How's this for news, sam?

[D_Raay]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm

I don't want to hear about how you feel comfortable with this either.

Unless you think that Bush and his cronies SHOULD be above the law.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

[sam i am]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm

I don't want to hear about how you feel comfortable with this either.

Unless you think that Bush and his cronies SHOULD be above the law.

I was just WAITING for this. Bad news...all the time.

Thanks, D_Raay. You made my day.





Now....as for the actual article. In a time of war, which I believe the 9/11 attack was the start of, the Federal government invariably accrues more power unto itself (see the Civil War & WWII especially in this regard) and civil rights are temporarily suspended. Lincoln did it with habeas corpus during the Civil War and Roosevelt did it in too many instances to count during WWII (a few examples : rounding up American citizens of Japanese ancestry, FBI infiltration of the America First movement).

The GOOD news is that there is almost always a backlash, which sets things back to where they were previously, mostly. Some exceptions were Social Security, the OSS becoming the CIA, etc., et al.

We're in a partial backlash mode now, with the Patriot Act being highly questioned and crap like phone tapping coming in for greater scrutiny.

My take is the following : if it is TEMPORARY and, thus far, has precluded another 9/11 style attack in the US, then I'm willing to let it slide. I think Lincoln was right to temporarily suspend habeas corpus AND I think Roosevelt, though misinformed, was acting in what he thought was the best interests of the US when he rounded up the Americans of Japanese ancestry.

All of those instances have been thoroughly vetted and debated since thier initial institution, but it does not stop government from ALWAYS trying to accumulate more power and information. Bureaucracies are self-sustaining that way, and the more power they accrue, the more dangerous to personal liberty they become.

The most beneficent plan we can have for the future is to lower the amount of federal power and increase local accountability....hopefully ensuring the preservation of our rights and the end of a many-tentacled monster in our midst.

[D_Raay]

I was just WAITING for this. Bad news...all the time.

Thanks, D_Raay. You made my day.





Now....as for the actual article. In a time of war, which I believe the 9/11 attack was the start of, the Federal government invariably accrues more power unto itself (see the Civil War & WWII especially in this regard) and civil rights are temporarily suspended. Lincoln did it with habeas corpus during the Civil War and Roosevelt did it in too many instances to count during WWII (a few examples : rounding up American citizens of Japanese ancestry, FBI infiltration of the America First movement).

The GOOD news is that there is almost always a backlash, which sets things back to where they were previously, mostly. Some exceptions were Social Security, the OSS becoming the CIA, etc., et al.

We're in a partial backlash mode now, with the Patriot Act being highly questioned and crap like phone tapping coming in for greater scrutiny.

My take is the following : if it is TEMPORARY and, thus far, has precluded another 9/11 style attack in the US, then I'm willing to let it slide. I think Lincoln was right to temporarily suspend habeas corpus AND I think Roosevelt, though misinformed, was acting in what he thought was the best interests of the US when he rounded up the Americans of Japanese ancestry.

All of those instances have been thoroughly vetted and debated since thier initial institution, but it does not stop government from ALWAYS trying to accumulate more power and information. Bureaucracies are self-sustaining that way, and the more power they accrue, the more dangerous to personal liberty they become.

The most beneficent plan we can have for the future is to lower the amount of federal power and increase local accountability....hopefully ensuring the preservation of our rights and the end of a many-tentacled monster in our midst.

Hey I would love to report something good, but there is little of that nowadays.

I rarely watch tv, but I was greeted today by Pat Leahy's booming and passionate speech on CNN about actually having checks and balances for the executive branch which is intended in the constitution. Hard to make any excuses as he is right.

The talking points for the Republicans are marginal and lacking in the full scope of the truth, but what else is new?

Stop sticking up for this corrupt government please sam.

[sam i am]

Hey I would love to report something good, but there is little of that nowadays.

I rarely watch tv, but I was greeted today by Pat Leahy's booming and passionate speech on CNN about actually having checks and balances for the executive branch which is intended in the constitution. Hard to make any excuses as he is right.

The talking points for the Republicans are marginal and lacking in the full scope of the truth, but what else is new?

Stop sticking up for this corrupt government please sam.

My point is that it is government ITSELF which is corrupt....not just the current Admin., in YOUR estimation. Our best bet, as Americans, is to limit government as much as possible and ensure accountability, not tear each other apart with whether the Right or the Left is better or worse.

Hopefully, we can at least agree on that.

[D_Raay]

My point is that it is government ITSELF which is corrupt....not just the current Admin., in YOUR estimation. Our best bet, as Americans, is to limit government as much as possible and ensure accountability, not tear each other apart with whether the Right or the Left is better or worse.

Hopefully, we can at least agree on that.
Oh I agree with you. I just don't think you see that this current admin. is a very dangerous one. Probably moreso than any in the past.
I care little for left or right, although as long as the right chooses to align itself with Bush and his cronies, I have little sympathy for them.

The "left" quite simply makes more sense than right. At least the ones who are not afraid to speak or aren't getting their pockets lined.

[ASsman]

Hah, it's a lot more interesting than those "debates" with Gizmo. But they seem to reach the same end... hmmm..

[sam i am]

Hah, it's a lot more interesting than those "debates" with Gizmo. But they seem to reach the same end... hmmm..

The big difference, assman, is that D_Raay and I agree on the basic premises of America, including the Constitution, but do not always agree on the outcomes or what our future should be predicated upon or look like.

He and Queen and most others on this board who are American or not, TEND to feel that the "Left" has more answers and is more aligned with the paradigm they'd like to see run the country. Myself and a very few others ON THIS BOARD would like to see the "Right" continue to be preeminent and that the Right's paradigm is more aligned with how we'd liek to see the country run.

I don't HATE or even necessarily dislike those with opposing views (if I did, I'd not waste my time on a message board like this), but I do emphatically DISAGREE with those who have opposing views and would PREFER that more people followed my paradigm rather than the Left's paradigm.

So.....

I argue for my cause and to hopefully inject some balance into what I see as the right way to go.

[Ali]

Myself and a very few others ON THIS BOARD would like to see the "Right" continue to be preeminent and that the Right's paradigm is more aligned with how we'd liek to see the country run.And Iran? How would you like to see the "Right" continue there?

[synch]

Lincoln did it with habeas corpus during the Civil War and Roosevelt did it in too many instances to count during WWII (a few examples : rounding up American citizens of Japanese ancestry
How can you defend the prison camps for americans of japanese heritage?

[sam i am]

How can you defend the prison camps for americans of japanese heritage?

I wasn't defending it. I was posting it as an example of what other Prez's have done during times of war that has later been considered bad policy, but was not entirely controversial like some of Bush's decisions these days...

[sam i am]

And Iran? How would you like to see the "Right" continue there?

Nice try. You'll not trap me into aligning with the idiots on the "Far Right" in Iran because they happen to be anti-Semites and for the eradication of Jews.

Americans believe in the basic tenets of freedom and liberty (but NOT egalitarianism) and, most importantly, SELF-Determination.

The "Moderates" in Iran are much more like the Republicans in the US, if you need an apropos example.

[synch]

I wasn't defending it. I was posting it as an example of what other Prez's have done during times of war that has later been considered bad policy, but was not entirely controversial like some of Bush's decisions these days...

My take is the following : if it is TEMPORARY and, thus far, has precluded another 9/11 style attack in the US, then I'm willing to let it slide. I think Lincoln was right to temporarily suspend habeas corpus AND I think Roosevelt, though misinformed, was acting in what he thought was the best interests of the US when he rounded up the Americans of Japanese ancestry.The bold bit implies that you see it as nescessary evil. I'm not trying to nitpick here, I'm seriously curious about where you stand on this.

Does any measure need to be taken that may or may not prevent a terrorist attack despite of severe loss of civil rights both for your own citizens and non us-citizens?

Do you think a comparison between Guantanamo and the Japanese prison camps is far fetched?

The tricky part of this discussion is that it can never be proven that the "measures" have ever prevented anything although they do tend to breed more hate towards the US...

[sam i am]

The bold bit implies that you see it as nescessary evil. I'm not trying to nitpick here, I'm seriously curious about where you stand on this.

Does any measure need to be taken that may or may not prevent a terrorist attack despite of severe loss of civil rights both for your own citizens and non us-citizens?

Do you think a comparison between Guantanamo and the Japanese prison camps is far fetched?

The tricky part of this discussion is that it can never be proven that the "measures" have ever prevented anything although they do tend to breed more hate towards the US...

The big difference between the Guantanamo captives and the interment camps during WWII was in citizenship.

Roosevelt, and many Americans, were deathly afraid of a "Fifth Column" in the US that would operate internally to undermine the American military effort and align with Japan, Germany, and Italy. The American First movement, whose main bandleader was Charles Lindbergh, had advocated strongly for the US to stay out of the European war and to placate the Japanese. America First was strongly isolationist.

They, after Pearl Harbor, were strongly discredited; their position for strict neutrality became moot after Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

Japanese-Americans were then, over time, "rounded up" and interred in camps in the West, mainly. There is some history of German-Americans and Italian-Americans also being questioned or detained during thsi timeframe, albeit on a much smaller level.

The flimsiest, in retrospect, of reasons went into this : that there existed the possibility of mixed loyalties and the dreaded Fifth Column effect.

The biggest difference, in my estimation, is that these were AMERICAN citizens, often 2nd or 3rd generation, who were unjustly interred.

The enemy combatants and terrorists in Guantanamo and other facilities worldwide, on the other hand, are nearly universally of foreign citizenship, and, thus, NOT entitled to the same rights and responsibilities that are incumbent upon US citizens. Those in Guantanamo are NOT US citizens. They have committed, or planned to commit, acts of terrorism or war upon the US, and, thus, in my estimation, SHOULD be treated differently.

[synch]

The big difference between the Guantanamo captives and the interment camps during WWII was in citizenship.

Roosevelt, and many Americans, were deathly afraid of a "Fifth Column" in the US that would operate internally to undermine the American military effort and align with Japan, Germany, and Italy. The American First movement, whose main bandleader was Charles Lindbergh, had advocated strongly for the US to stay out of the European war and to placate the Japanese. America First was strongly isolationist.

They, after Pearl Harbor, were strongly discredited; their position for strict neutrality became moot after Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

Japanese-Americans were then, over time, "rounded up" and interred in camps in the West, mainly. There is some history of German-Americans and Italian-Americans also being questioned or detained during thsi timeframe, albeit on a much smaller level.

The flimsiest, in retrospect, of reasons went into this : that there existed the possibility of mixed loyalties and the dreaded Fifth Column effect.

The biggest difference, in my estimation, is that these were AMERICAN citizens, often 2nd or 3rd generation, who were unjustly interred.

The enemy combatants and terrorists in Guantanamo and other facilities worldwide, on the other hand, are nearly universally of foreign citizenship, and, thus, NOT entitled to the same rights and responsibilities that are incumbent upon US citizens. Those in Guantanamo are NOT US citizens. They have committed, or planned to commit, acts of terrorism or war upon the US, and, thus, in my estimation, SHOULD be treated differently.

They are suspected of planning or committing acts of terrorism, just like the government suspected that the japanese americans were up to something. Neither group has had a trial, neither group was convicted, neither had the right to an attorney.

The only difference between the groups are the nationalities.

What you are saying in essence is that it's wrong in one case because they were us citizens but in the case of guantanamo it's ok because they aren't.

Let's get this straight, I'm not saying each and every "inhabitant" of guantanamo is innocent but the fact remains that the basic right of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to them.

Why?

Because Bush says so.

Meh.

The thing that bothers me so much about guantanamo and the wire taps is that they do whatever they want under the guise of "we are preventing" when nobody can tell whether it is helping or not. If there is another attack of any kind they'll only want more power to do things. I don't see a way back from all of this. Do you?

[D_Raay]

And therein lies the more serious problem... I don't think any of us would argue with them listening in on a suspected terrorist, be they American or not, were this the whole of the issue.

By bypassing judicial oversight, Bush has made an explainable situation that could be documented into one that is sinister by nature.

[D_Raay]

Actually, my council is DON'T be afraid. Don't even care. Don't pay attention. Let them listen. It's a waste of their time and money if they actually are doing anything.

Ask why this has become a scandal right now? There is no secret to the fact that the NSA, via ECHELON, has been spying on Americans for decades. Why is it a big scandal now?

Because Bush WANTS you to know you are being spied on, to discourage you from sharing what you know with friends and family. The government and the mainstream media are losing the PR battle to justify Iraq, explain away the lies used to start that war, let alone sell new wars in Syria and Iran. Despite paying journalists for positive propaganda, and literally ordering military on leave to "talk up" the war, support for the government is cratering. The government has failed to control or disrupt the Internet, so the only thing they can try to do is trick the people who are getting the facts from the blogs into not sharing what they know with people still getting their "reality" from ABCNNBBCBS&FOX. Hence, the "revelation" that the NSA is spying on all of our communications.

Oooooh, scary! Scary, scary NSA. Better not say anything, or write anything to your friends; the spooks might be peeking!

Well, let them peek. Having an opinion is still not a crime in this country (yet), and the existence of elections, even if rigged, is tacit approval of holding an opposing viewpoint. If recent polls are to be believed, there are 200 million Americans who think Bush is full of USDA choice bovine excrement, and the NSA cannot possibly listen to all of them, no matter how many computers they have.

So, listen away, NSA. I guess it beats having to do real work to earn a living, doesn't it? Be a sneak, be a snitch, be a spy, spend your evenings jerking off to old James Bond movies, right? Only other choice was McDonald's for a person with your unique qualifications, eh?

[Ali]

Oooooh, scary! Scary, scary NSA. Better not say anything, or write anything to your friends; the spooks might be peeking!There's one reading this right now...

Hello spook!

[sam i am]

hello :cool:

[Ali]

hello :cool:Ah. I thought you were working for the guvvamint and now I have PROOF!

[sam i am]

Ah. I thought you were working for the guvvamint and now I have PROOF!

You have nothing.....


NOTHING!!!! :D