http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060920/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism

allow wiretapping without warrants on Americans when the president believes a terrorist attack is "imminent."

Just follow the law and get a fucking warrant. I don't trust these yahoos on what is imminent....of course, admittedly, I wouldn't trust them with just about anything.

Would you say that getting a warrant after the fact would fulfill the needed legal hoops to jump through?

Would you say that getting a warrant after the fact would fulfill the needed legal hoops to jump through?

No, it's puts the warrant provider in the dubious position of exposing a crime if they feel the tap wasn't warranted. Whereas if they get it beforehand, and it's not warranted, no crime is commited. If they set up a good system for getting these warrants quickly, it shouldn't be a problem. The only reason it is a problem for Bush is he doesn't want any oversight for any of the shit he does.....and he has no respect for the laws and morals of this country.

Then you are against the current law in place which allows the President to do so. This is also the law that you have supported in the past.


"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

So you aren't for changing the laws to allow more expediency, you aren't for enforcing the current law.....


Under the measure, the administration would be required to share more details of the nature of the threat with the House and Senate leaders and the chairmen of both intelligence committees, who then would decide without administration input which lawmakers would receive the classified information.

Under the Wilson bill, several parties must be notified in writing that "the president has determined that there exists an imminent threat of attack likely to cause death serious injury or substantial economic damage to the United States."

The notification must:

_Be submitted within five days of the president's authorization of the surveillance.



_Name the entity or entities responsible for the threat.

_State the reason for believing the attack is imminent, though the early draft obtained by the AP does not define the term. _Describe the foreign intelligence expected to be obtained through the surveillance and the means of the surveillance.

What are you for?

I'm not sure actually came out in support of that act itself but rather pointed out that mechanism that was ignored by this administration in the past....because they feel they are above the law - (see the numerou Bush signing statements for further proof).

So why do we need this next piece of useless legislation. Because it was originally submitted as allowing this administration from doing taps without and oversight whatsover. They tried to sneak it thorugh...and failed. I'm so happy to see that that I had to blurt out over the success.

I'm against the Bush administration getting to do illegal wire tapping without oversight, plain and simple.

I do like:

Under the measure, the administration would be required to share more details of the nature of the threat with the House and Senate leaders and the chairmen of both intelligence committees, who then would decide without administration input which lawmakers would receive the classified information.

This is part of the new "watered down" version. It's a waste of legislation but I would be okay with it in this form. Now they just want it passed so it looks like the Republicans are the fearless heroic defenders agianst terrorism. I just want a few eyes on these guys, they, like all politicians, can't be completly trusted. Clinton with any women, and Bush with anything but women. :)

Understandable. I agree on oversight, but once again, it would be akin to putting out a fire with a flamethrower.
They need to be made accountable to the public in some way, shape or form.
And Bush wasn't the first President to add comments to his signings.
You have to blame Reagan for that manuver.

So... GW wants 48 more hours to report unwarrented wire tapping, wants to be able to have to report to the (currently repulican lapdog) senate and house majority leadership only, have said leadership decide who gets to be privy to the this knowledge?
Baseball , apple pie and chevrolet all the way.

You mean, baseball, football, apple pie, and Chevrolet.
And you might want to add politics in there as well....

Though I do think signing statements are wrong, it's really the number and content of Bush's that sets him apart.

Signing statements that effectively nullify the law being signed do make the whole process questionable.

How dare you question our esteemed president!!*hello CIA? i need a wiretap ASAP!!*

Umm..how bout NO you crazy Pres bastard Title of your thread is yet more proof that you and others have slipped into complete and utter derangement. That's okay though, you have a friend with Hugo Chavez.

Title of your thread is yet more proof that you and others have slipped into complete and utter derangement. That's okay though, you have a friend with Hugo Chavez.


LOL...so now if you're not with Bush you are with Chavez?

First off....

Fuck you Akipt.

<deleted insults that were over the top, shouldn't type when I'm angry>

I apologize for the above statements they were...personal.

Back to the old...if you don't like what were doing you like terrorists bit huh Akipt. Wow...just wow.

Woot, Chavez/McCain in 08

Why all the debate?

Just get Linda Tripp to record whatever you want. They have already determined she is above the law with regard to illegal taping of conversations, so they just need to push that boundary a tad.:rolleyes:

First off....

Fuck you Akipt.

<deleted insults that were over the top, shouldn't type when I'm angry>

I apologize for the above statements they were...personal.As I said, deranged. Thanks for the validation. I guess this time you can't blame it on the bad tacos you had for lunch huh? Seriously man, take a recess.

That's okay though, you have a friend with Hugo Chavez.

Say what you will about Ailwon, he is a bit too left for my tastes, but your comment was just as much of a low blow as anything he said. Bunching him with one of the biggest enemies of our country because he doesn't approve of our President is every bit over the top as anything he said. So you didn't swear, that doesn't make it any less tasteless.

I'm not with Bush, but I'm definately not one of the terrorists either. It's not an either or situation as Bush would like people to think. That's the lovely part of our Constitution. You can be a desenter and still love the country as anyone who's on the other side. The even better part is you have the right to state that opinion, and regardless of what anyone else says, it doesn't make you less of an American.

You're the one that associated me with a terrorist sympathizer...that pissed me off.

We are all anti-terrorist, we may disagree on how to eliminate them, but you should be ashamed to pull that bullshit.

You can be against Bush's methods and not be a terrorist sympathizer.

Seriously man, take a time out and think before you post.

*Pulls the thread back on the tracks*

So we shouldn't use any info gleaned from the wiretaps that are in place that may save American lives, even if the Administration gives proper notice (up to 72 hours after the fact).
The article that was referenced at the beginning of the thread is proposing a way to streamline the process.
So if we can't react faster to an imminent threat, because we don't have the legal recourse to do so, how will it comfort the families of the people killed?

"We sure are sorry about your loss, but legally we couldn't warn your son/daughter/father/mother because the President didn't get a warrant in the time specified."

I must say that I am finding it incredibly funny, albeit sad, watching the leader of the arguably most powerful nation on the planet repeatedly respond to critics and opponents of his views much the same as any little child: "If I can't have my way I am taking my ball and not playing at all."

You're the one that associated me with a terrorist sympathizer...that pissed me off.

We are all anti-terrorist, we may disagree on how to eliminate them, but you should be ashamed to pull that bullshit.

You can be against Bush's methods and not be a terrorist sympathizer.

Seriously man, take a time out and think before you post.Nice strawmen.

I charged you with being a emotionally charged vitriolic poop head, which incidentally was the same thing that the aforementioned leftist dictator demonstrated quite clearly as being afflicted with as well yesterday. The only difference, you didn't have a room full of world leaders clapping when you ranted on about our 'bastard' president. For shame, you have quite a few collegues of your political persuasion here reading your posts and not a single one has called you on it.

I must say that I am finding it incredibly funny, albeit sad, watching the leader of the arguably most powerful nation on the planet repeatedly respond to critics and opponents of his views much the same as any little child: "If I can't have my way I am taking my ball and not playing at all."Link something for a change Byl. I'm seeing the ground rules being discussed and agreed upon before "ball" can be played again. Nothing wrong with that.

You don't even know what a strawman is, obviously.

Once again you fall back to the Republican tactic that if you don't agree with Bush's methods you've sided with the likes of Chavez. That's what you implied with your ignorant post. Your lack of originality when losing arguments is classic.

Link something for a change Byl. I'm seeing the ground rules being discussed and agreed upon before "ball" can be played again. Nothing wrong with that.
Reading Byl's comment immediately brought this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500483.html) to mind: President Bush warned defiant Republican senators yesterday that he will close down a CIA interrogation program that he credited with thwarting terrorist attacks if they pass a proposal regulating detention of enemy combatants, escalating a politically charged battle that has exposed divisions within his party.
...
Asked twice if he would veto the McCain-backed bill, Bush avoided answering directly but repeated 11 times in the course of an hour that intelligence officials would not "go forward" with their interrogation program.
I've read that the GOP and Bush have reached a compromise today on the torture issue, but I don't know what it entails.

For shame, you have quite a few collegues of your political persuasion here reading your posts and not a single one has called you on it.
Oh, and this is disingenuous at best. I hardly recall akipt calling anyone from his side of the aisle on their fallacious points (other than, at best, referring to Sixee's "drivel").

You don't even know what a strawman is, obviously.

Once again you fall back to the Republican tactic that if you don't agree with Bush's methods you've sided with the likes of Chavez. That's what you implied with your ignorant post. Your lack of originality when losing arguments is classic. Real slow for you Ailwon...

Title of your thread is yet more proof that you and others have slipped into complete and utter derangement. That's okay though, you have a friend with Hugo Chavez. No mention of terrorist sympathizing, check. No mention of 'if you disagree with Bush you're a Chavez hugger', check. Yup, two strawmen I see. Care for a third or fourth?

Well Akipt, looks like others of your ilk agree with my side of this argument...the "comprismise" bill being put forward is nothing close to what Bush wanted.

"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," Sen John McCain

That's a relief...I really like McCain.

Link something for a change Byl.

I wish I could, but I am extremely computer illiterate. What I do, is when I read something I usually cite the source where I read it; and, since I usually read hard copy rather than internet news, there is no link even if I were able.

Like the following, which was on the Editorial pages of the St Paul Pioneer Press on Monday, Sept 18, 2006:

"America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world. My friends, we have work to do."


Maybe Junior should spend more time talking with his daddy, and learning a bit about statesmanship. The above quote is from the inaugural address of President George H.W. Bush, Jan, 20, 1989.

So many people are so fond of saying "Freedom isnt Free"

Its a shame and a grand irony that so few of them understand the price which has to be paid.

Well Akipt, looks like others of your ilk agree with my side of this argument...the "comprismise" bill being put forward is nothing close to what Bush wanted. Actually I think both sides are happy... for now. Nothing is really settled except Bush gets to issue an executive order clarifying some of these contended issues... after congress sends him a bill. Which is what Bush said he wanted anyway. But instead of congress defining everything, it's in Bush's court to do so.

This will remain in the news for some time to come... and every day this remains in the news, its a plus for Bush. Newsflash, Gallup polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-09-18-poll.htm) just released and Bush is on the popular side of all these issues... maybe not initially (like warrantless wire taps) but after people get to think on such things, the American people know who to trust.

Oh and Iraq war, right or wrong? 49/49 .. highest favorable since 2003. Frankly I'm surprised.

My ilk indeed. http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Worry less about Bushes poll numbers and worry more about individual races.
Republicans are losing ground in almost every close race.
Santorum, Allen, Burns, Chafee, and Dewine are all looking quite toasty.

My ilk indeed.

You're not Republican Akipt?

On further reading, sorry to disappoint everyone, but guaging from the first reactions of dailykos, atrios, and the ACLU, this was a serious win for Bush.

Me, I'm just happy this is the case:

Stephen Hadley: A provision dealing with classified evidence makes sure that no sensitive intelligence will have to be shared with terrorists or their lawyers. The bar is very high. There will not be — the terrorists will not have access to classified information.

In addition, if classified information is required for the prosecution of a terrorist, there are a variety of ways in which the substance of the information can be provided and used at trial without transferring classified information. And of course, finally, under all circumstances, information about sources and methods, which is the most important, is protected. This was the only issue I was watching, and Bush got his way on it 100%.

And about the polls... my statements had nothing to do with the individual races, just the current issues in this thread. Since many people on this board want to demonize and belittle our president because he holds these whacked out views that absolutely nobody agrees with, I thought some perspective would help http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif but I'm sure Bush doesn't have the mental capacity to grasp that. It's all a horrible accident, right Thor?

It was a win vs a Republican controlled Senate and House? Wow.. grats on that.

Why do you think the people on Kos and whatever are crying about it 40 days from a Senate/House election? Its a rallying issue. "Rubber Stamp Congress", "Out of Control Executive"... Red meat for the base, more campaign money pouring in... yadayada..

Next step is to get Bush to say exactly what specific tortures he endorses.

40 days until hopeful redemption. I laugh as Florida, a normally republican state, has seemingly abandoned the party. I mean, they elected Kathrine Harris (aka the bitch who scrwed up the "election" when bush won the first time), to run for the Repubs.

Come election time, i really think you are going to see a changing of the guard. The problem is the new regime, will only win cause its the lesser of two evils, not because it was a better party.

It's all a horrible accident, right Thor?
What? The use of fear as a campaign tactic? Nothing accidental about that, no.

Next step is to get Bush to say exactly what specific tortures he endorses. Torture falls under "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, which Congress is going to now define into law.

What? The use of fear as a campaign tactic? Nothing accidental about that, no.What Bush says doesn't make me afraid. It's the actions and dreams of others that do, however.

Unless you don't think there is a terrorist threat to our civilization? Did I imagine 9/11, 7/7, Bali bombings, .... and all the thwarted attempts and plots? Is it a conspiracy?

Unless you don't think there is a terrorist threat to our civilization? Did I imagine 9/11, 7/7, Bali bombings, .... and all the thwarted attempts and plots? Is it a conspiracy?
These are threats to people. Like other threats to people, they should be countered as effectively as possible. The only threats to our civilization (e.g., the US) are those that topple the ideals and constitutional guarantees upon which it was founded (such as, say, the Bill of Rights). Such threats often originate from fear such as yours generating a willingness to allow the government (specifically, the executive) free reign in its actions, no matter how contrary those actions may be to our founding principles.

Deviation from those principles undermines our civilization, not a few thousand unfortunate deaths at the hands of a hateful rabble.

Not much time to respond this morning...

The only threats to our civilization (e.g., the US) are those that topple the ideals and constitutional guarantees upon which it was founded (such as, say, the Bill of Rights). If Bush campaigns on fear, then you are as well.

One aspect of terrorism is to seek the changes in government that you are fearful of, Madrid/Spain in (2004?) for example.

A fundamental question being asked, are we doing enough or are we doing too much? That's a good question. But what you're overlooking is, how many 9/11's or worse can a civilization tolerate before it loses its core values. Are you going to stand in the smoking rubble of downtown Manhatten screaming that the Bill of Rights applies to terrorists? I think if that were the case, you will have lost all perspective.

If a government cannot properly protect its citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic, then the people of that civilization rightly need to make changes to better protect themselves. Foretunately, our government has 'the more perfect' capabilities in doing so.

We're not deviating from the principles you speak of. We're exercising them more than ever. At no time in our history have the people of this country been more informed and had the power to make the changes necessary to do it right. And that's what we're seeing on the blogs, on TV talkinghead shows, in the newspapers, and on this discussion board everyday.

If Bush campaigns on fear, then you are as well.

One aspect of terrorism is to seek the changes in government that you are fearful of, Madrid/Spain in (2004?) for example.
I agree that terrorists would like to force governments to take on policies favorable to them, but that's not what I'm "campaigning" on. What I warn against is allowing our government to adopt policies contrary to the Constitution (and laws such as FISA).
But what you're overlooking is, how many 9/11's or worse can a civilization tolerate before it loses its core values. Are you going to stand in the smoking rubble of downtown Manhatten screaming that the Bill of Rights applies to terrorists? I think if that were the case, you will have lost all perspective.
Inflamatory rhetoric aside, we must approach problems of governing -- including terrorism -- from a certain underlying set of principles. If we abandon our principles then anything goes, and allowing a government an "anything goes" basis on which to form policy is simply a bad idea.

So, we have the Constitution, its amendments, and a series of laws. I believe we should adhere to them; Bush believes that he shouldn't have to bother. You, out of fear, have defended Bush's position. I'd say that your fear has unhinged your perspective, giving you a willingness to abandon principle. There's probably room for clarification of your position, but I'll go further into this below.
We're not deviating from the principles you speak of. We're exercising them more than ever.
I disagree. Bush has thus far allocated for himself the power to arrest citizens of the US without charge, hold them in confinement without access to counsel or charge, declare a citizen an unlawful combatant, hold individuals in secret prisons, torture those individuals, apply wiretaps to US citizens without warrant, withhold relevent information from Congress, "interpret" laws he is sworn to uphold so that he may ignore them at his discretion and so on. He has fought challenges to the above with varying degrees of success and seems to view Consitution and law as hurdles to be overcome rather than guidelines for governance.
At no time in our history have the people of this country been more informed and had the power to make the changes necessary to do it right. And that's what we're seeing on the blogs, on TV talkinghead shows, in the newspapers, and on this discussion board everyday.
I agree, but this is peripheral to my point. Technology has allowed us to be more aware and engage in discussion in ways our Founders could only dream of. It's the Decider and those who abet him that seem ready to throw rights to the wind in order to avoid wetting their beds every time the still-at-large bin Laden says he's going to destroy the country.

Now, we're engaging in a lot of generalization when there are variables to consider. I'd like to think we'd have greater common ground when it comes to the specifics of handling US citizens, terrorists, and terrorist suspects, but my guideline will necessarily be the Constitution, the laws, and the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers. Without such foundations on which to build a response to challenges our actions become atavisms, those of the wounded dog, the hungry redmeat-seeking wolf or the cornered, erm, stingray.

Age old arguement.

Federalists, or what has come to be known as conservatives, had more faith in government and feared the will of the people would lead the country to make grave mistakes. They by nature distrusted the individual and took a more Hobbesian view of human nature, feeling more secure in surrendering power to a mini Leviathan in some cases.

Anti-Federalists feared the government more than they feared the will of the people. Patrick Henry would have railed against the power grab by the executive branch and there probably would have been a revolution if this was attempted in 1789. The anti Federalists never trusted centralized power and saw it as inevitably stripping us of our rights until none remained.

Thor, you posted further up concerning that (paraphrase) if Bush can't have his way he will just take his ball and go home.....


THe reason behind that was he didn't want the people who were trying to protect the USA being imprisoned for doing their job. ... ... if they have to put people's nuts in a vice I'm fine with that but it sucks when they get put in prison for trying to protect us.

I really love the people who think that we need to be some sort of role model because everyone else will change the way they do buisness and move to being more civilized.

I am of the mindset that if they understand being brutes and showing force then you just have to out-brute or out-force them. Right or wrong that is what I believe.

I will vote 100 percent of the time to do what ever it takes to protect me, my family and my country. I am willing to bet that 50.1% of America will to.

Dear Bise:

What if 'whatever it takes' happens to be the abduction, with no reason whatsoever given, rendition to a third world country, and torture for a year or more, of yourself or a family member, just because they were travelling to or from a country that is 'not so friendly' to us? Think it can't happen to 'innocent civilians'? It already has:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/nomoresecrets/

If you don't feel like clicking, Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen (born in Syria, but has spent his entire adult life as a native of Ottawa) and software engineer who was passing through New York on his way back from holiday in Tunisia in 2002 when he was abducted, extraordinarily rendered to Syria (you know, those people we supposedly won't talk to?), denied access to a lawyer, and tortured for ten months before the Canadian authorities intervened on his behalf.

The BBC report on Canada's investigation of the case can be found here; it should come as no surprise to anyone that the US has nothing to say about the case whatsoever:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5358762.stm

Incidentally, Arar was one of the *lucky* ones: he actually got his day in court. For hundreds of other 'extraordinary rendees', this has not been the case. How many other innocent people have we abducted and tortured? Is this what a society that respects the rule of law does to its own citizens, or lawful citizens of other countries, without any explanation or accountability?

The Bush administration is asking for a blank check to commit atrocities in the name of 'keeping us safe'. What guarantee do you have that they, or whatever administration comes in next, won't abuse that power, or stretch it even further? If no oversight is required, *how will we even know* what is happening?

This administration is asking us to grant the CIA NVKD (the former Soviet secret police) level powers. Even the Mc Cain -drafted 'compromise' bill removes the right of habeus corpus (the right to have it be determined that they are being held lawfully, or be released) from many prisoners, and *prohibits* even *invoking* the Geneva protections in the petition of any habeus or civil proceeding against the United Utates, meaning that no-one will even have the right to challenge it! From the 'compromise' bill, Section 7:

(a) IN GENERAL. No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or
any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to
which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee,
member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a
partyas a source of rights, in any court of the United States or its
States or territories.

(b) GENEVA CONVENTIONS DEFINED. In this section, the term "Geneva
Conventions" means

(1) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12,
1949 (6 UST 3217);

(2) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done
at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(3) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(4) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

It also so narrowly limits the definition of 'torture' that much of what Mc Cain himself suffered at the hands of the Viet Cong would be a-ok under this bill; waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, would all be perfectly acceptable. (Read 'Agreement on Common Article 3, Section 8', if you don't believe me, and pay particular attention to the leadoff paragraph "Interpretation by the President")

This is a horrible, democracy-destroying bill. We, by allowing ourselves to be terrorized by own government into accepting this assault on the rule of law under the guise of making us 'safer', will lose far, far more than we lost on September 11th, or even in the eyes of the world since then. We will have lost the right to protect ourselves from tyranny at the hands of our own government.

Don't be so naive as to think that far worse things could not happen, should our government be given this much power, free from oversight and the right of challenge, by its citizens. The slide into fascism doesn't happen all at once, but by measured steps that, taken singly, usually seem 'reasonable' at the time, until their momentum is such that it is impossible to check them. I think that there is very legitimate grounds for the argument that this is a dangerous, perhaps pivotal, such step.

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
"Nydia Ywalmoriel"

pretty much what ever it takes is my opinion... but that was a nice post.

pretty much what ever it takes is my opinion

And thats exactly the kind of opinion the Administration is counting on, so sad really.
If our leaders really want to protect our country so much then why did it take the republicans 5 years to pass Senator Murrays(a dem) port security bill?
sure it has it flaws, but damn it all at least it was an attempt at plugging the hole in national security.
Criminy i could on for paragraphs about what Bush and his overlor....errr i mean advisors have failed to do that would really make this a safer nation.

It also so narrowly limits the definition of 'torture' that much of what Mc Cain himself suffered at the hands of the Viet Cong would be a-ok under this bill; waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, would all be perfectly acceptable. Not much time.. but Nydia, 'waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, etc, etc' were the least of things that McCain suffered through in Vietnam. Don't play word games just to make your case sound better. Much of what McCain suffered through is and will continue to be unlawful.

Sorry to pick on you, but many people are arguing things on this board and elsewhere that are simply untrue... It's all about definitions of words, which is exactly what this entire debate is about... getting the ground rules into law so our people can stay within that law and do their jobs.

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess. 'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution,

One thing to keep in mind.. most of these techinques we aquired from our in-house specialists that runs our SERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE) program for our special forces.

So we make a program designed to help our men deal with evil and inhumanity that might be forced upon them by evil regimes, and we turn it on its head and now justify the use of the same techniques?

The irony is chilling.

Also notable is the simularity of SERE techniques used in Abu Ghrab, and the presence of Special Forces units in the prison. Yet these reservists came up with these all on their own... how coincidental.

Slowly the tendrils reach outward.. not just for high value terrorists.. but pretty probably for insurgents in Iraq. Whats next? When do we become so dependant on the methods of such techniques that they become institutionalized, part of the norm. The boundries are forever pushed.

What arent we willing to do to "save lives"? Once you institutionalize and validate water boarding, you cross a line that you cannot go back over.

Do we want to do these things simply because they work? Are we now in some proto-machivellian world where our fear now allows all means to justify the ends?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/04/28/abu-ghraib-inside.jpg
Is this the new face of America?

What does Batman have to do with this?

And thats exactly the kind of opinion the Administration is counting on, so sad really.


They have my full support in this matter. Just the way I feel and it is the way the vast majority of the people I discuss this stuff with feel.

They have my full support in this matter. Just the way I feel and it is the way the vast majority of the people I discuss this stuff with feel.

which pretty much means that you already lost the so called 'war on terror', how very sad.

They have my full support in this matter. Just the way I feel and it is the way the vast majority of the people I discuss this stuff with feel.

Why support it?

Our founding fathers intrusted us with a democracy not to export or force onto others but to sustain by the jealous guarding of our rights. They set forth a document which enumberated our rights as human beings. They laid forth what was a declaration of the natural rights of all human beings. When we violate these core values and cheapen the value of any human being we cheapen the value of all of our own rights, because in essence we are now saying that rights are not ours, but granted to us by our government, and taken away when it meets their interests.

When you torture, you strip a person of his or her humanity. We tap into the base instincts, reducing a person to the bare reaction of survival. Suddenly our humanity is no longer a sacred thing. It can be stripped from us, along with our rights based on the classification placed upon us by a government. Humiliated, degraded, reduced to the state of an animal.

Our founding fathers set forth that we all had these rights not because of who our fathers were, or how much money we had, or where we were born, but they were universal, self evident rights that all men had as sacred and a government should NEVER be able to strip away. Our system of laws do not exist as a priviliage to those lucky enough to be born in America, but a statement of our beliefs. It is the individual human being which has supremacy and a just government does not take what is not theirs from any person.

Either we believe that or we dont. Is it really worth allowing the erosion of all that makes us great? Patriots and heros have died for this country, have risked their lives in battle and sacrificed all they had for these ideals. Are the rest of such cowards that we would throw up these sacred rights to the trust of our government because we have been sufficiently terrorized?

I respect your approach to this issue but I see this as an issue of self preservation. I am willing to do what ever it takes to persevere. I would rather strip someone (and enemy) of their humanity than have them kill me.

I believed this before the war on terror also.

I am willing to bet that our founding fathers beat the snot out of more than a few British captives in attempts to get them to yield information.

This altruisitic approach is very nice in theory but in the world today you have to get your hands dirty. We seem to be the only ones playing by the rules...or at least we are the only ones expected to. That doesn't sit well with me.

Once again, this is my own personal view. Whether it is right or wrong in someone elses eyes is out of my control.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller



Now dont get me wrong here, Im not comparing our government or GWB to Nazis. Im comparing us as people to Germans. The Germans were convinced that a certain people were a threat to them and meant to harm them, so they allowed for their rights to be stripped.
Is all that is required to strip us of our freedoms is to scare you a little bit so you run into warm embrace of the Leviathan?
Maybe we human beings werent meant to have freedom. Maybe Hobbes was right after all and we desire to live under the control of an all powerful monarch who keeps us safe by protecting us from ourselves with any means necessary, including the power of our lives and deaths.

I personally refuse to believe that, and will continue to believe in the inherant goodness of man and his ability to live in free society.

I'm confused, when did jews fly into German skyscrapers?

They were the second Plane, right after the one full of Iraqis

To belive in the statements " All men are created equal" and "endowed by there creator with certain unalienable right's" and then say whatever it takes because these men are not born or granted american citizenship is IMHO the epitome of hippocracy!
And then by virtue of unconditional support you also want to grant the excecutive the power to blur the right of citizenship by letting him(without oversite or determined criteria) designate ANYONE he see's fit as an enemy combatant!
I've no doubt, that like everyone who participates here your a good man,father,friend, husband, what have you.
But that by allowing Bush to do "whatever it takes" and selling down the river the very ideals, laws, goals and protections started by our forefathers and envisioned that applied not just to americans, but every fucking human bieng on the face of the earth.
the terrorists have indeed won.
Thier goal was never to defeat us by means of arms or counting death tolls, but to defeat us by letting us tear are selves apart from within by pushing our buttons to the point where we began to betray our ideals of liberty, freedom, (and most important) individuality for all humans!
Don't even think i hold a modicum of love for these pieces of shit!!!!
But if we know they are guilty of crimes, gather the evidence , prosecute, make the evidence stand in light of full disclosuer and then according to the rule and yes sadly in some cases the punishments set forth in our laws.
Letting GW throw people into Gitmo with out charges, evidence, oversite.....blah blah you know the arguments. pretty much pisses on everything I believe what America is and what we stand for.

Velvet, there are people and beliefs on this planet that want to wipe the US off the face of the Earth. If there was button that the Iranians could push which would kill all the people in the USA, they would push it without hesitation. I believe that to combat the forces alligned against us there will be times when we cannot play by the rules....

We have the buttons to push if we wanted to wipe a country off map. We haven't pushed them.

Just because the rest of the world brings a knife to our gunfight doesn't mean we are the bad guys.

I know it is hard to discern where I am coming from on message boards and posts.... but if there were a way for us to truely all get along without the need for torture, bombing, maiming, and destroying the way of life for Billions of people I would take that route every time. I would even settle for just tolerating each other. I would MUCH rather none of this be necessary.

But as it is every nation/people on this planet is looking out for themselves in a struggle to exist.


Unless there is something that comes along that we would all fear more than each other I don't see this ending anytime soon. But while this is going on I want to be on the winning side.

I'm sure innocent people get locked up in prison more than I would like to know but I don't want to abolish the penal system because of it.

Like you pointed out....we are all on different pages of the same book....well except Halo who is on his own book :)

That some of those interrogated in the CIA secret prisons were known to be involved in terrorist activities is a given; but, what about the rest......who is to decide which prisoner shall be subjected to these methods?

I am really disgusted that we have given the authority to impose these methods of interrogation on those who have not been proven to have done anything, which is bound to lead to many more examples like our recent victim from Canada.

Then again, I wonder what information Cheney would give up about his and Halliburton's contribution to the Iranian nuclear program if he were subjected to these methods......(sorry, Akipt, but I had to toss that in since I had not brought it up for a while).

Chris Wallace Interviews Clinton...

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News
Today, President Bill Clinton taped an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. He was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world’s biggest problems.

Early in the interview, Wallace attempted to smear Clinton with the same kind of misinformation contained in ABC’s Path to 9/11.

Wallace repeats Path to 9/11 misinformation, Clinton fights back:

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20.

CLINTON: No let’s talk about…

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

Clinton takes on Fox News bias:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth.

WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

Clinton on his priorities and the Bush administration priorities:
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

haha looks like a good interview, go Billy go!

Bise, i understand we have enemies and i have no problem with going out and kicking the living shit out of them. hell the more that resist and fight back the more we can dirt nap. NP with that! i'm also ok with taking them prisoner and interrogating them.
but the point is while we wage this war we ALWAYS play by OUR rules! no exception.
what i believe we cant do is play by thiers, or even worse give the president the power to make up his own as he goes along.
sure it sucks sometimes and makes it a bit harder than outright torture would, but we are americans and it's the american way.
Domestic point: Gary Ridgeway, the green river killer. society would be so much better off if we could just take a hammer and crush this bastards skull in the moment all doubt was removed that he was the man responsible for murdering over 50 women.
but this america, we follow the law and subject this POS to the judiciary and the rules and guidlines established. no exception even for something as evil as this monster.

haha looks like a good interview, go Billy go!Clinton using the "But Clinton..." excuse. Laugh out loud hilarious.

Regardless, he looks and sounds unhinged. That ABC movie really raised his hackles.

Does he really want us to believe that he didn't act on OBL's threat because Rush Limbaugh would have bitched? And who knew Tom Delay was the real Commander and Chief.

Clinton is not this stupid, but he has effectively derailed this thread and the current ongoing debate for some reason. The man is cunning.

Bise:Bise:
THe reason behind that was he didn't want the people who were trying to protect the USA being imprisoned for doing their job. ... ... if they have to put people's nuts in a vice I'm fine with that but it sucks when they get put in prison for trying to protect us.
You do realize that the President has the ability to pardon, yes? This is the answer to the 24 "omg the bomb is ticking!" scenario oft-proffered by torture's defenders. If we did have a ticking bomb, and a terrorist knew where it is, and torture was illegal, and he was tortured, and the day was saved, the President could (and I'd say should) pardon those who violated the law.

Your "whatever it takes" statements mirror much of what I see from the right. Such an abdication of our Founder's principles (or any principles at all, beyond the most primal) is a QED to my earlier posting on what "destroying our civilization" actually looks like.
Clinton using the "But Clinton..." excuse. Laugh out loud hilarious.

This is like invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion of WW2 Germany. Laugh out loud hilarious, indeed.

This is like invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion of WW2 Germany.Closer analogy would be Mike Godwin comparing Clinton's evilness to Hitler in a thread about President Bush. That would LOL Hilarious too :p

Lol

Bise:
You do realize that the President has the ability to pardon, yes? This is the answer to the 24 "omg the bomb is ticking!" scenario oft-proffered by torture's defenders. If we did have a ticking bomb, and a terrorist knew where it is, and torture was illegal, and he was tortured, and the day was saved, the President could (and I'd say should) pardon those who violated the law.

Your "whatever it takes" statements mirror much of what I see from the right. Such an abdication of our Founder's principles (or any principles at all, beyond the most primal) is a QED to my earlier posting on what "destroying our civilization" actually looks like.

This is like invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion of WW2 Germany. Laugh out loud hilarious, indeed.

It is safe to assume that there is always a ticking bomb waiting to go off now. Forces plotting against us aren't going to take the day off.

I'm not familiar with the term QED though....what does that mean?

quod erat demonstratum, or "thus it has been shown." You'll see it sometimes at the end of a paragraph, basically signifying "given the above, my point is made."

And while forces may plot against us, we have legitimate means by which to combat them. I fully believe we need not abandon our principles in order to fight the enemy. It's like beating the shit out of your kids for misbehaving.

I fully believe we need not abandon our principles in order to fight the enemy. It's like beating the shit out of your kids for misbehaving.
You just compared head chopping, hate-spewing, genocide-preaching, women-stonning, mass homocidal maniacs to a child writing on your wall with a crayon. Seriously, we're doomed if this is the level to which this debate has reached.

Anyway, I fully believe it's always wrong to punch a grandma in the face... unless of course she's pointing a gun at my head, I'm all for it. Context should mean something.

All men are created equal... unalienable rights yeah yeah yeah. Unless of course you're carrying around an old Soviet made RPG in Iraq. Then you're target practice. "Oh nos! Where's the oversight!" And we're not even at "war".

my biggest problem is that torture has been authorized for 'suspects.' This means that innocent men can be tortured because they are 'suspects.' If one can prove that someone IS a terrorist, than (and this may be hypocritical on my part) if some of the tortures laid out as legal are needed to get information from him, then do it.

Don't do it to suspects, innocent men or potentially innocent men shouldn't have to worry about being tortured for information they won't have anyways. You can get what appears to be legitimate data from a suspect that's not guilty that he can make up just to stop from being tortured.

I can agree that there may be instances where torture is necessary for the greater good... torturing people that may be innocent is NOT one of them. Proove some guilt at least in a tribunal before shocking that muslim extremist that you 'suspect' of being involved in a terror plot.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying torture is good. I'm not saying torture SHOULD be used. I'm just stating if we KNOW someone is guilty of mass terrorism, or planning mass terrorist activity, it may be necessary to get some information from them. Again though, this is against someone we could proove at least to a tribunal guilt.

It scares the piss out of me how many people get railroaded into prison in our society today because of financial means or incompetance from their legal team. A big fear of mine is being convicted of a crime I didn't commit. I can't even imagine being tortured for a crime I didn't commit or wasn't planning to commit.

You do realize that the President has the ability to pardon, yes? This is the answer to the 24 "omg the bomb is ticking!" scenario oft-proffered by torture's defenders.


This never mentioned bit of realism nicely illustrates the theatre of this whole faux debate. There is nothing in this law designed to provide any real additional legal protection to agents of the CIA -- it's real purpose is to protect people in the administration from our own criminal courts and international war-crimes courts once the puppet President is out of office in 2009. This effort has been underway since 2001, although there have been persistent efforts to immunize ourselves against international law since the Reagan administration (and for the attack dogs, yes, Clinton and Albright did it too).


In other news, a military junta just took over an Asian country I'll bet most of you can't name, and there is a major effort in the Arab world to curb nuclear proliferation, but our State department is busy picking fights with a former president over a TV show.

Seriously, we're doomed if this is the level to which this debate has reached.
We're doomed if your understanding is so thin that you mistake scale for aptness. With such understanding, no wonder you hate analogies.
Unless of course you're carrying around an old Soviet made RPG in Iraq. Then you're target practice.
People toting around rpg's very obviously aren't the subject of my posts.
my biggest problem is that torture has been authorized for 'suspects.' This means that innocent men can be tortured because they are 'suspects.'
It gets better, Taleren. Bush and House allies are trying to water down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html) the language of the latest bill further, changing the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" from someone who is "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to someone who is "engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Remember how some interpret "provide aid and comfort to the enemy" in order to accuse Americans of treason, and consider how open that wording is to similar interpretation.

In other news, a military junta just took over an Asian country I'll bet most of you can't name...
Siam! I know my RISK, I do.

I thought it was Australia?

Remember how some interpret "provide aid and comfort to the enemy" in order to accuse Americans of treason, and consider how open that wording is to similar interpretation.

Yes, and these people are in a position to to do no more than rant and rave on talk radio.

I sense a straw man around here somewhere....

The country with the two best named cities in the world... Bangkok and Phucket

People toting around rpg's very obviously aren't the subject of my posts.It would be if the innocent farmer (US Marine Sniper Victim # 346) had just found the RPG in his garden and was looking for someone to turn it in to.

Quote:
In other news, a military junta just took over an Asian country I'll bet most of you can't name...

Siam! I know my RISK, I do.Isn't said country reguarly taken over? Caught my eye, but it seems to be a regular thing there, like arguing evolution here. What's that? Bored? Time for a military coup!

Isn't said country reguarly taken over? Caught my eye, but it seems to be a regular thing there, like arguing evolution here. What's that? Bored? Time for a military coup!


Ummm, no.

So you're a president of some far off 3rd world country and you get on your jet and fly to UN for some global group hugs. While at the UN, your military surrounds your palace and say's they're king now. What the hell do you do? "oh yeah? well the jet is mine now biatches!"

Ummm, no.What the hell was I posting about?

I'd like to shift my post in the direction now of Akipt's idea.

So you're a president of some far off 3rd world country and you get on your jet and fly to UN for some global group hugs. While at the UN, your military surrounds your palace and say's they're king now. What the hell do you do? "oh yeah? well the jet is mine now biatches!"

Don't tell the lawyers, they'll try and sue him for the plane to be returned to the revolutionaries....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanyli
Isn't said country reguarly taken over? Caught my eye, but it seems to be a regular thing there, like arguing evolution here. What's that? Bored? Time for a military coup!




Ummm, no.

from cnn.com http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/19/thailand.coup.rumor/index.html

There have been 17 coups in Thailand since World War II, and rumors of an 18th have been circulating around Bangkok in recent weeks as Thaksin battled considerable pressure to step down.This is the first coup since 1992, AP reported.

Making the most recent one the 18th. Seems to be a regular thing to me. 18 coups in 60 years? A coup just about every 3 years? That sounds mighty regular to me.

Phew, thanks Taleren. I thought I'd read that somewhere, but after Bylimet's post I looked everywhere trying to find it, with no luck. I'm afraid I'm not up enough on Thailand's history to know for certain, and was too lazy to read the wiki articles counting coups.

I read about it on wikipedia the day of the coup. The information about the previous coups is not readily available now on Wikipedia, so I had to search for the information.

You want to have a coup that does something,
Day 1 - kill all lawyers
Day 2 - kill all politicians,
Day 3 -- do the happy dance.

Rev

The Onion's "American Voices" section had these opinions on the coup:

"I'm looking forward to seeing this on the political edition of While You Were Out."

"This is all in accordance with Thailand's 'Whoever sits in the President's chair is the President' policy."

"It's not the best solution to removing a corrupt leader, but it sure does the job better than the electoral college."

"It's not the best solution to removing a corrupt leader, but it sure does the job better than the electoral college."

I think Jefferson said that every generation or so there should be a revolution....
Thailand is just trying to follow the example....

Their kids must breed young if there's a revolution every 3 years (yes I'm aware this is the first one in about 15 years).

from cnn.com http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/19/thailand.coup.rumor/index.html



Making the most recent one the 18th. Seems to be a regular thing to me. 18 coups in 60 years? A coup just about every 3 years? That sounds mighty regular to me.

The number of coups does not mean one every three years. There have been some decent periods of stabilty in Thailand. But, it is really not worth arguing about. I don't consider the historical trends of Thailands coups to constitute "regular"; others do. /shrug