BHS

I would hardly call "logged out and lost my password" a source of deviant amusement, but however you get your kicks. Also: woof. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gotcha. Your old moniker was good and will be missed. I never figured out if it was because you're of Scottish decent or if there was some other reason.

If personal belief systems were genetic in origin, I would agree with this, but history is chock-full of people who rebelled against their families wishes, beliefs, etcetera. In this day and age, such rebellion is more common, to the point of being fashionable. Sorry, but I am not so optomistic, if that's the right word. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If getting an abortion were as simple an ethical choice as getting an extra earring, I'd agree with you. I don't know that I've ever heard of someone going so far as getting an abortion to rebel against their parents.

Other sources have indicated the OPentagon doucment also shows the Pentagon keeping tabs on GLBT groups oppossed to the military's ban on gays in the service. Can you trust the government not to abuse their powers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The type of spying we're talking about is a very passive abuse of the government's authority. There's no indication that the government went any further than examining the activities of selected groups to ensure that terrorist activity was not being plotted. There's no indication that the black helicopters were about to swoop in and haul hippy dissidents off to the concentration camps. Here's the conundrum: you can't prevent terrorism (or indeed crime) without knowing ahead of time that it's going happen. Data has to be collected one way or another. What Bush did was wrong on a legal procedural level, but could have been accomplished just as easily by following the "long established" procedures. The people who are getting overwrought by all of this are missing the point that the only thing unusual about any of this is a difference of opinion about legal procedures, and if Bush had bothered to go back after the fact and obtain the warrants no one (outside of the NSA and people who are interested in spying )would ever have heard of FISA or it's particular requirements. This situation is great for the Dems on a partisan, political, personal-destruction, win-at-any-cost war with the Bush administration, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans for the average American citizen.

There's an entirely new paradigm working it's way to the surface here, that hasn't been fully absorbed or debated to the extent it needs to be. According to the new paradigm, the old concept of war being a physical contest between the armies of two well defined parties (nation states, for example) has been expanded to now included both physical and idealogical bouts between both well defined parties and amorphous undefined groups (eg. terrorist cells). Not everyone agrees with this new definition for what war is. People backing Bush's War on Terror tend to back this definition and believe we are currently at war, with a set of concepts as opposed to a country. People who do not back Bush refuse to believe we are at war, because they don't agree with the new paradigm. I'm not sure that I 100% believe the new paradigm, but I think that terrorist organizations have proven their ability to wreak havoc and need to be treated as something more than mere a criminal element.

The American Constitution does not protect the right to privacy directly. The ongoing debate about the abortion issue is deeply rooted in this concept. It is often argued from the strict Constitutionalist standpoint that the cases of Griswold v Connecticut and Row v Wade were improperly decided, because the right to first marital privacy, and later personal privacy, had to be contrived from a particular and selective reading of prior Supreme Court decisions and not from anything directly stated in the Constitution. A peeping tom's activities are as much a violation of property rights and security of the person as they are a violation of privacy. Not to worry, though. Hillary will be inaugurated in 2009, and she can undo all of Bush's evil, and then everyone will love the US and all of the terrorists will go away forever.

from...http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How, precisely, is freedom being underminded by eavesdropping on communications? Besides which, you don't appear to have read about this issue to the extent that this sort of thing has been happening in the US (and indeed, throughout the developed world) since the dawn of electronic communications, and is fully Constitutional. If you sincerely believe that Bush is more dangerous than, say, Timothy McVeigh, I am truly sad for you. The world must be a very scary place.

Score another one for secularism, then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the point is, that a hundred years from now it'll be the secularists who's views will be underrepresented. James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has been writing periodically about a similar demographic theory he's conceived of that he terms "The Row Effect": People who are pro-choice will tend to have fewer children that people who abstain from abortion. Since parents are the primary conduit for learning a system of values, the views of the pro-choice movement will be instilled in an increasingly smaller segment of future generations. Essentially, the abortion issue will be solved by attrition.

Um: The false dichotomy here is, basically, your rehash of the old saw that "you're either with us or you're wih the ter'rists." In this case, the role of "us" is being played by "actual Iraqi citizens", despite the fact that many of those folks also happen to be "the terrorists". Based on high turnout and (temporary) lull in violence, those "actual Iraqis" who support Bush's vision took the time to vote, after which they went back to blowing things and people up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't believe I'm setting up an either/or choice there. I'm saying that Zarqawi (who is a foreigner in Iraq) is in one category, while the Iraqis "appear" to be signing on with a different cause unrelated to terrorism. There isn't the intent to create a false sense that there are only two options; I *tried* to reinforce the concept of alternative possibilities by infering that Kerry supporters fall into a totally different category. In any case, the word "appears" indicates that my assessment of Iraqi opinion is not an absolute. Or such was my intent. Sheesh, and to think that I was trying to be funny.

How many seperatist movements have you guys got out there? It's no wonder the Liberals don't take Western seperation seriously. Divide and be conquered, lads.

Very well, then. I hope it's not an issue that requires medication. (He said, in a gently amusing and non-threating manner.) I couldn't care less about what the future holds for Scooter Libby. Or George W. Bush or his entire junta, for that matter. I have a set of small c conservative values that I like to espouse from time to time, and beyond that I enjoy poking sticks and bickering. Keeps me out of trouble in the real world. The fact that Libby's perjury charge has nothing to do with the substance of the case being investigated makes it kind of a waste, though. Right, from your earlier post. Put two and two together, BHS. I need a coffee. Which raises the question (which I already asked): "Why, given the apparatus already in place to authorize spying on Americans, did they forego the process?" And if the "legal advisers" are wrong (which they certainly appear to be)? Indeed. I'm assuming that question will be sorted out in the next short while. I don't believe there was any Congressional oversight of this program. In fact, reps from both sides are saying they had no idea this kind of thing was going on. And even if they are lying and simply making the most of Bush's current low popularity, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the President authorized warrantless spying on Americans in violation of the law. If I see you kill someone and opt not to turn you in until a year later, that doesn't make you an innocent man. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From the New York Times article that started it all (quote taken from JustOneMinute): I read something earlier today, that I'm quoting to the best of my recollection: "the Democrats have already managed to spin this story to make is sound like The President was spying on Americans, when the more accurate characterization is that he authorized spying on suspected terrorists with American citizenship." The findings of 911 Commission were used to shrilly denounce Bush as being equal in responsibility to Clinton for the security failures that lead to the attack. Now the same smug group of Clinton admirers are angry that the President was willing to shake off the regulatory shackles his predecessors imposed, no matter how targeted and non-invasive the actions taken were. (Tell me again, who was hurt by this? How does that hurt weigh against the hurt that would be caused if terrorists were able to co-ordinate another attack free from security services' eavesdropping?) What's worse, that the President didn't dot a regulatory i, or that the terrorists are now aware to what degree the US government is willing to go to monitor their actions? This reminds me of the hubub leading up to the recently passed McCain amendment. It was brought up, most forcefully by Charles Krauthammer (but also by others), that there are potential situations when it would be absolutely necessary to use the most brutal interrogation tactics to get the information needed to stop an attack. How could this be squared against the proposed amendment? To which Senator McCain responded that the President should, in those limited circumstances, proceed to take the necessary actions and deal with the legal consequences later, relying on history and the good will of the American people to exonerate him. I think we're seeing a miniature, much less serious, test of that kind of situation here.

Some friendly advice: you should use quotes when reprinting a section of an article like that, to avoid plagiarism issues. It comes up in the forum from time to time. A different aspect: regardless of your opinion of Svend, and judging only by the language of the article, is it fair to say that Macleans is advocating against Svend politically? The section quoted above reads like a Liberal Party talking point disguised as a call for a higher standard of MP ethics. That Svend is running against long term Liberal backbencher (and occasional Cabinet Mininster) Hedy Fry only adds to my suspicion.

I have a job. Are you saying I am crazy because I say this happened ? Well then things like this can just keep right on happening then can't they ? Do you think that lawyers are noble, distinguished, honorable and above the law or are you just looking for a reason to shoot your mouth off. People like you are exactly what my sister is counting on and thats why she laughs when I say I can do something about this. You say I'm crazy - fine then its a compliment. You know nothing about how Canadian power really operates. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I feel sympathy for you, friend. You've learned an important lesson in a very hard way. Unfortunately, without something in writing, you're screwed. Only the courts take a petitioner at his word alone - when hearing Native cases they are sometimes willing to take oral history in as evidence, but otherwise it's just a he said/she said situation. Paper carries a lot of weight in law. My (non-lawyerly) advice is to demand your own copy of everything that pertains to you legally.

Don't let the member status fool ya: I'm an old hand round these parts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, like I said in that thread about FISA etc., you're either a current member posting under a new pseudonym for whatever purposes of devient amusement you've devised, or you've already been banned under a different name and are soon to be banned again. Which would be kind of sad, really. I've rather enjoyed our vicious little banterings here this evening. It's good to argue with someone who actually knows what they're talking about and isn't eureka. (Black Dog and newbie are okay by me, too).

Yup, that's a F.D. alright. The possibility does exist that Bush et al were labouring under the belief that they're intelligence was bang on. But, given the political interference in the intelligence gathering process, that possibility seems like a small one. None of which changes the fact you're full of crap on this whole domestic surveillance thing. Oh lookee! You didn't try to counter a single point! I look forward to your future scintillating contributions such as "I know you are, but what am I?" and the delightful couplet that begins with "I 'm rubber, you're glue." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, wait, was I supposed to reply to your missives in order? I was in the midst of writing my larger reply when you came out with this bit of wisdom.

I'll remember that next time you bang on about Valerie Plame's husband being the one who revealed her identity or some such rot designed to obscure the point about administration officials (ahem: allegedly) perjuring themselves... So, either you've been reading posts on this forum for a while without comment (unlikely, given your style), or you've taken the time to go through my old posts (possible, but damn, you're a quick reader), or you're a current member posting under a new pseudonym (which is a little fishy too) or you're a banned member posting under a new pseudonym, in which case you'll be making a lot of posts in a hurry before the powers that be discover your TCPIP address is blacklisted and ban you again. If you haven't been following the story lately, it turns out that it wasn't Rove or Libby who outed Plame, at least not in a manner consistent with the timeline pieced together by Fitzpatrick. Regardless of Libby's perjury, some other, as yet undetermined source was responsible for reporters knowing Plame's secret. Since Joe Wilson is remembered to have been very casual when discussing among aquaintances the details of his wife's work before going to Niger, it remains a possibility that he himself was the original source of the leak. As a matter of fact it does. FISA bars virtually any electronic surveillance conducted without a warrant or court order. Warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information is only okay provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. So: spying on Americans without a warrant=illegal. My bad. Though "court order" is a little misleading - it's not the same scenario familiar to fans of Law & Order. And apparently the warrants can be obtained post hoc, so warrantless surveillance is permissible, in a sense. Oh well. That's what I get for half-reading breaking news at midnight on a work night. Based on your ridiculous coment asserting that FISA does not prohibit electronic surveillance (omitting the glaring fact that any such surveillance is always conducted with a warrant in hand), you're judgement on this matter cannot really be trusted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who's being ridiculous? Why don't you finish your ideas before commenting about other people's judgement? FISA is all about setting up rules to permit electronic surveillance, and doesn't prohibit it. (Reread your quote.) And again, your statement misconstrues the nature of the warrant required. Yes, a special court is convened to grant the warrant, and almost never refuses to do so. Yes, a warrant can be obtained post hoc. And yes, the President's legal advisors reviewed the powers granted to him after 911 and concluded the warrants weren't required in all cases. Yes, the President was dilligent in following all of the legal advice given and reviewed the situation every 45 days. Yes, members of Congress from both parties were informed about this state of affairs and saw fit to go along with it, as did the New York Times itself, for more than a year. No, this is not an impeachable offence. (Sorry, Senator Boxer.)

BHS, meet false dichotomy. False dichotomy, meet BHS. Oh, I see you've met. Oh, but only in passing? Perhaps you two should get better aquainted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's a lot on that page that you should bone up on yourself, friend. What part of the last quote involves a false dichotomy?

So both Clinton and Bush were full of crap. No surprise there. Clinton oversaw the illegal bombing of Iraq and allowed Saddam to smuggle billions of dollars worth of oil to help build palaces. Bush invaded in order to work out some long-standing Freudian daddy issues and make the country safe for U.S. oil companies. Using bad policy as a defence for bad policy doesn't really work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, so from Bush's lips to my ears. Who's orifice are you pressed up against?

If you believe that then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The Bush administration wanted to go to into Iraq even before 9/11 - they just needed a way to sell it to the American public so they told the CIA and others to find evidence of WMDs. The CIA obligied because saying that there were no WMDs would have got them fired. Unfortunately, for the American people, this evidence was so shaky that even the British questioned its usefulness. So if Bush was not lying then is guilty of unimaginable incompetance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The notion that the CIA complied with Bush's scheme to gin up evidence for war in 2002/2003 because they were afraid of getting fired is pretty weak, considering that none of them got fired after September 11, 2001, including Clinton's man Tenet. None. Not even as an example, for those who didn't wan to play along. I thought the British were the ones supplying the questionable intelligence about WMD programs. That last line about unimaginable incompetance is absurd. Where's Black Dog? I've just been handed the best example of a false dichotomy posted on this board to date.

And this is worse than deliberately lying to to American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

Does she have anything for the anti-hypocrisy crowd??? How about the anti-liar crowd, or the anti-bad-intelligence crowd??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, for that you'd have to go to Zarqawi or one of his associates. Actual Iraqi citizens appear to be signing on with the pro-liar movement. (The pro-hypocrits being supporters of those Dems who voted against the war, after they voted for the war but were against it. You know who I'm talking about.)

Ever hear of a false dichotomy? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure. An example would be the two options I just presented you with. Feel free two come up with your own third way forward.

The flood of bullshit never stops, does it? A threat to who? His military was an empty shell which posed little threat to his immediate neighbours, let alone the world. His WMD programs were nonexistent. His ties to terrorism were, at best, tenuous. So how did this contained, nutured thug pose a thraet to anyone? Yeah constitutional democracy means a lot to people with no electricity, running water, jobs or even the ability to leave their homes without getting robed, kidnapped or killed outright. Yeah: let's compare a domestic revolution with a government imposed at gunpoint by a foreign government. Because an guerrilla war is all about winning territory? When the number of battle ready Iraqi troops reache dabove the current 300 or 400, then maybe you can start crowing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All of the comments you've made here sound like last year's rhetoric, and it was pretty stale and inaccurate then too. The real "flood of bullshit" is the less and less relevant kvetching coming from people like yourself. You have two options: go on complaining about an improving situation that has outgrown your cynicism, or accept the fact that you have always been wrong about the entire Iraq war issue.

Wow, a snide Nazi reference, making up the totality of your first post. I wonder what sort of contribution you're going to make to the forum.

Swell. Also irrelevant. We're not talking about the PATRIOT Act. We're talking about Bush doing an end run around FISA, which allows the government to conduct the kind of surveillance they were undertaking, provided they had a warrant. So the question is: why did they decide to bypass the courts? FISA makes it a crime to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment is required, even in cases of "domestic subversive investigations". Based on these two pieces of evidence (FISA and the freaking Constitution), Bush's spying program is both illegal and unconstitutional. But hey: at least he didn't get a blowjob, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay? FISA DOES NOT make monitoring communications between an American and a foreign correspondent illegal. Neither does the Constitution. Since communication across international borders in the nub the issue, it stands to reason that nothing Bush authorized was illegal. Quite the opposite - it iss both legal and required, if further terrorism iss to be prevented. The only ilLegality here is the leak itself, which judging by Bush's reaction should receive at least the same scrutiny that the idiotic Plame non-scandal did.

The 9/11 Comission Report pointed out the terrible 'protectionism' within the US intelligence communities, and suggested that it would be a good idea if they started to share info. As it stood, (and to some degree still stands) the FBI, the police, the military and the CIA are all diferent entities, and jealously protect their own budgets, sources and info. There wasn't anything manifest that prevented them from sharing, except for the fear that their contributions might not get the credit (and budget allocation) that they feel they deserve. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's an interesting article that states there was indeed a wall, both legally and administerially, between agencies.