response 23 of 404:

Dec 28 16:43 UTC 2005

klg is, as usual, using half-truths.  It is true that the president can,
in some limited circumstances, order wiretaps without a warrant, and
that federal courts have interpreted the law this way (despite klg's
strange belief that they lack the authority to do so.)  It also appears
to be true that many of the wiretaps ordered by the administration
exceeded these limited circumstances.

response 25 of 404:

Dec 28 18:23 UTC 2005

Gosh it pains me to agree with anything said by the ACLU.  But I pretty 
much agree with what richard posted in resp:22.

response 27 of 404:

Dec 28 18:53 UTC 2005

Re #4:
> The country has been invaded.

??? the evening of Xmas, while americans were around their trees, evil
communists did cross over the Bering and (re-)took Alaska by surprise?

Anyways, while people chat so much about Emperor Dubya being this or that,
I still am very amazed by that NSA/wiretapping/... thing.
Down to the facts:
--> evildoers are aliens, out there somewhere
--> in the outside universe, out there, people do not speak english, excepted
Tony Blair, aussie John Howard, and few frozen Canadians, who are to be
considered as belonging more or less to the Empire (excepted funny french
speaking quebeckers) and then are friendly and nice to Dubya
--> so, the threat doesn't speak english
--> does NSA &co. employ enough linguists to catch what evildoers are talking
about?
The government is wiretapping noise in fact?
Say few young educated neo-islamists of french citizenship do travel to the
US, which is no problem, does the "intelligence" expect they will discuss
their plot in a transparent manner over their cell phones, in clear english?
If the guys are using suburban french slang together, very few linguists could
be able to understand, even native frenchies.Keep in mind that linguists
working at NSA must be american citizens and pass strong security clearance
inquiries...

cojones! 

response 29 of 404:

Dec 28 19:34 UTC 2005

See here's the thing, the far right wing christian right has never 
really liked democracy.  They want the government to be an extension of 
their religion, and christianity is not a democracy.  It is a 
monarchy.  So those on the far right not only have no problem with the 
executive branch usurping the powers of the judicial and legislative 
branches, they expect and want that to happen.  A democracy, in their 
minds, can only exist to allow equal voice to representations of faiths 
and beliefs other than their own.  If you believe there is only one 
voice, you only want to follow the person who is best designated to 
follow that voice.

klg is a monarchist.  he has no use for athiest judges or liberal 
lawmakers.  Just give him "god" and a King/President who leads the 
congregation.

response 31 of 404:

Dec 28 19:53 UTC 2005

re resp:29: Some time in your life, at some point, I bet you came 
across actual evidence for that wild point of view.  Care to share 
anything of it with the rest of us?  Or just your conclusions?

response 33 of 404:

Dec 28 20:10 UTC 2005

re #31 what is "wild" about that point of view?  There are in fact some 
people who cannot and will not separate their political philosophies 
from their religious philosophies.  So to them, if their religious 
beliefs are for one "god" and one set of beliefs, you are pre-
conditioned to follow the lead of the few, or the one, not the many.  
Democracy is accepting different, multiple, leaders.  It is following 
the lead of the many.  For some of the christian far right, what they 
want is an all powerful executive branch with a President who is an 
evangelical born again right winger who will follow the DIVINE laws of 
the church in all ways.  They don't want more than one lawmaker anymore 
than they want one god.  

response 35 of 404:

Dec 28 20:30 UTC 2005

those very same wasps wouldn't recognise franklin's or
jefferson's *christianity*, i'll betcha.

response 37 of 404:

Dec 28 20:56 UTC 2005

The question is, how democratic is a system in which "God-fearing" Christians
hold all the levers of power, if the country where it applies isn't composed
solely of GFC's?

response 39 of 404:

Dec 28 21:03 UTC 2005

Well, 75% (roughly) of the population is Christian, but I'm not sure how
to measure the percentage of them who are "God fearing" as opposed to
"God loving" or "God ignoring."

If you favor democracy so long as it gives the outcome you want, then
you don't really favor democracy at all.

response 41 of 404:

Dec 28 21:13 UTC 2005

Now.  If Richard could explain to me how it is that what he calls
illegal wiretaps could result in charges being dismissed when all over
the news the commentators are saying that the administration knew that
anything discovered in those taps could not be used in legal proceedings
against those whose conversations were being monitored?  (Further, using
information from the wiretaps against those individuals would have blown
the government's cover, so - even if the government had wanteded to use
information from the the wiretaps as evidence - it would have had a
greater incentive not to.)  (Does Richard think, or does he just pound
on   his keyboard hoping some of his lies might make sense to some
people?)

VanHeyningen:  If it "appears" that the wiretaps exceeded the "limited
circumstances, why doesn't he edify us as to how they did so?


Curl tells us how the administration was the reason for the fact that
the terrorists found out about the wiretaps.  No.  That is the fault of
the stupid New York Times for publishing, in a time of war, the
classified information.  How much harder are they going to try to see to
it that New York City is hit again??


Here's a tid bit for Richard.  It took me about 3 seconds to find a
multitude of sites discussing the fact that warrantless wiretaps were
approved by the FISA Court.  When is he going to start paying attention?

http://www.slate.com/id/2070287
". . . The FISA court permits warrantless government surveillance so
long as the primary purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence
information. Under FISA, the government needn't show probable cause that
a crime has occurred. . . "


The more I read the writings of the ACLU, the more I become convinced
that it is one big joke preying upon the weakminded.


Richard knows about as much factual information about the Christian
right as he knows about most other subject.  Hardly anything.  Can't he
find way to debate other than calling me names?  I doubt it.  (John,
asking Richard to support his rantings with facts is like asking river
to flow backwards - a waste of time.)


What VanHeyningen and Richard have a hard time understanding is that in
a democracy there's something called rule of the majority.  If they have
better ideas, they have to convince enough people to support them. 
Obviously, they are unable to do that, so all they have left are lies,
invectives, and complaints.

response 43 of 404:

Dec 28 21:22 UTC 2005

resp:36 "Re resp:33: I disagree.  I think they're fine with democracy
as long as God-fearing Christians hold all the levers of power.  If you'll
allow me a little constructive criticism, richard -- I think you often damage
your own arguments by overstating them. "

I must agree. And in fact had mentioned this very thing to my husband at
lunch today. My hubby's views are probably just as left as Richard's,
and he thinks the right-wing is evil incarnate, but he doesn't quite
step as far out there in the argument. Usually.

response 45 of 404:

Dec 28 21:35 UTC 2005

Too bad klg failed middle school history, where you learn that the Founding
Fathers feared unchecked mob rule and wanted a variety of protections
against it including independent courts.

Again, tell me why I should accept the FISA court's interpretation of the
law?  Do they have the power to interpret the law or not?

response 47 of 404:

Dec 28 21:40 UTC 2005

Independent courts, but not an independent legislature and an
independent judiciary??  (But I admire your attempt to keep up the
argument, regardless of how sour your grapes get.)