That is so right Annika, and I am so stealing it, with full credit of course.
Posted by: LindaSoG at June 23, 2006 04:46 PM (GBBmd)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2006 06:20 PM (SgvHW)
Posted by: dick at June 23, 2006 07:25 PM (Em77H)
That is totally sidebar-worthy. You're a genius.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 24, 2006 05:31 AM (eKdAq)
a genius, Cassandra!
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 08:13 AM (fxTDF)
I just don't get all this talk about giving away our secrets and how the MSM is making us less safe. If our enemy is smart, cunning, committed, secrative, ready to give his/her, as Edgar tells us every chance he gets, then why the fuck can't they figure out that phone traffic and money traffic is traceable? I am only a few of those things and I know it. I knew it 40 years ago as an itinerant drug dealer. These brilliant strategists, diciplined and patient enough to plan for years and succeed in demolishing the trade center don't know these things? Horshit they don't. Is there anybody in this administration that is not a liar, indicted or convicted felon?
Posted by: strawman at June 24, 2006 10:10 AM (G2Zzw)
Never underestimate the stupidity of most people, Strawman. You and I travel in circles where intelligence is a given, but out there in the rest of humanity, it's a different story.
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 10:46 AM (fxTDF)
Yummy. I borrowed that cartoon for my blog, I hope that's okay...
Posted by: Rob at June 24, 2006 10:50 AM (Q2xwR)
Yes and no. Although to support you and dent my own case, I will share a story.
Years ago bookeeper of mine stole from me in various ways but the most amazingof them was when she took a check made out to the State of NY for taxes to a check casher rather than the bank, where with the cameras running, endorsed it "State of NY" and put it under the window to be cashed. As amazing the girl working the other side of that window gave her the money!
But then again I don't think this gal could lean to fly a 767 let alone get to the airport.
Posted by: strawman at June 24, 2006 11:09 AM (G2Zzw)
I disagree. I think that many of these people are very sophisticated and very smart. Evil does not equal stupid. To think differently is the worst kind of hubris. (That's, by the way, what I love about the Left: they think they are ever so bright and soooo clever e.g. the disgusting slob, Michael Moore.) It gives our side the edge.
And, Straw, if you don't "get" why acts of treason are not important, then nothing I or anybody can say will make dent in your thick wall of purposeful ignorance.
Posted by: blu at June 24, 2006 11:45 AM (93GuQ)
Interesting story, Strawman. When i worked in a department store, years ago, they arrested a girl who worked in the personnel department. She also had a second job as a bank teller. She was taking people's paychecks from the department store and depositing them into her own account at the bank. It amazed me that she actually thought she could get away with that, and nobody would figure it out.
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 11:52 AM (fxTDF)
That is so great! I'm linking back to this.
Posted by: beth at June 24, 2006 09:53 PM (X6tm3)
Oh pa lease! Treason?
What did you disagree with? You agreed they may be evil, silly word to describe those committed to a cause, diminishes their purpose and substitutes something biblical which is not helping understand them and their motives, but I digress. They are smart so why do you think it matters that some simpleton plan of tracking is effective?
To inform the public that the administration is breaking constitutional guarentees is an act of patriotism not treason. Edgar will testify that ANYTHING the admistration does in the name of stopping the terrorists is legal, and to report on it makes us less safe-hence treason. He may be more evil than the other side and I truely fear his ability to degrade this nations purpose and values far mor than what an outside can do. Al Qaida may blow things up, kill soldiers and civilians but with their own hand they will never subvert the constitution and diminish this great nation the way those evil son's of bitches in the senate, house and white house have. 911 was a black day but far less black than what has followed.
Posted by: strawman at June 25, 2006 03:05 PM (G2Zzw)
With all due respect, you have no clue whether these programs "break" Constitutional guarantees. Your arguments almost always breakdown when you get into matters of law and fact.
In fact, Straw, impress us all with your Constitution knowledge. Tell me how these programs "break" Constitutional guarantees and then cite the case law to back up your argument.
Posted by: blu at June 25, 2006 05:08 PM (b1ukN)
p.s. While you are breaking out your old law school and/or grad school Con Law notes, perhaps you can also look up the definition of treason. Afterwards, perhaps you can explain how making State secrets public to the enemy in a time of war is not a treasonous act. I suppose if the NY Times had made public D-day that would have been OK with you. I mean, hey, the Press is the 4th branch of government, right? And, afterall, the public has the right to know.
Memo to the Left: We are at war. Time to "get it."
Posted by: blu at June 25, 2006 08:58 PM (b1ukN)
The short answer.
No declaration of war.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is simple-
An executive branch that refuses congressional or judicial oversight is not entitled to call anything a "state secret" in my book.
I have no Con law or any other law books not having gone to law school, just an "advanced degree in woodworking, I ask you?" (Help, the movie).
Posted by: strawman at June 26, 2006 01:42 PM (G2Zzw)
Actually, the authorization to use force that Congress gave Bush is de facto a declaration of war. The US is, legally, in a state of war.
Posted by: a guy in pajamas at June 26, 2006 11:29 PM (1dXXw)
With a new focus on the reasons for the Iraq war, some are questioning whether the war was legal. Under U.S. law, it was not.
The authority under which Bush purportedly acted to go to war in Iraq arose under House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002 (the Iraq Resolution). However, the ostensible "statutory authority" granted to the President to was conditional.
In fact, Congress specifically made that authority, if any, of the President to go to war with Iraq subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act or WPA). The Iraq resolution was definite. Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. The Iraq Resolution only granted the President the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress were met.
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 07:42 AM (G2Zzw)
Please stop with all the pseudo-legal/constitutional analysis. You're embarrassing yourself. You don't know the first thing about this topic. Perhaps you can direct me to the ruling of a U.S. court that has estblished that the war is "illegal."
While you are at, you might want to contact Mr. Pollard's lawyers and let them know that in Straw's studied legal opinion that their client should be set free immediately. Heck, he only provided State secrets to an ally...and afterall there was "no declaration of war."
BTW, key word: "unreasonable searches...." It is very reasonable to track those dealing with terroists whose aim is to kill American lives and destroy American property. The President needs no special "permission" from the Congress to fulfill his duty as Commander-In- Chief.
Posted by: blu at June 27, 2006 08:56 AM (j8oa6)
What you seem to forget is that unreasonable means without cause. I suppose in your world all men or women walking down 5th are either terrorits or they aren't and there is only one way to determin it. Is the president upholding the constitution (that is his sworn duty not the protection of the united states) if he puts military checkpoints on 42nd street to search all who pass?
Blu, why is fascisim so near and dear to your heart? Or conversly, what scares you so much that you are willing to suspend your freedom and mine?
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 10:17 AM (G2Zzw)
You make this too easy. First of all, can you even define fascism? Don't use terms you can't define or for which you have no intellectual intimacy. Just throwing out words like "cause" or "fascism" doesn't improve a sophmoric argument.
And, BTW, association with terroists or entities that support terroism provides the "cause" about which you seem so worried.
Posted by: blu at June 27, 2006 01:46 PM (j8oa6)
This wasn't hard. Boy I love this kind of intimacy
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I lived through McCarthy and have more than a passing fancy with the tendencies of this Captialistic Republic to slip into belligerent nationalism and well racism, when has this country not been racist?. What was the House debating this afternoon? Flag burning so they coudld go home and campaign on their nationalism and against the Dem's for their lack of it. You think that a person who displays a message on a tee shirtr on his car's bumper ought to be forcebly removed from a campaign event on public ground? There are thousands of examples since the Bush brown shirts have taken over. They hate the free independent press because it shines a light on their dark secrets and plans, they think opposition to their criminal policies is treasonous, they act in secret, they continue to classify documents at a pace unknown before, they spy on Americans at home, they detain with out charge, they torture and murder, they use secret warrants to enter American homes and don't give notice, they consistantly retaliate against "enemy's" (Wilson/Plame), they
smear opposition candidates with lies and innuendo, they are using terrorism to scare the small minded (you) into thinking that our society is a little too free and it needs some paring down if we are to be safe. Blu you are the German who saw the chaos, economic depression and supposed communist/jewish threat in 1933 and said "Heil Hitler, give me some of that security, a job and the fine points of liberty be damned". Your wish to debate and acusations of my lack of scholarship are just fiddling whilst Rome burns.
You see what I see, but you think it is OK because you are frightened for America's safety, we are at war and these decisions don't effect you. You don't want to burn the flag, you wouldn't protest in the street against injustice if they took your mother away because she sent 100 dollars to the palestinian cause, you don't think the goverment is overrun by corporate interests, that congressman are lackeys to their funders, you don't have any desire to foment change, you are not a woman, black, an immigrant looking for work, a homosexual, you are not anyone who really has an intimate relationship with the bill of rights except in the abstract because as the fringes errode you are not affected. How many people do you know who have been harassed by the FBI? How many people do you know that could not work in this country because of what they believed? How many people do you know that gave their life fighting for this country or against tyranny? How many times have you been gased, beaten, arrested by the police for speaking your mind? Had a cop aim his gun at your back because you would not heed his warning. You are all weepy for the Chinese in Tienamin Sq. but had they been in the streets of DC you would have sat dispassionately in your room after the riot and brutality and parsed whether they had proper permits and were they fomenting violence or overthrow of the state or if they were agents acting on behalf of a foreign power, etc. A good German desparate for safety, prosperity, respect, a pound of sugar and some new shoes.
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 06:06 PM (G2Zzw)
| Add Comment