Organized crime, gangs, and drug cartels can all have their roots in foreign countries. The problem spills over into our borders. ..furthermore, you make it sound like we actually have controlled these wars. Drugs and gangs are still prevalent across the country.

Furthermore, what this thread is about is the internal wiretapping of citizens within the country. Whether the war on terror is being fought over seas or not, the implications of it affect us domestically.

Democracy does not exclude terrorism. While it may make it less likely, there is still more than enough terrorist actions in that arises domestically within democratic countries. The Weather Underground, McViegh, eco-terrorists, white supremacy groups, and a whole bunch more. Thats just in our country. England, as I recall has had its fair share of problems too (or have we all forgotten about the Troubles and the IRA?)

So no, democracy will not solve the problem of terrorism.


See above.

I agree with you on that one. The majority will choose peace. However, there is always going to be a fringe minority that will not. Free speech or not, democracy will not solve the terrorism problem.

I understand that. What I am saying is that you are justifying the removal of rights by the fight against terrorism, and that the fight will never end in the conceivable future. Practically, you are asking for those rights to be revoked permanently.

Sure sure. What I would ask though is that we do not lose ground in our freedoms in the attempt to gain ground against terror.

What alternatives? You are doing imaginary math here. You are placing the unmeasurable and unknowable improvement of security granted by warrantless wiretaps against the almost assured chance of government abuse. By all means the NSA should be keeping an eye on terrorists, they simply need to obtain warrants to do so.

Take the Founding Fathers' then...

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
Thomas Jefferson

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?"
James Madison

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
James Madison

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy..."
Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

...I think you get the idea

And they mean everything to the people that are still alive. If by some bizarre twist of fate I do die through prohibiting the NSA to wiretap without a warrant, then I will die content in the knowledge that my family still has that right available.


We are at risk from innumerable things every single day of our lives. Simply being alive means you are at risk. This is what I mean by a nation of scared suburbanites. Granting warrantless wiretaps is an inconsequential increase of temporary safety for an assured violation of your rights.

Whether or not most Americans are (do you have a source for this claim?) it doesn't mean they are correct. We sadly are a country that does not know our own history, and the importance of the high ideals we are founded on.

I'd rather not take that chance. I don't trust most of this Congress any farther than I can spit.

Good to hear.

The war on terror is being used as justification for this bill by you and Congressman. I was saying that even if that justification disappeared we would still be hard pressed to revoke this power if it were granted.

Again, only when necessary. You are still making vague allegations of risk and danger. What proof do you have that passing this law is needed to prevent immediate and assured danger to national security? Is it only this bill you think we need, or should we even extend taps to domestic calls of all Americans?

Oh no, I promise I will only have a computer analyze the content of the files... But obviously that isn't enough for you. You understand the point that once it is on my computer it is easy for me to examine it. And you rightly don't trust my word on that. Why is government any different? It is made up of fallible corrupt men just like any other aspect of society.

The history of powerful clandestine organizations should make you realize the folly of this statement. I cannot see how you could be convinced that not one corrupt politician, spook, or hacker will use the vast amounts of data logged to their own ends.

I'm not worried about the listening to every call. I'm worried about them illegally listening to some calls. Technically, only one.

Maybe you don't understand this point, and that is where this whole argument is coming from? A warrant is permission from the Judicial branch for the Executive branch to perform surveillance. It lays out the conditions of the wiretapping, and makes sure that there is probable cause to listen in to the suspect. It gives permission for the government to engage in an act that would normally not be allowed, but makes sure that action is done with discretion according to the law. It provides a check against the ambitions of one section of the government with the oversight and discretion of another.

Demonstrate in concrete terms how not granting the government access to warrantless wiretaps causes an immediate and unavoidable danger to me. Yes this is hard, but if you are going to rob me of a fundamental right, I should expect no less.

While I will of course be crushed by their death, no I would not have a different view. Just as if I watched a family member be shot I would not support suspending the Right to Bear Arms. Or if they were called a nasty name I would not support suspending Free Speech.

"Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry


The Judicial branch provides this check through warrants...



And they did in the precedents I cited, most notably Katz v. United States.


Where?


While it was a terrible and tragic event, the country didn't crumble into the sea. The sad reality is that terrorism is a fact in these times, and while deaths may happen, we need to keep our head up and not violate our principles in the face of it.

Your cognitive dissonance is stunning. You stated that tapping international calls would provide us with an increase in security. Surely if we tapped into the conversations of every American, on the phone or not, the increase in security would be even greater.

However, that is obviously a violation of our fundamental rights, just as this is, and is abhorrent to our sense of dignity and justice, just as this bill should be. The premises and logic are not any different.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

What we agree on is, people were tapped, so what, it is not you that makes our laws, you may not like it, but that is the way it is, and that is the point, old laws changed, new laws implimented, and that is the way it is.

All I can say now is, Merry Christmas, enjoy the ride, because the dems are on Americas side, and we will catch this scum. I'd suggest not contacting anyone in the middle east, because you will be caught.

I was in Vietnam, and we will hunt you down, and take you out. We didn't lose any war in Vietnam, and we lost no battles, we just left, end of story. America is still the king of the hill, no matter how much those that hate us, we are supreme, we can kick anyone on this planets ass, and that is the bottom line, the same happened in Nam, the same will happen in the war on terror. Fu*k with the bull, and you will get the horns.

The unity in this nation was so awesome when we got whacked, and if it happens again, those that complain about this goofy stuff, will be silenced, and you can bank on that.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Well, I can appreciate that perspective. But ah... from where I stand, that's pretty much an "ostrich mentality".

My model is a little different: our idiot C-in-C, had a horrible over-reaction to what was essentially a large-scale Columbine, and it cause him to do the following things:

a) start two wars, one of which was unquestionably a "war of choice"
b) get this nation into more debt than it's ever been in before
c) wave his hands over international treaties in violation of hte Constitution
d) wave his hands over citizens' Rights in violation of the Constitution
e) ....... we don't have to go on, do we?

I mean, we've basically undergone a "horrible over-reaction" during the last six years, and we still don't have Osama's head on a platter.

So if it makes you feel good to say "we're still the king of the hill", well then, knock yourself out. I don't see what good that does, but I mean if it helps you, personally, then I got no problem with it.

Try not to convince me it makes sense in national foreign policy though, 'cause I wouldn't be buyin' that.

Nah, you come to the table with that kind of mentality, and all that's gonna happen is two things: a) people are gonna want to find a way to laugh at you, and b) they're gonna seize every opportunity to make that happen.

I'm tellin' ya dude, you're heading down the same path as the Israelis with that kind of mentality. And look where it's gotten them - they can't even wake up without looking out their front door and seeing terrorists everywhere - and I mean, all "terrorists" are, is pissed off people.

So, you know..... you might wanna check out my thread on "political coercion".....

so, do you think his head would matter to you? I think not!

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Now you're asking the right question! Well done.

See, that's the whole point Bronco -

Having OBL's head on a platter, wouldn't matter to me - but then again, neither would a "stable Iraq". Neither one of those things, would matter to me.

On the other hand, OBL's head on a platter, definitely would matter, to every single Islamist everywhere on the planet. And I mean, to understand "why" that is, you have to understand the Islamic "belief system". It's very different from ours.

But yeah, I can pretty much guarantee you, that OBL's head on a platter, would be a symbol to Islamists everywhere, that we've won the war and they better chill out for a while. Until they get a symbol like that, it ain't gonna make sense to them.

'Cause I mean, what's going on in Iraq right now, with the "lull" on all that, you know, I'd bet almost everything I own that the violence is gonna start up again the minute US troops start pulling out. You know, I mean, these people aren't stupid, right? If they're gonna kill themselves, they're gonna go take a few people with 'em, so I mean, just hang out till that's possible, right?

See, this "Islamist" thing, isn't just a "philosophical" thing. I mean, it doesn't just have to do with the "Caliphate", you know, the "theoretical model of government" - or even the Sharia law -

I mean, it's a lot more complex than that. It has to do with a "cultural identification" that's related to a sense of "historical disaffectation", and I mean, that kinda thing, is why you see "interest" in the Islamist mentality, and why, you know, there's a million terrorists instead of just ten.

So I mean, this equation, it's like, the more you feed into the "disaffectation" piece, the more you allow those people to "justify" that perception, the more you're just creating future generations of Islamist terrorists. And you know, you see the pictures of the kiddies being indoctrinated to hate America, right? It looks like there's plenty of those kiddies, right?

So I mean, yes, I fully agree, we want to remove the threat. So, you know, the "immediate physical threat", is one thing. That's kinda the "police action" of removing terrorists and bringing them to justice.

But then there's a whole other part of the threat, which has to be addressed in an entirely different way.

And if you confuse the two parts, you're gonna get in big trouble - and the reason for that, is 'cause you're gonna butt up against some "conflicts" in the Islamic belief system, and I mean....

How can I say this - people "react" when their beliefs are threatened, yes? That can be a "dangerous" thing, psychologically - it can make people do "wierd stuff". So I mean, you really gotta treat that kinda thing with Kid Gloves, and I mean, don't assume just 'cause your a diplomat, that you're an "expert". You know, call in the psychologists, call in the comparative religion folks - I mean, make (*)(*)(*)(*) sure you understand what that belief system is, before you start mucking with it.

Know what I'm sayin'?

Bushie, he's mucking with something much larger than what he thinks it is.

And that's exactly why he "almost" lost the war, and needed to find General Petraeus at the very last minute, to save his butt from complete failure. And that's also why it's been so expensive, 'cause we're tossing money into a black hole 'cause we don't understand the parameters. (Or at least, "Bushie" doesn't).

I mean, as near as I can tell, this "clobber them over the head" mentality, is entirely non-operational, and in fact, it's even dangerously counter-productive.

You are way too deep on this. The history of the Romans should be enough evidence to not fu*k around. Power, as through all of history, has been, squash them, or they will squash you. The entire Roman empire fell because of appeasement and trying to be PC. Humans are a strange animal, I'd like to think we can be civil and work it out through debate, but unfortunately, it has never worked that way. I hear what you are saying, and I know you think Bush is the anti-Christ, but the American people will not stand for the insane intolerance of Islam.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

"The unity in this nation was so awesome when we got whacked, and if it happens again, those that complain about this goofy stuff, will be silenced, and you can bank on that."

why do you think that was the case at that time? and why do you think its not the same now? only the crazies wouldve complained if we focused exclusively on those who were/are legitimate threats, but thats just not the case. the defensiveness of your side is ill conceived.

you guys think you can see some bigger picture that the other side cant. thats not the case, there is no bigger picture. the only picture is the one with the bushies making a huge mistake, never accepting responsibility for it, making excuses and distracting from it, and expecting everyone to keep buying their "expertise" despite being so horribly wrong so many times already.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

Yes, good. Hmm.... yes, the American People don't seem to "like" intolerance, it "offends our sensibilities".

On the other hand, we also have to be careful not to become "intolerant" ourselves.

And I mean, where that "boundary" is, is important, yes? The way I look at that kinda thing, is exactly in those terms - "boundaries". "Borders".

So you know, you don't wanna be "wishy-washy" about your borders, right? Nah, it's kinda like "staking a claim", you lay out your boundaries, and then you defend 'em with everything you've got. You let "other people" know that you're serious about your boundaries, both with your words and your actions.

I think, we're pretty much aligned on that part, right?

So, that leaves the question of the "threat from Islam", as you say.....

And how I see that, is that the "actual" threat, doesn't have anything to do with Islam. It has to do with a particular interpretation of Islam, in much the same way that, say, Young-Earth Creationism has to do with a particular "interpretation" of the Bible.

So, you know, in "my" eyes, these Islamist types would be kinda like the KKK back in the old days, you know, they'd pull a line or two out of the Bible and somehow use that to justify hatred against blacks and Catholics.

But I mean, 90% of Islam is entirely peaceful just like we are - it's only their equivalent of the abortion-bomber moralist types that we need to be concerned about.

But see, there's another "element" of this, that comes into play, 'cause I mean, in Islam, religion and politics are one and the same, there's like, no difference.

So, you know, they look at the whole Israeli issue as a "land-grab", right? They don't hardly even care that those guys are Jewish. They care about the "Zionist" part, not the "Jewish" part. From the point of view of "Islam as a religion", the Jews are "People of the Book", and that's a good thing in Islamic eyes. Muslims don't hate Jews - they hate the Zionists who they think stole their land. See?

And I mean, the Quran tells them what to do, when someone steals their land.

'Cause I mean, historically, that was a big problem for those nomadic camel-jockey types, back in the days of Mohammed. You know, they'd move somewhere "temporarily", or go on some trade route or something for a while, and when they got back they'd discover that "someone else" had conveniently moved into their city and taken up with their wives and kids - you know, it was that kinda thing. I mean, the "history" of Islam is very rich. Just as you wouldn't understand the part in the Bible about "marrying your brother's wife", unless you understood the greater context of the history of that particular geographic area, right?

See? So I mean, if you wanna explain something to "them", you gotta talk to 'em in terms of "land grab". That, makes sense to them. You say something like that, and that light bulb is gonna go on in their brains, and they're gonna get a gleam in their eye, 'cause now it looks to them like you're interested.

But I mean, you start talking to them about "democracy", and after they're done laughing at you, they're gonna point out to you, that all your vaunted "democracy" has meant to them, is that their people have been the victims of repeated land grabs and so on.... right?

So, you see? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, when I say, "belief system". What plays into it? "Almost everything". I mean, what a Muslim brings to the table, is a lot more than just the Quran. It's also history, and it's also culture, and it's also philosophy, and I mean, you know, some of the greatest mathematical and scientific inventions of all time, came out of the Muslim world. And I mean, they're very proud people in that regard, yes? Their "history" in that regard, even precedes the coming of Islam, in the same way that the Jewish tradition probably "precedes" the actual label of Judaism. For instance, the number "zero", came ouf ot eh Arab world - it used to have a little dot in the middle of it, symbolizing a man walking in the middle of a huge desert....that kinda thing. Astronomy, certain branches of mathematics, lots of philosophy - you know, I mean, the Islamic tradition is very rich.

And it seems to me, it would be just TERRIBLE, to cast aspersions on that whole thing, just 'cause some stupid clueless idiots have a "wierd interpretation" of it. Know what I mean?

That latter piece, it seems to me, is something very different from the kind of nationalism that leads to the ordinary kind of war between nations.

And, it also seems to me, that this very "disconnect", is what people get the feeling that Bushie doesn't understand, and it's why they don't really like him very much in this regard. You know, 'cause a cowboy mentality is kinda the "opposite thing" from what's needed in this space. What's needed, is more like a "professor". Ron Paul might actually do pretty well in that regard.

But yeah, there is a great deal of respect for the scholarly tradition, in the Islamic cultures. There is a great deal less respect, for the tradition of any kind of independent "politics". So, if you can make 'em believe that you're more interested in "understanding" than "imposing", you're gonna get a lot better resonance, and traction.

All IMHO, of course.

I agree with the general thrust of your analysis. In terms of a broad historical brush stroke perspective my position vis a vie the middle-east- and global-US relations more generally, is basically this.

Following the aftermath of WW2 at Nuremberg the Nazis were indicted for committing what was referred to the "ultimate crime against humanity" which essentially amounted to the unprovoked attack on other nations.

Now the neo-con doctrine of pre-emption under the guise of what we all now know to have been a pack of lies as the justification to attack a defenceless nation is a further rebuttle of the principles laid out at Nuremburg.

The postwar period was a time when US global imperial hegemony was starting to take shape, having taken the baton form its imperial predecessor, the British.

Much of the world's justifiable grievance with the US (and indeed Britain) stems from this period. Beginning with Guatemala in 1953, the CIA at the behest of the US ruling class, oversaw the overthrow over 50 nations, many of whom contained governments that were democratically elected.

You see that's the point. As far as the US ruling class is concerned, the fact as to whether a nation is democratic or not is a moot point. The real issue at hand for the US is whether such governments pose a threat to US stategic geo-political and economic interests.

Rumsfeld famously said: "Why did God put our oil in other people's countries?" For the US political and ruling class and the multinational companies who effectively act as their surrogates, the belief is that central and South America really is America's own back yard. And so quite naturally, people in those countries resent it.

This imperialist attitude was of course the motivating force behind both 9-11's. I am referring firstly to the 9-11-73 in Chile when the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and replaced him with the fascist Auguste Pinochet. The second 9-11 we all know about of course. In both cases over 3000 people were killed.

In the first, the perpetrators were men in sharp suits who directed operations from the Whitehouse and the Pentagon. In the second, the culprits were religious obscurantist fanatics. The end result was the same- innocent people being murdered by terrorists. (Part 2 to follow shortly)

Interesting.... hey um... I don't mean to pry, but can I ask you a question?

Are you that "new thing" everyone's been talking about?

A "liberal Christian"?

Do you look at yourself that way?

If so, what kinds of politicsl issues do you place "emphasis" on?

Is the environment important to you? Poverty? Healthcare?

How about national security, where does that fit in?