For gunner

While I don't like the first act and the fact they wanted more on the second... I think it is a common element of the over power hungry people in the FBI and other like divisions of government.

Their life would be easier under an extreme dictator type but we have to keep from getting there.

I don't think the president said he committed a crime - he said he did X and that he has with various backers of law saying he can do X. Which doesn't mean he can do X.

Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

John R. Carroll wrote:

Remember - the times printed the pentagon Papers - those papers were gotten ill way by a person that committed Treason (and got off ) and the paper and the person killed many U.S. Soldiers. Yea that New York Times is very apt in revealing secrets, telling lies, plagiarizing and the whole ball of wax of yellow and black journalism.

Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

jim rozen wrote:

They say a conservative is a liberal who's gotten his first paycheck and seen the withholding line.

But I *know* a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. All of a sudden that darn bill of rights becomes really, really important.

They want their rights. They want their lawyer. They want their trial.

It's so funny that the folks who bore the largest brunt of

9/11 are still saying, "the Bill of Rights still counts." And the folks who are crying and blubbering about how the goobermint should *protect* them and are willing to give up the entirety of their constitution were nowhere near where the bang happened.

What's the saying? "Those who would give up liberty in pursuit of security deserve neither."

Once again, if al queda has caused us to dismantle our constitution by their actions, they have indeed won the war already. Does that give 'aid and comfort' to our enemies? No. The folks responsible FOR the dismantling are given aid and comfort to our enemies.

Jim

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: Gunner Asch writes on Sat, 24 Dec

2005 18:37:59 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by media outlets, eager for a scoop and wanting to appear 'in the know' (and with an understanding of operational security based on TV shows and conversations in bars with guys claiming to be "spooks".)

Yeah, what's with that. They should make all those pesky newspapers have to clear all their stories with the shrubbie personally before they publish.

Assuming he can read, that is.

Jim

AFTER 9/11 Fear destroys what bin Laden could not ROBERT STEINBACK snipped-for-privacy@MiamiHerald.com One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

What score did you get at Yale Jim? Was it higher than Kerry's?

Laugh laugh laugh.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: jim rozen writes on 27 Dec 2005

18:02:53 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Silly liberal, the "whats with that" is that the editorial boards doesn't understand the reality of surveillance, of real espionage, or how boasting about how We are pulling one over on Them informs Them of the problem so they can rectify it. (I seem to recall a report that in the early part of the Pacific War, the Japanese were setting their depth charges too "shallow", which made thinks better for US submarines. Till this little tidbit was published in an article of the "at war with the Submarine Fleet" nature.) Yeah, I know, "free press " and all that. Of course, there was a time when the "free press" wasn't conducting it's own foreign policy contrary to the US Government.

Well, that's demonstrates your qualifications on the subject: none.

You still don't "get it."

Look back carefully. Think. Take an historical perspective.

Was there ever a time when the free press was conducting its own, adverse foreign policy towards the government?

What was the result of that adverse policy?

What happened then?

Where did that first amendment actually come from?

Am I the only person who percieves irony in his statments??

Jim

DING!!

A winner, finally!

The founders put all kinds of adverse press about the british out in literature. The brits used the exact same arguments that are floating around right now, and the colonists kept right on publishing.

When they formed the constitution, what was the very first thing the founders wanted in the bill of rights?

Yep, the continued assurance that anyone, anywhere, could publish literally anything about the newly-formed government.

Anything.

Anytime.

Anywhere.

Political speech is the highest level of protected speech.

No prior restraint.

No limit on content.

No libel.

No slander.

If you're talking about what your government is doing, or about a politician, the founders made it abundantly clear that anything goes. The founders realized that the free press was a terrific weapon against tyranny, and they further realized that if or when the US government became rotten, the first amendment would be pivotal in ensuring freedom for the citizens - so they penned that first amendment in no uncertain terms.

Anyone who suggest that we throw away 200 plus years of first amendment rights simply because the shrubbie is too incompetent to run his administration has his head so far jammed up his ass that the best bet would be for that person to emmigrate to some other country where the government controls its press with more authority.

There are plenty of choices.

American Constituion. Love it, or Leave.

Jim

The local free press - those not burnt down by the Brits - posted things like men on the street and on the high seas were taken under arms and forced labor upon British Ships as servants/workers/slaves.

Free shipment of goods from the south and Europe was cut off and taxed when allowed. Taxing wasn't light either. It was cheaper to ship cotton bales to the England and then back to Boston than from Atlanta to Boston.

Suppression and white slavery was all over. So it was published and posted and things came to a head - slaughter in the streets by the Brits - and the game was on.

Martin

Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

jim rozen wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: jim rozen writes on 28 Dec 2005

10:00:37 -0800 >

I see.

So, the Founder were printing what government secrets they could uncover because they were in support of the British Government, or were they in opposition to said government?

Don't worry Jim, the New York Times is very concerned that the Republicans do not prevail in thwarting "enemy" attacks, and are doing their best to keep everyone informed of what those means are.

toodles

Well that's the peculiar thing, the law doesn't make the distinction between political speech that is in favor of the government, or against it.

It doesn't matter if you are nazi or the jdl. Doesn't matter if your red or blue. Doesn't matter if your The Progressive or the NY Times. Doesn't matter if you're daniel ellsberg or karl rove.

The founder[s] wanted citizens to be able to speak out freely about any political activity, and they wanted the government's ability to poke around in citizens' affairs kept under check.

Hence the first, and fourth amendments.

If it's political speech, it's protected.

Searches must happen pusuant to a warrant issued on probably cause.

Jim

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: "G.W." writes on 23 Dec 2005

07:20:04 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

You silly Democrats, you know that the Constitution is a Living Document, and we mustn't be restrained by outmoded thinking.

Now smile for the Brady.

tschus pyotr

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: jim rozen writes on 29 Dec 2005

16:58:07 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Didn't say Political speech. I'm talking about reporting out Government Secrets. Something Democrats seem to believe it is their right as Journalists to do, and not suffer consequences.

As for Political speech, that's been highly regulated, ever since the McCain Feingold incumbent protection act passed Consittutional muster . Remember, The Constitution is a Living Document, not something static, handed down engraved on stone tablets.

tschus pyotr

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo Sir..Bravo!!!1

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

Really? What I find amusing is that right wingers are so easily fooled, and over and over again. Just because Bush says that the only people that they were wire tapping were terrorists that doesn't make it a fact. If the only folks that got tapped illegally were actually Al Qaeda members I doubt that anyone would be that worked up about it. But we all know the odds that only Al Qaeda members got tapped are slim and none.

What Bush really did was tap everyone and anyone using a phone to make overseas calls and he probably tapped a bunch of American citizens that have no connection to terrorists at all. He's just lying again when he says only Al Qaeda members were tapped. Shit, after all the things Bush has said in the past that turned out to be untrue how could any thinking person believe it when he says only "terrorists" were tapped without warrants. Man, if you believe that after all that has happened you need to send me $10 for a bottle of old Dave's Snake Oil. It'll cure anything that ails ya. You can believe me. I have George Bush's endorsement.

Hawke

It would be a lot more amusing if it wern't so scarry, that there folks with that sort of mental agility in charge of the news we are given and in responsible positions in the government. :-( ...lew...

What's amusing about that?

They're the same folks: republicans. Allow me to explain the obvious. The insurance companies contribute large to their campaign funds. The republicans then deliver what's been paid for, namely legislation that favors insurance companies.

The same republicans are the ones responsible for violating the fourth amendment. They feel they have the absolute authority to do whatever they want - ignoring the constitution or turning our government into an ebay auction. Highest bidder gets what he wants.

They're the *same* folks, don't you get it?

Jim