One last thing before I go, via the Boston Globe:
- PICTURE THIS: A folksy, self-consciously plainspoken Southern politician rises to power during a period of profound unrest in America. The nation is facing one of the half-dozen or so of its worst existential crises to date, and the people, once sunny, confident, and striving, are now scared, angry, and disillusioned.
This politician, a ''Professional Common Man,'' executes his rise by relentlessly attacking the liberal media, fancy-talking intellectuals, shiftless progressives, pinkos, promiscuity, and welfare hangers-on, all the while clamoring for a return to traditional values, to love of country, to the pie-scented days of old when things made sense and Americans were indisputably American. He speaks almost entirely in ''noble but slippery abstractions''-Liberty, Freedom, Equality-and people love him, even if they can't fully articulate why without resorting to abstractions themselves.
Through a combination of factors-his easy bearing chief among them (along with massive cash donations from Big Business; disorganization in the liberal opposition; a stuffy, aloof opponent; and support from religious fanatics who feel they've been unfairly marginalized)-he wins the presidential election.
Once in, he appoints his friends and political advisers to high-level positions, stocks the Supreme Court with ''surprisingly unknown lawyers who called [him] by his first name,'' declaws Congress, allows Big Business to dictate policy, consolidates the media, and fills newspapers with ''syndicated gossip from Hollywood.'' Carping newspapermen worry that America is moving backward to a time when anti-German politicians renamed sauerkraut ''Liberty Cabbage'' and ''hick legislators...set up shop as scientific experts and made the world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution,'' but newspaper readers, wary of excessive negativity, pay no mind.
Given the nature of ''powerful and secret enemies'' of America-who are ''planning their last charge'' to take away our freedom-an indefinite state of crisis is declared, and that freedom is stowed away for safekeeping. When the threat passes, we can have it back, but in the meantime, citizens are asked to ''bear with'' the president.
Sure, some say these methods are extreme, but the plain folks are tired of wishy-washy leaders, and feel the president's decisiveness is its own excuse. Besides, as one man says, a fascist dictatorship ''couldn't happen here in America...we're a country of freemen!''
. . .
While more paranoid readers might be tempted to draw parallels between this scenario and sundry predicaments we may or may not be in right now, the story line is actually that of Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel ''It Can't Happen Here,'' a hastily written cautionary note about America's potential descent into fascism, recently reissued by New American Library in a handsome trade edition with a blood-spattered cover design.
31 Comments:
Was that for AP Am. Hist? Or English? Or were you one of the lucky ones for Both?
As I was reading it, I thought it sounded familar, but it wasnt till the end that it clicked. What a terrible memory I have- high school was such a blur.
I second your recomendation of "It Can't Happen Here", it is well worth the read. Though it does seem you could just read the newspapers and get the same story...
I was one of the "both" people. Mrs. Herbert and Mrs. Page BOTH on my case about that paper *shudder*.
To this day, I have never had a harder writing assignment. Maybe my PhD thesis will manage to top it...but I doubt it.
Unrelated to this topic (and more so to your ACLU anti-christmas posts).
Minnesota Public Radio (and others perhaps?) have started up gather.com. Basicly, its a place for people to discuss the things they hear about on MPR/NPR, and since that covers just about everything, many many topics are out there. It might be an interesting experiment for you to post some of your writings out there and get feedback from more informed citizens than the likes of us :-) If you decided to post out there, let us know so we can follow what happens.
Since you are going to be in MN soon, maybe this isnt so off topic after all. You WILL be calling me this trip, right? Maybe we can all do the GZ thing again, perhaps a movie and/or video games. Nothing kills off brain cells quite like video games...
Slush,
Who are you? Were you in our class or one of Author's younger friends? If you don't want to give your name here, can I ask Author?
you can ask ZDK if you want, chances are you know who I am :-)
Check out my website too, I dont hide my identity *that* well.
Will do, and can you hit me again with the HTML for compressing a link?
And Author, I will call you this week if I don't go to Montreal tomorrow. As for your post, I'd be interested from hearing from those who draw the conclusions Republican no-spin non-talking points tell them to about how judges could make us "lose our republic" as to their views of the president's power to do whatever he wants and hide it .
Aleks,
If you were talking about me, I'll provide that insight. Terrorism is literally a life or death matter. There are certain liberties that some are willing to give up, and indeed some are worth reliquishing. Telephone calls placed to individuals in countries or regions that are havens for terrorists should be monitored...as long as we know that it will happen. I can live with that. Giving government officials the right to enter US residents homes and offices without a REAL search warrant, be that to search for evidence or to place wire taps, is a different story. Giving government officials the ability to hold someone arrested in the US without charging them for more than 48 hours, whether they are citizens or not, is a different story. My first ancestors in this country were not British, so they became citizens the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, not before. In fact, the vast majority of this country traces their roots in this land to an ancestor who was born abroad. The liberties we demanded 230 years ago were not meant to only apply to citizens, but to all.
That said, if we forbid these wire-taps and (what I consider to be) unlawful searches, people will die. Citizens will die. People like you and me will die. That sickens me. It brings about a level of fear. I'm not immune from terrorism. Sioux Falls, SD is said to be one of the first choices for Timothy McVeigh. If certain liberties are not forfeighted, I could die in a terrorist attack. So could you; so could anyone. I can't speak for Republicans or for South Dakotans or any other group of Americans. But at a time like this, I can only invoke words that, still today, ring true to me: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"-Patrick Henry
I could die in a terrorist attack because we choose to provide certain freedoms to some resident aliens or Americans citizens that innocently associated with the wrong people. I am prepared to do so. I am not a hypocrit. Give me liberty or give me death. I will not ask my countrymen to go die for freedom on foreign soil if I'm not willing to die for it here at home. I am. Others can make their own choices. This is mine.
CF
aleks: Click on the link in my name ;-)
Interesting. Since you talk about being "a man" and are "not a hypocrit" [sic], what do you suppose are your odds of dying in the War on Terrorism in South Dakota where you are "not immune" and are "willing to die for" freedom, as opposed to what they would be in the War in Iraq if you were to join those you played your role in sending there? Are you evaluating South Dakota's interest to al-Qaeda based on the federal grants you take?
Slush, I did and don't remember a Jay, unless you used to live close to Lamplighter Park and had a big grey dog and are a bit older than Author and I.
Oh and CF, obviously I don't expect this to convince you, nor do I really care which of us you think is the "sheep", but just to try and help you out: I think Sen. Frist is innocent of the insider trading charge and just a victim of good timing.
Aleks,
Her name was Bess :-)
Aleks,
Do you disagree with my position or are you just being a dick? For one, I already explained that SD was considered one of the first targets for Timothy McVeigh. At the time, McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City was the largest terrorist attack on US soil in our nations history. If we were a prime target for the second largest terrorist attack in the nations history, I struggle to see why you'd question SD's vulnerability.
Additionally, my job requires frequent air travel to major metropolitan areas. The largest terrorist attack in US history, September 11th, involved commercial airliners flying to and from major metropolitan areas.
The two largest terrorist attacks in US history have proven that I am at risk. Am I the most at risk in the country? No. But I'm certainly at risk.
As for you comments about the soldiers in Iraq, I don't understand why you'd compare the risk of domestic terror with the risk our soldiers face in Iraq. I don't see any comparison. The soldiers in Iraq have courageously committed themselves to risking their lives and their livelihood for the sake of our freedom and security. They have chosen to follow our President wherever he feels threats to our country exist, without consideration to the pain and suffering that they might incur as a result of that commitment. The have given our military the authority to pluck them out of their everyday lives and ship them anywhere in the world. Compare that to a guy just walking around living his own life however he chooses, trying to decide if he should eat turkey or ham this christmas. There is no comparison. Statistics can not even start to express the difference between those two situations. I suppose in the past 4+ years a soldier in Iraq is 500 to 1000 times more likely to die in combat than a citizen in the US is to die of terrorism. This statistic is ridiculous, though, because it doesn't take into account the courage of a soldier who signs up for the military and chooses to put himself in harms way with a goal to keep that number (500-1000) as HIGH as possible. The higher that number is, the fewer terrorist attacks that have occurred and the happier a soldier is. The soldiers would rather die than see a citizen they don't even know at home die. That cannot be compared to someone saying they would rather die in a terrorist attack than see liberties die. No comparison. My job is to work to support my family. The soldiers job is to go the most dangerous places in the world and minimize the risk of that danger finding me. There is no comparison. I don't know why you'd ask for some statistics comparing the two. Those statistics are irrelevant to that soldier.
Now, do you actually disagree with anything I said? How about you? Are you willing to die for the freedom of some Saudi national living in the US who the government considers a "threat" just because he has a cousin who sells prayer rugs to a mosque that sponsors terrorism? It's an easy decision. You will almost definitely never actually have to die. All you have to do is say you're willing to increase the likelihood of you dying. That likelihood is still slim. You just have to say that if all those soldiers and sailors and airmen in our military are willing to die for freedom, without hesitation, on foreign soil, are you at least willing to risk your life for it here at home. Patrick Henry's contemporaries, including my British ancestors, were concerned for the liberties of my non-British ancestors in America. Lincoln's contemporaries, including my ancestors, were willing to die for the freedom of non-citizens in the South. Are you at least willing to increase your risk of death by terrorist attack for the freedom of non-citizens today? It has nothing to do with being a man, it is just a matter of being a true patriot. A true patriot, in my opinion, believes that the USA was founded in the hopes of creating a society free of government tyranny. Where do you stand?
CF
Wow, that was wordy and pointless. My intention was to give you a chance to address the point, but naturally you'd rather give pompous speeches to which "dick" is the only honest reaction. I guess having your word on it that McVeigh could name the capital of South Dakota makes you a "true patriot" after all - do you suppose Zarqawi can? Do you think the soldiers you accuse me of disrespecting don't have families to support? Besides, no one said you had to enlist and make the same wages as the soldiers I didn't want sent to Iraq, civilians can make a fortune with private contractors in Iraq - haven't your no-spin non-talking points mentioned the state of the electrical grid there? And when you capture bin Laden, you can nobly refuse the bounty, unlike soldiers who don't have the option.
As for freedom, I guess we've come to the point where I have to say that yes, I am for it despite not liking Bush. That's why any president monitoring the communications of Americans without 1. a warrent, 2. oversight of any kind or 3. any willingness to accept accountability or even awareness makes me nervous. Clinton and Reno were bad, "your ilk" are much worse. But then I don't have a perfect, 100%, party-line record of voting for this president and his allies in Congress, so I guess any criticism I make is going to be drawing the conclusions your mysterious Democratic Talking Points tell us "sheep" to draw. I also don't see how this incredible power grab by the Executive significantly reduces my chances of dying, so I can't go on about how I willingly face death (I fly almost twice a week domestically and several times a year internationally, by the way) for freedom.
So, you do agree with me. Those three points you listed as reasons for disliking the Patriot Act in its present form are exactly the reasons I don't like it. I'm glad to hear it. I don't understand why you'd insult me and argue with me for agreeing with you, but hey, I'm not going to try to get inside your head.
It also confuses me to see that you don't think that this "power grab" is making people safer. It seems clear to me that we will have fewer terrorist attacks if Big Brother is breaking down our doors every time someone uses the word "bomb" over the phone. Since both positions are unprovable, though, I'll just except it as a difference of opinion. Either way, I was glad to hear Larry Craig, one of the four Republican Senators that came out against the bill, expressing the same concerns I have. At least there's some free-thinking senators still on the hill.
CF
You think that concentrating the power in the Executive's hands makes us safer than if there was oversight from a court that almost never says no? I'd say that makes it more prone to abuse, and therefore distrust and lack of cooperation, and in the worst case misdirection of anti-terrorist resources against domestic opponents. It's not the actual acts of wiretapping without a warrent, creepy as that is, that bother me so much as the assertion that the President gets to decide what he can do. Maybe you'll understand if I put it this way: someday, in the far distant future, the president with not only sweeping powers to spy without a warrent but also the power to do damn near anything he claims is in the interest of a war that will never be over might be a Democrat. Does that help?
Off topic, but tag, you're it.
Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?
Senator Larry Craig:
"You know, I've been here a little while, and I remember Janet Reno, and I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, and I fear the day that we get a president, not this president, who has a very liberal attorney general and sees the opportunity, uh, to leap through the holes that are crafted in the Patriot Act, uh, that could tread on our civil liberties."
-On the December 21st edition of the Rush Limbaugh show. Transcript at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122105/content/blank.guest.html
If you are truly looking for the conservative perspective on this issue I highly suggest following that link. I think Craig put Rush in his place. If you do read the entire transcript you'll see what I meant yesterday when I said that Senator Craig actually gets it. Even if you completely trust this President, you should still recognize the threat of granting the executive such power without oversight.
Now why are you still arguing with me? We agree! You should be checking outside for signs of the apocalypse. "Maybe you'll understand..." I'm telling you, I do understand. I agree with you, at least with what you've said so far. You might be just saying that you are more OK with the idea of these unlawful searches than I am because, like Craig, you are just worried about a lack of oversight, while I am concerned about them even if there is oversight. If that's the case, would you mind posting your argument for why you think law enforcement needs this power and why you don't think it is an erosion of civil liberties? If this is your position, I'm willing to keep an open mind until I hear your argument.
CF
You're quoting his show, and you ask if I've "been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?" What do they teach in schools these days.
As for the illegal wiretapping, I said it was creepy. In fact it's terrifying, but it doesn't begin compare to the process. I also said that warrents can be gotten from a secret court that almost never denies requests. If that's not enough, the President, not I, need to make the case for exanded powers/ diminished civil liberties. But the important thing is that those powers be defined, and not by the president, especially alone and unannounced. According to the President's reasoning, he can assume (as he has) the right to detain American citizens without trial for as long as there's a "War on Terror". He could also have people summarily executed or tortured, all under the authority supposedly given by Congress' authorization to attack al-Qaeda in 2001.
As for "'Maybe you'll understand...'" I had no way of knowing that someone had already reminded you of the possibility of a Democratic president. I'm not really Limbaugh's audience.
"You're quoting his show, and you ask if I've "been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?" What do they teach in schools these days."
The definition of sarcasm, among other things.
I agree that it is a good start to have the powers of the executive absolutely defined and subject to judicial review. Unfortunately, it doesn't help you much if your defining powers that are tyrannical. I'm sure you've heard of the Padilla case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562970/
An American citizen arrested on US Soil held without being charged for over 3 years! There was judicial review and it was upheld. I agree that we need judicial review, but we also need to provide ALL people arrested in the United States the right to a speedy trial, regardless of the circumstance. It is not enough to define the powers of the executive, we must limit them. No secret warrents, no domestic wiretaps without warrents, no holding people arrested in the US as "enemy combatants". I won't trust the courts to limit executive powers, I want the legislature to help.
CF
So you quote Limbaugh's show while implying that I'm the one who gets info from him, out of sarcasm. Fair enough, that seems about as deliberately sarcastic as your claims of being intelligent.
While I don't see exactly where I've come out against limiting executive power, in a constitutional system to define is generally to limit, although with Bush's messiah complex and Cheney (Say It Loud And There's Music Playing)'s penchant for secrecy, and such a tame congress and media, neither seem very effective restraints. I'm actually quite familiar with the Padilla case, and didn't vote for the President who assigned himself the power to disappear American citizens, desire him to be in a position of appointing judges, or vote with 100% consistency for Congressmen and Senators unlikely to challenge him.
Can I ask, then, who you voted for for congress in '00 and '04? Here are the vote totals for the passage of the Patriot Act (courtesy of US Dept of Justice):
Senate:
Yea: 98
Nay: 1
Not Voting: 1
Republicans Voting Yea: 100%
Democrats Voting Yea: 96%
Total Voting Yea: 98%
House:
Yea: 357
Nay: 66
Not Voting: 9
Republicans Voting Yea: 96%
Democrats Voting Yea: 69%
Total Voting Yea: 83%
The Republicans voted for the USA PATRIOT Act overwhelmingly. So did the Democrats. What happened to Padilla was legal according to this bill. I may have voted with 100% consistency with Congressmen and Senators unlikely to challenge the bill, but guess what? So did you. 96% in the senate. Only 1 Democrat opposed it. And how about the latest version? I voted against Herseth (D-SD), who voted in support of the new bill. It's easy to say I voted for people unlikely to challenge this. Only people unlikely to challenge this were on the ballot.
Congress assigned the President the power to disappear citizens, not Bush. Many presidents have tried to overstep the authorities granted them by Congress, including famous Democrats like FDR and Jefferson. It should be Congress, not the President, whose responsible for limiting executive powers. The Republicans have their own man in the White House. That's why the Democrats should have been the ones to stop this. I blame them equally. If they voted on principle rather than polls, they would have stopped this nonsense.
CF
1. Are you saying that the Democrats are as deferential to Bush as Republicans are on this issue?
2. Are you saying you see no significant difference between voting the Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of September 11 and supporting unmodified reauthorization 4 years later?
3. Did you deliberately or unintentionally change my question from supporting Bush to having voted for the Patriot Act after September 11?
I apologize for asking questions instead of answering, but I cannot even try to intelligently address your arguments and "truth monsters" without you clearing those up.
By the way, you should probably "be a man"/"wolf"/"patriot" and tell DHS just how badly SD needs its current share of federal funding. I recommend using as much documentation as you've used here.
D.C. May Benefit as DHS Bases Grants on Risk
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A01
Regions at the highest risk of terrorist attack or natural disaster will receive an increased share of grant money under a new urban funding formula unveiled yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security, the latest step in its effort to focus more resources on the gravest threats facing the United States.
The policy change, announced by Secretary Michael Chertoff, comes after several years of criticism from lawmakers and private research groups.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff speaks during a news conference on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff speaks during a news conference on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. (Manuel Balce Ceneta - AP)
Homeland Security
* D.C. May Benefit as DHS Bases Grants on Risk
* VERBATIM:VERBATIM
* Will job growth in Virginia continue, or will traffic problems and labor shortages drive companies elsewhere?
* Obituaries:Nguyen Van Thoi Dies; D.C Area Restaurateur
* Homeland Security Is Faulted in Audit
More Stories
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
* Thieving Monkeys Blog
Full List of Blogs (1 links) ยป
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
The critics complained that sparsely populated states such as Wyoming were receiving a proportionally greater share of Homeland Security money than populous jurisdictions, including Washington, that are much more likely to be attacked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/
AR2006010300561.html
1. "Are you saying that the Democrats are as deferential to Bush as Republicans are on this issue?"
No, I'm saying the Democrats are responsible for limiting the powers of a Republican president.
2. "Are you saying you see no significant difference between voting the Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of September 11 and supporting unmodified reauthorization 4 years later?"
I see a great difference. In 2001, the Democrats did what was popular among their voting block and swing voters according to the polls. In 2005 (and now 2006), they are doing what is popular among their voting block and swing voters according to the polls. The difference? The results from the polls. If the Democrats had used thoughtful reflection instead of giving way to mob rule, they would have realized that it is much harder to remove powers from the office of the Presidency then it is to prevent them from being granted in the first place. They would have also considered that they might still be a minority party 4 years later, which would make rescinding those powers even more difficult. Fear and popularity are not excuses for failing to defend civil liberties. Republicans are to blame for this, I will agree with that. But Democrats are also to blame.
3. "Did you deliberately or unintentionally change my question from supporting Bush to having voted for the Patriot Act after September 11?"
I'm assuming you're refering to this statement (I'm not sure because you said "question" and I cannot find such a question):
"I'm actually quite familiar with the Padilla case, and didn't vote for the President who assigned himself the power to disappear American citizens, desire him to be in a position of appointing judges, or vote with 100% consistency for Congressmen and Senators unlikely to challenge him."
If you are refering to a different comment or question of yours, please correct me. Assuming this is the aforementioned "question", the answer to your question 3 is neither, because I addressed your statement fully. Your "question" mentioned both Congress and Bush. I addressed both in my post. If you reread that post, you will find my Bush reference which is a direct response to your point about supporting him (that is clear to me because I wrote it, but it may not have been clear to anyone else).
I have answered your questions. Are you now able to respond rather than just ask questions?
CF
==1. "Are you saying that the Democrats are as deferential to Bush as Republicans are on this issue?"
No, I'm saying the Democrats are responsible for limiting the powers of a Republican president. ==
Except that you've gotten your wish and the Democrats have very little power to do so. Do you vote exclusively, 100% for Republican candidates for national office, and are you you completely successful in that Republicans control all branches of the federal government, it just so happens that you want the Democrats you vote against and who are out of power to protect you from the people you vote for?
==2. "Are you saying you see no significant difference between voting the Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of September 11 and supporting unmodified reauthorization 4 years later?"
I see a great difference. In 2001, the Democrats did what was popular among their voting block and swing voters according to the polls. In 2005 (and now 2006), they are doing what is popular among their voting block and swing voters according to the polls. The difference? The results from the polls. If the Democrats had used thoughtful reflection instead of giving way to mob rule, they would have realized that it is much harder to remove powers from the office of the Presidency then it is to prevent them from being granted in the first place. They would have also considered that they might still be a minority party 4 years later, which would make rescinding those powers even more difficult. Fear and popularity are not excuses for failing to defend civil liberties. Republicans are to blame for this, I will agree with that. But Democrats are also to blame.==
The Democrats are certainly spineless when it comes to being bullied by your ilks tactics of painting adversaries as weak on defense, anti-military, etc., but I was hoping you'd acknowledge a difference between rushing emergency legislation in time of unforseen crisis and refusing to address flaws four years later. I give up. Do you have a source for saying that the Democrats ever authorized warrentless wiretapping of American citizens?
3. You're right, it was a statement and not a question. Are you ever going to respond to the statement about you voting with 100%, party-line consistency for Bush and his allies in Congress, if you expect the opposition party to act as a break on his assuming "powers that are tyrannical"?
4. ==I have answered your questions. Are you now able to respond rather than just ask questions?==
What specifically have I not responded to?
1. No. Would you like to make a point or just ask questions?
2. The Patriot Act opened the door for such abuses. The legality of those wiretaps is murky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/courtsunlikelytohearwiretapcaseslegalscholarssay). The legality should not be murky or in need of clarification, it should be clear. I blame both parties for that not being the case. Do you have a source for saying that the Democrats made warrentless wiretaps of American citizens illegal?
3. Again, I already responded to your statement. If you counter my point I can respond, otherwise I will refer you to my old post (10:31 AM)
4. How about responding to this:
You claimed that I have voted with 100% consitency for people who would have supported this legislation. Do you:
A. Have any proof of that?
B. Believe that the Democrats are not responsible for the passing of the Patriot Act (in addition to Republicans).
C. Feel that the courts can be trusted to balance the powers of the Executive (rubber-stamp warrants) or do you feel that the legislature is a more effective tool for reducing executive powers.
CF
I'll respond to that jumble on Thursday when I'm back in the US. You can clear it up a bit before then though.
==2. The Patriot Act opened the door for such abuses.==
Source?
==4. How about responding to this:
You claimed that I have voted with 100% consitency for people who would have supported this legislation.==
Where did I say anything like that? Are you talking about the Patriot Act?
==The legality of those wiretaps is murky==
According to who? There seems to be a pretty broad consensus that wiretapping requires at least a FISA warrant, and if you someday read the Constitution (they used to hand it out at Republican conventions, but I shouldn't be surprised if they don't) you'll see something or other regarding searches. Who is your specific source on the "murky" legality? Or are you just typically spewing talking points and giving Republicans every benefit of the doubt?
==2. The Patriot Act opened the door for such abuses.==
"Source?"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-22-patriot-act_x.htm
Section 201 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
"==4. How about responding to this:
You claimed that I have voted with 100% consitency for people who would have supported this legislation.==
"Where did I say anything like that? Are you talking about the Patriot Act?"
Hit CTRL+F and search for 7:19. That is the post I'm refering to.
==The legality of those wiretaps is murky==
"Who is your specific source on the "murky" legality? Or are you just typically spewing talking points and giving Republicans every benefit of the doubt?"
I already put up a source immediately after the sentence that contains the word you are quoting. I guess this is a good indication of how often you actually follow the links I post here. Here's the link AGAIN:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/courtsunlikelytohearwiretapcaseslegalscholarssay
Let me know if you don't know how to follow it so I can give you instructions.
CF
====2. The Patriot Act opened the door for such abuses.==
"Source?"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-22-patriot-act_x.htm
Section 201 of the USA PATRIOT Act.==
Please quote the text that you feel "opened the door for such abuses".
=="==4. How about responding to this:
You claimed that I have voted with 100% consitency for people who would have supported this legislation.
"Where did I say anything like that? Are you talking about the Patriot Act?"
Hit CTRL+F and search for 7:19. That is the post I'm refering to.==
So you mean when I said I "didn't vote for the President who assigned himself the power to disappear American citizens, desire him to be in a position of appointing judges, or vote with 100% consistency for Congressmen and Senators unlikely to challenge him" and take that to refer exclusively to passing the PATRIOT ACT in 2001? If not, please explain.
==The legality of those wiretaps is murky==
"Who is your specific source on the "murky" legality? Or are you just typically spewing talking points and giving Republicans every benefit of the doubt?"
I already put up a source immediately after the sentence that contains the word you are quoting. I guess this is a good indication of how often you actually follow the links I post here. Here's the link AGAIN:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/courtsunlikelytohearwiretapcaseslegalscholarssay
Let me know if you don't know how to follow it so I can give you instructions.==
You're the one who has failed to follow a perfectly functioning link, claimed that I had provided a broken one and that it was "convenient" for me that it was (supposedly) broken. I read the article, which is why I asked for the "specific source". Who says it's "murky", and why do you take their word for it?
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.
The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.
The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html
But whatever you want to tell yourself.
==Do you have a source for saying that the Democrats made warrentless wiretaps of American citizens illegal?==
I didn't respond to this before, out of kindness, but I suppose you really should learn something. Yes I do, you smug ignorant "wolf".
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=2
I suppose I shouldn't have expected your education to include Watergate and the reaction. Why would O'Reilly or Limbaugh feel you needed to know about that?
Post a Comment
<< Home