http://www.dailykos.com/Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:what a hypocritical deushe god I hate that man first he implys that the world is safer now then it was during the Cold War what a load of bullshit atleast the Soviets could be reasoned with and knew as well as us that nuclear war was in no ones interests. The enemy we now face has no such scruples against killing large civilian populations as was made abundantly clear on 9-11..
hipsterdufus said:Al Gore gave an amazing speech on Monday on the dangers of unchecked executive power.
It will be rebroadcast tonight (Tuesday Jan 17) at 8:00 PM on C-Span 1.
You can also download the video or podcast at c-span.org.
Here's a little quote:
http://www.dailykos.com/
SouthernDemocrat said:You have got to be kidding. During the Cold War the fate of all of civilization was in balance. The flu kills more worldwide in any given year than the Terrorists have killed in the last 50 years.
Terrorism is a threat, but on balance, comparing it to the Cold War is like comparing a dime to a dollar.
Navy Pride said:Yeah I heard his speech hips......Especially the part about illegal wire tapping without a warrant........I guess he forgot when Cinton and him did the same thing in the Aldrich Ames spy case and even went farther in conducting a search of Mr. Ames house without a search warrant..........:roll:
Oh and we were not even at war then...........
Either you are ignorant of the history of the Cold War, or you are incapable of objectivity.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Bullshit the Soviets could be reasoned with and they acted on their national interests not out of religious psychosis, if AlQaeda obtains a nuclear weapon they will not hesitate to use it at least during the cold war the fingers on the buttons were attached to sain rational men but Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. Never did the Soviets attack us on our soil so how can you say they were more of a threat? The fact of the matter is that the threat of nuclear war wasn't eliminated after the fall of the Soviet Union it actually increased because now you have hundreds of individual states each with nuclear arms with less security surrounding them and thousands of out of work Soviet nuclear scientists ready to sell their talents to the highest bidder. The enemy we now face maybe smaller but I'd rather fight a sane giant than an insane midget with a bazooka.
SouthernDemocrat said:Either you are ignorant of the history of the Cold War, or you are incapable of objectivity.
That Cold War that you claim was less of a threat to the United States than terrorism:
- Cost over 100,000 American lives in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
- Resulted in over 200,000 Americans being wounded.
- Nikita Khrushchev, you know one of those “Reasonable Soviets”, had enough Nuclear Missiles stationed in Cuba to level every single major city in the entire southern half of the United States. Including Washington D.C. Those missiles came literally within a hair of being launched and thus throwing the entire world into a literal Armageddon.
For forty yearsthe slightest diplomatic or military mistake on the part of the United States or the Soviet Union would have resulted in a nuclear conflict that would have literally killed billions of people. Of course, maybe you are right. A few nut jobs living in caves are a bigger threat.
- Joseph Stalin, a “Reasonable Soviet” who murdered 20 million of his own citizens, had control of the Soviets nuclear arsenal until his death in 1953.
Today several small nations are nuclear powers, yet none of them, other than Russia and China has the ability to actually deliver a nuclear ordnance to U.S. soil. There is a significant risk associated with a terrorist group obtaining an unaccounted for nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union. However, the likely hood of that occurring is not that strong, and more than likely, the only way they would be able to get such a weapon to U.S. soil would be in the form of a dirty bomb. Because of psychological affects, a dirty bomb would be enormously disruptive to our economy, but in terms of actual deaths, would probably result in far fewer deaths that what occurred on 9/11.
The terrorists can kill some innocent Americans. They can scare us. Yet they cannot destroy our nation, or even remotely threaten civilization itself. This puts them in stark contrasts to the threat we faced during the Cold War.
Navy Pride said:SD, when are you going to answer my question about Clinton wire tapping and conducting illegal searches without a warrant? Where was your outrage then?
Navy Pride said:Yeah I heard his speech hips......Especially the part about illegal wire tapping without a warrant........I guess he forgot when Cinton and him did the same thing in the Aldrich Ames spy case and even went farther in conducting a search of Mr. Ames house without a search warrant..........:roll:
Oh and we were not even at war then...........
SouthernDemocrat said:I did answer your question. If there is credible evidence of Clinton conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without a warrant, then I think that he should be held accountable as well.
I am against any president conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without warrant. I do not think that Bush should be impeached for this, that is unless it was found out that he was wiretapping political enemies or journalists. However, I do think that we are a nation of laws and that the President cannot be allowed to ignore the law and act without judicial approval or congressional oversight.
Pacridge said:I was wondering about Clinton's actions. Haven't heard anything in regards to Ames, did they search his house and then get a warrant? Or did they just never get a warrant? Do you have any sources for this?
I keep hearing how Clinton violated the same laws Bush is now accused of violating. I'm interested in this, any sources you got I'd like to see.
As for the not at war comment- It seems like we're at war, when that excuses some of Bush's actions and we're not at war when that works in the President favor.
Navy Pride said:The Attorney General was on Larry King last night and he said it happened.................I have heard FDR did it too...................I really don't have any problem wiretapping terrorists myself..................
SouthernDemocrat said:A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time. This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval. However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.
The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress. A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so. If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.
The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.
SouthernDemocrat said:A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time. This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval. However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.
The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress. A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so. If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.
The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Haven't you heard of Operation Echelon?
SouthernDemocrat said:Yeah, but only from right wing rags and as its been shown time and time again, they tend not to be hallmarks of truth and objectivity. The day it is actually reported in the major media, and in that report, they document how the Clinton Administration conducted warrant-less wiretaps and searches of American Citizens, then I will put some stock into it.
Until then, it’s the same old half truths, rumors and speculation that is hallmark of right wing rags.
Of course I am sure that the only reason this has not been reported in any of the major media is the old “liberal media conspiracy”.:roll:
SouthernDemocrat said:Yeah, but only from right wing rags and as its been shown time and time again, they tend not to be hallmarks of truth and objectivity. The day it is actually reported in the major media, and in that report, they document how the Clinton Administration conducted warrant-less wiretaps and searches of American Citizens, then I will put some stock into it.
Until then, it’s the same old half truths, rumors and speculation that is hallmark of right wing rags.
Of course I am sure that the only reason this has not been reported in any of the major media is the old “liberal media conspiracy”.:roll:
Pacridge said:You know, I can't swear to it, but I think 60 Minutes did a story on OE a few years back. Let me go do some research.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh it's a proven fact that the media is left wing it's all been shown in a U.C.L.A. study, the fact of the matter is that 60 minutes did report about operation Echelon back in the 90's: “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)
Pacridge said:I was wondering about Clinton's actions. Haven't heard anything in regards to Ames, did they search his house and then get a warrant? Or did they just never get a warrant? Do you have any sources for this?
I keep hearing how Clinton violated the same laws Bush is now accused of violating. I'm interested in this, any sources you got I'd like to see.
As for the not at war comment- It seems like we're at war, when that excuses some of Bush's actions and we're not at war when that works in the President favor.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59370"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
"There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
"Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
"The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
"The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."
Pacridge said:Yeah, I didn't see your post. I knew I saw this on 60 Minutes.
Got a link to the UCLA study?
Pacridge said:Yeah, I didn't see your post. I knew I saw this on 60 Minutes.
Got a link to the UCLA study?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?