president bush knows you...

[Guest eureka]

There are worse things than those but they are not for this discussin.

One thing that is, is the loss of hard won freedoms. The stage we have reached has taken about 320 years. Bush and Cheney can drown in a barrel of oil before I would sacrifice one little bit for their cause.

[Stoker]

NO, not without the approval of the people.

If a poll was taken between Americans (who have been attacked) and Canadians (who have not) I would expect that less Canadians would approve (as is the case on the board here) then Americans.

I also wonder, if a poll could be taken on pre and post 9/11 Americans, what those results would look like.

It's a shame that most Canadians don't realize their own history, learn the mistakes of others and just plain keep their heads in the sand.

My only wish is that it doesn't take a terror attack on Canadian soil to change this view.

Politicians sometimes lie, sometimes use excuses for actions that have some other agenda; and sometimes politicians do not have the right intelligence.

And sometimes politicans have to make hard choices, most being unpopular, and take the nations best intrests at hand.

I do not believe that we need to offer any political machine the right to do anything they wish just by claiming it is necessary to protect us. There are limits and taking away any of my privacy rights is not okay.

Caesar, if you were home alone and were to face a home invasion would you defend yourself?

Also, if you had prior knowledge of the home invasion (in that the crook told you he was going to do it), how would you react?

There are worse things than those but they are not for this discussin.

One thing that is, is the loss of hard won freedoms. The stage we have reached has taken about 320 years. Bush and Cheney can drown in a barrel of oil before I would sacrifice one little bit for their cause.

What "hard won freedoms" have been lost exactly?

What have you been asked to "sacrifice" for this "cause" of the evil Bush administration?

[Guest eureka]

Have you read nothing of what has been posted about the Patriot Act? It is just about the greatest encroachment on freedoms since the Nuremberg Laws. It is Big Brother.

What have I been asked to sacrifice? I have been asked to sacrifice my privacy to American surveillance. Any contact that Canadians have with the US is subject to the intrusion of American authorities.

Can you not understand that when one country embarks on repressive measures that the world is affected. As Freedoms spread, so does oppression. "No man is an island" is not just a poem: it is a truism.

When America does this, then one of the world's self professed bastions of Liberty has gone. Who is next Your complacency is appalling. Your satisfaction in that fear is reason enough to set back democratic progress a century or so is - since you share it with so many - a sad reflection on the human race.

Perhaps the natural condition is slavery.

[Stoker]

Have you read nothing of what has been posted about the Patriot Act? It is just about the greatest encroachment on freedoms since the Nuremberg Laws. It is Big Brother.

I've only heard how bad it is from left wing fear mongers.......funny thing is, they haven't provided any real proof to back-up their claims.

Do wish to be a first?

What have I been asked to sacrifice? I have been asked to sacrifice my privacy to American surveillance. Any contact that Canadians have with the US is subject to the intrusion of American authorities.

If that is truely the case, shouldn't your anger be directed at our government as opposed to that of the Americans?

Can you not understand that when one country embarks on repressive measures that the world is affected. As Freedoms spread, so does oppression. "No man is an island" is not just a poem: it is a truism.

Where is this wide spread repression?

When America does this, then one of the world's self professed bastions of Liberty has gone. Who is next Your complacency is appalling. Your satisfaction in that fear is reason enough to set back democratic progress a century or so is - since you share it with so many - a sad reflection on the human race.

What democratic prograss has been sent back?

Perhaps the natural condition is slavery.

Who and where are these slaves born from the Patriot act?

[Cartman]

The state is supposed to maintain this information on our behalf for our benefit, not to our detriment. Handing it over to private firms in other nations violates secure handling of this information. I doubt anyone has given their consent for this. If this is the case, I would just as soon not have the government collect the information in the first place. What do they want with it anyways? If they want it, I will supply it on a need to know basis.

This action violates the Canada Health Care Act principle of a non-profit administration. Decades ago they realized that this was important and I am sure that they could not foresee the revolution in communications technology. Considering the provinces are getting more revenue from the feds for health care, they should try to abide by the principles of the Act. The feds have the right to retain some of BC's transfer payments until they abide by the law.

http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?f...erchant20030203

http://sask.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?f...name=sgeu030212

If the government cannot obtain the funds to collect information properly, then they should not collect it at all.

BTW Stoker, I looked up your personal information and all I can find is that you live in BC. Are you hiding something?

[Stoker]

The state is supposed to maintain this information on our behalf for our benefit, not to our detriment. Handing it over to private firms in other nations violates secure handling of this information. I doubt anyone has given their consent for this. If this is the case, I would just as soon not have the government collect the information in the first place. What do they want with it anyways? If they want it, I will supply it on a need to know basis.

Exactly........the State (Canada), not the States (and Bush) are to blame (if there is any) on this mater.

BTW Stoker, I looked up your personal information and all I can find is that you live in BC. Are you hiding something?

What would you like to know?

[Cartman]

I would blame the province of BC for this. I would think this is significant enough to be an election issue.

QUOTE 

BTW Stoker, I looked up your personal information and all I can find is that you live in BC. Are you hiding something? 

What would you like to know?

The RCMP claim criminals only require age, address, home phone and a bank receipt (many people just throw these in the waste of their ATMs.

[Hugo]

Is it not a right to be safe in ones own country?

What's "safe" is wholly subjective, and a lot of people want to be safe from the government and the Patriot Act, so this reasoning is equally a counter to the Act as it is an argument for it.

If you lived in BC, you still hold your rights.........if you disagree with Campbell, you have the right to vote him out in the Spring.

Ah, so whomever is in the majority is able to override my rights and deny them to me? So what's ethical, in your opinion, is simply a matter of how many people you can get to back it. Murder committed by a man alone is a crime, murder endorsed by a million people isn't. Correct?

Or would you instead say that some things are wrong no matter how many people endorse them, and therefore a majority mandate is no guarantee of ethics?

Now Hugo, as a Canadian, would you not want the government to use all means necessary to protect you from a terrorist attack and/or a public health crisis?

No, I'd want the government to disband itself, and then I shall make my own choices about how and when I protect myself and whom I trust to protect me, rather than having a bunch of bureaucrats make decisions about my property and my very life without my consent and without alternative.

Whats worse than death and destruction casued by a terrorist attack or a break-out of another SARS-like virus?

A Stalinist Purge? A Great Leap Forward? A Cultural Revolution? A Krystallnacht? A Final Solution?

All of which were the result of massive accumulation of state power and the subjugation of individual rights to the state.

The existence of the modern-day USA is proof that this slippery-slope argument is valid. The US government began as a minarchist government, providing solely for national defence, and over time gradually ballooned to the modern Leviathan that consumes 55% of the national economy, taxes and spends more money than the turnovers of every Fortune 500 company combined, and employs more people than any other entity in the whole country, not even counting the armed forces.

And sometimes politicans have to make hard choices, most being unpopular, and take the nations best intrests at hand.

Unless a politician was God, how could he possibly know what the best interests of the nation are? Unless he is a seer or other person claiming prescience (all of whom are widely regarded as frauds), he can't possibly know the ramifications of his actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and history is full of political action taken with laudable intentions leading to disastrous consequences.

[Stoker]

What's "safe" is wholly subjective, and a lot of people want to be safe from the government and the Patriot Act, so this reasoning is equally a counter to the Act as it is an argument for it.

How many Americans have died at the hand of OBL?

How many Americans have died becasue of the Patriot act?

Ah, so whomever is in the majority is able to override my rights and deny them to me? So what's ethical, in your opinion, is simply a matter of how many people you can get to back it. Murder committed by a man alone is a crime, murder endorsed by a million people isn't. Correct?

Or would you instead say that some things are wrong no matter how many people endorse them, and therefore a majority mandate is no guarantee of ethics?

Isn't democracy a bitch.....

Perhaps you have an alternative to democracy that serves the intrests of all?

No, I'd want the government to disband itself, and then I shall make my own choices about how and when I protect myself and whom I trust to protect me, rather than having a bunch of bureaucrats make decisions about my property and my very life without my consent and without alternative.

Do you live in a bunker out in the woods?

A Stalinist Purge? A Great Leap Forward? A Cultural Revolution? A Krystallnacht? A Final Solution?

All of which were the result of massive accumulation of state power and the subjugation of individual rights to the state.

So are you saying that the deaths caused by 9/11 and SARS are on the hands of the American and Canadian government alone?

Unless a politician was God, how could he possibly know what the best interests of the nation are? Unless he is a seer or other person claiming prescience (all of whom are widely regarded as frauds), he can't possibly know the ramifications of his actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and history is full of political action taken with laudable intentions leading to disastrous consequences.

Whats the road to heaven paved with?

Would you prefer nothing to be done, for fear that something bad may happen?

Do you long for a MAD MAX type world?

[caesar]

How many Americans have died at the hand of OBL?

How many Americans have died becasue of the Patriot act?

How many Iraqi civillians/ american/British/Australian/ etc and our own Canadian soldiers have died due to

Bush's ill advised invasion of Iraq?? And for what???? American experts and many of Bush's own men have stated that the invasion of Iraq has not made America any safer from terrorist attacks.

We were given these rights to prevent misuse of our personal information. This information can be obtained on a need to know basis; otherwise there is no reason for making them open and accessible without just cause.

[Stoker]

How many Iraqi civillians/ american/British/Australian/ etc and our own Canadian soldiers have died due to

Bush's ill advised invasion of Iraq?? And for what???? American experts and many of Bush's own men have stated that the invasion of Iraq has not made America any safer from terrorist attacks.

We were given these rights to prevent misuse of our personal information. This information can be obtained on a need to know basis; otherwise there is no reason for making them open and accessible without just cause.

What does Iraq have to do with the Patriot act?

Also, as I asked above, why is the onus on the Bush government instead of the BC Liberal party over these medical records?

[Hugo]

How many Americans have died at the hand of OBL? How many Americans have died becasue of the Patriot act?

Would any answer change the fact that "safe" is wholly subjective?

Perhaps you have an alternative to democracy that serves the intrests of all?

I certainly do.

Do you live in a bunker out in the woods?

Do you construct strawmen out in the woods?

So are you saying that the deaths caused by 9/11 and SARS are on the hands of the American and Canadian government alone?

What in my post led you to believe that I made that claim? Or are you just building another strawman?

Whats the road to heaven paved with?

Read the book of Matthew and find out. In case you're wondering, it isn't paved with bossing people around and exerting power and violence over them.

Do you long for a MAD MAX type world?

You're a veritable strawman factory.

Are you going to answer any of my points, or just ask silly one-line questions in an attempt to derail the argument?

[Stoker]

Would any answer change the fact that "safe" is wholly subjective?

Would adding an "er" to the end of "safe" still make it subjective?

I certainly do.

And whats that?

Do you construct strawmen out in the woods?

Who's the one building strawmen wrt the Patriot act on BC's medical records?

What in my post led you to believe that I made that claim? Or are you just building another strawman?

The example that you used, and the deaths that entailed from the said governments/groups in the before mentioned examples.

You're a veritable strawman factory.

Are you going to answer any of my points, or just ask silly one-line questions in an attempt to derail the argument?

Which ones do you want aswered, that I haven't? But for it to be an argument, perhaps you should also answer mine........

[Hugo]

Would adding an "er" to the end of "safe" still make it subjective?

Obviously! If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is "more beautiful" not?

And whats that?

This.

Who's the one building strawmen wrt the Patriot act on BC's medical records?

Attempting to distract, now? I'm asking you what right the US government had to pass Patriot. You're telling me that it was "safer", that there's no harm done, and all sorts of answers that are of absolutely no relevance to my question whatsoever.

This is analogous to our debate so far:

Me: "Aren't there addictive substances in chocolate?"

You: "Chocolate tastes nice!"

Me: "But isn't it addictive?"

You: "People can have chocolate if they want to!"

Me: "Isn't it addictive, though?"

You: "What are you, some nutcase who lives in the woods?"

Then you proceed to allege that I think that the US and Canadian governments are wholly responsible for 9/11 and SARS, that I must be a bunker-dwelling tinfoil hatter, that I yearn for the setting of Mad Max, and so forth. Complete strawmen all, not to mention the veiled insults that you're attempting to pass off as reasoned debate.

Which ones do you want aswered, that I haven't? But for it to be an argument, perhaps you should also answer mine........

You could start by answering any of my questions. You still haven't told me what gave the US government the right to pass the Patriot Act.

Then you could answer my question about whether or not a majority mandate lends any moral legitimacy to an action or a concept, basically, whether you are a nihilist or a moral absolutist.

Then you could answer my question as to what makes a politician inherently superior to all other men in such a way that allows him to correctly divine the best course for the country, discounting the fact that "best" is as subjective as "safe".

And as to when I'll answer yours, as I told you a few days ago, I'll do that after you answer mine. Properly, of course, since ad hominem slander and strawmen won't do. I might also be inclined to answer them if you'd filter out all your strawmen and your insults and lay them out concisely for me.

[Slavik44]

that depends on wether or not the means justify the end

Whats worse than death and destruction casued by a terrorist attack or a break-out of another SARS-like virus?

sorry you didn't respond satisfactorily to my question.

Actions speak louder than words

technically all you got is words no actions, it is not like I can see you...or can I? You agreed with the first part of my statement but failed to acknowledge the second half.

[caesar]

This is analogous to our debate so far:

Me: "Aren't there addictive substances in chocolate?"

You: "Chocolate tastes nice!"

Me: "But isn't it addictive?"

You: "People can have chocolate if they want to!"

Me: "Isn't it addictive, though?"

You: "What are you, some nutcase who lives in the woods?"

hugo; I like this example re: the run around excuse stoker is giving out. How are any of our records medical or whatever have to do with making the USA safe or safer?????? Why do you think we have these rights for. So that we cannot be intimidated by governemt etc on the basis of our PERSONAL information. MY government may have a valid reason for checking our records; no agency or person in the USA has an reason to enable themselves to look at any of our personal information!!!!!!!!. Bug off of any of my personal information; it may be boring but it is MINE

[August1991]

hugo; I like this example re: the run around excuse stoker is giving out.

Be careful, caesar. I'm sure Hugo is just as bothered by the Canadian government having access to such information as the US government.

MY government may have a valid reason for checking our records; no agency or person in the USA has an reason to enable themselves to look at any of our personal information!!!!!!!!. Bug off of any of my personal information; it may be boring but it is MINE

If it's yours, why should any government look at it?

As an institution, do you really trust the Canadian government more than the American government? (Or should I say the BC government?)

[Stoker]

Attempting to distract, now? I'm asking you what right the US government had to pass Patriot. You're telling me that it was "safer", that there's no harm done, and all sorts of answers that are of absolutely no relevance to my question whatsoever.

What "right" does any government have to pass laws/legislation?

The people. The majority wish to be safe.

You could start by answering any of my questions. You still haven't told me what gave the US government the right to pass the Patriot Act.

The American people.

Then you could answer my question about whether or not a majority mandate lends any moral legitimacy to an action or a concept, basically, whether you are a nihilist or a moral absolutist.

The "moral legitimacy" can cut both ways, depends if you are in the majority or in the minority I guess.........

Then you could answer my question as to what makes a politician inherently superior to all other men in such a way that allows him to correctly divine the best course for the country, discounting the fact that "best" is as subjective as "safe".

The people that voted him or her into power.

[caesar]

As an institution, do you really trust the Canadian government more than the American government?

YES. And at least I can vote them out and make my objections known. Which I am confident we will do to Campbell.

[brianw]

Did the United States use that persons medical records against them?

They used their Birthplace/ethnic background/religious background/etc.... Is that mediacal records or a census records or what. Either way is it not private information?

Sure I would.......If there was a rape/murder in my area (and I fit the general discription of the suspect) and the police asked for samples, I'd be more then willing to give mine.

So now if I were a criminal all I would have to do is follow you into a barber shop, collect some DNA, plant it at the scene of a crime, and it is up to you to prove that you did not commit the crime (or using your analogy, leave it up to you to prove that you are not a terrorist). Can you prove that you are not?

If I were a suspect in a crime, would the police need my consent to moniter my activities?

But if you are not, should another state (i.e. government) be able to monitor you without your consent? Medical records or any other records being used to do the monitoring?

If that rash could lead to a public health crisis, it should be everybodys.

I don't play with other people's sensitive areas! Do you?

Who's doing the fear mongering again?

You!!

Is the United States government publishing the records? Making them avalibale on the internet for the public?

Shouldn't they? Do you have something to hide if they do?

With that said, if I thought I could sell a book about my life, and make buckets of money, I would.

And with that said, it would be your choice, not someone elses.

Some agenda? What was the reason for the Patriot act? There's your agenda......

To enslave their people? To invade the people's rights? To bypass the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)? Pick one.

Sure. The Patriot act was passed to ease law enforcements job in fighting terror and terror related crimes.

And how does surpressing your own people fight terrorism?

As for your second question, if you live in BC, when the Campbell government gave your records to American companies, he (not the Americans) gave up "your rights".

So if "he" as an elected representative can give up your rights what happens after that? Once your rights have been violated is it alright to keep violating them?

It's quite obvious that conventional methods might not always work {see 9/11}.

Conventional methods worked. The US government did not listen to the warnings before hand. Did you not hear the results of the investigations about 9/11?

Now I've answered your questions, answer mine.

What have you answered? All I have seen is "Trust me I know what I am talking about"

[QOUTE]As a Canadian, would you not want the government to use all means necessary to protect you from a terrorist attack and/or a public health crisis?

Who has attacked Canada? Oh yea the only foreign power to attack Canada has been the US. Have we ever been attacked by anybody else?

What "right" does any government have to pass laws/legislation?

None, if it violates your rights. Just read section 15 of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms or the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The "moral legitimacy" can cut both ways, depends if you are in the majority or in the minority I guess.........

There is no "moral legitimacy" if it violates morality. In the majority, minority, or otherwise!

Taken directly from the UNDHR

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Also, as I asked above, why is the onus on the Bush government instead of the BC Liberal party over these medical records?

The onus isn't! Didn't you yourself bring up the question about what they would use them for? Isn't the whole point of the discussion, that it is private information that should not be bought, sold, traded, or given to anyone?

[Stoker]

They used their Birthplace/ethnic background/religious background/etc.... Is that mediacal records or a census records or what. Either way is it not private information?

When did they use BC medical records?

So now if I were a criminal all I would have to do is follow you into a barber shop, collect some DNA, plant it at the scene of a crime, and it is up to you to prove that you did not commit the crime (or using your analogy, leave it up to you to prove that you are not a terrorist). Can you prove that you are not?

How would the criminal know who's hair was who's?

With that said, I'm thinking more along the lines of Semen/blood samples.......

But if you are not, should another state (i.e. government) be able to monitor you without your consent? Medical records or any other records being used to do the monitoring?

If your government gives-up the records, knowing full well of the laws of the said states........who's fault is it that your records are being checked.....that is if they are.

I don't play with other people's sensitive areas! Do you?

Do you have to "play" with a person's "sensitive area" to get sick?

You!!

Where? I realize the threat posed by terrorism, and have backed that up with examples (9/11). You claim that the United States is killing human rights, but don't provide any proof.

Shouldn't they? Do you have something to hide if they do?

For what reason? If it was to alert of the public of a terror suspect sure..........but if it's the records of some 70 year old women that lives in Richmond BC, why would they?

To enslave their people? To invade the people's rights? To bypass the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)? Pick one.

Can you provide the wide spread proof of this?

And how does surpressing your own people fight terrorism?

Who's being suppressed? Perhaps a more apt question would be for you to define supressed............

Conventional methods worked. The US government did not listen to the warnings before hand. Did you not hear the results of the investigations about 9/11?

The 3000 deaths prove you wrong..........There were wide spread deffiences in the American intellgence systems, added to laws that didn't allow total information sharing between the FBI and CIA........those laws have been changed with the Patriot act, so as to reflect the different world within which we live.

Who has attacked Canada? Oh yea the only foreign power to attack Canada has been the US. Have we ever been attacked by anybody else?

Are you willing to guarantee that Canada will not be attacked in the future?

But if you want to quibble, Germans sunk ships in the St Lawerence and a Japenese sub shelled a lighthouse not far from were I live.

There is no "moral legitimacy" if it violates morality. In the majority, minority, or otherwise!

Who defines the morals in a democracy?

The onus isn't! Didn't you yourself bring up the question about what they would use them for? Isn't the whole point of the discussion, that it is private information that should not be bought, sold, traded, or given to anyone?

Again, the province of British Columbia gave these records to American companies, well full aware that under the Patriot act the US government can access them. Who went to who?

And has there been any proof, or even a tin-foil hat laden report that the United States government has even looked at the records?

Again, who the fear mongerer

[caesar]

And has there been any proof, or even a tin-foil hat laden report that the United States government has even looked at the records?

That's not the point. The point is that they may be allowed to. I do fault our local BC government.

I would like a stronger cental government to protect us from fools like some of our provincial politicians.

[Hugo]

What "right" does any government have to pass laws/legislation?... The people. The majority wish to be safe... [what gave the US government the right to pass the Patriot Act was] The American people... [what makes a politician inherently superior to all other men is] The people that voted him or her into power.

So you are saying that the majority of people are able to trample the rights of others simply because they are more numerous. What about if the "American people" or the "majority" wanted to send Jews to the gas chambers, would you be OK with that too?

Or does the very existence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the US Constitution prove that the majority cannot be trusted to do the right thing and that popular mandate does not make something automatically right? That even our "democracies" tell us that the people and the majority are not always right, and there is something more - the law and received morality - that is above even them and overrides their desires?

Which is it, Stoker? Answer a direct question for once.

You still have not told me how a politician can forge a national public policy for the best interests of the nation. I asked you how a politician could see the future and divine the best course of action. You answered that the people grant him this power. Seeing as none of us can see the future, your proposal is of the blind leading the blind, or rather, the blind selecting the blind.

Furthermore, as I said before, you cannot delegate or transfer a right or authority you do not have. I can grant Caesar a power of attorney over my affairs because I already have power of attorney over my affairs. I cannot grant Caesar the right to kill you because I don't have the right to kill you.

Therefore, if the US government has the right to pass the Patriot Act and to use it, this means that any Republican voter has the right to go poking through your bank account, medical records, etc. etc. any time they feel like, without consulting you and without your consent. Otherwise, the majority voters (Republicans) couldn't possibly confer this right on their government.

The only other way to make your argument consistent is if Caesar starts shopping for rifles, if you follow me.

[Stoker]

So you are saying that the majority of people are able to trample the rights of others simply because they are more numerous. What about if the "American people" or the "majority" wanted to send Jews to the gas chambers, would you be OK with that too?

Who defines whats "OK" in that example?

Or does the very existence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the US Constitution prove that the majority cannot be trusted to do the right thing and that popular mandate does not make something automatically right? That even our "democracies" tell us that the people and the majority are not always right, and there is something more - the law and received morality - that is above even them and overrides their desires?

Who put in place the Charter and the Constitution? Who can change the Charter and the Constitution?

Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".

Therefore, if the US government has the right to pass the Patriot Act and to use it, this means that any Republican voter has the right to go poking through your bank account, medical records, etc. etc. any time they feel like, without consulting you and without your consent. Otherwise, the majority voters (Republicans) couldn't possibly confer this right on their government.

Most Democratcs voted for the Patriot act (including Kerry) also. With that said, as I've been saying since the start, the BC Liberals handed out the records, the Americans didn't activly seek them.

[Hugo]

Who defines whats "OK" in that example?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I asked if you would be OK with something. Therefore, who defines "OK" is you! I'm asking you, if the majority voted for an atrocity like genocide, if you would accept that, or if you would think that the majority was wrong to desire genocide. Yes or no. Very simple really.

Who put in place the Charter and the Constitution? Who can change the Charter and the Constitution?

In the case of the Charter, Trudeau's Parliament. In the case of the Constitution, a bunch of fat middle-aged political critics in the late 18th Century. You should know this stuff.

As to who can change it, it's very difficult to change it. This is because even those who created our democracies knew that the majority, that elected representatives, are fallible and can do the wrong thing on occasion. Hitler came to power according to the letter of the Weimar constitution. He came to power democratically. Think about that.

Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".

So you are a nihilist and believe that nothing is moral and right? That one is entitled to do whatever one is able to do? That murdering 6 million Jews is no morally worse or better than saving 6 million Jews?

Most Democratcs voted for the Patriot act (including Kerry) also.

It doesn't matter how many voted for it because as long as there is one lone American who disagrees with the Patriot Act, that Act is unjust. The majority cannot justly force their views and opinions on the minority and violate their rights nor can they confer power on others to do so. All you need for oppression is one man who disagrees and is forced to comply by force or threat thereof. That's what we have.

the BC Liberals handed out the records, the Americans didn't activly seek them.

Then the BC Liberals are merely their partners in crime. They handed out what didn't belong to them to people who had no business accepting it.

More to the point, you're still dodging the actual question. How can A confer a power over B to C that A does not have over B in the first place? How can one give what one does not have?

As I said before, try to actually answer.