happy that the senior Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh had just been blown up in a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.
Huh? Or better yet, mmmm.
As I poured myself a tasty measure of bourbon (from a bottle bought just that day to celebrate Mughniyeh’s explosion) I stared at the intern with my best, most sincere look of concern. This was certainly a moral quandary.
A young, idealistic intern, just at the beginning of life’s journey — all full of beans and optimism. As I silently pondered how the folks at Bakers make their bourbon so yummy, I also took a minute to consider how best to answer the intern’s stupid question. The pause clearly made me look wise. Wise and sensitive to her concern.
I sat down, snagged a couple of cashews, which I think go really well with bourbon, and stared hard at the intern.
The fact that just that morning I had declared it “Mughniyeh Finally Got What He Deserved By Being Blown Straight To Hell Day" at the office, with a banner, refreshments and everything, clearly had made her think I was insensitive to his death.
The rest of the staff sat quietly waiting for an answer. “Did I think it was morally okay to be happy that Mughniyeh got all blowed up?"
Time for an answer.
I milked the whole silence thing for all it was worth and now an answer was in order. I carefully set my glass down on the desk, not wanting to spill a drop as I climbed up on the official PWB soapbox that we keep in the office for occasions just like this.
I said that every human life starts out as precious; something to be treasured, valued and treated with dignity and respect.
But then some of those lives veer off track, becoming murderers, pedophiles or in Mughniyeh’s case, a butchering terrorist with the blood of several hundred innocent people on his hands. At the point where these individuals choose to carry out heinous acts, they opt out of civilization and all those lofty, righteous ideals regarding the treatment of human life.
That’s the point where I no longer feel a moral obligation to worry about how they are treated. If you choose to become a terrorist, I choose to view you as less than human. We’ve all got free will. Ain’t life grand?
Now, of course, there are loads of people who bang on about the values of our country, and how treating even one terrorist improperly eats away at our principles and makes us less American.
Whether celebrating the termination of a bloodthirsty killer or using an aggressive technique in very limited circumstances to gather information from the high value detainee who doesn’t respond to kindness, the theory goes that we are debasing ourselves, chipping away at our humanity, causing the rest of the world to hate us or contributing to the destruction of our planet.
Something like that.
Well, take a deep breath, count to three, and in a clear, strong voice say, "What a load of crap."
According to that argument, if we stray from our ideals, we sink to the level of the terrorists.
I receive a fair amount of email from readers on the left side of the spectrum (and believe me, I value the fact that they take the time to read and respond to the PWB) who are keen to point out that it doesn’t matter what the terrorists do or how abhorrent their behavior may be, we must be true to our principles lest we become just like the terrorists.
Really?
Because honestly, I don’t have any problem differentiating myself from the terrorists. While I applaud the theoretical concept of "treat the terrorist as you yourself would want to be treated," I am always surprised by the realization that some people can’t separate theory from real life.
Down here on planet Earth, it’s okay to want to kill terrorists and still maintain your humanity. In fact my theory, known as the Baker Principle, states that the fewer terrorists you have makes it easier to maintain your humanity.
Scientific research has actually shown that as the numbers of terrorists decrease, your chances of getting blown up, beheaded or otherwise targeted and killed likewise decreases. In some academic circles this is referred to as a direct corollary. As opposed to a coronary which is something entirely different.
A coronary is something I may have if, as a nation, we become any more apologetic for the way we deal with terrorists.
Good God.
The Democrats in Congress couldn’t see their way clear to approving the Senate amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a thirty plus year old piece of work that was enacted back when we were using rotary telephones to ask Sarah to connect us to Barney over at the Mayberry sheriff’s office.
I’m no specialist on the subject, but I’m pretty sure that the thing about technology is that it changes over the years. Unfortunately, the terrorists have proven to be early enablers of technology, using the internet and telecoms advances to their benefit.
Certainly we have also benefited, but frankly the good guys spend a great deal of time trying to stay even, much less one step ahead, of the enemy. Amendments to FISA, as well as the now expired Protect America Act, contain elements designed to account for the changes in technology.
Another element of FISA that has Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other like minded politicians up in arms is the effort to provide immunity from prosecution and dumb-ass law suits for the private telecommunications companies that assist the government in its efforts to identify, monitor and collect information on terrorist suspect communications.
Here’s the honest to Gods truth — the government (whichever administration is in place) needs the cooperation of the private sector in order to properly protect national security. Whether we’re talking about cooperation in research and technology or assistance from telecoms with communications intercepts, the private sector is a critical part of homeland defense.
Exactly how many telecoms companies will willingly assist the U.S. government if they think they’ll be subjected to prosecution or enormously expensive law suits from tools who think the government is out to listen to the average citizen? I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the answer is none.
So, let’s screw the national security effort. The main thing is that we’ve protected the civil liberties of terrorists and the citizens of our country who believe that we’ve overblown the whole war on terrorism thing.
As a politician, I suppose it’s much more important to pander to the progressive side of your party than it is to do something constructive, logical and important.
It’s all part of the same malaise that comes from a false sense of security, and a bizarre self loathing on the part of some who think the U.S. and the Bush administration are the root causes of terrorism.
Imagine the disappointment on the faces of all those excited voters currently getting drunk on the rhetoric from Senator Obama and Senator Clinton about change, a new direction, hope and restoring our image when, in early 2009, we all wake up to find that the world is the same, the fraternal order of terrorists still want to kill us and Hugo Chavez still hates us.
Oh well.
They may not be much for fighting terrorists, but at least under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi our fearless politicians stood up to the evil Bush administration and made sure that pesky FISA and Protect America Act won’t trample on any of our rights.
Perhaps now the Speaker of the House can turn her attention to foreign policy issues again. How about another trip to Syria? Wait, wasn’t that where Imad Mughniyeh was killed, in an upscale Damascus neighborhood after attending a local function? You don’t suppose Syrian President Bashar Assad knew Mughniyeh was living in Damascus do you?
I suppose it’s possible he didn’t know Mughniyeh was responsible for the death of 241 U.S. marines and over 60 U.S. Embassy personnel in Beirut back in the 1980s.
There is a chance no one told the President that Mughniyeh planned the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Center in Buenos Aries back in the 1990s that killed over 100 civilians.
It’s conceivable that his staff forgot to mention to the President that Mughniyeh oversaw the kidnapping and killing of Beirut Station Chief William Buckley among other kidnappings, managed the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and directed the team that hijacked the TWA flight during which young US Navy diver Robert Stethem was killed and dumped on the Beirut airport tarmac.
Never mind.
Listen, Ms. Pelosi, if you do travel back to Damascus for another chat with Bashar, please let him know how happy I was to see that Mughniyeh got what he deserved. If he asks, let him know I’m pretty sure my morality is still intact and I’m happy to report I can still differentiate myself from the terrorists.
Just my opinion. As always, we love to hear your thoughts and comments, regardless of your morality or place on the political spectrum. Till next week, stay safe.
Let me know your thoughts on the subject. Send your comments to peoplesweeklybrief@hotmail.com .
Till next week, stay safe.
Michale's contribution....
For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky...
Michale.....
Interesting. Let's look at Mr. Baker's approach:
1) He starts by making himself look responsible and wise compared to a "young" intern
2) Then he gives us a villain - someone easy to hate - a terrorist
3) He cites some unnamed scientific research about our safety increasing as the terrorists decrease (Why doesn't he point us at this?)
4) He gets to his argument that FISA needs to be updated because technology has changed
5) He further argues that we shouldn't go after the telecoms because then they won't help us
6) He paints his opposition as out to get the Bush administration
The trouble I have with his article is that, while it is a nice piece of persuasion, it lacks evidence, plays on fears, many of the things he says are questionable, and he tries to say that if you don't agree with me, then you're just young and idealistic.
To Mr. Baker, I would say, that's a load of crap.
FISA was last updated in 2001. At the request of the Bush administration. Not 30 years ago as Mr. Baker claims. Not "back when we were using rotary telephones."
As for the telecoms not helping us. If President Bush wanted their help, why didn't he ask for it legally and not in secret behind the backs of the American people? With the Republican-controlled Congress of the day, I don't think he would have had any difficulty getting his way.
He then bring back the villain - Mughniyeh - and paints Pelosi as standing in the way of responsible people like himself and President Bush.
The worst part to me is that he then minimalizes the position of the "leftside of the spectrum" as:
"it doesn’t matter what the terrorists do or how abhorrent their behavior may be, we must be true to our principles lest we become just like the terrorists."
This is a very powerful tactic. The author doesn't just tell you what he thinks, he tells you what the other side thinks and makes their argument look small. That is, he tries to get his audience to fall into the trap of accepting that there are only two choices. Both of them his. And of course, he makes one look shiny and beautiful and the other idealist and naive.
No one in Congress is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists. But Mr. Baker gains a big edge if you believe this.
I think one of the reasons that I like Barack Obama is that Barack understands the politics being played and tries to stick to his values. I don't know if he's always successful, but he tries to stick to principles and stay above the politics.
And I believe that we have to start questioning what we're getting for our money and how much of our freedom we're willing to compromise when the people making these requests can't seem to tell us how they're going to be better for us than what we have.
They just throw out the word terror and scare us anytime they want anything. Iraq. Covering their butts.
I believe FISA gives the President everything he needs. He has not shown any evidence otherwise. So I am not willing to give a President (any President) the power to break the law and then cover it up.
And I'd be making this same argument if Barack Obama or a Democrat were our President.
Best
Dave
1> I think that most of his "making himself look wise" was a joke...
2> What's wrong with portraying terrorists as villans?? I think "villan" is too easy of a word. My personal take is "animals that need to be shot as soon as possible..."
3> Probably because it's common sense. Less terrorists in the world mean a safer world. Unless, of course, you want to define the meaning of the word "is"...
4> Another common sense argument. Or are you putting forth the idea that the technology today is identical than the technology of the 1970s??
5> Another common sense argument.
6> Which is exactly what it is...
FISA was last updated in 2001.
And those updates are due to expire. So it needs updated AGAIN.. Further, technology today is leaps and bounds beyond what it even was in 2001..
Ergo, FISA needs to be updated...
As for the telecoms not helping us. If President Bush wanted their help, why didn't he ask for it legally and not in secret behind the backs of the American people? With the Republican-controlled Congress of the day, I don't think he would have had any difficulty getting his way.
Do you understand the concept of "operational security"??
These types of activities MUST BE DONE IN SECRET or they are completely ineffective...
He then bring back the villain - Mughniyeh - and paints Pelosi as standing in the way of responsible people like himself and President Bush.
Which is exactly what she is. She is an impediment to the safety and security of the American People.
And, gods help her if there is a major terrorist attack on US soil in the next few months.. Gods help ALL Democrats in this case..
Because if we see another 9/11 soon after the Democrats held up the needed FISA changes, you can bet that every American will be after their heads. And they won't stand a chance of being elected county dog-catcher..
"it doesn’t matter what the terrorists do or how abhorrent their behavior may be, we must be true to our principles lest we become just like the terrorists."
Let me ask you something. You have a scumbag mob hitman.. He takes his gun and kills people in order to make money..
Now you have a cop who takes his gun and kills people, in order to save other people's lives..
Are you going to try and tell me that the cop is "no better" than the mob hitman???
Like Mr Baker says.. I have NO PROBLEM being able to differentiate myself from a terrorist. Even if I am out on the street killing terrorists...
No one in Congress is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists.
No, the Dems in Congress are simply saying we should fight them, but be nice about it. That we should worry about their rights... :^/
What's the difference???
I think one of the reasons that I like Barack Obama is that Barack understands the politics being played and tries to stick to his values. I don't know if he's always successful, but he tries to stick to principles and stay above the politics.
That's why I like Obama too.. I just hope that, if he is elected, he will come to understand the reality of CT operations... I think he will, for exactly the reasons you state... He won't play politics with terrorism, as Pelosi, Reid et al does today...
And I believe that we have to start questioning what we're getting for our money
How about 7 years of ZERO terrorist attacks on US Proper???
I believe FISA gives the President everything he needs.
And what do you base that on?? Besides your inherent dislike and distrust of Bush???
And I'd be making this same argument if Barack Obama or a Democrat were our President.
I sincerely doubt that... But I truly hope we get the chance to find out. At least with Obama.. If Clinton gets elected, then I am moving to someplace a LOT NICER... Like the south shore of HELL....
Michale.....
OK Maybe I spoke too soon on that last point..
And I'd be making this same argument if Barack Obama or a Democrat were our President.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you would. I think you hate Bush too much, but let's just say it's so..
You have already stated how much you admire Obama and his principled stand on things..
Let's postulate a scenario where Obama is elected President. He is sworn in on 20 Jan 2009 as our 45th (45th??) President... On 22 Jan 2009, President Obama goes on national TV and states that he fully and completely supports and fully intends to maintain all of the Counter Terrorism legislation enacted and proposed by the Bush Administration..
Now, here is this man that you have fully applauded, endorsed and supported standing up and saying the exact opposite of everything you have been fighting for...
Now, what does that tell you?? What would you do about it??
Michale.....
In keeping with the above theme, I want you to do something for me, if you have the time and get the chance..
Locate and read a book called, "THE JESUS FACTOR"...
It will be VERY enlightening to you and has direct bearing on the scenario I just laid out above..
Michale.....
I'd say the same thing if Obama were elected President. It's the office of President that should not be above the law.
BTW - Who ever said I hate Bush? He seems like a nice enough guy who is just in way over his head in terms of a job. Now Cheney ... him I might have a harder time not hating.
The FISA bill of 2001 is not expiring. It is the Protect America Act of last June or July. FISA will still be in place. So the President still has what he needs.
I still haven't heard what this new secret technology is that the new bill will cover. Do you know what it is?
President Bush will be fine if he doesn't get his way. And so will we.
- Dave
President Bush will be fine if he doesn't get his way. And so will we.
I truly hope you are right...
On the other hand, I am sure Nicholas Berg said, "I am sure I will be fine if I go to Iraq..."
And I am sure that two thousand, nine hundred and ninety eight people on the morning of Sept 11, 2001 said, "I am sure I will be fine today..."
If you are wrong, the the blame lies soley and completely on the Democrats... And their political lives won't be worth a plug nickel...
Michale....
The UPDATES to FISA are found in the Protect America Act...
It is those updates that are expiring..
Michale.....
You know what, Michale. Republicans are going to blame Democrats anyways. At least they have been for the past 7 years. It's getting old. You cry wolf enough and people stop listening. So if they're going to get blamed anyways, I think they ought do what's right.
Cheers
Dave
p.s. Are you saying that you don't know which technologies need updates? You're just saying they do because that's what the President is saying.
If I may be so bold as to resort to a movie quote.. As I am wont to do...
Mayor:"But what if your wrong?"
Venkman:"If I'm wrong, nothing happens!! We go to jail.. Peacefully... Quietly... We'll enjoy it!! But if I'm right!!... And we can stop this thing... Lenny.... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS of registered voters...."
-Ghostbusters
If I'm wrong, your Aunt Matilda's Banana Nut Bread recipe is in the hands of Homeland Security and some poor foreign arab has to spend a night or two in jail...
However....
If YOU'RE wrong......
If you and the Democrats are wrong... Then millions of innocent men, women and children could die...
Isn't it better to err on the side that saves lives???
Michale.....
You know what, Michale. Republicans are going to blame Democrats anyways. At least they have been for the past 7 years. It's getting old.
Most true things oft do...
You cry wolf enough and people stop listening. So if they're going to get blamed anyways, I think they ought do what's right.
What's "right" is usually defined by the survivors..
Time will tell, won't it...
If there is another massive terrorist attack and it is shown that it COULD have been avoided by the more aggressive techniques that you and the rest of the Dems are fighting against, then it will be easy to determine who is right...
I have to wonder.. Will Pelosi and Reid et al have the brass ones to admit they were wrong??
I highly doubt it...
Michale.....
p.s. Are you saying that you don't know which technologies need updates? You're just saying they do because that's what the President is saying.
I am saying that the President has more information than you or I do..
The difference is, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the freely and democratically elected leader of this country and, by giving him the benefit of the doubt it may save lives..
You, on the other hand, don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt, because you claim that such things are not needed... Yet, you offer NOTHING in the way of personal experience or expertiser that leads you to make such a statement..
Michale.....
While I have been WAY too busy dealing with an offline matter this week to respond to anything here, rest assured I'm still paying attention. To prove this, I offer an answer to Michale's query:
The next person in the Oval Office will be 44. There's "Bush 41," Clinton, "Bush 43," and then whoever's next.
Like I said, busy busy busy. My apologies for that.
Carry on...
-CW
I figure Nancy and Harry will spend about as much time saying they were wrong as Bush did about Iraq.
BTW - Using your logic of blaming whoever is in power for terrorist attacks, does that mean that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch?
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that. But your logic does. Whoever makes the decisions is responsible. Well, Bush was in power and making the decisions and he didn't anticipate what the terrorists were going to do. Are you saying that he is responsible for the deaths of those Americans?
Of course you're not, but that's the same reasoning you're using. Only difference is it's not for a real terrorist attack, but one that hasn't even happened yet.
Speaking of responsibility, how much responsibility has our President taken? For that matter, how much responsibility has the party of "personal responsibility" taken? Even though they've been in charge of the whole shebang for most of the last 7 years.
Yet they go around spouting off about how people should be responsible. Phonies and hypocrites.
I forgot that in addition to yelling "terror, terror, terror, be afraid," they seem to be very good at yelling "blame, blame, blame, blame."
Here's an interesting challenge, though. Try to find a quote of a Democrat blaming a Republican. I'll try as well. I'm just curious if they're out there. To receive credit, include the link to the quote. I know it's easy to find ones from the Republican side. But I think the Democrats are so afraid of having a clip replayed endlessly on the nightly news that they almost never criticize Republicans directly. I'm guessing you believe this though because the news endlessly repeats this story.
So like I said. Republicans are going to blame Democrats anyways. I say Democrats should just ignore them. Most people have already.
- Dave
p.s. George W. Bush - creating new Democrats every day. The Democratic party should really send him something at Christmas :).
p.s.s. This has all been fun. I've seriously enjoyed it. But I think we're at an impasse. And I need to focus this energy on other things. So I raise a glass to your passion, Michale, and wish you the best. I'm sure I'll see you around here again.
Obama in '08! Fired up and ready to go!
I figure Nancy and Harry will spend about as much time saying they were wrong as Bush did about Iraq.
So, you are saying that Nancy & Harry are no better than Bush??
I can agree with that...
BTW - Using your logic of blaming whoever is in power for terrorist attacks, does that mean that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch?
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that. But your logic does. Whoever makes the decisions is responsible. Well, Bush was in power and making the decisions and he didn't anticipate what the terrorists were going to do. Are you saying that he is responsible for the deaths of those Americans?
Yes, I am saying that the ultimate responsibility lies with the current POTUS.. Just as it does 15 years ago today where, just by sheer luck, we didn't lose a quarter of a million people under President Clinton's watch...
That is not to say that there is mitigation, both in 1993 and 2001.. But, ultimately, the buck stops at the POTUS...
So like I said. Republicans are going to blame Democrats anyways. I say Democrats should just ignore them. Most people have already.
Are you really trying to sit there and tell me that the Democrats have been "better" than the Republicans with regards to ANYTHING???
Please back that up with some facts...
George W. Bush - creating new Democrats every day. The Democratic party should really send him something at Christmas :).
Would these "new" Democrats be the same ones who promised to end the Iraq War???
So I raise a glass to your passion, Michale, and wish you the best. I'm sure I'll see you around here again.
Du auch.. It has been fun.. :D
Obama in '08! Fired up and ready to go!
And yet we find MORE common ground!!! :D
Michale
PS I love getting the last word in!!! :D