Something we can all agree on

I'd like to take my hat off to whoever started this thread (I didn't see the OP), not because of the subject matter, but the very idea of "Something we can all agree on" on USENET - especially SED - is priceless ;)

Bob

Ok - I'm a viewer. What do you think my motivations are here, and how does that affect my views? I suppose, like all observers, I'm subjective and biased - but being on the outside looking in at least gives me a better chance at objectivity than being on the inside. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Bush, and his long record of incompetences, failures, deceptions, and self-serving abuses of both the USA and the rest of the world makes him an obvious choice for blame. We are talking about image here - his image is so bad, that it is not enough for him to be innocent of a given failing - he is in the position of having to prove it.

Looking more generally at motivations of Bush-haters, you'll find most of us, whether non-Americans, or Bush-hating Americans (a.k.a. "leftist weenies" by fundamentalists with little understanding and even less will to learn), want nothing more than a strong USA based on the American constitution, and American ideals. It is an American ideal to treat all people as equals, with due respect and consideration, regardless of who they are and where they live. It is an American ideal to believe in truth and honesty, to believe in true representative democracy, to believe in innocent until proven guilty, to believe in religious and personal freedom. America used to be run that way. There were a great many evils done by the USA, especially abroad, but they were outweighed by the good done by the USA. Now the reverse is true (or becoming true), and the "idea" of America is being destroyed by Bush and his gang. I don't want America to fail, I don't want it to suffer economic, military or diplomatic problems. I want a strong America as perceived by its founders. I suspect it may come to a terrible fall first, if it continues down its current path - but I hope not for all our sakes.

Apparently you've missed the executive orders signed by Clinton and Carter, authorizing exactly the same things. And the fact that none of this is news to Congress. Hell, it was probably a Congressman who leaked it.

And acting to defend the country isn't High Treason. You'd probably want to impeach him for parking his limo in a bus stop.

John

...

...

...

LOL! Whichever period it was that they wrote the 6th grade history books about. ;-)

Well, I think people are pretty much noticing Iraq and Afghanistan, and looking at the US's track record, and seeing what a corrupt administration we've been saddled with.

Apparently you've missed the item that Dubya has been rationalizing illegal, unconstitutional wiretaps. That's a direct violation of the Constitution, and the Congress needs to bring him up on charges of High Treason.

Thanks, Rich

Another bit of complete asinine falsehood you can't back up.

Rich missed the whole bloomin' Constitution. Even if the "wiretaps" were illegal or unconstitutional. they wouldn't be treasonous.

Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."), in any form.

I don't believe anyone can say that the "wiretaps" were giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the US.

Best guess is Rockefeller.

Anything W does (or doesn't do) is reason for a screech from Rich, Win (and their leader Howie Dean). Hate clouds the mind.

Actually, yes, because that's pretty much what the press presented.

The two neighborhoods hit worst were the Ninth Ward, mostly poor and black, and the Lakefront, fancy, rich, and mostly white. Hurricanes don't discriminate.

John

How does this differ from ECHELON? (Or is ECHELON supposed to be a myth?)

Since we agree (pretty much) on the stuff above, I should probably snip it - but it's just too much of a rarity to be deleted.

The ideals came in steps, starting with religious freedoms from the very first European settlers (it was a major reason for many of the first immigrants), through the War of Independence (gaining democratic rights and personal freedoms) and the Civil War (extending human rights to everyone). Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that America used to be run that way at any particular time, but there was certainly a time in which American leaders believed in such ideals, which are to a fair extent the basis for your constitution.

Yes - Iraq being the clearest and most prominent example, followed perhaps by the attempts to bully the UN, a total disregard for the environment, and increasing conditions on international aid (such as forcing religious fanatic ideas on family planning and AIDS charity work).

Civil rights, like the right for the president to illegally authorize secret police to spy on American citizens? You have a perfectly good legal system in place allowing spying according to court order for the purposes of criminal investigation - the laws are there to protect your liberties while allowing law enforcement agencies to keep you safe. And don't give me any of this "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" crap:

Q: Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York? A: I refuse to answer that question. Q: Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago? A: I refuse to answer that question. Q: Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami? A: No.

Having your personal privacy, except in extreme cases where there is little doubt (according to a fair judge) of your danger to society, is an essential civil right.

Or how about the rights to fair trials - that apparently doesn't apply if you are an "enemy combatant", whether you are an American citizen or not, nor do your rights as a soldier under the Geneva Convention. Your human rights regarding torture seem pretty flimsy too, especially (but not only) if you are not American. And I always thought the Declaration of Independence contained the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", rather than just applying to American citizens that Bush happens to like.

They were by no means perfect (with slavery being a particular low point), but their aims were high, especially compared to other countries at the time. Of course they didn't let their women vote - nobody else did either, it was not part of the way *any* country was run at the time. The old ideals need modernisation, but in the right direction - such as an increase in democracy by making voting more accessible for everyone, rather than a reduction in democracy by the sorts of corruption and vote rigging we have seen in the USA in recent years.

You assume I meant only blacks by 'have nots ' ?

Graham

Nah, he hit the nail on the head: Hate clouds the mind. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

he

can

it's fairly certain t hat Echelon is operational:

The way I understood Echelon, its automated searches provided some of the legal basis for the FISA warrants.

I still don't understand why the warrantless searches are necessary. The US FBI, CIA and NSA already have the legal power to apply a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours. And that will keep the evidence legal for use in criminal prosecution.

You answered your own question. We are simply listening, hoping to intercept terrorist activity. So... no evidence intercepted, no warrant.

...Jim Thompson

Apparently, having international telephone conversations with known foreign terrorists is not "probable cause" for listening to what they're saying.

John

decided

he

our

US

use

Really? What newspaper are you reading out there?

US

use

I don't see how you draw that conclusion from the article you cited.

the

The

for

Was that an answer (or a refusal to answer) to my question, or just a general comment?

You need the warrant to enter into evidence.

...Jim Thompson

Actually I subscribe to both a moderate newspaper, The East Valley Tribune, AND the leftist weenie newspaper, The Arizona Republic.

I also listen to Air America, "As the Stomach Turns", starring Al Franken ;-)

...Jim Thompson