Letters to the Editor
tempus
Published Letters: 467 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@dmitri
[Read the article: Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Call me paranoid but who's watching the watcher at xerobank?
Nevermind. I looked closer and recognize some of the people.
One has to wonder, unless they are based off-shore, how they think they can avoid a now-legal order (thanks to the Democraps) from Preznit Obama simply stating, "by the powers invested in me by the unitary executive and the Democraps of Congress, I declare this order for a tap on your servers as legal!" It appears that they have setup a private tor network-like system rather than leaving it to the worldwide, random tor network (which is encrypted enroute too).
I already have tor, openpg for encryption, and all that...and they want $35/mo on top of the $45/mo I pay for a network connection already.
For now I'll stick with tor and openpg encryption (and various truly anonymous email accounts I setup via tor).
-
Dipping into savings
[Read the article: Time magazine uncritically prints Nancy Pelosi's "justifications" for the FISA "compromise"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I will be dipping into my savings account soon to feed more money into this effort to unseat traitor Democraps. The only question in my mind is whether to do it immediately via ActBlue or wait and pay into the Money Bomb program by the Pauliacs. Whichever will help make the biggest splash...
-
I would have been OK
[Read the article: Time magazine uncritically prints Nancy Pelosi's "justifications" for the FISA "compromise"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With the certification of legality for the past (and future) unconstitutional spying on Americans if the determination of legal or not was actually left up to the courts (that IS their job, afterall) and not the foxes guarding the henhouse (the likes of Yoo, Gonzales, Mukasey, etc).
Actually, that would be a valuable amendment to add in the senate - that certifying that past and future orders are legal is to be left up to the branch of government with the actual job description of DOING that: The Judicial.
As it is now, all that a Dictator/President now need to is tell his/her AG that he wants to spy on these Americans and that he/she expects the AG to make it legal. Ta-da! If the Dictator/Prez orders it through his/her AG, then it is legal irrespective of what any and all courts might say!
Good times!
Let's see how eager the GOPers (and rightwing Dems) are to have the actual 3rd branch of government deciding what is or is not legal or constitutional. The way the Founder's intended.
-
@LWM...Wrong
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is unfortunate because while impeachment is not a sensible option at this time, failing to confront the abuses of those in power and finding some way of preventing them from happening again only ensures that they will happen again.
Impeachment proceedings (ie, hearings) are most assuredly "sensible". There would be NO claims of "Executive Privilege" possible. There would be no "national security" claims possible. Questions asked would have to be answered and no "Article II Unitary Executive" crap would fly.
Cheney would have to cough up ANYTHING asked for, as would Bush. Whether or not they get to the point of actually VOTING for impeachment and trial in the Senate is less important than actually getting the hearings running and the questions (ALL of them) answered.
The answers would help setup war crime tribunals and other criminal trials after Bush and Cheney and Mukasey leave office in a way that nothing else will or can.
I want Bush (and Cheney in particular) on the floor of the House answering questions, period, no quibbling, nothing. Just answers.
-
@LWM...wrong
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Impeachment IS viable right now. It doesn't matter if there is truly no time (a lie spoken by liars in the Democrapic party only) to actually impeach. What matters are the hearings in which there can be no "executive privilege" claims, no "unitary executive" dodge, nothing. Questions: answers. Period.
The hearings are important because there can be no hiding behind the usual Bush/Cheney dodges. There is no "unitary executive, article II, 9/11 dodge of impeachment proceedings.
-
Sorry for the repeat post...
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought I botched it (and upon refresh didn't see my previous post).
Carry on.
-
@pow-wow
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More evidence of perfidy on Reid's part. By himself voting to rush to murder the 4th Amendment AND by counting Lieberman's vote: he is NOT A DEMOCRAP! He has no right to vote as a DEMOCRAP. The PEOPLE ejected him from the party (forced him to leave the party and run as an Independent for Lieberman and Against the Constitution).
In any case, there you have the first part of the list of those to target for removal from their seats ASAP.
-
This is called "standing on principle"
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG:
Absolutely. Barack Obama supports a bill to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, immunize lawbreaking telecoms and conceal Bush lawbreaking.
A lot of people don't understand "principle". They only see Dem-Rethug, "liberal"-"conservative". They cannot grasp "principle" that stands independent and aside from party or partisanship.
I would rather see Obama lose than rewarded (and awarded) dictator power. Personally, I'm voting either Nader or Barr. What I absolutely will NOT do is vote for anyone who is OK with gutting the Bill of Rights (even more than it already has).
-
@mike_in_new_mexico
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But, is it worth spending an entire column on? Isn't Olbermann on our side? Aren't you just doing the work of the right wing by making such a big deal out of this?
No. See, Olbermann appears to be one of those peeps that thought the FISA amendment was horrible and totally unacceptable...until Obama decided he was really really down with having dictatorial power to spy on Americans on his mere whim. BLAM! FISA Amendment GOOD!
All hail der new Fuhrer, same as de old Fuhrer!
-
Uhhh...auntie cairo?
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama doesn't move to the center for the election he won't win.
Gutting the 4th (and 5th) Amendments to the Constitution by fiat is NOT "the center". That is as radical as it gets. Just like declaring some citizen an "enemy combatant" and disappearing them without trial is as radical as it gets.
I don't see "centrism" here. I see radicalism (more accurately, it is reactionary, not radical).