Who Needs Due Process? Senate Passes Spy Bill

[tamarelle]

You don't have to rely on the ALCU or the NYT just google it. It is not even up for debate that Bush allowed unwarranted phone taps on US Citizens domestically. No amount of obfuscation can change that fact.

The US government has recently ADMITTED to using waterboarding, and the fact that the US is kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals is also uncontested. The US constitution stipulates that there can be NO CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

These things are so un american. America was beloved in the middle east until after WWII when the CIA helped to depose a liberal thinking leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, in order to help the Shah of Iran. Until then, the US was more trusted than any European government because historically the US had dealt more honestly with the arabs of the middle east. That process helped lead to the radical muslims of today.

Bush is only making things worse by waging war there and by categorizing anyone there who disagrees with US foreign policy as a terrorist.

The US is beginning to behave badly and I cannot understand Americans who are not concerned by this.

Originally Posted by jrefronc

Tam, I mean no disrespect, but are you kidding me? That New York Times article is absolutely loaded with anonymous quotes, conjecture, and outright contradictory nonsense. It does not once actually quote the FISA act. It just dances around "percieved" observations and gives vague notions of impropriety. "Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests. " That sentence alone is worth a thousand journalism school bitch slaps.

And then there's this gem which maybe you just missed... "Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan. " That is almost word for word exactly what I wrote, copied directly from your NYT source.

And linking anyting by the ACLU is no way to add credibility to any argument.

Read the actual bill like I suggested.
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

It is based almost entirely on this here little inconvenience called the NIE:
http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

Then you might see who is really spreading misinformation, "knowingly or unknowingly."

Have a nice day!

[CrowdAds]

[TQ]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

TQ I actually ASKED what your positions are, and said I do not know.

That's why I answered you.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

I do consider us friends, although I find your love of guns odd, its a guy thing to be sure. Please don't tell me Mrs TQ loves them too Im sure she does She seems to love everything you love.

I also consider you a friend. Mrs. TQ is indifferent to guns. Her passion is dog training and dog showing. She's off to a dog show right now.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Please don't make the mistake of labelling me as I did not label you.

Wasn't aware I had.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Even tho you are right wing,

I am? Cool. Right-wingers now support gay marriage and are against amending
the Constitution to outlaw it. Right-wingers are now in favor of stem-cell research and unfettered scientific advances in human cloning. Right-wingers can now support a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens and we can now
feel good about John McCain as the Republican nominee.
I'd say that's progress.
(Just in case you missed the sarcasm I support all of the above, which kinda puts me at odds with "the right wing"...)

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Neither do you seem fond of my European attitudes.

I like European attitudes. All the European girls I've dated had really good European attitudes.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

although I disagree with you that a fetus is a person.

Speaking as a former fetus I resemble that remark. I'm not comfortable aborting a human being/fetus/whatever when medical science can get a premature baby to live at seven months. Could even be six by now. If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck. Or a person.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

The term person is the socialized description of not only a human being, but also a description of that individuals interaction within social and environmental boundaries, and does imply self-awareness. The fetal brain does not even begin to function measurably until 40 days after conception.

Forty days. Is that your cutoff point?
Here's an interesting little snip from Wikipedia on Roe v. Wade:

"The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Here's another interesting item from Wikipedia:

"Norma Leah McCorvey (née Nelson born September 22, 1947, in Simmesport, Louisiana) is best known as the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe" in the landmark Roe v. Wade lawsuit in 1973. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a Constitutional right, overturning individual states' laws against abortion. Years later she recanted her support of abortion.
The Roe vs. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the fetus in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue.
In the 1980s, McCorvey revealed herself to be the "Jane Roe" of the famous case. She now claims that she had become the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.
In her 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe (her first book), she wrote of her sexuality. For many years she had lived quietly in Dallas, Texas, with her long-time partner, Connie Gonzales. "We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she said in a New York Times interview. "We're lesbians by ourselves. We're homers."
At a signing of that book in 1994, McCorvey was confronted by pro-life activist Flip Benham. Within a year, McCorvey converted to Christianity. She was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham in a Dallas backyard swimming pool, which event was filmed for national television. Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate of the pro-life movement (specifically, "Operation Rescue"), campaigning to make abortion illegal."

Of course you can make of it what you will. Like I said: interesting.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

However, what surprises me is that conservative Americans, who disavow all government intervention in their lives, seek to have the government control what a woman can or cannot do with her body.

Can a woman smoke crack with her body? Can a woman - using her body - decide to get drunk and go out driving around? Can a woman rent her body for sex acts?
Seems to me the government has been telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies for some time.
Sisters, unite! Throw off male oppression and make some scratch on the side!

Originally Posted by tamarelle

One could also wonder why people who are anti gun should be forced to pay for a regulatory system to protect them against guns when they are against guns in the first place.

So,that means people who are adamant about rail transportation should be exempt from paying taxes that go to build roads?

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Guns DO kill people.

I have had a Springfield XD 9mm sitting on my nightstand for the last year. At no point has it picked itself up and began firing.

Originally Posted by tamarelle

A man can stand around for eternity clicking his finger at someone from 200 metres away and no injury will ever result. But put a gun in that hand and he can kill a room full of innocent people.

Anyone can do the same thing with a Ford F-150 to a crowd standing on the corner waiting for the light to change. What's your point?

Originally Posted by tamarelle

As to you being cute, I have seen your photo and for an older guy I would definitely say you are hunky

You should have seen me when I was in my thirties and had long hair. Dang, I was pretty. Looked like Mikhail Baryshnikov.

[BoWevil_abx]

The US government has recently ADMITTED to using waterboarding, and the fact that the US is kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals is also uncontested. The US constitution stipulates that there can be NO CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

However unfair it might seem, the US Constitution applies to US citizens, not foreign nationals or enemy combatants, although the US Supreme Court has granted a degree of limited protection to some of the detainees.

This country is at war, regardless of what the press and democrats say. We didn't start it, but I sure hope we finish it. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. If a captured combatant has information that would save military or civilian lives and there is a reasonable expectation that waterboarding would force the individual to divulge that information, then have at it. If I were personally faced with making that decision, I don't think I could live with a decision that spared an enemy non-lethal, but extreme discomfort at the expense of others being killed. As far as I am concerned, any other decision should be the one that garners outrage.

[mcfoo]

It's quaint to hear abortion and gay rights conflated with national security, especially by Europeans. The French model of harping at and blaming America is really disappointing. Because of their policies they will soon be speaking Arabic and obeying Sharia law...

[ctal]

Originally Posted by BoWevil_abx

the US Constitution applies to US citizens, not foreign nationals or enemy combatants

That is actually an unclear and unsettled area of Constitutional law, with respect to Bill of Rights protections such as the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. See for example the third from last paragraph of the following paper, written by a professor of political science:

Constitution Day - Web Resources

Originally Posted by BoWevil_abx

If a captured combatant has information that would save military or civilian lives and there is a reasonable expectation that waterboarding would force the individual to divulge that information, then have at it. If I were personally faced with making that decision, I don't think I could live with a decision that spared an enemy non-lethal, but extreme discomfort at the expense of others being killed. As far as I am concerned, any other decision should be the one that garners outrage.

I agree with that, but use of such extreme measures should be controlled and limited by carefully constructed statutes and policies. Otherwise those measures will inevitably be used in situations that are not as clear-cut as the one you describe, and very conceivably inflicted on individuals who are completely innocent and have nothing to divulge. The Constitution attempts to draw a balance between the needs of the state (for the benefit of society as a whole), and the rights and protections of individuals. Similar principles should be part of the balance that is drawn in constructing the statutes and policies governing the war on terror.

Regards,
-- Al

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by mcfoo

Because of their policies they will soon be speaking Arabic and obeying Sharia law...

Define soon, please.

Also, it would help if you could point out exactly which nation currently using Sharia law is going to invade France and force their rule upon the french. And has the military power to go through either Spain or Italy, Germany or other NATO membership countries to accomplish that (seeing as how few Islamofascist terror organizations have their own navy and an ability to land large number of troops that way). Because I'm assuming you're not under the impression that Al-Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations have political leanings other than "let's kill people, dude".

[TQ]

You know there's no word in Swedish that corresponds with "dude", don't you?

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

You know there's no word in Swedish that corresponds with "dude", don't you?

Not quite, no. And that's the only drawback. Otherwise: perfection.

[TQ]

Ok...so if you're watching movie in English with Swedish subtitles and someone on screen says "dude" what subtitle do you see?

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

Ok...so if you're watching movie in English with Swedish subtitles and someone on screen says "dude" what subtitle do you see?

Wow, I've never thought about it. It's most likely reworded slightly. And there are words that are fair translations albeit without capturing the dudeness of dude.

[ctal]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

there are words that are fair translations albeit without capturing the dudeness of dude.

I would think "man," as in "hey, man."

Regards,

-- Al

[TQ]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

the dudeness of dude.

I believe that's today's moment of Zen...

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by ctal

I would think "man," as in "hey, man."

Yeah, or something closer to "guy" is probably what it'd be. If they translate the "dude" part at all. Which isn't a certainty, since the quality of translations are horrible at times.

Originally Posted by TQ

I believe that's today's moment of Zen...

Today's moment of dude. Jon Stewart should call me...

[Rick_EE]

kONGO- I think what he meant was that eventually Muslim immigrants and their decendents could become a majority in France. It then follows that they would vote to adopt a new form of government. No military force needed.

In many contries, native Europeans are not reproducing above the rate needed to sustain a population.

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by Rick_EE

kONGO- I think what he meant was that eventually Muslim immigrants and their decendents could become a majority in France. It then follows that they would vote to adopt a new form of government. No military force needed.

In many contries, native Europeans are not reproducing above the rate needed to sustain a population.

So rabid xenophobia is the answer? I thought the issue at hand was the "war on terror" not "let's make sure nothing changes, ever". (The latter being a position the extreme-right neo-Nazis campaign on over here. There is conservatism and there is just plain scary.)

In Sweden we have a large number of Muslim immigrants, most of whom came here as refugees (during the Iran/Iraq war and the war in Bosnia). The overwhelming majority see the freedoms they enjoy in Sweden as a good thing. Especially their offspring, because we have a pretty open society with no religious schools to brainwash them. Very few of those think Sharia law is a good thing, I assume it's about the same percentage as there are complete asshats among the native Swedes (we have our fair share of those, lemme tellya). Why there is such a need to make Muslims out to be proto-fascist freedom-hating woman-beating backdoor-imperialists I don't know.

Furthermore, implying that the democratic process is a bad thing because the culture can change over hundreds of years, and therefore saying it's a good thing to invade Iraq would be such a deluded point of view it's up there with getting married to a pine tree named Leonard.