|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
manthac
|
|
response 225 of 404:
| 
Jan 17 00:25 UTC 2006 |
bush has done nothing but make this country a worse place and he should really
be inpeached..
|
nharmon
|
|
response 226 of 404:
|
Jan 17 04:04 UTC 2006 |
It sure is easy to lay blame on one person and not on ourselves, isn't
it Josh?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 227 of 404:
|
Jan 17 04:50 UTC 2006 |
What can the ourselves do about the egregious mistakes of Bush, except speak
out to the extent one finds comfortable, and vote?
|
klg
|
|
response 228 of 404:
|
Jan 17 11:39 UTC 2006 |
Worse than what? Being incinerated?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 229 of 404:
|
Jan 17 13:19 UTC 2006 |
Yes because so many Americans were being incinerated before Bush took
office...
|
klg
|
|
response 230 of 404:
|
Jan 17 17:06 UTC 2006 |
You mean like the prior bombing of the WTC,Khobar Towers & the US Cole?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 231 of 404:
|
Jan 17 17:15 UTC 2006 |
KLG likes the "fear card". I like the "civil rights" card. KLG assumes
that everything bad that can happen is being reduced by starting a war,
invading American citizens privacy and Constitutional rights, etc. I think
that much more can be done to defend ourselves from terrorists and
encourage the spread of democracy without violating the Constitution or
turning potential friends into enemies, by more intelligent and measured
and Constitutonal actions.
|
klg
|
|
response 232 of 404:
|
Jan 17 17:48 UTC 2006 |
Curl fails to realize that the U.S. is under attack and is engaged in a
war, necessitating some adjustment in how we weight the necessity of
self-defense versus individual rights.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 233 of 404:
|
Jan 17 17:54 UTC 2006 |
How far would you adjust the balance toward self-defence, klg? And
for how long?
|
twenex
|
|
response 234 of 404:
|
Jan 17 18:01 UTC 2006 |
Curl fails to realize that the U.S. is under attack
It is? Gee, I must've missed all those reports on the news last night about
strikes against US interests in the Middle East and bombing raids on the
mainland.
Which considering the incessant blather in the weeks after 9/11, is pretty
strange, don'tcha think?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 235 of 404:
|
Jan 17 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Re #232: the only attack we appear to be under is a result of the unprovoked
invasion of another country, and the "enemy" there is finding plenty of
opportunity to inflict injury to us on-site. All of that could have been
avoided by the intelligent application of information about the real
situations, rather than looking for excuses for belligerency.
Whatever degree of "self defense" we have due to the intelligence operations
we undertake can be accomplished equally or better by Constitutional means.
There is enormous waste in chasing thousands of fruitless leads, from
inspecting "grandmothers" an kids at airports to listening in on thousands
of innocent telephone and e-mail exchanges, while enormous piles of legally
intercepted communications in Arabic go untranslated, and communications
between intelligence agencies remain poor.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 236 of 404:
|
Jan 17 18:18 UTC 2006 |
Individual rights are a form of self-defense, namely defense from your
own government. You're talking about national defense.
|
jep
|
|
response 237 of 404:
|
Jan 17 19:58 UTC 2006 |
A collection of groups have filed lawsuits in Detroit and New York
federal courts to stop the Bush Administration's eavesdropping.
In New York, the lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional
Rights on behalf of their group and some individuals.
In Detroit, the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of the ACLU,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several
individuals, according to the news on Comcast.net.
|
klg
|
|
response 238 of 404:
|
Jan 17 20:11 UTC 2006 |
(I hope this is not an indication that Curl is getting Alzheimer's.)
A collection of such groups could be assembled to stop President Bush
from going for a walk.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 239 of 404:
|
Jan 17 20:23 UTC 2006 |
Depends whose rights he's walking on.
I suspect these legal actions will either get tossed out on some sort of
technicality involving standing or the like, or else will get delayed until
they are largely moot. But there is the off chance of a smackdown.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 240 of 404:
|
Jan 17 21:26 UTC 2006 |
"... delayed until they are largely moot." Considering that the New York Times
delayed something like a year before releasing the story, how long would that
be?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 241 of 404:
|
Jan 17 21:54 UTC 2006 |
Until we "win" the "War on Terror"?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 242 of 404:
|
Jan 17 21:56 UTC 2006 |
Given the advances the so-called "civil libertarians" are making in *other*
areas, I suspect we're more likely to *lose* it than win. (But that's an
argument for another day in another item.)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 243 of 404:
|
Jan 17 22:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #240: For example, if the Bush admin is out of power by the time
there is a ruling, and the new administration doesn't follow up on
this particular program, then it might be moot. If the plaintiff dies
before the legal system completes its process, then it might be moot.
And so on.
The courts might rule anyway, as they are doing in the Jose Padilla case.
Moot cases can still be useful for deciding larger issues and setting
precedents.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 244 of 404:
|
Jan 17 23:07 UTC 2006 |
BTW, Re #242, what exactly would "losing the war on terror" look like?
Would that mean that terrorists would invade the United States and take
control of our territory, deposing our government and installing their
own puppet regime? Or what?
I'm also not sure what it would mean to "win" it. Many people,
including the president, think that it's not possible to win it:
"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create
conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool
are less acceptable in parts of the world." -GWB, August 2004
|
cyklone
|
|
response 245 of 404:
|
Jan 18 02:19 UTC 2006 |
So we should give up certain civil liberties for as long as it takes us to
fight a war that can't be won?
|
richard
|
|
response 246 of 404:
|
Jan 18 02:36 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU today filed suit against the National Security Agency for
illegal spying.
The case is ACLU v NSA, and it was filed today, 2/17/06, in federal
district court in Michigan, listing the ACLU of Michigan as co-lead
plaintiff.
Here are the other plaintiffs:
NSA Lawsuit - Stop Illegal Surveillance
ACLU, ACLU of Michigan and co-plaintiffs:
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Rabiah Ahmed
Arsalan T. Iftikhar
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Joshua Dratel (Statement)
Nancy Hollander (Statement)
Greenpeace (Statement)
James Bamford, journalist/author (Statement)
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (Statement)
Christopher Hitchens, journalist/author (Statement)
Tara McKelvey, journalist/author
Barnett Rubin, New York University Center on International Cooperation
|
richard
|
|
response 247 of 404:
|
Jan 18 02:41 UTC 2006 |
Open letter released today from the President of the American Civil
Liberties Union"
"For over eighty-five years the ACLU and its members have been there to
stand up for freedom when our leaders disregard and defy the
Constitution.
We follow in that tradition today with the filing of ACLU v. NSA, a
lawsuit seeking an end to the secret program of illegal electronic
surveillance, authorized by President Bush.
Our lawsuit claims that this spying program violates Americans' rights
to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the
Constitution and that the president has exceeded the limits of
executive authority under separation of powers principles.
The suit was filed in federal district court in Michigan, on behalf of
several prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national
nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate
by phone and email with people in the Middle East.
Though our president claims he can authorize warrantless spying on
Americans, this surveillance program is illegal. The ACLU has launched
an intensive effort to put an end to the program and restore lawfulness
to government and law enforcement activities.
In addition to the ACLU v. NSA lawsuit, we've launched a multi-channel
ad campaign, a widespread call for congressional hearings, and are
urging the appointment of a special counsel who can independently
investigate the actions of this administration and prosecute any and
all crimes committed.
In the coming days, watch for news about our suit and other continuing
efforts. Partisans in Washington have already been scrambling to
undermine inquiries into the NSA scandal, but this lawsuit is grounded
in our most basic American principles, and not driven by the tides of
politics or spin.
Please continue to stand with us. Look for our advertisements in print
and on the Web. Join our call for a special counsel and urge your
friends to do the same. Your support has been, and will continue to be,
fundamental to our success.
I'm never more proud to lead the ACLU than on days like today when we
take the bold steps needed to preserve fundamental Constitutional
principles. Through our actions, we will see that justice prevails.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director"
The case paperwork and other details are at
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/
With the ACLU of Michigan as co-plaintiff, I wonder if dave cahill--
grex's resident aclu guy-- is involved.
Remember too that GREX was itself once the lead co-plaintiff in an ACLU
case. ACLU and Cyberspace Communications v Michigan.
|
cross
|
|
response 248 of 404:
|
Jan 18 03:47 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 249 of 404:
|
Jan 18 03:54 UTC 2006 |
What happened to the war on poverty - did we win it yet?
|