The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you show an example of who the illegal wiretaps were against?

No. Are you suggesting that because the NSA isn't releasing names, it didn't really happen, or are you suggesting that Arabic names are involved so we shouldn't care?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If France had been capable of something like that, it's hard to imagine Hitler seizing Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the way that he did. Military history is interesting stuff, but it's only part of history.

"That" being hitting Hitler with a preemtive strike.

How is that different from what I said you said:

"I think you are the first person I have ever come across that has tried to argue that France was not in a position to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe before Hitler moved his Army west after attacking Poland."

You said France was not capable of launching a preemtive Strike (or else Hitler would not have seized Austria) and my point was that not only was France capable of doing something like like, but Hitler knew they were capabable of doing that.

Stand by your statement or admit it was wrong, but don't say you didn't say it.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said that France was not capable of invading Germany. I stand by what I said.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said that France was not capable of invading Germany. I stand by what I said.

I misunderstood what you meant when you said France was not capable of invading Germany? That is not a complilcated concept. Either France was capable of invading Germany or it wasn't. You said it wasn't. What was there to misunderstand?

You said France couldn't and I said it could. I demonstrated that they could (their Army was bigger than Germanys) and that Hitler knew they could.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I misunderstood what you meant when you said France was not capable of invading Germany? That is not a complilcated concept. Either France was capable of invading Germany or it wasn't. You said it wasn't. What was there to misunderstand?

You said France couldn't and I said it could. I demonstrated that they could (their Army was bigger than Germanys) and that Hitler knew they could.

Jesus Christ, you're like a terrier. Re-read the last sentence of that post, which you didn't bother to include when you quoted me. I was trying to make a point about France, politically. In 1939 and 1940, the country lacked the cohesiveness, leadership, sense of purpose, and raison d'etre to do something like invade Germany. It's not just a question of counting divisions and tanks. Military history is fun, but it can be a distraction from more important things.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you show an example of who the illegal wiretaps were against?

If I could tell you, I'd have to kill you, before they killed me.

P.S. Russert was really pursuing Rice on that issue this morning on Meet the Press. Never saw her look less comfortable as she said the same three talking points over and over again, and never saw any adminsitration official in recent days so happy to move onto the subject of Iraq.

P.P.S. At the same time, this is not something the Bush adminstration made up from whole cloth. The "legal theory" -- President's consitutitional prerogatives authorizing warrantless domestic spying -- has apparently been around for a while in some circles, but never implemented.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Jesus Christ, you're like a terrier. Re-read the last sentence of that post, which you didn't bother to include when you quoted me. I was trying to make a point about France, politically. In 1939 and 1940, the country lacked the cohesiveness, leadership, sense of purpose, and raison d'etre to do something like invade Germany. It's not just a question of counting divisions and tanks. Military history is fun, but it can be a distraction from more important things.

But Terriers are so cute.

This is ironic because I was accused of being called a Pit Bull at the Chamber of Commerce meeting this weekend. I was also called a crazy environmental wacko, irrational and idealistic.

I don't consider myself an environmentalist. For example I think the Global warming thing is a bunch of hype. I think people's property rights are constantly being infringed up by evironmental laws and regulations. These regulations amount to government takings without just compensation.

Here was the point I was making and you tell me whether or not I am crazy, idealistic and wacko environmentalist.

The reason why Free Markets are great is because free markets are the best way to create the most efficient markets. Efficient markets benefit everyone involved in them.

When government messes with the markets it creates distortions and resources are not allocated well. For example, if the Government sets the price of Oranges at five dollars each, everyone will grow Oranges to make the five dollars and there will be way too many oranges. Many more oranges will be grown than are used, and then you end up throwing away mountains of oranges when those resources could have been used for something else.

Export subsidies cause the same problem. If it costs me ten dollars to make and export a product, but I can only sell it in China for nine dollars, I shouldn't do it. But if the government gives me a three dollar subsidy for every product I sell then I sell as many as I can. But the more I sell the more the American taxpayer gets screwed, and the guy in China that can make it for five dollars goes out of business, so the less efficent business survives.

In energy the government messes with the market to screw things up. Nuclear power is my favorite example. The Nuclear Power industry claims that nuclear power is a cheap way to make electricity. That is not true. The government distorts the market by providing insurance for Nuclear Power Plants. No private insurance companys will do it, so the government steps in and provides insurance at below cost thereby screwing the taxpayer. We pay the difference. So the price charged for the electricity that Nuclear Power plants produce does not reflect the true cost because of the insurance subsidy. IN addition, nuclear power plants produce waste, that at this point in time no one has figured out how to dispose of. If GE was stuck with disposing of the waste (in other words having to take in the cost of having to store the waste on their own property for an unlimnited period of time) they wouldn't build nuclear power plants because it would be cost prohibitive. However, for some unfathonable reason, our government takes responsiblity for the waste and it becomes the taxpayers problem. Nuclear power is not cost efficient, but market distortions by the government allow Nuclear power plants to compete in the market place.

The respresentative from PG & E at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, did not like it when I said that nuclear power plants only exist because our government does not understand that socialism does not work. Is this not corporate welfare? Shouldn't anyone that truly believes in free enterprize and free and efficient markets would want the government to stop subidizing nuclear power?

How is what the government does with Nuclear power any different from what it does with farm subsidies or steel quotas?

Most of our "environmental laws" would not be necessary if the government did not subsidies waste and pollution. You can't go out and throw trash out on your neighbors lawn, or on a public street. That is illegal, because you are responsible for your trash, not your neighbor or the government.

Yet this basic concept of private and public property is completely disregarded all the time in this country (and in the world). Industrial power plants dump stuff into public rivers all the time. Or they pump chemicals into the public air. Why are they allowed to do this? If they are allowed to do it they should at least be charged for it so the products they are producing reflect the real cost of the product. If they are not charged for it is not the government subsidizing them by allowing them to dump toxins in public areas? How is the different from me dumping my trash on a public street?

If markets are to work efficiently people and companies need to be responsible for material they dispose of. People say that zero emmission cars are not cost efficent. That is only because people that drive emission cars are not either forced to put a bag over their exhaust pipes to collect the exhaust and then store the bags on their property, or forced to pay a fee for dumping their crap in the public airways. If the true cost of running an internal combustion engine were worked into the cost of running it, people would be looking at alternatives.

All sorts of money in this country is wasted on Packaging. But that is because people can just throw stuff away. The governmet just takes care of the waste, subsidizing the people that are throwing away waste. If McDonalds had to figure out how to dispose of all the packaging (instead of being allowed to dump in the government's lap), either by buying the land where to store the stuff indefinitely, or figure out a way to get some one else to take the excess packaging of their hands, McDonads would come up with recycable material immediately for their packaging.

If companys and people were made resonsible for dealing with their waste the markets would become much more efficient and we wouldn't need to worry so much about environmental laws.

Is this totally crazy and insane? Some one tell me where my logic is screwed up?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you show examples of who the illegal wiretaps were against?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The "legal theory" -- President's consitutitional prerogatives authorizing warrantless domestic spying -- has apparently been around for a while in some circles, but never implemented.

I don't understand how the President's authority as commander-in-chief can be said to authorize warrantless searches and seizures, given that the latter protection is in a constitutional amendment. (Last in time, etc.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Are you suggesting that because the NSA isn't releasing names, it didn't really happen, or are you suggesting that Arabic names are involved so we shouldn't care?

I thought you and I had a truce on calling each other racist?

The only instance I have heard is in late 2001 and early 2002 he ordered tapping of communications into and out of Afghanistan. If you recall, we were sort of in the dark about what was going to happen next. Our intelligence had clearly fallen behind with regard to Al queda and what cells might exist here.

I assume if there was reason to suspect an individual, NSA could have gotten a tap- (if not then I have zero problem with what they did- if we have so hamstrung our ability to fight that we can't even tap when there is cause, then law need to be broken).

If the taps included tapping people just because they communicated with Afghanistan I would be bothered, especially if it continues today- but if placed in context of those days it would certainly be understandable that there was a desire to capture anything we could from Afghanistan. Like I wouldn't be bothered if anyone who went to Afghanistan from what, 1995 until 2001 is looked at with extra scrutiny at an airport etc.

I know also that some of the taps continue, but have no idea of the circumstances- I would hope by now there are specific reasons for any taps-

What gets me is that very similar activities occured to break the Mafia. But I guess you were okay with that because they all had Italian names?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand how the President's authority as commander-in-chief can be said to authorize warrantless searches and seizures, given that the latter protection is in a constitutional amendment. (Last in time, etc.)

The Republicans have been arguing this case consistently for a hundred and forty years. See ex Parte Milligan. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=71&invol=2

Generally, however, Democratic Presidents have had an easier time convincing the court that the "power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully", and should outweigh individual rights protected by the constitution, as in the Korematsu and McKinley cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=323&invol=214 , and, especially, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=397#399 .

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Captain
The Republicans have been arguing this case consistently for a hundred and forty years. See ex Parte Milligan. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=71&invol=2

Generally, however, Democratic Presidents have had an easier time convincing the court that the "power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully", and should outweigh individual rights protected by the constitution, as in the Korematsu and McKinley cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=323&invol=214 , and, especially, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=397#399 .

Indeed, but the complicating factor is that here we have a federal statute (F.I.S.A.) saying "Thou shalt not . . . " -- unless you have the approval of this Court, using the special expedited procedures provided. That destroys the application of the McKinley rationale, though not [eta: entirely] the Korematsu rationale.

The administration decided both that the FISA court procedures were not speedy enough, and that they would prefer not to have to demonstrate cause in each case.

They also decided to assume this authority rather than request it publicly (say, through the "Patriot" Act). Perhaps truly for reasons of national security (i.e. the terrorists would somehow not think that their communications would be monitored) -- though I suspect avoiding a p.r. firestorm was the true reason.

It is also not clear to me that any of the Dems in Congress were notified that this program was going on. (Limited leadership notification to the majority and Intel . committee chairs.)

Assuming the very best intentions in the world, and assuming that this government power is never, ever, misused, this still plays badly for the administration.

S_A_M

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Assuming the very best intentions in the world, and assuming that this government power is never, ever, misused, this still plays badly for the administration.

S_A_M

Silly man. Clear breaches of the law in the form of abuses of power by high ranking administration officials are the hallmark of excellence in a Republican administration. This revelation was just what was needed to assure W's place as the sixth head on Mt. Rushmore.

Remember: getting blow job and lying about it = impeachment, if only because the death penalty apparently can't be applied; incredible abuse of power and violation of laws which represent the core values of the American Republic = beatification.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

That's why I use nothing but burner cells and always speak in code. Fringey is actually my wife, and Hank and I agree about absolutely everything.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
then law need to be broken.

See, Hank's regular speech appears to be gibberish because he speaks in code, too.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Indeed, but the complicating factor is that here we have a federal statute (F.I.S.A.) saying "Thou shalt not . . . " -- unless you have the approval of this Court, using the special expedited procedures provided. That destroys the application of the McKinley rationale, though not [eta: entirely] the Korematsu rationale.

The administration decided both that the FISA court procedures were not speedy enough, and that they would prefer not to have to demonstrate cause in each case.

They also decided to assume this authority rather than request it publicly (say, through the "Patriot" Act). Perhaps truly for reasons of national security (i.e. the terrorists would somehow not think that their communications would be monitored) -- though I suspect avoiding a p.r. firestorm was the true reason.

It is also not clear to me that any of the Dems in Congress were notified that this program was going on. (Limited leadership notification to the majority and Intel . committee chairs.)

Assuming the very best intentions in the world, and assuming that this government power is never, ever, misused, this still plays badly for the administration.

S_A_M

Indeed, my cites were only meant to show how one could defend the President, not to take sides. And to bring up McKinley, because it's mildly amusing.

The question of FISA is a different one. I believe the most common basis for the President to use in flouting Congress has been executive privilege, which I do not think of a particularly well-established legal precedent, and which tends to focus on actions only of the President relating to his office and perhaps to his highest level of advisors. It seems a stretch to authorize activities of some black cloaks in the NSA using executive privilege.

Is there a basis other than executive privilege for a President to use in ignoring Congress? If not, can anyone tell me how we get to executive privilege protected conduct in this case?

Historically, it has always been, and I believe still is, accepted that we need some top secret spies doing top secret things. However, Congress chose to limit those activities in specific ways - is there a way around that today?