Letters to the Editor
-
Re: Senate in action, reposted from last thread
http://tinyurl.com/2hmx82
Go check it out.
This is pathological. No wonder no one can stand Congress. Can someone please draw them a roadmap of their a$$?
Cheers,
-
Chris Dowd! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
9/11! Everything changed! They hate us for our freedoms! Freedom is on the march! New England Patriots undefeated season! Proud to be an American ‘cause at least I know I’m free! USA! USA! USA!
-
seriously
How does a "man" do that? Are they really afraid that some comic book CIA operative with a cartoon glock is coming to arrest him while he sleeps? What sort of intelligent man spends more time worrying about "FBI Agents" coming to eavesdrop on him than about extremists who have declared war on him? Could one of them explain to me how "Bush" is going to make my mommy go to jail and make me call a terrorist, repeatedly? One actually reads this sort of talk on "liberal" websites. They actually fear that they will be forced to go to Gitmo. Are they insane? Under what sort of any plausible scenerio could that EVER come to pass? Anyone? Please- tell me. What am I missing here?
-
:(
In December the voice mailboxes of the Senators were full. Today, not so. Will we generate the one million calls?
Call your Senators, please!!!!!!!
-
Anonymous:
You, like Shooter, do not understand (or at least you do not value) the concept of ‘rule of law.’
-
prunes...
You missed the point of my metaphor entirely: shooter seems to think that "no harm done" and "good intentions" is an adequate standard for even investigating crimes, nevermind prosecuting them.
Breaking and entering is never done without harm, nor with good intentions. The very act of breaking into a house is a crime, regardless of whether property is also stolen. That is nothing like calling data. Calling data does not need to be broken into, nor does it need to be stolen from those making the phone calls. Individuals do not own their calling data. It is not a privacy issue, nor is it an illegal search and seizure issue. The 4th amendment does not apply here.
-
Sysprog
...] The terrorists waging war against this country don’t fight according to the rules of warfare, or international law, or moral standards, or basic humanity. And we have to be clear-eyed about the character and objective of these adversaries. They have a strategic goal to recreate the old seventh-century caliphate [...]
That quote has always reminded me of a passage in 1984 in which the telescreen is droning on and on about the nature of the current enemy- which ALWAYS is more evil than the last enemy- and doesn't fight "according to the rules" (like the Geneva convention or ancient protocols of diplomacy?) or moral standards (like centuries old taboos against torture) or basic humanity (Like bombing infrastructure or blockading a nation for a decade murdering half million children?) and how we must be resilient in the face of this never ever before rivaled horrific new evil.
American doesn't fight enemies- it fights devils. Make no mistake- the US has to keep Americans from as much contact with this "enemy" as possible because the wars are so beyond unjustified. Whenever you hear politicians say that "normal methods" of war have to jettisoned because the enemy is so evil- it pretty much means they themselves are evil and are the ones jettisoning moral standards and humanity.
-
talesofunrest
What law is broken during the analyzation of calling data?
-
Anonymous- lol.
On what planet is fear that I am going to be made to wear a Burka by the Taliban even remotely comparable to the legitimate fear of a government that just sentenced an American to 17 years in jail for a thought crime after torturing him for 5 years in dungeons?
Good lord- reich winging bushbots make me laugh.
-
Get this: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War--Center for Public Integrity
The Center for Public Integrity is proud to announce the release of its latest investigative report, Iraq: The War Card — Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, and wants you to be among the first to know!
The Center's founder, Chuck Lewis, and researchers at the Fund for Independence in Journalism have painstakingly detailed 935 false statements by Bush administration officials about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This exhaustive examination shows that these officials were part of a calculated campaign to galvanize public opinion that ultimately led to the war in Iraq under false pretenses.
The statements, made over two years starting with September 11, 2001, were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever comprehensive analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
read the whole thing at: http://ga6.org/publicintegrity/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=14641495
PS- don't bother with shooter and anonymuck. they could care less about democracy, the constitution, torture, treason, rule of law, privacy, or really anything that isn't might makes right.
Brute force wrapped in a shawl, disguised as someone's grammy.
-
Update the Third
Just read Glenn's third update... that John Edwards will be on Countdown with Keith Olbermann today and that it will be worth watching...
Well, that's in less than ten minutes...
I hope all you decideds against John and undecideds will be watching...
It's not too late to actually vote for someone who might actually do what he says instead of simply says platitudes to get your vote.
-
For what's it's worth, Glenn
and judging by Reid talking out of both sides of his mouth so damn much with this topic, I'd say this isn't worth much:
Update: Reid's staff e-mails to clarify that his challenge to Senators wishing to "talk this to death" was intended for Republicans who had been insisting on 60 vote majority on FISA votes. That is, Reid told the Republicans that if they want 60 vote threshold they will have to essentially filibuster to do so. Should the votes start tomorrow, I hope he holds that line.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/23/15327/0497/534/441863
That was from mcjoan's post over at Daily Kos earlier. Again, given Reid's doublespeak, I wouldn't put too much stock into this apparent smokescreen. But it's there nonetheless.