I'm sorry, dude, I don't mean to be unkind, but that's nuts. The Roman empire fell because they tried to take over everything they possibly could, got themselves into wars they couldn't support, made enemies out of EVERYBODY, and got their butts handed to them by the people they were trying to exploit.

And good riddance. I've never been fond of Rome. A strong military is not actually qualification for running anything. Might does not make right.

Rome..... Christians and lions.... Caligula.... wait a minute, didn't the fall of Rome have something to do with "barbarians"?

..... So the fact that one set of people in sharp suits murder innocent people for their own political ends (ie terrorism) makes it no less a crime than if the perpetrators were wearing robes and sandles and directing operations from the caves of the Tora Bora.

Planes smashing into the twin towers on 9-11 in New York didn't metaphorically emerge from a clear blue sky, but were the product of historical injustices underpinned by a series of duplicitous US foreign policy objectives that extend from central and south America through to the middle east and beyond. These objectives have often been implemented in various interconnected ways.

In the case of Bolivia, Brazil and Argentina in recent years for example, the World Bank and the IMF, at the behest of US capitalism, imposed the mis-named free market economic ideology on those countries resulting in the enforced privatization of publicly owned state assets. The euphemism often used is 'Foreign Direct Investment' which is another way of saying 'asset stripping' or the private plunder of public resources for private profit.

If this process fails or is perceived as likely to fail, as is the case with the US approach to Iraq, then the ruling class will tend to emphasise religious and cultural differences - what Samuel Huttington famously referred to as "the clash of civilizations" - as the justification for a land grab and occupation. DuH2 hilariously made a Freudian slip in a previous post when he said: "The Iraq is occupied line is grabage". I couldn't have said it better myself!

The truth of the matter is when the invisible hand of the market is not likely to work, or has deemed to have failed, then the visible might of the military fist steps in. This is the situation with respect to Iraq. The US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of that country represents the personification of US imperialist power in this respect.

To this end, the occupation of Iraq is not only about the control of oil (China being the major future competitor to the US), but is equally about the expression of US strategic geopolitical and economic interests and leverage in the region. Israel is the US proxy in the middle east to help further this process.

In this respect, it is a commonly held mistake to suggest that the US works for Israel. On the contrary, Israel is under the auspices of US control and is used as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism in the same way for instance that the US manipulated Saddam for their own interests against the Iranians. It is manipulation of this kind that has so inflamed much of the muslim world.

To sum up then. Many of the problems we face in the world today stem from a history of US foreign policy duplicity and double standards. This has been further perpetuated by the mis-named "war on terror" and the enforced implementation of a 'one-size fits all' socio-economic and political ideology. 9-11 in New York and the terrorist atrocities in London, Madrid and elsewhere represent the culmination of these failed policies and strategies.

Yeah, what you guys said.

They are surrender monkies afraid to fight for their own freedoms and want bigger government to do it for them and raise your taxes at the same time. Talk about looney, the rightwing is filled with toe tapping loonies.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...laryTeam08.jpg

Don't look now, but we're at war.

Oh. Sorry...didn't know you were sleeping. Go back to dreamland.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

There's no war.

Congress has not declared war, therefore, there's no war.

Everyone's trying to tell me there's a war.

Even the darn soldiers over there, are telling me there's a war.

But I don't see no Congressional Declaration.

And therefore, there ain't a war.

How do you like them apples?

Hey ah... Mr. Mag..... "the emperor has no clothes".

Its like arguing on a merry-go-round. I can say whatever I want, but you don't listen, and end up right back where you started.

But, as an exercise in patience. Here we go again.

I'm not saying I make the laws. But, I did point out the laws already made. The Supreme Court has ruled on this, FISA has ruled on this, the laws are on the books, and they say YOU CANNOT WIRETAP WITHOUT A WARRANT. Just plain can't. No good, not allowed, nuh uh, ixnay, nein! Its not my opinion, its a fact of the legal system. So please, either put up some evidence that I'm incorrect, or just give it up and admit when you're wrong.

The laws have yet to be changed. Seriously. All of the laws against warrantless wiretapping are still on the books. And, they were on the books when Bush gave his orders. BUSH and the NSA BROKE the LAW. You haven't provided a shred of evidence citing otherwise. Your just beating your fist against the wall with the same tired talking points we've all heard before.

And I was really hoping to wish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a very merry Christmas too. (*)(*)(*)(*).

I'm really sorry to hear that you were in such a terrible conflict. It must have been awful. But, living in a rage induced denial of the state of the world, clinging to old comforting thoughts of American superiority, and doing it to advocate brutality and suppression of basic freedoms is no way to go about life. Please Billy, let go of the ignorance, and the hatred, and the sadness. You're hurting yourself, and infecting the people that have to listen to your poisoned rhetoric.

Its a shame that you see defending the Constitution and the basic rights of Americans as "goofy stuff." I thought you were supposed to be a red blooded Republican. Where's your honor?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Yep. Agreed. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that the following things are true:

a) Bushie broke the law
b) Bushie violated the contract
c) Bushie made a mockery of his Oath of Office

But, "that was then", when all this stuff first occurred.

NOW, there's a whole "different" set of issues in play.

And while the "warrant" piece is still important, it seems to me that it's become just a tiny piece of a much larger picture.

The real question is, "why did Bushie get away with this in the first place"?

He's not supposed to be able to do stuff like that, right?

The Congress is supposed to keep an eye on him. And the Judiciary, is supposed to keep an eye on him too.

So.... what happened?

Can you say, "partisanship"?

That's all it is, as near as I can tell.

These clowns are more loyal to their Party, than they are to the Constitution of the United States.

Then our borders need to be more secure. We still have control.



Partly because of our own drug laws.


A computer scanning calls for keywords in not invasive IMO.

But even if it was, we can stop it any time we want to.


Democracy is far less friendly to terrorists that non-democracy. That is a statistical fact.

That is why I used the word "negligible" in my quote above. You dont have to wipe it out completely to remove it as a threat.


It will solve it enough.


The fringe are statistically irrelevant. All I care about it the major threats.


I have never attempted to justify the removal of a right. Privacy is not a right, like due process or free speech. Warrants themselves are proof of that.

No warrant can take away your right to due process or free speech. But a warrant CAN take away your "right" to privacy.


I disagree. You have no way of knowing that.

Either way, we can end it any time we want. None of these changes are Constitutional. And even THEN they could still be changed.


I am willing to take one step back to take three steps forward. The "rights" lost are trivial at best, and the gains are significant.


Exactly.



Heh heh, emphasis mine. Do you even listen to what you are saying?

Can you put a percentage on that "assured chance"? Your math is no less imaginary than mine.


That stuff doesnt work on me. I dont worship the Founding Fathers like many other conservatives do. I have been critical of them on this forum many times.

They had no way of knowing what we would face now. They could not conceive of nuclear weapons, or biological and chemical warfare. Certainly not to the degree we can. They lived in a different time. So their opinion means little to me on this issue.


Yes. My source is the fact that the current President was elected to a second term, and the current Congress has continued to refuse to end the wiretapping or the war, despite the fact that they have had the opportunity to do so many times.


Then I guess you're pretty screwed, and my kind will get our way after all.


I consider this necessary.


If you were an elected official (with something to lose) I would believe you. Since you are an anonymous user on a forum, I would not take your word for it.

I am not making the claim that abuse is impossible. Just that your analogy is flawed because abuse is obviously much less likely for an elected official. Becuase they are watched. As a user on an anonymous forum, you would not be.


See above. The situations are not analogous.

If what you were saying were true, we would never have heard of any government abuse at all, because it would have been covered up. Obviously the oversight (via media and other parts of government) works. Thats how we know abuses have occurred in the first place.


I am willing to take the risk that someones dirty phone calls will be overheard if it means we can stop even a single terrorist attack.


Explain to me how that does not violate your privacy.


Who gets to determine what probable cause is?


By that logic why not open all the borders? Cease all security checks at airports? Stop all background checks for firearms?

Liberty or death, right?

Thats why those quotes have no effect on me. They are empty. Obviously even you dont believe what Mr. Henry said. So save the empty quotes please.


Here:

See this also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
#Third-party_legal_analysis -


Which it would...even if only preventative. If a terrorist knows his calls are being monitored, it will make his job more difficult.



Maybe. We're not at the point where we are willing to make that tradeoff yet. Not saying it will never happen, just that we arent at that point.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page