Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

Great line fargot.

"The only thing better than vanquishing your enemies is eating their young!!!"

Love it!

Seems like some people here would rather lick 'em where they pee.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I am not exaggerating. I am really and truly not.

I'm sure she believes that.

Where's the exaggeration? These are the official stated positions of the Bush administration.

Yes. You ARE safe from the horrible possibility of having agents of the federal government listen to your phone conversation without the OK of a federal judge.

And now, so are the towel-heads.

By "towel-heads" do you mean US persons? Because that's the only group affected by this change. And through the FISA courts, they only had to get the Judge's permission 72 hours after they started tapping. Bush apparently thought even that was too restrictive.

[Undertoad]

Where's the exaggeration?

We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power

Unlimited power! Exaggeration.

for the duration of a war that may never end

May never end! Exaggeration.

Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants.

Whatever he wants! Exaggeration.

By "towel-heads" do you mean US persons? Because that's the only group affected by this change.

Also the people with whom they are speaking.

I would favor court oversight, but please. This is not the Nixonian enemies list we're talking about here. These are dangerous people. Don't get played like a fiddle into being anti-WoT... that's what Rove wants.

[Happy Monkey]

But what's the exaggeration? He's claiming that his ability to spy on and imprison people is absolute. On his say-so alone, any person, American or not, can be imprisoned and tortured without trial.

That is his claim.

And a war on terror may indeed never end. There will always be terrorists of some sort.

This is not the Nixonian enemies list we're talking about here. These are dangerous people.

Don't forget the separate domestic spying issue, concerning antiwar groups, like the Quakers.

[Undertoad]

Where'd he claim all that again? Because I missed it.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Don't forget the separate domestic spying issue, concerning antiwar groups, like the Quakers.

Or the Tim McVeighs.

[Pie]

Or the Catholic Workers Group. Because, uh, they sound vaguely Commie.

[Undertoad]

Well, that FBI nonsense is just insane, but I've always thought the FBI was pretty much broken.

[mrnoodle]

I don't know what I think about this yet. On one extreme, you have the government listening to any and all phone conversations, trying to pick anti-govt sentiment from personal conversations so that the speaker can be thrown into the gulag.

Not likely.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have someone planning a terrorist act, calling bin Laden in the Caribbean to get the go-code, and we're unable to do anything about it because, by gosh, it's ILLEGAL to listen in on a phone conversation.

Not likely.

The whole thing is looking like a political witch-hunt, with Bush trying (and failing) to fend off the people who want his ass no matter what the cost to the country. The reality is, if the government wants you, they know where to find you, and won't let a little thing like the law stand in the way (unless it's something that might get caught in the public radar, in which case, the spin doctors are mobilized). On paper, that looks like a bad thing.

But if someone thinks they can operate a terrorist cell within our country and hide behind the Constitution while thumbing their nose at us, that's a worse thing, and people will die if it happens.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Where'd he claim all that again? Because I missed it.

You ought to have been paying attention.

His claim is that it is an executive power, with no oversight from the courts (or anyone else), to declare someone an unlawful combatant. His claim is that unlawful combatants are outside the purview of the Geneva conventions, are outside the purview of the Judiciary, and may not be inspected by the traditional Red Cross. He has fought tooth and nail against restrictions on torture of people the US has in custody.

These are not each happening in independent sandboxes; they are all happening together.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

On the other side of the spectrum, you have someone planning a terrorist act, calling bin Laden in the Caribbean to get the go-code, and we're unable to do anything about it because, by gosh, it's ILLEGAL to listen in on a phone conversation.

Not likely.

What is even worse - when terrorists were successful, it was made possible because Federal agents were halted by George Jr people from doing their job. Need I quote what was YELLED at those Chicago agents? "YOU WILL NOT OPEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!" Since we all first learn the facts before making conclusions, we all saw those FBI agents specifically say this on the network news. Oh? Some people have opinions and yet never learned these facts?

I should not have to do this if you have learned recent history: when a president did his job - read his PDBs, and with fewer powers, then terrorism was halted.

It is a damning fact. This nation's #1 anti-terror investigator died when? Since it was posted here multiple times, they you know the answer. John O'Neill was driven from government service by the George Jr administration. Knowing where a next attack might be coming, John O'Neill took a job as head of security at the WTC. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. How many times need we cite examples of why terrorism was permitted - and why no extraordinary powers were required?

How many hundreds of examples need I provide before you admit why the George Jr administration did things that permitted terrorism. And why can George Jr be trusted with extraordinary powers when the problem was only the George Jr administration?

The solution is competent leadership. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Federal agents had plenty of power and information to stop domestic terrorism. When George Jr failed to read his PDB, then people died. When Clinton read his PDBs, then Millennium attacks all over the world were halted.

George Jr uses fear to hype "MORE POWER". That was the Tim Allen joke on Home Improvement. Was "MORE POWER" the solution? Of course not. The solution was a smarter human who spent less time in the hospital emergency room. You're expected to learn from the jokes - such as "No one expects a Spanish Inquisition". George Jr does not need more power. We need more intelligence in the Oval office. Someone who knows how to read PDBs.

... people will die if it happens.

Domestic terrorism happened when the president had a PDB warning of the attack and did nothing. And when the president, on 11 September, did so little as to never once authorize American fighter planes to go hot - to defend American cities. That too should make you angry. On 11 September, the president nor anyone on his senior staff did anything to defend America. You don't agree? Show me. I would love to see it.

[tw]

Reposted by Happy Monkey:

September 11 started the war. When will it end? Maybe never. Where is the battlefield? The entire world, including the United States. Who is an enemy combatant? Anyone the President says is an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen--no need for a charge, no need for a trial, no need for access to a lawyer.

A minor point that everyone should recognize - a fact of history. The "Mission Accomplished" war, the liberation of Kuwait, both attacks on the WTC, when even Rush Limbaugh and other right wing extremists acknowledged the cold war was over, etc are all directly traceable to one 'day when the world changed'. 1 August 1990. The day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Event that resulted in reasons for a "Mission Accomplished" war.

One should also remember three names so much responsible for making those changes: Sec of State Baker, George Sr, and Margaret Thatcher.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Where's the exaggeration?

Unlimited power! Exaggeration.

1) If the administration needs a wiretap to stop criminal or terrorist activity, then it can go to any court - and will get court permission. 2) If that is not good enough, a secret court exists to provide judicial permission. And 3) if that is not good enough, they can wiretap for 72 hours before going to any of those courts. Where is court permission an impediment to stopping terrorism? Nowhere. Not anywhere - three times over - does the need for a court order cause any risk to any Americans.

However a mental midget president says he should have the right to wiretap and bug anyone he wants at any time. OK. 4) The president now says he needs unlimited power. However UT disagrees? How is this possible - unless one has a right wing 'the president is never wrong' agenda.

Why did United States District Judge James Robertson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - the secret court - resign yesterday? Why even bother to have such courts when the president says he has the right to bug and wiretap anyone anytime without any judicial review? Somehow UT sees that as a president with limited powers. One would have to be daft to make such conclusions. This president is declaring he is above the law - as Richard Nixon also tried to claim before the Supreme Court. If George Jr can wiretap anyone anytime, then Nixon's plumbers also did nothing wrong.

Therein lies the damning fact for UT. How does George Jr's sound byte reasoning differ at all from what Richard Nixon did? Little hint. George Jr has the same Nixonian attitude - or is it President Cheney?

[tw]

Originally Posted by fargon

I have nothing to hide, at least the terrorests that are here afraid to fart for fear they will be caught.

Problem with your assumptions are a complete shortage of real world examples or facts. They are "I feel this is true" statements often found among hypothetical 'dumb blond' groupees and unquestioning supporters of a mental midget president.

Domestic terrorists were at great risk when a president had intelligence. But then you tell me. You tell me why Diana Deans so successfully stopped Millenium terrorist attacks all over the world. In fact, to have credibility, you can start your reply by telling us who Diana Deans is. Why were domestic anti-terrorist once so successful. You tell me because what you are posting does not agree with historical fact. Show me why we suddenly need violations of constitutional prnciples?

BTW, saying we need such unlimted government power because the president is dumb and does not read his memos - that just is not an acceptable reply. Show me. Show me why terrorist suddenly have reason to fear. I await for your demonstration of 'real world' knowledge. Show me. Who is Diana Deans? Why was she so successful?

[Tonchi]

Better do your homework more carefully yourself, tw. Her name is Diana DEAN