|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
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.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 30 of 404:
|
Dec 28 19:37 UTC 2005 |
Re #28:
yep tod, of course.
Which switch into another array of possible problems.
But then why so much ado about home-wiretapping?
I feel that if it's really being implemented, it's a waste of big $$$.
Just not efficient, inadequate tool for the task.
|
jep
|
|
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 404:
|
Dec 28 19:54 UTC 2005 |
re #30
Home...business...campaign financial centers...who knows?
|
richard
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 34 of 404:
|
Dec 28 20:23 UTC 2005 |
re #31
I see it pretty often among people that think they're among WASPs so they feel
comfortable complaining about all the political correctness that offends them:
"Why don't they speak OUR language?" "This country was founded by Christians
so love it or leave it" "May G-d Bless America"
Nothing takes the fizz out of soda pop in a conversation quicker than
giving the opposing viewpoint to some good ol boy that thinks the bible
was written in English and John Wayne was a war hero.
|
happyboy
|
|
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 404:
|
Dec 28 20:53 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:3: What is there to say about a party that spent more time
listening to sworn testimony about Clinton's Christmas card list than
about Abu Ghraib? The simple fact is they will look the other way at
anything Bush does. If Clinton had been accused of domestic spying,
the walls of the Capitol would have been shaken by the sheer force of
Republican outrage. In fact, that's exactly what will happen if a
Democratic President ever tries to use the expanded executive
privileges Bush and Cheney have been trying to carve out for
themselves.
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 noticed today that some right-wing commentators are trying to weasel
out of this one with semantics. Now, apparently, what Bush did wasn't
"wiretapping," it was "data mining."
|
twenex
|
|
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:01 UTC 2005 |
It's a moot point, since there's very little chance things will ever
actually end up that way.
|
marcvh
|
|
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 40 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:09 UTC 2005 |
gull said:
"I think they're fine with democracy as long as
God-fearing Christians hold all the levers of power."
When all the levers of power are controlled by one group of people who
think and worship in only one way, you don't need a democracy, or
separate branches of power anymore. You don't need judges or
legislators. You just need somebody to be the King to the followers,
to preach so they can say "preach on!"
|
klg
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:20 UTC 2005 |
Majority of votes or majority of what?
|
jadecat
|
|
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 44 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:29 UTC 2005 |
That is too sad to be funny. The religious right has been pursuing its
agenda by trying to elect legislators and executives who are supportive
of their views.
The leftists/liberals, on the other hand, now unable to gain electoral
marjorities and gain their way democratically, run to the courts to get
it undemocratically.
|
marcvh
|
|
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?
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:39 UTC 2005 |
FISA is like that fire alarm you see on the wall. You shouldn't be pulling
it every couple hours. GW is way out of line.
|
klg
|
|
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.)
|
khamsun
|
|
response 48 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:47 UTC 2005 |
Re #44:
>run to the court to get it undemocratically
wait: like in 2000, the supreme one (court), to decide if Dubya did win or
not the presidential election?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 49 of 404:
|
Dec 28 21:53 UTC 2005 |
Does the FISA court have the power to interpret the law, or not?
|
richard
|
|
response 50 of 404:
|
Dec 28 22:24 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 51 of 404:
|
Dec 28 22:58 UTC 2005 |
In 1978, after revelations that President Nixon had used the NSA to
spy on his domestic enemies, Congress enacted a law making it illegal
to wiretap a U.S. citizen without permission from a secret national
security court.
We are talking about Bush spying on U.S. Citizens. There are no
exceptions to this law.
klg if in fact Bush has violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which I will link here so you can read it:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.ht
ml
If Bush has in fact intentionally violated that act, broken the law,
and infringed upon the fourth amendment rights of american citizens,
isn't that wrong? Doesn't Bush deserve to be impeached if this is the
case, as it appears to be?
|
richard
|
|
response 52 of 404:
|
Dec 28 23:02 UTC 2005 |
here's the relevant part of the above linked law:
"
1804. Applications for court orders
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General;
contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under
this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon
oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803
of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the
Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria
and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter.
It shall include
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President
of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make
the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the
electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the
applicant to justify his belief that
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic
surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and
the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the
surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch
official or officials designated by the President from among those
executive officers employed in the area of national security or
defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be
foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain
foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal
investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being
sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of
this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence
information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal
investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be
effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect
the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that
have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the
persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the
action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic
surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the
intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of
electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically
terminate when the described type of information has first been
obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional
information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other
surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular
proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved
and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each
device.
(b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets
Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power,
as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each
of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is
owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the
application need not contain the information required by paragraphs
(6), (7)(E), (8), and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but
shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the
surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance
techniques and communications or other information concerning United
States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the
proposed minimization procedures.
(c) Additional affidavits or certifications
The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification
from any other officer in connection with the application.
(d) Additional information
The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information
as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section
1805 of this title.
(e) Personal review by Attorney General
(1)
(A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or
the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General shall
personally review under subsection (a) of this section an application
under that subsection for a target described in section 1801 (b)(2) of
this title.
(B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request
referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that
subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred
to in that subparagraph.
(C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to
make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions
in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly
established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise
unavailable to make such request.
(2)
(A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney
General determines not to approve an application under the second
sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the
application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide
written notice of the determination to the official making the request
for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when
disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the
preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the
responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The
Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure
that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the
event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to
make such determination.
(B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall
set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are
necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application
under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for
purposes of making the application under this section.
(C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under
subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under
this paragraph shall modify the application if such official
determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall
supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph.
Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making
of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may
not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any
modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall
take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such
responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is
disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such
modification. "
Bush didn't just violate the intent of this section, he violated the
letter of it. He disregarded the entire section of this law, in cases
where the Courts rejected his requests.
|
jep
|
|
response 53 of 404:
|
Dec 29 14:26 UTC 2005 |
I get the feeling that a lot of people (here and of course elsewhere)
are on one side or the other, and they don't really care what's right
or wrong, they care about scoring points on the other side or defending
their side from having points scored on it.
If you attacked Clinton for wrongdoing in the Monica Lewinsky mess,
then you've established at least that you expect honesty (and
integrity) from the president. I did this. So did klg.
Now the next president has committed dishonesty, and shown a lack of
integrity. He's gone much further; he's shown a flagrant lack of
commitment to the Constitution.
I've denounced this. I do not understand why klg is not doing so as
well if he has principles and standards for the behavior of the
president.
It cuts the other way, too. Many people here said that Clinton's
scandal was entirely personal. When he wagged his finger and lied on
national TV, he showed he was willing to abuse his presidential power
to evade the consequences of his personal actions. That made it a
national political issue. (How in the world can anyone believe a man
who would do that, would NOT very possibly do other things, more
important but less visible, to cover up his personal problems? You
DON'T believe Clinton would have sold a nuclear weapon to Osama bin
Laden if it would have allowed him to escape his national embarrassment
and impeachment?)
Those who are currently attacking Bush, but who defended Clinton -- at
least it seems possible that Bush is *trying* to do something positive
and in the interests of the American people. Even if he's misguided,
he seems to be trying to defend the country from terrorists. Clinton
was driven from the course of good governance by mere personal pleasure.
It seems to me that both categories, of people who defend one president
but attack the other, are motivated by wanting to defend their side and
overlook it's shortcomings. I don't understand that, not on Grex. It
annoys me much more when my side turns out to be wrong -- as Bush is
now turning out to be wrong -- than when the other side is committing
crimes and evil. I expect my side to be good; that's why I am on the
side that I am.
|