Re: Thoughts on the passing of Charlton Heston

Steve Hawkins wrote:
Tony Weber <mycroftxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:gNidnXgqwYEWx2fanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Steve Hawkins wrote:

Care to provide the list of innocent folks who have been harmed by
these programs? BTW, your local law enforcement agencies have done
such since the technology was invented and they don't always get
caught at it.
Steve, you are changing the subject. The question was: has the conservative neo-cons now in power undermined the individual
protections not just in the constitution but going back to the entire
idea of heabus corpus. Conservatives use to cherish the concept that
the government must do more than simply claim wrongdoing by the
individual but must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have
done so.

Now, now, Counselor, you know exactly what I was doing. :-)

Yes, you were trying to make your argument by postulating that the one thing is like the other.


The anti-terror programs are pretty specific, focused and have no chance of ever becoming part of the constitution. I would also submit that as the world and it's cultures change, Laws will also change, especially when our Laws are used against us or put us in danger.

No, they are not focused, and that is the problem. If they were I'd not have near so much problem with them myself. there has been a lot leaking out about the use of PATRIOT Act programs being used in areas far outside the realm of anti-terrorism. I am also mindful of the resistance to the extremely mild oversight of the FISA courts, and that the Bushies unilaterally decided to not submit wiretaps to them at all, in clear violation of the law as then written, because they simply decided that it conflicted with their view that the Executive is not accountable to law or oversight.

Sorry if I find that conflicts with the Constitution.



Now, some folks will call that being paranoid. However, I'm certain that I would also have been called paranoid, if I had speculated that a handful of men, with box cutters, would kill more people than the entire Japanese Navy did at Pearl Harbor, along with devastating lower Manhattan, before 9/11/01.

9/11 was a masterful operation, well thought out, well executed and taking advantage of an extremely creative analysis of a weakness. Before anyone jumps on me for that statement, it doesn't mean that I approve by any goddamed means, it is merely an observation of the effectiveness of it as a military operation.

So now we are prepared for a repeat, which we will probably never get. (Can you imagine passengers on a flight ever meekly submitting to a bunch of guys with boxcutters again?. No, absolutely not)

Which only means that, if they ever really hit us again, it will again probably be something unexpected. That is the problem with coping with a terrorist campaign; you can't totally really stop the attacks up front. Instead, most successful anti-terrorist campaigns involve the long-run cutting out of the support for the terrorists within their own population.


And to rebut your attempted frame shift, first how would you know if
you have been harmed when the very agencies running the programs
refuse to publically disclose their results? And one would think that
your claim that local law enforcement abuses governmental power would
support the position that there needs to more individual protections,
not less.

So, I call Abdul, in Iran, to complain that he's late shipping me that Persian Rug I already paid for and the Gov't. listens in. Other than hearing me threaten to cancel my VISA charge and Abdul kissing my ass while lying to me, what's the big deal? Unless there's someone kicking down my door questioning my decorating tastes, where is the harm vs. the chance of stopping another 9/11 in the making?

We allow ourselves to be tracked, photographed, recorded and examined every waking day in this country just going through our normal activities.

But, as I've said, they are using it for intrusion into areas outside a phone call to Abdul. The problem with giving government, any government, liberal or neocon, more power is that they use it and try to get more.


<Yawn> Ever notice how congress still seems to have enough for
billions in earmarks and how Pelosi's own troops told her to get
stuffed when she tried to stop them?
Again, an attempted frameshift, Steve. It does not answer the
question of the huge national debt run up by the party running on a
platform of being more fiscally responsible than the other guys
during the administrations of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

Answering a point by changing the question is not answering at all.


But, that's all you've done here. You want to point the finger at one party for the deficit, but that's not the way the economy works and oh, yeah, there's a war on. Yes, you blame the war on "neo-cons", along with everything else you're unhappy about, but the bottom line is "WE" have the ultimate control of the economy, not a Gov't. that's only around 4 - 8 years. I will admit, I'd like to find out the economic impact of congressional term limits though.

But we are not talking about the economy, Steve, nor are we talking about the trade deficit. Which I agree involves the larger economy is far less tractable to manipulation. What we are talking about the budget deficit here, which is defined as the government spending more money than it takes in. And we are talking about the immense ballooning of that deficit as a direct result of changes in the amount of money that the government takes in that were put into place as soon as 43 and his cronies took office. And yes, we are in a war. But the problem is that there has been no reconfiguration of the income structure based on the fact that the outflow has greatly increased. Instead we get the steady drumbeat of "make the tax cuts permanent" instead of a "hey folks, sorry, but we are in a war now, so everyone is going to have to pitch in a bit. And while I agree that wars are seldom paid for cash on the barrelhead, (I think that the last of the World War II debt was retired in the early 60s, if memory serves),that long term indebtedness can be lessened by some sort of fiscal responsibility up front. And yes, the Dems hold both houses of Congress, but their majority in both is razor thin, and changing the policies enacted by their predecessors is not that easy. (Or what do you think a veto is for?)


Steve Hawkins



Pleasure debating with as always, ya sleezy dirtbag. Hey, since you are not gong to UK, if we decide to put something on this summer, think that you'd make it up to Washington for a PNW thing?

TW
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What are we doing in Afghanistan?
    ... > constitutional government in service to the popular sovereignty to ... > empowered to abridge the rights they foreswore to uphold. ... > supreme Law of the Land"? ... > and act with clear consciences, but that doesn't make the war lawful or ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: St. Patricks Four
    ... information on the victims of war. ... Censored information on law. ... Our government spends 200 billion dollars on a war based on lies while claiming ... prosecutor has not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
    (soc.rights.human)
  • Closing Statements of the Saint Patricks Four:
    ... information on the victims of war. ... Censored information on law. ... Our government spends 200 billion dollars on a war based on lies while claiming ... prosecutor has not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt. ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy)
  • Re: OT: My New Bumper Sticker
    ... European privacy laws, International law, and if a private ... whatever the hell they want under the dubious guise of "war on ... forced to approve of government actions, ... true terrorism inquiries. ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: Catching Up with Christs prophesies & commandments
    ... But this process usurps and undermines the rule of law. ... when there is a war on there is a tendency here ... The role of our official opposition is to oppose. ... the legal requirement that the government ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
Loading