Re: Are we safer now ....

js wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

3) Your Step 9 is too vague. Freedom and flexibility to do what?


Whatever it takes. In the absence of media oversight. As I pointed
out to Rita it is not in the absence of any oversight but the first
congresscritter or staffer that spills the beans gets life without
parole in Gitmo.



Whatever specifics you have in mind, the 9-11 commission says: "[t]he
burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be
on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially
enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the
executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties.
If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight
to properly confine its use."


Like I said - No politics - the interest of the country, not
re-election - comes first. If they want phone records for
transatlantic phone calls - you bet. I make plenty of calls and I have
no qualms about them knowing who I called and for how long.

Financial transactions - you bet. I already report cash transfers of
over 10K so this is hardly new.

No Fly list? TSA policies? Let the experts figure it out - I don't
need to know how and why - period.

All of that is fine with appropriate oversight. And concerning your
general complaint against the media - they have been filling in the
oversight that has been lacking and is sorely needed in a transparent
government.


No - they have done nothing of the kind. The oversight is there - you
just don't see it. The latest NYT bit showed exactly that - they made
a big to do about something that was perfectly legal and above board,
albeit secret....why? To sell newspapers.

You may be correct concerning the financial records - I didn't follow that case closely - but IMO you are wrong concerning warrantless surveillance, phone records, secret prisons and military abuse of prisoners.

Recommendation: Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends,
do not respect these principles [the motherhood and apple pie ones from
earlier], the United States must stand for a better future. One of the
lessons of the long Cold War was that short-term gains in cooperating
with the most repressive and brutal governments were too often
outweighed by long-term setbacks for America's stature and interests.

Now, apply this to Lebanon and tell me who screwed up this
recommendation - and I'll give you a hint....the party is first
alphabetically. Who did the biggest moaning when the US didn't
abdicate its responsibility to ensure a lasting resolution through the
UNSC?

I don't follow your argument concerning Lebanon.


UN Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the Security Council's
failure to act more quickly to end the Lebanon war, saying it had
"badly shaken" the world's faith in the Security Council.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0608123408153445.htm

You bet - the criticism levied at the Bush administration because
rather than seek a short term ceasefire they opted to push for a lon
ger view....there you go. Now, who in Congress was the biggest critic
of the strategy?

You bet. Kucinich and Pelosi.

I agree with Annan and fail to see how his position conflicts with the 9-11 commission's recommendations you quoted above.

The antiproliferation recommendation is another intersting one. No,
Josh, look into the future - what is your PLAN to deal with Iran baxsed
on the RECOMMENDATION of the 9/11 commission. Come on - here's your
chance to actually think ahead rather than react and criticize.

There is already a consensus that our next steps are to negotiate with
Iran, and continue to use the IAEA as our eyes and ears.


Except the IAEA ain't allowed to do surprise inspections....hmmmm.

And her is their conclusion from the August 2006
inspections...."Inspectors had been unable to "confirm the peaceful
nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

Now what Josh?

As I said, start with negotiations aimed at allowing the IAEA full access. If that does not work, we can consider sanctions and possibly military action (although I doubt the latter could be successful). The world may have to live with a nuclear Iran - which would be warned that any transfer of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups would be an act of war.

Josh Rosenbluth
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: The Olbermann/Obama flip flop on FISA amendment
    ... Only a fool does not know that powerful people in powerful governments ... But, of course, we are not talking about lack of oversight at all, nor ... whether power is "always" utilized legally. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: The Olbermann/Obama flip flop on FISA amendment
    ... On Jul 1 2008 8:09 AM, da pickle wrote: ... But, of course, we are not talking about lack of oversight at all, nor ... whether power is "always" utilized legally. ... response and then you pretend you didn't say what you said and I guess you ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Sen. Specter threatens to cut off funding for secret wiretaps
    ... A blatant attempt at Congressional power amplification and bully pulpit ... Wiretaps should have *Judicial* oversight, ... a broad interpretation of the authorization for military force. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: _Bool bitfields
    ... > This change's absence from ... > appears to be an oversight. ... Neil. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.std.c)