To savor the utter absurdity of today's new Bush Administration defense for its wanton and ongoing law-breaking -- namely, that it only breaks the law with regard to "very bad people" -- please see this post.
And here are two excellent sources well worth reading, which further demonstrate the utter clarity of the Bush Administration's law-breaking:
(1) A Federalist Society debate (.pdf file) in which Robert Levy, conservative Federalist Society member and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, obliterates the Bush Administration's legal defenses (h/t ReddHedd, via e-mail); and
(2) A post at Think Progress which lays out the irrefutable answer to the Bush Administration's primary defense -- that Congress authorized it to eavesdrop outside of FISA when it enacted the AUMF.
The more these issues get debated, the clearer it becomes that the Administration broke the law.
Thanks, this is one of THE 2 or 3 must-read resources on the internet for this issue. I have learned more reading your blog than all the newspapers and magazines combined. great job, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteTangentially related, get a load of Padilla's reply brief to the Supreme Court. His lawyers also raise the subject of Bush's justification for wiretapping (pg 6 by print numbering; p10 of the PDF)
ReplyDeleteAnybody care to rebut Rivkin in the pdf document? (I'm not a lawyer so I won't try).
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald:
ReplyDelete"The more these issues get debated, the clearer it becomes that the Administration broke the law."
Is it against the law to prosecute a defensive war?
If that is the case, then we need to decide if we need to change the law or accept the lawbreaker.
There is, BTW, the concept in law of "Greater Evil". It might behoove the blogosphere and the commentariat to research the fact a bit.
For the moment, let's table the campaign in Iraq, whether one considers it an integral part of the GWOT or not.
If one accepts that we are under attack from terrorist organizations
(and I think we can all agree that we are), then we must decide how to best respond to this threat.
I submit that if we limit ourselves to only one of three possible choices,(military, law enforcement, and political-economic), it is a fatal mistake...a self-imposed "false choice". And a choice that our enemies exploited in the past.
They will not stop operating in the "gray areas" we erect between these three protective mechanisms.
If our government refuses to tolerate such artificial barriers, we deny our enemies the "Comfort Zone" that they have habitiually used to plot our ruin.
In a nutshell, you can TRY to criminalize self-defense,but you had better build a LOT of prisons, ace, because a whole lot of us don't CARE about law when we are in mortal danger.
Regards;
bilgeman, what does Iraq have to do with self defense? Not a damn thing, so far as I, or anyone else, can see. At least anyone not so afraid as to uncover their eyes and see.
ReplyDeleteAnd just what does "attack" mean? Did going to Iraq do the smallest thing to prevent another 9/11? No. In fact, it may have increased the chances of another 9/11, if for no other reason, because it has created a whole new generation of martyrs.
Defensive war? That is a unreal, and unsupportabte, as the laughable "existential" threat terrorism supposedly poses to America.
Get over your own self, b. You really need to focus on something more likely to be an issue in your life. Property taxes, or ID in schools. Terrorism clearly warrants our national attention.
Along with about a 1000 other major issues, like golbal warming, air and water pollution, New Orleans, and on, and on, and on.
It's just an issue, b. Not the end of the world.
Jake
In a nutshell, you can TRY to criminalize self-defense,but you had better build a LOT of prisons, ace, because a whole lot of us don't CARE about law when we are in mortal danger.
ReplyDeleteA lot of us do care about the law, because that, presumably is in large measure what we are defending.
If a serious criminal act has occured here, it will be a sad day in America if the president gets off with a slap on the wrist. I don't care what his justification is. Past presidents have been impeached for far less.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 4:55, talking of law is preaching to the deaf. People like bilgman are cronies to bullies, going along with strongmen making up the rules because they are toadies to the elite, whoever the elite happens to be. All they want is to be a part of the ruling cadre on the playground, dispensing fear and retaliation to those who defy the group zeitgeist.
ReplyDeleteIt does no good to speak of law and fair play, because they are all too aware that neither will serve them as well as good old brown nosing. When you can't do it on your own, grab someone else's coattails.
Jake
Anonymous at 3:54 -- I read the debate yesterday, and I am working from memory here, but I think the key to understanding (and rebutting) Rivkin's argument is that he admits that the President's authority to bypass FISA (and Congress, and the 4th Amendment) extends only to the gathering of "battlefield intelligence" that may prove useful in predicting what an external enemy might do to harm the U.S. Even accepting that as a premise, I think it's a safe bet that, if we saw the inner workings of the NSA program, nobody could reasonably conclude that Bush et al stayed within the prescribed limitations.
ReplyDeleteI've addressed all of Rivkin's arguments here. And Levy's responses to Rivkin's questions anticipated all of Rivkin's points.
ReplyDeleteIs there one in particular which you found persuasive or think hasn't been adequately rebutted?
I grew up with thousands of Soviet nuclear missles pointed at me, on hair-trigger alert. These people who are so fearful and wimpy as to say that terrorism is an unprecedented threat so far beyond anything we've faced before as to require shredding the Constitution and allowing the president to ignore any laws that prove inconvenient, they can kiss my ass. Real Americans are tougher than that.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIs there one in particular which you found persuasive or think hasn't been adequately rebutted?
Yes, when Levy asked Rivkin to set forth anything Bush cannot do pursuant to Rivkin's expansive notions of Executive power, Rivkin declined to give any specific examples of limitations on Bush, but instead said the matter was answered by Youngstown. Well, I defy anyone, therefore, to say Bush has carte blanche -- he can't, can't, can't seize the steel mills, no he cannot.
You do admit that, right Glenn?
Glenn -- I just popped in from fdl, and I didn't know the discussion yesterday had been so thorough. I apologize for missing that. And again, I don't have Rivkin's argument in front of me. However, on a quick read-through, I don't see you rebutting Rivkin's argument that (1) Article II vests in the Executive certain inherent powers to prosecute war (including gathering battlefield intelligence) and (2) as such, Congress can no more impede that authority than the Pres can break a law passed by Congress. Seems like a classic separation of powers stalemate. My response to Rivkin is that it's clear that, in practice, Bush's surveillance program was not limited to "battlefield intelligence" relating to a foreign enemy.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you did address it -- I could've missed it. If so, I apologize again.
(1) Article II vests in the Executive certain inherent powers to prosecute war (including gathering battlefield intelligence) and (2) as such, Congress can no more impede that authority than the Pres can break a law passed by Congress. Seems like a classic separation of powers stalemate.
ReplyDeleteYoungstown settled this issue. As long as Congress has any authority to promulgate laws in the area in question (and I've heard nobody suggest that Congress was without such authority when it comes to regulating eavesdropping on American citizens), then the President - EVEN where he also has authority to act in that area - is prohibited from engaging in conduct which Congress expressly forbids under the law.
The only way for a President to be justified in disregarding a Congressional law is if Congress is disabled completely from legislating in that area at all -- a position which not even the Administration argues is the case re: FISA. Under Youngstown, once it is acknowledged (as the Administration does) that Congress is constitutionally authorized to legislate in that area, then the President is bound by the law.
I see. But I'm still confused. Pardon me for making you walk through this again if you've already covered it, but Rivkin seems to believe that the wiretapping program is a Category One situation and not a Category Three (I might have the ordering reversed -- anyway, he says the wiretap program is an example of President's powers at their zenith and not at their lowest ebb). From what you've said, he can't make that assertion unless he either (1) ignores Youngstown, (2) believes that Congress did not intend for FISA to cover the gathering of battlefield intelligence, or (3) believes the NSA program is not covered by FISA. There might be other possibilities. Which one do you think it is?
ReplyDeleteAnon at 11:25, if you will allow me to opine on your questions.
ReplyDeleteI read Rivkin to be saying that when Congress in 2001 passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, it implicitly endorsed that the President has the war-time power to conduct warrantless surveillance, no matter what FISA says. So, Rivkin claims that the AUMF consitutes an Act of Congress, subsequent to FISA, that puts Bush and his NSA program in Youngstown Category I, where his power is at its zenith.
Rivkin adds that even if this is not the case, and even if FISA actually is in play (and I guess, he means even if Bush is in a Category III situation), FISA cannot extinguish Bush's inherent power to conduct warrantless searches to learn about terrorist plans, even on U.S. citizens within the nation's borders.
Not that I agree with any of that; it is simply my understanding of what Rivkin is arguing.
Jake;
ReplyDelete"bilgeman, what does Iraq have to do with self defense? Not a damn thing, so far as I, or anyone else, can see."
Perhaps you missed this sentence?:
"For the moment, let's table the campaign in Iraq, whether one considers it an integral part of the GWOT or not."
The issue of Iraq is TABLED, friend, for the purpose of argument, it is off the "radar screen".
I did this because I suspect a lot of the electronic surveillance being done was against targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Europe.
The reports are that the NSA has been executing this operation since the end of '01...we had not resumed any ground action against Iraq until '03, if you recall.
"Defensive war? That is a unreal, and unsupportabte, as the laughable "existential" threat terrorism supposedly poses to America."
So...our campaign in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts was NOT defensive, huh?
And terrorism is a "laughable" threat, huh?
Hope it's your loved ones that get murdered by these pig-fuckers...we'll see how "laughable" you feel it is then.
"Along with about a 1000 other major issues, like golbal warming, air and water pollution, New Orleans, and on, and on, and on."
Thanks for your prescription, but some of us live in targeted cities and work in targeted industries.
You want to live in your dream world, then go walk with the shepherd.
But don't get snippy when I decline to join you in IrrelevancyLand.
As for your pop-psych analysis of my character, here's my reply:
"Get over your own self,".
Stop practicing pshrinkery without a license, education, taining, or talent.
Your digression into this personal attack really does beggar the question of WHY you chose yo do so...
To avoid the issue, perhaps?
Regards;
Jake,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your blog...
"And just what does "attack" mean? Did going to Iraq do the smallest thing to prevent another 9/11? No. In fact, it may have increased the chances of another 9/11, if for no other reason, because it has created a whole new generation of martyrs."
Lets look at some of the statistics THAT EXCLUDE NON US TARGETS, KIDNAPINGS, BEHEADINGS, and INCOUNTRY (IRAQ) ACTS DURRING WAR....
02/26/93 World Trade Center in New York, USA, attacked by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists.
09/13/95 A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, as an apparent retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.
02/16/96 Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. It is believed to have been carried out by the 17 November group.
02/23/97 A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."
08/07/98 US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.
10/12/00 In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.
09/11/01 Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 U.S. citizens and other nationals were killed. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism.
And what was our response to all of these???? NOTHING
Now that we have taken the war to them on there soil, where are the attacks? Did it help prevent another 9-11? I would have to say Yes. With the intel that was gleaned from various sources we have stopped numerous terrorist plots since 9-11.
Regards..
Bilgeman, you missed my point entirely on the terrorism as threat thing. It's all the rage on the right to say that terrorism is an "existential" threat to America. I call BULLSHIT. That IS laughable. And Iraq IS the point. If you take away Iraq, Bush is still doing ok. Instead he's an IDIOT. You can't dismiss Iraq, where we are spending hundreds of BILLIONS of $'s just because it is an uncomfortable fact.
ReplyDeleteBush screwed the pooch, Bilgeman. Figure it out.
And as for Afghanistan, tell me again why we went there? Something about Bin Laden? And, pray tell, where is Bin Laden now? In some jail somewhere? No, he's free and continuing to spread poison, and Bush is TOO DAMN BUSY IN IRAQ to do a thing about him. So even your Afghanistan line of argument is just so much bullshit.
The fact is, you and every other right wing hate monger like you just wants to shoot someone because you damn near pissed your pants when the towers went down.
When and if terrorists ever show up on your door step, you can shoot 'em. Until then, y'all need to keep your fears in check a little better, and use your head instead of the penis replacement you call a gun.
As for why the personal attack? I am tired of the same old bullshit lines about fear, and over there not here, and then more fear mongering, and then more bullshit. I am FED UP TO HERE with bullshit. Save it for some other more fearful asshole. This one don't need it. It's not a reason, it's a LACK of reason.
Defensive war, my ass. It's a profit center for Republicans.
Jake
Webracin, I point out to you yet again - not you specifically, just the yous that can't seem to remember that Iraq was not a bastion of terrorism prior to our invasion - that THEIR SOIL is a meaningless phrase. You can't call terrorists stateless in one breath and then claim they have a "soil" in the next. Of the more than 30,000 people who have died in Iraq because of the invasion, at best a small fraction were potential terrorists of the kind exemplified by Bin Laden. The rest were civilians and true insurgents who just want us OFF their soil.
ReplyDeleteNot to point out logic errors, because I don't care about your logic errors, it's your ethical lapses and your lack of concern for the rest of humanity that piss me off, but you can't prove a negative. No attacks does not mean that Bush made us "safe".
Now to bring up another uncomfortable fact, we have spent more than 2000 American lives in Iraq. Just how many lives do you think Bush saved in these three years of non-attacks? More than the American dead and wounded from invading Iraq? More than ALL the dead and wounded in Iraq? Or is it only Americans that count in your view?
Jake
jake:
ReplyDelete"And Iraq IS the point. If you take away Iraq, Bush is still doing ok."
Call me crazy,(why not? You've already called me a hate-monger, a thug-crony, a toady and a brown-noser, so you might as well draw for the flush, since ad-hominem attack seems to be your long suit), but the subject of Mr. Greenwald's post was the legality of the NSA's electronic surveillance program.
It's HIS blog, he sets the agenda.
(It's a "respect thing", y'know).
"No, he's free and continuing to spread poison, and Bush is TOO DAMN BUSY IN IRAQ to do a thing about him."
Yes, Osama Pig-Fucker still is at large, and I agree that we could, and should, be doing more to nail his ass.
But, you state that he is "continuing to spread poison"...
How? Is he using semaphore? telepathy? secret messages written in lemon juice?
Maybe... But I'd wager that at some point, he or his minions are using modern telecommunications.
And if the Pig Fucker is telephoning one of his cronies in the United States, shouldn't we know about that?
Not according to YOU lot...we shouldn't.
THAT, chum, is the crux of the argument FOR the NSA program, and the people like you, skivvies all a-twist over "secret wiretapping programs", refuse to even acknowledge it.
(Drop back and "punt" by calling names now...s'okay, I expect it).
Too bad,(for you and your allies), that the vast majority of the public grasped that aspect within a Noo Yawk minute.
"When and if terrorists ever show up on your door step, you can shoot 'em. Until then, y'all need to keep your fears in check a little better, and use your head instead of the penis replacement you call a gun."
Didn't I warn you about practicing pshrinkery without a license?
And didn't I suggest that you get over yourself?
I do not have to, and nor will I, seek YOUR permission before I defend my loved ones,myself, or my property.
You don't like that? You can go piss up a rope,see?
Likewise with our Republic, if we are threatened, we should stop the threat...and SCREW what France, Germany, and the Yoo-Enn "feel" about it.
"I am tired of the same old bullshit lines about fear, and over there not here, and then more fear mongering, and then more bullshit. I am FED UP TO HERE with bullshit."
You're tired? Then go to sleep.
You're fed up? Then stop eating.
Look, ace, if you cannot or will not pull on the oars,and I don't really care WHY,then as far as I'm concerned you can get the fuck out of my lifeboat and make your own arrangements, savvy?
Maybe the Euros will consent to rowing your dead ass to salvation,(I highly doubt it), but I too am getting fed up with you "cargo" dragging us down and whining and snivelling about every little inconvenience, real or imagined, that this struggle is causing in your miserable lives.
You want to know what I don't like about Bush? He really DOES want to be a "Yoo-Niter not a Dee-Vidur".
And I think he's making a fatal mistake in tolerating people who are so selfish and deluded that they don't care that their actions and rhetoric are giving aid and comfort to those who wish to kill us.
I reckon this nation would be a lot safer without the likes of you and your ilk.
So, alas, it seems that we are in agreement that Bush has indeed "screwed the pooch"...but for totally different reasons.
Regards;
Bilgeman, are you clueless on purpose? This bit from you is so far out of reality it makes my point -
ReplyDelete"And if the Pig Fucker is telephoning one of his cronies in the United States, shouldn't we know about that?
Not according to YOU lot...we shouldn't."
I think the Pres should follow the law. The law doesn't say don't monitor, it says get a warrant. Get that? GET A WARRANT. In fact, the law went so overboard it said, we'll even let you do it after the face. What's more, we'll let you keep the whole thing a secret. See, I don't even like that process all that much, but, hey it is the law.
And yes, the vast majority DID grasp the fact that warrantless wiretaps are ok by Bush - and they ain't too happy about it. See, most Americans agree that monitoring is a good thing - it's jsut that they think following the law is a good thing as well. Now either you don't grasp that the law provided for monitoring and laid down the rules, or you don't care what the law said. Either one exposes you as a clueless hack, out to support your party at any cost, including rational thinking.
LOL! The old "aid and comfort" ploy. I got a right to call bullshit when I see it, B, and you don't get to compromise that right because you don't agree with me. Get over it.
Iraq is bullshit. Afghanistan didn't have to be bullshit, but is headed that way big time. Every damn thing this pres had touched has turned to shit. And you still support him. Waking up is gonna be a hard day's work for you. Best lay in some prozac, cause you're gonna need it.
As for permission, I'm not giving you any. I'm suggesting you put your brain in gear instead of your mouth and your substitute dick, the "gun".
Are we threatened? How much are we threatened? Give me some facts, give me some projections of harm, then lets talk about threatened. Cancer will far more likely kill you AND your loved ones. Why don't we spend a few hundred billions working on THAT problem? It might actually be beneficial to you as an individual.
Unless, of course, you are among the defense contactors making a killing off this bullshit war.
In which case, you are pond scum, not just deluded.
Jake
Well Jake, I guess I have a bit of a bias when it comes to the military. I am proud to be a retired Navy person who served in all the little "Actions" since 1984.
ReplyDeleteWar is not a pleasant thing, but what you liberal crackpots need to understand is that when a patriot such as myself joins the military, we volunteer with the understanding that there is a chance we could go into war and get killed. This is the ultimate price for freedom. And what price have you paid sitting in your easy chair watching the war on Clinton News Network?
I feel you are unqualified to talk anything about how the Iraqies feel since you have not talked to any of them. As for me and my fellow service members who have talked to them, they are greatful we are there. They have running water, electricity, sewage treatment plants, schools, etc...things that only the royal elite had just a few years ago.
Now lets talk about the "30000" deaths in Iraq. Yes there has been collateral damage, as no war is perfect, however you and your liberal counterparts try to twist things and say that 30K deaths including civilians. So do you believe that just because they are not in a military uniform that they are civilian? If you do, then I guess you also believe that a bank robber only wears a hood. As per the rules of enguagement, I can only shoot someone if they shoot at me first. With that said, there are thousands of "non Iraqie" people who are insergents that have also been killed, and I dont loose any sleep over them. They are trying to kill your friends, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers that have been sent there to protect your freedom of speach and all the other freedoms you enjoy.
Now to get back on topic...
You can damn well bet that if your name showed up on Al-Zarqawi's PDA I would want your phone and email tapped, and I dont give a rats ass if its legal or not. I dont feel that the administration should use information gleened from the tapps that are not directly associated with the GWOT, and to date I have seen no evidence that they have.
webracin
Ya know, Webracin, you don't have a clue about me or anybody else on the other end of these conversations. All you see is my words, which are important, but they are not all there is to me, nor are yours all there is to you. I make no assumptions about who you are. I just read your words and respond to the thoughts they convey. You would be well advised to do the same.
ReplyDeleteNow, about that "joining the service" thing, just how does it come about that when a young man or woman joins the military, every tom and dickless harry takes the position that they are the default cannon fodder? That if you got some bullshit wrong idea in your head, like the Pres did and does about Iraq, it's up to them to go to war just because your panties are all in a twist? I think we owe those young, and some not so young, people a little more consideration than that. Frankly, it'd piss me off big time to be blown to kingdom come because GW got frightened on 9/11.
It's kind of the Pat Tillman thing, ya know? Afghanistan - yes, Iraq - no. Although to be perfectly truthful, I was against Afghanistan as well. Mostly because I thought we'd screw it up. Sure enough, that's what we're doing - screwing it up royally.
And as for water and electricity, by the Iraqi's own words, they hae less now than before the war. Now someday that will change.
Gawd, I hope it changes. We've spent how many billions trying to get the power grid back up an reliable?
Here is the latest poll from ABC, one Bush quoted from, but selectively.
The link is - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1422763
which is an article discussing what Bush left out when he reported the results of that poll. Heres the meat -
Among the findings:
More than two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed face-to-face opposed the U.S. presence, but only one-quarter of respondents wanted American troops to leave right away.
44 percent said their country is better off than before the war.
More than six in 10 said they feel safe in their neighborhoods, up from four in 10 in June 2004.
Half said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was wrong, up from 39 percent in February 2004.
More than two-thirds said they expect things to get better in the coming months.
I sure as hell hope they get better. But they ain't there yet, and they want us GONE. And less than half think things are better now than before the war.
Ok. Let's cut to just the women and children who have died as a result of the invasion. Here's an article published by John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health from a year ago that used sampling to estimate both the number and the makeup of civiliam deaths in Iraq. Here is the link -
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html
October 28, 2004
Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion
Civilian deaths have risen dramatically in Iraq since the country was invaded in March 2003, according to a survey conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia University School of Nursing and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.
So, pick a number 30k? A 100k? Either way, the survey says it's mostly women and children. Let's say mostly is 51% - Bush's mandate. That means that at least 15k women and children have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion. How many did the invasion save here in the US? Got a number for that one, WR? Let's see, we got real deaths in Iraq, and no deaths, just rampant fear, here in the US. I don't think the Iraqis are getting the best end of that deal.
The thing is, Webracin, you don't get to decide what is lawful and what is not. Congress makes the laws, and we are all bound by them. Even the pres.
Non-Iraqi insurgents are trying to kill my children? Somehow I missed that one. I know that terrorists want to make their mark by pissing on America, but somehow I fail to see how all those Muslim zealots now in Iraq (mind you, they weren't there before) are somehow going to form up ranks and march on Washington, DC, or anywhere else America.
Besides which, not even "librul pussies" like me said we should just ignore terrorism. We just say theres a better way to go about it than shooting up a foreign county that wasn't a terrorist issue until we made it one.
Just like Bilgeman, WR, you've bought into the whole fear thing. I don't know what your parents did to you when you were young to make you so fearful and so security needy. You should seek professional counseling. A good counsleor can sometimes help people with phobias and high anxiety levels.
Jake
jake:
ReplyDelete"Just like Bilgeman, WR, you've bought into the whole fear thing."
Y'know, chum, you should read what you write sometimes...it's not ALL bullshit.
This bit in particular:
"...you don't have a clue about me or anybody else on the other end of these conversations. All you see is my words, which are important, but they are not all there is to me, nor are yours all there is to you."
On to the issue; you assert:
"I think the Pres should follow the law. The law doesn't say don't monitor, it says get a warrant. Get that? GET A WARRANT. In fact, the law went so overboard it said, we'll even let you do it after the face. What's more, we'll let you keep the whole thing a secret."
Who is the "we", and by what authority are they going "to let"?
"Now either you don't grasp that the law provided for monitoring and laid down the rules, or you don't care what the law said. Either one exposes you as a clueless hack, out to support your party at any cost, including rational thinking."
"clueless hack"? Oh good, I was hoping you'd add a new ad hominem to the others you've already given me...I'm making a bouquet, you see.
"Exposes"? Dude...I baldly stated in my first comment:
"In a nutshell, you can TRY to criminalize self-defense,but you had better build a LOT of prisons, ace, because a whole lot of us don't CARE about law when we are in mortal danger."
So don't break your own arm patting yourself on the back over your "Eureka moment".
As for what I'm supporting, it's not my party, ace. It's my constitutionally elected government.
And I am supporting our Victory.
(If you know what that is).
"The old "aid and comfort" ploy. I got a right to call bullshit when I see it, B, and you don't get to compromise that right because you don't agree with me."
And I "got a right" to call you a defeatist and a traitor.
"Although to be perfectly truthful, I was against Afghanistan as well. Mostly because I thought we'd screw it up."
and, your personal bug-bear:
"Iraq is bullshit."
Yeah, pal, you're QUITE the patriot here, huh?
Hell, after 9/11 here's what you figured would be a rational response by our government:
"Cancer will far more likely kill you AND your loved ones. Why don't we spend a few hundred billions working on THAT problem? It might actually be beneficial to you as an individual."
A "Global War on Cancer", huh? (And you accuse ME of self-delusion).
But I wonder why you feel that our government would do any better in a "War Against Cancer" when you are so firmly convinced that they are incompetent to win the "War on Terra"?
"Every damn thing this pres had touched has turned to shit. And you still support him."
Really? He's that bad, huh? Then kindly name the terrorist mega-attack that has occurred on US soil since 2001.
(waiting for the crickets)
Regards;
Bilgeman, have you ever seen The Princess Bride? One of the funny lines is "I don't think it means what you think it means." talking about a word, "incomprehensible" I think. You keep bringing up ad hominem. I don't think it means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia for it's convenience:
Ad hominem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself
See, I have been replying to the argument AND commenting on the person behind the words. I'm not saying your words are meaningless because you are a clueless hack, I'm saying your words are meaningless and because of that you ARE a clueless hack. Get the difference? It's subtle, I know. Subtle, but real.
Unlike, say, the "we" that is the congress. You know, the "we" behind the AUMF? The "we" that we voted into office? Surely you remember them? Frist, Delay, et al, those guys.
The only mortal danger you are in is the danger of exposing your lack of common sense. I'd die of embarrasment, were I you. You are not in mortal danger of dying from a terrorist attack. You are far more likely to die from a tylenol overdose. Why don't you take up arms against the maker of tylenol? Or the stores that sells it? You got no perspective, Bilgeman. None at all.
And, no, I don't know what victory is. Why don't you tell me? Cause from here, I see no victory of any kind in this stupid war.
Do you think victory means you will be safe from terrorism? Just how is that going to happen? Do you imagine that all the danger comes from brown people in foreign countries? How about the OKC bombing? How do plan to protect yourself from the Timothy McVeighs of the world?
You got no plan, all you got is your fear and a gun. It ain't enoough, Bilgeman.
Terrorist attack on US soil. hmmmmm. Let me see if I can dumb this down enough.
No evidence of an attack does not mean evidence that attacks were prevented. It only means no attacks happened. It's logic. Get some.
You can call me anything you want, Bilgeman. When something resembling thought begins to show up in your words, I might even consider what you say.
As for a war on cancer, all the gov would be doing is pouring the billions into research. Unlike war, nobody extra would die, and somebody with a clue would actually be addressing the problem. Unlike what we have now where the clueless are led by the criminal and thousands die.
The point remains. Your chances of dying from terrorism are effectively zero, with or without Bush. In my own judgment, they are zero plus a tiny amount with Bush, and something less with anyone else at the helm.
Ok, if Cheney is at the helm, they might even be higher than with Bush.
Bilgeman, do this much for me, and for you. Articulate your concerns wrt terrorism in your life. Not some generalzed "they're gonna get us", but who "they" might be and how they might do it, and how many attacks there might be and what weapons would be used and how that all would play out in your life. Put a few facts to your fears, and let's talk.
Jake
Hey Jake,
ReplyDeleteIn response to
"Terrorist attack on US soil. hmmmmm. Let me see if I can dumb this down enough.
No evidence of an attack does not mean evidence that attacks were prevented. It only means no attacks happened. It's logic. Get some."
I have another word for you to look up in your dictionary....Its THWART....there have been at least 10 thwarted planned attacks on US targets.
Logic dictates that if you prevent or thwart an attack, then you prevented it. If you bury your head in the sand, it most likely would have occured.
Here are 10 of the thwarted attacks since 9/11....
"Three targets cited were in the United States, including plans to use hijacked airplanes to attack the West Coast in mid-2002 and the East Coast in mid-2003. The White House said at least one planner of the West Coast attack was a key figure behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
The third was the case of Jose Padilla (search), a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam and allegedly plotted with top Al Qaeda commanders to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. Padilla, whose plot never materialized, was designated an enemy combatant by Bush and is being held without criminal charge at a Navy brig in South Carolina.
The White House said the other seven attacks included plans to:
• Bomb several sites in Britain in mid-2004.
• Attack Westerners at several places in Karachi, Pakistan, in spring 2003.
• Attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners in 2003.
• Carry out a large-scale bombing in Britain in spring 2004.
• Attack ships in the Arabian Gulf in late 2002/2003.
• Attack ships in the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow part of the Persian Gulf where it opens into the Arabian Sea, in 2002.
• Attack a tourist site outside the United States in 2003."
I just love how you preach....let me spell it out for you....
You say..
"Ya know, Webracin, you don't have a clue about me or anybody else on the other end of these conversations. All you see is my words, which are important, but they are not all there is to me, nor are yours all there is to you. I make no assumptions about who you are. I just read your words and respond to the thoughts they convey. You would be well advised to do the same."
And then you say this
"I don't know what your parents did to you when you were young to make you so fearful and so security needy. You should seek professional counseling."
I will bet though that you can give me quite a few recomendations of a progessional brainwasher, lets say, that graduated from Berkley!!!!!!
One thing you should know, is that the liberal media is going to tell you what you want to hear. Dont try looking for other sources on the internet, because it will only piss you off. Just so you know, the Iraqi Times states that 67% of Iraqui's think the country is going in the right direction, and low and behold the New York Times only interviewed the other 23%...go figure.
Thats fine though, I dedicated 20+ years of my life to protect your freedoms, so go stick your head back in the sand, and let me get back to work.....
webracin
Oh I almost forgot Jake
ReplyDeleteWe (the American Fighting Men and Women) are not "Cannon Fodder". We are mearly doing a job as a patriot, that at times can be hazardous. We are given the best weapons and safety equipment to do our jobs as well as possible.
I dont agree with some of the Presidents decisions, however, that is for election time, and as I recall, the president won the popular vote as well as the electoral college, so at the time, I guess that put you in the minority (I am truly sorry for your loss). And it is your right to have whatever opinion you wish to have AND to voice that opinion (God this is a great country) BUT...Tell all the people in the mass graves in Iraq about your freedoms and also tell them how they dont deserve it.
Things are turning around in Iraq and why most of the liberals think it was going to be a quick battle is beyond me. Look at the Gulf War 1, which I participated in. We could have taken care of the problem then, but we were limited by the "100 Hours". We were just south of Baghdad 95 hours after the first shot was fired, but no we had to back off to the, as you put it "Liberal Pussies".
One last thing....
I pray to God that if you have children you dont raise them the same way you believe. How many times did we ask Sudam to allow the inspectors in? Was it 1, 10, 20? And then the UN said if you dont let them in by this date, something bad will happen, and low and behold...
Do you allow your children (If you have any) to be defiant without any repercusions? Dont do that or I will say dont do that again.....works like a champ dont it...
webracin
Webracin, if you count Padilla as among the thwarted attacks, you have cast your whole series of saves in the sorriest light imaginable. The US Attorney just tried to get Padilla tried on criminal charges completely unrelated to the Admin's original reasons for holding him illegally because they got NOTHING on him. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. And THAT, wb, is your strong case. There might actually have been something in those other cases, who knows, because the admin is so full of shit no one with half a brain trusts them to tell the truth about ANYTHING.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the DC shooter? You know, he actually killed sevaral people. Bush didn't protect anyone from him. What about anthrax? Nope. Just victims, no perp. These are the guys you want to trust to keep you safe from harm? ARE YOU CRAZY?
Ok, we alreay know you are a brick or two shy of a full load. Maybe you are crazy, too. You may need to seek progressional help on several fronts, webracin.
Web, did you ever ask yourself why we haven't yet found Bin Laden? I'll tell you why. It's because the the resolution authorizing force says it's all about 9/11. What happens if we get Bin Laden? It's all over but the shouting. Bush doesn't want it all over, so we got less that 20k people in all of Afghanistan and we got more than 150k people in Iraq. What, did OBL move to Iraq? Nope. But GW did. Why do you think he and Cheney keep bringing up AQ and 9/11 every time they talk about Iraq? Because of the AUMF. They HAVE to tie Iraq to 9/11, or they got NO authorization to be there.
Well, guess what. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.
Did you read the link on the poll I gave you earlier? Bush quoted from that poll. Surely that makes it worth repeating in your mind. It's just that he dishonestly didn't quote the whole poll, just the parts he thought were helpful to him. The fact is, half of all Iraqis don't think the invasion was a good thing and most want us gone.
We send those kids over with the best equipment? Have you been reading at all for the past 3 years? Where's the armor, both personal and vehicular? It wasn't there. It may STILL not be there. They are struggling with a recall of the personal armor, and at the same time the manufacturer of the armor is throwing $10 MILLION parties for his 12 year old daughter. Doesn't that strike you as criminal? Like I said, this war is a profit center for Bush and his cronies. If you ain't gettin any gravy, web, you are just a tool.
web, if it weren't for misinformation, I don't think you'd have any information at all. You need to read a little more widely. And a little more critically. Put your mind in gear, not just your mouth.
And finally, we come to children. Frankly, I'm not sure you should reproduce. The gene pool is shallow enough as it is.
Jake
Jake, check out this article for a link from 9/11 to Iraq..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323
As for the gene pool, you may want to be careful there, the liberals have cut spending on the clorine
webracin
"What about the DC shooter? You know, he actually killed sevaral people. Bush didn't protect anyone from him. What about anthrax? Nope. Just victims, no perp. These are the guys you want to trust to keep you safe from harm? ARE YOU CRAZY?"
ReplyDeletethere is a big difference between international terrorist and inner national terrorist, but I applaud you for trying to cloud the issue.
webracin
It does not make it right, BUT both the dem's and the rep's have done this behavior in the past. This is from an article @ http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/30/124754.shtml
ReplyDelete"While Mrs. Clinton's email makes her opposition to President Bush's targeted surveilliance program clear, she does not explain why her husband, while president, authorized the NSA and FBI to conduct much wider surveillance on American citizens under secret programs like Echelon and Carnivore, which randomly captured and screened millions of phone calls and emails daily."
Just because both sides do it does not make it right, but if it truly was to protect the US then I have nothing to hide
webracin
jake:
ReplyDelete"They are struggling with a recall of the personal armor, and at the same time the manufacturer of the armor is throwing $10 MILLION parties for his 12 year old daughter. Doesn't that strike you as criminal? "
Yes it does...so why didn't the New York Times put THAT story on it's front page?
"Where's the armor, both personal and vehicular? It wasn't there. It may STILL not be there."
Ahhh, my bread and butter. The armor and the vehicles are on ships,chum, and may have been sitting in the holds for up to two years before they're actually deployed.
That means that the first wave of rolling stock deployed to Kuwait for the Iraq dust-up in March of 2003 may very well have been loaded aboard a ship in the CONUS in March of 2001...and it was certainly two different worlds between those two different dates.
"What about the DC shooter? You know, he actually killed sevaral people. Bush didn't protect anyone from him."
John Muhammad, being a US citizen, would have required your precious warrant to intercept his calls.
Too bad he apparently never called internationally to discuss his hunting spree with his boy-bitch, since under this program, he conceivably MIGHT have been caught sooner if he had.
"Articulate your concerns wrt terrorism in your life."
I live in the DC area, sport.
John Muhammad was hunting around here.
American Airlines 77 flew over my head,(I was atop a building in Centerville, VA, and Dulles was taking off to the South that day).
The company I worked for at the time had a jobsite at Pentagon Row,(see a map).Ironically enough, the only guy from my department who was at Pentagon Row was the only Pakistani of the bunch of us.
I lost half a dozen Infantry Schoolies in the Beirut suicide bombing in '83.
Knew three families in the vault at the US Embassy in Islamabad Pakistan when the locals got "Allah Up their Asses", and decided to burn the place down...'79
Two of the hostages held in Iran for 444 days were associates of my father.
And at nine years old, I took a telephone threat on our home phone to bomb a facility
that my father worked at.
You beginning to get the picture, you ostrich?
This shit's been out THERE for a long time, boy-o, and it finally made it ashore HERE.
Well, if we can't stop the shit from happening, then we can at least choose WHERE it happens.
Let the tide take it right back out THERE, where it originated from.
Just because it never did, and perhaps hasn't yet, affected YOU doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, see?
You can stay in your little dreamworld and bleat away about cancer and secondhand smoking and Katrina all you wish, pallie, but my eyes were forced wide open one night in 1973.
Even 9/11/2001 wasn't enough to wake you up.
So fix some grub, pull the oars, or get the fuck out of the lifeboat, ace.
Webracin, so I read the article. The whole article rests on this one piece of evidence, which is from the Epstien piece quoted in your article:
ReplyDelete6) Al-Ani was observed meeting a young Arab-speaking man on the outskirts of Prague at about 11 am on April 9th by a watcher for Czech counterintelligence.
That's it. That's all there is. It isn't enough. Ya gotta believe that if VW actually had proof that there was an Iraq-9/11 connection he'd be trumpeting it to the roof. Instead, we got an unnamed check counterintelligence watcher. It might as well be Goofball. At least we got a name for source of most of the bad data or OWN CIA collected and passed off uncritically.
Let it go, Web. it's a dead horse, there is no connection except in the diseased minds of Bush and Cheney.
And the bit about the chlorine was cute.
Finally, with respect to Carnivore and Echelon, the first should be stopped. I don't know who started it. But Clinton didn't start Echelon. It was handed to him by his predecessor. You remember, Bush 41. It's roots may go back to the 40's. Supposedly Echelon is for "international" surveillance. That would let it off the Constitutional hook. I think.
Jake
jake:
ReplyDelete"Your buddies in beirut were there of their own accord, they signed up"
As did the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So why do you beef THEIR deployment and their losses, but it was "tough tittie" for our guys in Beirut 23 years ago?
At least the lads in Afghanistan and Iraq have some victories to show for their losses.
Not very consistent of you...not that I expected otherwise.
"In the end, it appears to me you have made choices in your life from which you want the rest of the country to protect you, at virtally ANY cost."
Oh, I see. As a 9 year old, I CHOSE where my father worked, so I should "take responsibility" for that, huh?
Does the word "asshole" ring any bells with you?
And let me make something perfectly clear to you. I don't expect the likes of you to protect me and mine from anything.
I'm old enough to remember some of the lame rationalizations used by people of your stripe to justify their opposition to fighting Communism in Viet Nam:
"It's not as though the Viet Cong have attacked America, if they had, I'd be the first to fight...but since they haven't...."
Well, chum, the enemy HAS attacked America, and what's the excuse you have now?
You opposed Afghanistan:
"Because we'd screw it up"
You oppose Iraq:
"Because it had nothing to do with 9/11."
And you oppose warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence to prosecute a war,a Power expressly granted to the President, not Congress OR the Courts, by the Constitution.
And Presidents Carter and Clinton, among others, said as much.
No, jake, only a deluded fool would even THINK that people like you are going to protect them from anything.
You'll always have another "perfectly valid" reason to maintain your "morally superior" rationale to not only do nothing, but to be obstructionist to those who ARE doing something.
Until it's YOUR ass in the blast radius, or above the fire line.
Then you'll want no expense spared to rescue your sorry ass, and whine recriminations about the damned inconvenience you had to endure forever afterwards.
"Just out of curiosity, do you own any assault weapons?"
Do you?
Regards;