[Jxmwzgpv]

America hater.

[ssyyyrruho]

Stephen has a message for you, Che.

[sStevenRitziI]

Since you admit that this will never go away, you seem perfectly okay with the curtailing of a few rights.

Some thoughts about governments and people. Give a little, and they'll take a mile.

Or, raise the temperature of the pot a bit, and the frog won't notice it's being boiled alive.

I don't want to give the government that little bit. I might not mind, if the government could be trusted--but the problem is that it's run by people. Stupid people, mostly, but a few smart ones, too. Often times, too smart for their own good--and since they have to work in committees, they're really just dumb ****s as well.

Just because a problem is here to stay doesn't mean I want my rights to be abridged in the name of "security". If I were that cowardly and ignorant of what once made this American country great, perhaps I'd go along with these abridgements.

Because really, if you want to be perfectly safe, you may as well live in a padded room with a straitjacket on.

[raskrutkaseo]

Damn librul media!!!

Wait...

[AngelinaTheElf]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
In times like these, who cares if our nation state wants to monitor people, If the British Government announced they will monitor individuals at random, I won't complain right now.

If they wish to continue once a threat has gone, then I will. During the last war our freedoms were severely curtailed and we had to suffer an identity card system, this time we have an local problem in the UK with disloyal British Muslims.

This might never get solved as they are here to stay, so must measures to counter them therefore as they they don't wish to leave the liberal nation that allows them to forment the hatred they have to the host nation of their families.

Why are we so stupid?

Toby
"Those who would give a little liberty to gain a little security will recieve neither, and lose both." -Ben Franklin

[herawaq]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
In times like these, who cares if our nation state wants to monitor people, If the British Government announced they will monitor individuals at random, I won't complain right now. Good for you.

Now, there are some people who do complain, and they should have known about the wire-tappings before the election. Democracy works best when the electorate can make an informed choice.

[MariaBeautys]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Stephen has a message for you, Che. Sweet!


Who's Michael Adams?

[Sipewrio]

Salon apparently thinks the election, stolen in Ohio, would have turned out differently if the NY Times had published this article just prior to that election. Do you agree with that implication, Che? I thought you had indicated you were a Marxist. What do Communists care about elections?

[Jxmwzgpv]

However, examples like this suggest that the only possible way to change might be revolution.

JM

[sarasaraseda]

No, but if the system makes it so that the argument can't even occur, then what other option do you have?

For example, if information that people need for discussion is not made available to them (Example US, other regimes). Or if there are people standing at the voting stations and you know something will happen to you if you vote 'wrongly' (Iraq, North Korea, many other 'dictatorships'). Then there is no way for people to change their government through legal means, and 'illegal' means become the best for use. This is an example of this (through information control rather than armed guards, but still..)

You can't say that with this information some people wouldnt' have voted differently.

JM

[enrisaabsotte]

Some one please post the tinfoilhat smilie. I think I seriously need it for this thread.

[iDzcs7TU]

Fortunately, I felt certain that America was screwed either way the moment Kerry got the Democratic nomination. The incompetent clown we've got or a new incompetent clown, that's a wonderful choice to have to make...pssht.

[remstaling]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, 'cause if you can't win the argument, you should shoot the other guy. Brilliant!

-Arrian As Kennedy said, "Those how make peaceful evolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." If the government is thwarting the will of the electorate, what options do you have to re-establish government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

[id2008]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
What do Communists care about elections? I'm a small "c" commie. My big thing is democracy, even if it goes against me. I don't think we have a fair system, but given what we got, it's better than many alternatives. I'll work within the system to try and make things better (fairer ballot access, get rid of the electoral collage, recalls, voter initiatives, IRV, public financing of elections, etc.).

So even though I don't like the Democrats, if they are the people's choice, then they should be in office, and not thwarted by dirty tricks or lack of information. For the same reason, I'm not as concerned about the trickery in Ohio, cause the electoral collage is anti-democratic.

[Maydayvar]

a newspaper, even the NYT is a private entity.

If they think they need to be more certain before publishing a story that would change the election, and which, if they turned out to be wrong, would impinge their credibility, they have the right to do so. Werent you one of the folks all over their case for publishing Judith Miller?

If you dont like the NYTs standards, I suggest you stop purchasing the NYT, and get your news from somewhere that meets your standards. Like Salon, maybe. If Salon doesnt have the staff to find all the things the NYT does, thats life.


Now in Venezuala, lets say, the govt decided that it didnt like what the private newspapers cover. It puts out its own media, that make damned sure to cover all the nefarious doings of the right, and pays for it with tax dollars. If you like that approach, you can move to Venezuala. Or you can lobby to maintain funding to NPR

[Shark&Nike]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, it's quite clear the President broke the FISA law. He also broke the law which made the Geneva Conventions part of U.S. law, among others. That the President should have gone to FISA, where it's almost certain he would have gotten the warrants, is obvious. That he was required to, in light of Noriega and legal opinion, is a lot less obvious than it seems. As long as the message intercept (as distinguished from collection, processing and analysis)was conducted outside the US and its territories, and the communication was international, then it's not at all clear that FISA is mandatory.

The purpose of FISA was to allow for processing of classified warrants in espionage and other national security sensitive investigations which might lead to criminal charges - it was not to expand or contract intelligence gathering capabilities or alter the scope of activities which require judicial warrants.

Bush & co. made use of a loophole, or at least a lack of coverage by FISA, but it's not clear any specific statute was violated in doing so. If you can cite one, be my guest...

WRT the Geneva Convention, the US is a signatory, but show me a US law which incorporates the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War into US law?

The recent SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo prisoners doesn't invalidate military tribunals (or possible executions resulting from those tribunals) per se, only in the form that was planned by Rummy and friends. The other aspect of their status that was in question is whether Rummy's blanket determination that al Qaeda or Taleban prisoners were unlawful combatants met the "determination by a competent tribunal" requirement of the Convention, which clearly it does not.

Legally, all that's necessary is three officers to make an individual review of the circumstances of each prisoner's capture, and 80% of them could be tossed right back into the unlawful combatant heap. The whole process wouldn't take much longer or need to be much more involved than the military tribunals which tied Manfred Pernass and other Einheits Stielau prisoners to a post during the Ardennes offensive. That's the legal option, but not politically viable, as Gitmo is now a mouldering, festering, oozing albatross that no longer serves a purpose as cowboy bling. One way or another, there's no US statute which has been broken by the President, regardless of your views of the political and moral issues.

I think both issues were handled half-assedly by Bush. The surveillance, to the extent it went beyong SIGINT and TPA, should have been run through FISA to preserve any options for prosecution, but I don't see anything to make me believe that was legally necessary. (I did, at first, and found the activity and the laws in question just don't meet up)

With respect to Gitmo, most of the prisoners there are low level, and I would have set up tribunals from the outset consistent with the UCMJ and MCM, and half those people would probably have gotten either life sentences or their turn in front of a wall by now.

[Scfdglkn]

Donegal:
The problem with the Electoral College is the Winner Take All system that almost every state has. It's wrong that my vote and over 50% of the entire state's votes would be worthless because two of the three districts managed a 51-49 majority while the third district had a 20-80 split. Anyway, I lived in Northern Indiana and the last time a President visited my county was LBJ touring the aftermath of the Palm Sunday tornados. The Electoral College = teh dumb.

[Xlkl9SFd]

So then talk to your state. How a state sives out its electoral votes is up to the state. Don't junk a federal system because you feel its broke on a state level.

I know that there is one state out there that divids them up based on popular votes, but I don't remember which one. I think its Maine or Vermont or somewhere in New England. Push for your state to do that. (Personally, I wouldn't, because then your state would never become a "battle ground state" and the candidates would still ignore you)

[patrycjakolekk]

With the electoral college, just different people are ignored, and they pay way too much attention to the people who SHOULD be ignored - the tiny minority of farmers.

[cafeviahe]

The large heavily populated areas don't get ignored with the electoral college. The big states are still the biggest goals, but with the electoral college, candidates can't just ignore me (or more like people like me) and just hit the big population guys. And Kuci, it isn't just the farmers that would get ignored, its the 150,000,000 + that don't live in the biggest population areas.

This past election, my voted counted for absolutely nothing. I voted Bush in a state that went to Kerry. Am I upset that my vote didn't count towards anything? No, because my state mattered in the election. If there was no electoral college, my entire state wouldn't have mattered.