illegal wiretaps. Impeachable Offense? [Archive]

Lindsey

January 5th, 2006, 05:52 PM

Unfortunately, many people just shrug and say “They all do it!” I wonder why they bother to vote at all, but they do, and that attitude doesn’t lead them to avoid the Republicans, which most still trust more on security issues, hard as that is to believe.
It really is hard to believe that people could still feel that an administration that has so badly mismanaged both a war and recovery from a natural disaster could be trusted to keep people safe. Seems to me the only thing these guys can be trusted to do is to enrich their cronies and protect their own behinds.

That "they all do it" attitude is something that needs to be fought, because they DON'T all do it. And especially not now, because the Republicans have been very diligent about cutting off Democrats from power (remember Tom DeLay's "K Street Project"?), so even if the current crop of Democratic politicians in Washington were anxious to sell themselves to the highest bidder, most of them have absolutely nothing to sell. They have little power to influence anything.

People have to care about this if they expect to keep what little real democracy we have left in this country. And if they can't be made to care, then maybe we deserve to lose it.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 5th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Anyone here wish to comment on which phones were tapped and what the motive was? Has anyone here had their lives interrupted or personally know anyone who's life has been affected by any of this?
How would anyone know, when the whole process is shrouded in secrecy?

But it sounds like what you are saying is that we ought to just forget about the Bill of Rights. Who needs it, right? What we really need in this country is an all-powerful executive. Yeah, that's the ticket. After all, Bush himself said that government would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, especially if he were the dictator.

--Lindsey

lensue

January 5th, 2006, 07:15 PM

>But it sounds like what you are saying is that we ought to just forget about the Bill of Rights. Who needs it, right? What we really need in this country is an all-powerful executive. Yeah, that's the ticket. <

Lindsey, I read Ray's message and it didn't sound like he was saying that at all. Regards, Len

lensue

January 5th, 2006, 07:18 PM

>they expect to keep what little real democracy we have left in this country.<

Lindsey, I have to disagree with you again--we have a lot of democracy left here in America. Regards, Len

Lindsey

January 5th, 2006, 10:16 PM

Lindsey, I have to disagree with you again--we have a lot of democracy left here in America. Regards, Len
We have an illusion of democracy which is being steadily chipped away.

Do you really think you have as much influence with the PTB in Washington as, say, the CEO of Halliburton?

--Lindsey

lensue

January 5th, 2006, 10:57 PM

>Do you really think you have as much influence <

Lindsey, I misunderstood what you were saying--I thought you were talking about democracy in the sense that somehow I was losing alot of my current freedoms and civil rights--I didn't realize you were talking about influence. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell

January 5th, 2006, 11:11 PM

It doesn't matter whose phone was tapped or why it was tapped or whether any of us know anyone whose life has been affected by it. What matters is that the law requires certain steps to be taken before an American's -- any American's -- privacy is inavaded. Those steps can be taken literally in minutes. It's outrageous that the law is not being followed.

Judy G. Russell

January 5th, 2006, 11:12 PM

Influence is part of democracy, Len. If national decision-making is really a matter of the highest bidder, you can't possibly think that majority rule means anything at all.

lensue

January 5th, 2006, 11:27 PM

>Influence is part of democracy<

Judy, yes, I agree but I didn't think that's what Lindsey was referring to--she spoke about democracy being chipped away and I thought she was referring to things like those wiretaps. I'm not sure my influence is being chipped away--I didn't have any 40 years ago and I don't have now! Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey

January 5th, 2006, 11:48 PM

Lindsey, I misunderstood what you were saying--I thought you were talking about democracy in the sense that somehow I was losing alot of my current freedoms and civil rights
Well, that too!!

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 5th, 2006, 11:54 PM

Judy, yes, I agree but I didn't think that's what Lindsey was referring to--she spoke about democracy being chipped away and I thought she was referring to things like those wiretaps. I'm not sure my influence is being chipped away--I didn't have any 40 years ago and I don't have now! Regards, Len [g]
As Judy said, it's all of a piece. The idea is supposed to be that the people decide how their country is to be governed. When the Vice-President decides that he doesn't need to listen to anyone except energy industry oligarchs when he is drawing up an energy policy for the whole country, that's anti-democratic.

And now we have a nominee to the Supreme Court who has expressed disdain for the principle of "one man, one vote." That's anti-democratic, too.

--Lindsey

earler

January 6th, 2006, 04:37 AM

Tapping of phones has been done for over 50 years in the states. The predecessor of the nsa, the ssa, asked itt, then the major int'l phone company, to allow it access. Nothing new today, except the volume of calls, the internet, cell phones all mean there is more protection because only communications that match certain patterns are actually examined. Whatever its sins, the current administration is merely following its predecessors: eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush, clinton.

-er

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 08:51 AM

>The idea is supposed to be that the people decide how their country is to be governed. <

Lindsey, I think everything is relative--things may not be perfect but I feel relatively free in this country. The country is split in two right now but I think we have a high degree of democracy. I was watching a PBS show on nonviolence just yesterday and they had footage of 3 country situations where things were really bad--made me realize how good we have it here!

1. The Nazi occupation of Denmark during World War 2

2. The Communists and how finally the Gdansk miners got some freedom in Ppoland after much hardship,

3. Pinochet and Chile--how horrendous until finally he was ousted!

From what I've seen of Alito he seems well qualified to enter the Supreme Court--just the fact that he's from my great state of New Jersey gives him the edge [r,d,g] but I'll of course be trying to follow the hearings that start next week. I think what's quoted below has to help him:

"Judge Samuel Alito on Wednesday gained the American Bar Association's highest rating for a Supreme Court nominee, giving him a boost before next week's Senate confirmation hearings...Embracing the latest rating, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Leading Senate Democrats have said in the past that the ABA is the — quote — gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees."

see http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-04-alito_x.htm?csp=34 Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 11:08 AM

"He started it!" is no excuse. Congress passed a very specific law governing this sort of issue. It created a special court that can authorize a wiretap in minutes. The statute even allows wiretapping without approval as long as approval is sought as soon as possible thereafter. What the law does NOT allow is what the Bush Administration ordered the NSA to do.

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 11:10 AM

I worked for Sam Alito in the US Attorney's Office. There is no question that he is qualified. He is also one of the most thoroughly decent human beings you could ever hope to meet.

But that doesn't mean I want him on the Supreme Court. I am concerned that he would allow his personal political beliefs to color his judicial thinking and I do believe his personal political beliefs are a bit right of the American mainstream.

ndebord

January 6th, 2006, 12:12 PM

What I 'read' here is 'form vs. substance'. Anyone here wish to comment on which phones were tapped and what the motive was? Has anyone here had their lives interrupted or personally know anyone who's life has been affected by any of this?

Ray,

It does not matter who was tapped or even why. What matters is simple. Are we a nation ruled by law or a nation ruled by personal fiat?

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 01:28 PM

>I am concerned that he would allow his personal political beliefs to color his judicial thinking <

Judy, well I guess that will be discussed during the hearings--if he says he will not let his personal beliefs color his judicial thinking then it comes down to either believing in him or not--I guess that could be the case with any nominee. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 01:35 PM

it comes down to either believing in him or not--I guess that could be the case with any nomineeWell... not exactly. You see, the role of the Supreme Court is so fundamentally different from the other courts that nominees can genuinely believe, based on their prior judicial experience, that they will only follow the law... until they sit on the Court and discover that their role, in part, is to make the law (or, at a minimum, to declare what the law is). Then things can be verrrrrrry different.

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 02:02 PM

>that their role, in part, is to make the law <

Judy, I thought their role was to pick our presidents for us! Regards, Len [diving for cover]

earler

January 6th, 2006, 04:39 PM

There have been laws before, too. However, each administration has violated them when it was felt to be necessary. I'm really not too concerned about the wire tapping since its need is clear and the amount of information that is monitored is so large that no one will worry about what you or I might say or hear over a phone line, the internet, or a cell phone. As I pointed out nsa's predecessor, the ssa, did the same thing 50 years ago.

Frankly, a reform in the penal system is more important in my opinion. Over long sentences, e.g. ebbers, the handcuffing of people and their photographs plastered on tv screens, as well as the fact that people die in prison of old age and the prisons do little or nothing for rehabilitation are topics that push my hot button.

-er

Lindsey

January 6th, 2006, 05:11 PM

Whatever its sins, the current administration is merely following its predecessors: eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush, clinton.
What evidence do you have that the Clinton administration, to choose one, routinely engaged in illegal wiretaps?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 05:50 PM

I appreciate that you have your hot-button issues. I also have mine: the rule of law and the right of Americans to privacy are right there at the top. And lest you think it's a few dissident Democrats who question what the Bush Administration has done, permit me to quote today's New York Times in commenting on the views of the former REPUBLICAN Governor of New Jersey:

Thomas H. Kean, the former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said he too doubts the legality of the program. Weighing in for the first time on the controversy, he said in an interview that the commission was never told of the operation and that he has strong doubts about whether it is authorized under the law.

Federal law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, created in 1978, "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," said Mr. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. "We live by a system of checks and balances, and I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 05:51 PM

I thought their role was to pick our presidents for us!ROFL!!! Yeah, they sure think so on occasion!

Lindsey

January 6th, 2006, 05:59 PM

things may not be perfect but I feel relatively free in this country
I feel a lot less free today than I did six years ago. And the Bush administration is pushing the envelope further and further every day. They're saying now that the law does not apply to the president -- that he is free to interpret it any way he likes, ignore it when he chooses, and make up his own rules as he goes along. If the executive branch is allowed to render the judiciary and the legislature moot, what protection does that leave for any of us?

Pinochet and Chile--how horrendous until finally he was ousted!
Are you forgetting that the United States government supported Pinochet?

From what I've seen of Alito he seems well qualified to enter the Supreme Court
I don't doubt his legal capability; what I would question is his philosophical suitability. From what I have heard of Alitos past opinions, his views are extreme right wing, to the point of anti-democratic and authoritarian. See, for example, this recent editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/opinion/03tues3.html) in the New York Times:

When Samuel Alito Jr. applied for a top job in the Reagan Justice Department, he explained what had attracted him to constitutional law as a college student. He was motivated, he said, "in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment." The reapportionment cases that so upset young Mr. Alito were a series of landmark decisions that established a principle that is now a cornerstone of American democracy: one person one vote.

<snip>

Rejecting the one-person-one-vote principle is a radical position. If Judge Alito still holds this view today, he could lead the court to accept a very different vision of American democracy, one in which it would be far easier for powerful special interests to get a stranglehold on government.

Even if Judge Alito has changed his position on the reapportionment cases, the fact that he was drawn to constitutional law because of his opposition to those rulings raises serious questions about his views on democracy and equality.

Alito also appears to be highly sympathetic to the vision of expanded and virtually limitless presidential powers that is held by Bush and Cheney. There are already three judges on the Court who are similarly sympathetic; I think it would be dangerous to add yet another one.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 6th, 2006, 06:17 PM

I appreciate that you have your hot-button issues. I also have mine: the rule of law and the right of Americans to privacy are right there at the top.
Same here. And I think the best answer I have seen to Ray's original question lies in Jeffrey Rosen's explanation of the title of his book The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America:

The "Unwanted Gaze": It comes from a beautiful doctrine in Jewish law called Hezzekh Reah, which means "the injury caused by seeing," and this arises in the law governing what happens when your neighbor puts up a window overlooking you in a common courtyard. According to medieval authorities, you not only have the right to order that the window be removed, but also that your neighbor not gaze upon you, because Jewish law recognizes that it's uncertainty about whether or not we're being observed that causes us to lead more constricted lives in private places. Even the smallest intrusion by the unwanted gaze causes damage, said Jewish authorities, because the injury caused by seeing cannot be measured.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/jan-june00/rosen_6-26.html

--Lindsey

rlohmann

January 6th, 2006, 06:53 PM

After all, Bush himself said that government would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, especially if he were the dictator.A startling assertion. You have a source for the report, of course.

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 07:22 PM

Yep: check out the links here (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html). Though I'm sure Bush thought he was joking, we all know how jokes can reflect an actual state of mind.

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 07:23 PM

It's called the "chilling effect" in American jurisprudence: we are chilled from some lawful activity by even the threat of unlawful activity by others.

rlohmann

January 6th, 2006, 08:00 PM

While what you say is true in the strictest sense, it strikes me in this context as, if perhaps not disingenuous, at least incomplete.

You do not mention the Court's historical reluctance to overrule its precedents, a reluctance based on self-preservation as much as anything else. Moving too far afield can bring dissatisfaction that is quick sharp and potentially dangerous. (You may remember the 1937 "switch in time" in response to Roosevelt's court-packing scheme.) While there is inevitably a tendency on the part of the Justices to remold society to their liking, relatively few have spent much time attempting to carry it out, and the exceptions--Justice Douglas comes to mind--are as often on the left as on the right.

In any event, much of the opposition to Alito seems to rest on the abortion issue, about which there has always been more heat than light. If I understand the hue and cry correctly, Alito is suspected of being opposed to "reproductive rights."

"Reproductive rights" (a rather baffling term when you think about it) is a synonym for "the right to an abortion," of course, but both terms are slogans rather than expressions of rational thought. There is no "right," constitutional or otherwise, to an abortion. The decision in Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion, but it did not raise the process to the status of a "right" in any conventional sense of the word.

Consequently, the hysterical assumption that Alito would, if confirmed, immediately set about demolishing Roe v. Wade is nonsensical. He has no motive whatever to gratuitously place the Court at odds with what appears to be the preference of the majority (although how large a majority is unclear) of Americans.

What Alito would have to do, if he were truly plotting to destroy "reproductive rights," is convince four other justices to recriminalize an act that has been legal for decades.

While our domestic Taliban might be quite eager to do that, I doubt that Judge Alito is a member.

rlohmann

January 6th, 2006, 08:04 PM

Why am I reminded in this context of Democratic outrage at Republican "irrational hatred" of the Clintons?

In other words, if a guy makes bad jokes--and repeats the bad jokes--he's a Clear and Present Danger?

Get real. :rolleyes:

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 09:09 PM

When someone makes bad jokes, repeats bad jokes and then acts like he BELIEVES the bad jokes, it's scary, yes!

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 09:14 PM

No, Roe v. Wade didn't make the PROCESS a right. It determined instead that the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion was within one's individual zone of privacy. You may not be able to get one at government expense, but government can't stop you from getting one. Reversing Roe would, almost certainly, lead to recriminalizing abortion in a very large number of so-called Red States. That would be a tragedy, not to mention a major emotional victory for our domestic Taliban.

And frankly I just don't know how Sam would come down on that issue. I suspect he would find it less difficult to overturn Roe than, say, Brown vs. the Board of Education, but I don't know how much less difficult.

Moreover, I tend to think that most people with prosecutorial experience tend to err in favor of executive power... and I don't think our current imperial president needs any help on that line right now.

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 09:45 PM

>Even the smallest intrusion by the unwanted gaze causes damage, said Jewish authorities, because the injury caused by seeing cannot be measured.<

Lindsay, not as much damage as a suicide bomber! Regards, Len [r,d,g]

Judy G. Russell

January 6th, 2006, 10:12 PM

Benjamin Franklin had an answer for that kind of thinking. In 1759, he said:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 10:34 PM

>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.<

Judy, the thing is that I don't think these wiretaps represent my giving up essential liberty--still I think the issue should be examined more--I did read the Times report this evening that questioned whether Bush had gone too far and would like to see more discussion on that issue.

Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted

"President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday... The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html?hp&ex=1136610000&en=5fb34d4727bc9259&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Regards, Len

lensue

January 6th, 2006, 10:48 PM

Lindsey

January 7th, 2006, 12:37 AM

It's called the "chilling effect" in American jurisprudence: we are chilled from some lawful activity by even the threat of unlawful activity by others.
I think I prefer the more poetic phrase "the injury caused by seeing," ;) but in any case, it's interesting to me that this was a concern even in medieval times.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 7th, 2006, 12:44 AM

Reversing Roe would, almost certainly, lead to recriminalizing abortion in a very large number of so-called Red States.
He wouldn't even have to go that far; he would only have to pursue the strategy that he advocated in his earlier days in the executive department: keep chipping away at the protections afforded by Roe until they are rendered completely meaningless. O'Connor herself moved in this direction when she introduced the "undue burden" standard.

But contrary to what Ralph has said, my concern is less with the fate of Roe v Wade than with the question of the extent of executive power. What Bush is claiming for himself and his office is truly breathtaking, and I don't think the republic can long survive a government that operates that way.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 7th, 2006, 12:48 AM

Lindsay, not as much damage as a suicide bomber! . . . [r,d,g]
Sorry, Len, I don't find that a grin-worthy statement.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 7th, 2006, 01:09 AM

Could you explain how you personally are in any difficulty you didn't have 6 years ago--can you give me an example of personal grievances you now have.
"Less free" doesn't necessarily translate to "difficulty," and I think my grievances with the current government are well known here, but let's just say that I feel very keenly "the injury caused by seeing."

But do you deny what I said that we are very fortunate to live in the USA
I think it's up to you to decide whether you are fortunate or not. Once upon a time I did feel that way, but now I'm not so sure. Oh, yes, we live in a country that historically has been quite prosperous, and that has a long tradition of standing up for liberty and human rights. But I fear that our profligate consumption and heedless exploitation of the environment seriously threatens future prosperity, and as has been demonstrated in this thread, commitment to liberty and human rights has become seriously diminished, and not just since 9/11, though that greatly exacerbated an existing trend. I mean, I have to question the essential values of a country that consistently lends support--and sometimes very bloody support--to right-wing dictatorships.

I find myself lately wondering if I should do what my great-grandfather did in the aftermath of the Civil War, pick up and relocate in Nova Scotia. Of course, it was a lot easier to do that sort of thing in 1866--all you had to do pick up and take yourself there. Now there would be a mountain of red tape to wade through. And that, too, is one way that we in this world are less free.

Believe me, it greatly pains me to say that. But there are days lately when I greatly fear for the future of this land.

--Lindsey

ndebord

January 7th, 2006, 02:13 AM

>I feel a lot less free today than I did six years ago. <

Lindsey, I'm sorry to hear that--I myself don't. Could you explain how you personally are in any difficulty you didn't have 6 years ago--can you give me an example of personal grievances you now have.

>Are you forgetting that the United States government supported Pinochet?<

No. But do you deny what I said that we are very fortunate to live in the USA and that it's much better than what the Chilean workers had under Pinochet. Are you suggesting that Bush is as bad as Pinochet or even comes close?

> his views are extreme right wing, to the point of anti-democratic and authoritarian.<

Well again we'll see how the hearings go next week but I must say my reaction now is that you're over reacting here. Regards, Len

Len,

Well, what will make you change a position which seems to be "my President, right or wrong?"

If spying illegally doesn't ring your bell, how about GWB writing a "signing statement" that details what Bush calls his ability to bypass the law that McCain got through Congress outlawing torture?

Wouldn't you call that rule by personal fiat?

earler

January 7th, 2006, 04:47 AM

Routinely? Ah, there is the deadly adjective. Reminds me of the hoary question, when did you stop beating your wife. All administrations have breached the law, none routinely as far as I know. Mind you, clinton was the first president in history to commit perjury while in office.

I'll also take the opportunity to shade what I said earlier about wiretapping. I meant electronic surveillance not listening to the calls of a particular individual, say senator jones or representative smith or dame judy russell. Such actions should be countenanced by a federal judge, of course. The administration is using electronic surveillance to help avoid any terrorist actions.

-er

earler

January 7th, 2006, 05:16 AM

Dear lady, you may feel less free now than 6 years ago, but you probably also feel less safe, too. After all, 9/11 marked the first serious terrorist attack that usa has had. You can't travel without proof of your identity, for example. Alas, this is what we have to live with, and even if you move to nova scotia, you will have to put up with such annoyances there, too.

As for pinochet, let's put this in perspective. His administration committed some heinous crimes against a few people, some of whom died. However, allende was another castro sort and under him the country was going to hell, too, with arbitrary arrests and executions. Chili today is the most stable and prosperous country in south america, thanks to the administration of which pinochet was really just a figure head. It is perhaps the first time in modern history that a military dictatorship was wise enough to employ capable admistrators to lift the country out of the mess in which it was under allende, then to cede power to civilians.

Pinochet is, or was, not a very nice man. But, he was just one of several senior officers, but the one who was put in place as president. This doesn't excuse the torture and summary executions that took place. But, that same pinochet presided over a cleaning up of the country and he and his fellow officers handed over a country in fine health and deserve some recognition for that.

-er

earler

January 7th, 2006, 05:18 AM

I believe the aba, not exactly a bastion of neocons, gave alito it highest marks as candidate for the supreme court.

-er

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 08:46 AM

>Sorry, Len, I don't find that a grin-worthy statement<

Lindsey, maybe I did go overboard--sorry. Still my point is that in an age of terroism I'm not that concerned with the wire tapping Bush allowed. Because of my punning sickness I have to add that I was thinking of responding by saying I may have gone ALITO bit overboard! Regards, Len [g]

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 08:55 AM

>Now there would be a mountain of red tape to wade through. And that, too, is one way that we in this world are less free.<

Lindsey, I'm just curious and I certainly don't want you leaving us--would the red tape be more from Canada or more from the US.

>Believe me, it greatly pains me to say that. But there are days lately when I greatly fear for the future of this land.<

I believe you but I still think you're over reacting. That's why I'm asking what in your own daily existance is making you so fearful. For Sue and me we come and go as we please--there are policeman who watch our car as we go through the Lincoln Tunnel. We start a trip to Florida tomorrow and there's more airport security than in the old days. But things are pretty good--technology is very useful--DVDs, computers, cars, what's the problem? Regards, Len

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 09:03 AM

>Well, what will make you change a position which seems to be "my President, right or wrong?"<

Nick, I've had a lot of problems with Bush and he's always made me a little nervous. I feel he wasted a lot of time with the social security plan and lost a good deal of momentum--it seemed obvious to me the country didn't want to hear about this plan and whether it could work or not it was not a high priority. Bush can be so clumsy and that landing on the boat after Sadam was toppled was very poor political thinking IMO. You ask what would make me nervous--things like the McCarthy hearing and the red baiting of the 1950's would be terrible. Bush could have done a better job on tortue but he did eventually cave.

I've been watching a series on PBS on American Presidents--it's a 10 hour series and it's remarkable to see the footage and history and blunders of so many presidents. Just yesterday they did a segment on Harding--apparently a nice guy but they showed how deep in over his head he was--while he fiddled around corruption from his friends ran rampant! But for me Bush is far from perfect. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:05 PM

I like the poetic phrase too... but don't think it would work in legal briefs today!

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:07 PM

You don't think it's giving up essential liberty to let the executive branch -- not a neutral magistrate -- decide whether there's a reason to listen in on your private conversations? We may have a fundamentally different definition of "essential liberty" then.

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:10 PM

But Len... you can use the excuse of terrorism for all kinds of abuses -- and we've already seen that done. We're torturing people (and John McCain has already said that torture doesn't produce the truth, it only produces whatever statement the person being tortured thinks will end the torture); we're kidnapping them out of countries where there are rules and dumping them in prisons in countries without rules; we're even wiretapping our own citizens without judicial approval. Where does it all stop?

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:11 PM

The definition of electronic surveillance includes listening to specific conversations of specific individuals. It isn't just a matter of seeing how much chatter there is in a particular direction.

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:12 PM

I see them as interrelated: the undue interference of government with the lives of the people.

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 12:14 PM

He is certainly qualified. In ABA parlance, that means that he has the integrity, education and intelligence to serve. The ABA does not consider whether he is politically left, right or center.

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 12:29 PM

>not a neutral magistrate -- decide whether there's a reason to listen in on your private conversations? <

Judy, well if I'm calling the middle east there may be some grounds for it but I definitely want to know more. I think the key question is how much delay it would take using the neutral magistrate. How bulky is that system with a magistrate--I'd like this examined more closely. If all that's involved is a 4 minute delay then I'm not sure the President's case holds up. Regards, Len

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 12:34 PM

>McCain has already said that torture doesn't produce the truth, it only produces whatever statement the person being tortured thinks will end the torture<

Judy, just as a hypothetical what if it was proved that it did produce results.

>Where does it all stop?<

I guess debates like we are having and at a more decisive level examinations and debates by our law makers and judges. Eventually I suppose that an equilibrium can be achieved. Some will agree with it and others will be alarmed by it. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 01:55 PM

just as a hypothetical what if it was proved that [torture] did produce results.Then we would have to decide who -- and what -- we want to be, as a people, as a society. Do we want to be torturers, regardless of the cause? I don't think so...

lensue

January 7th, 2006, 02:17 PM

>I don't think so...<

Judy, I think I agree with you but....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Following the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the question has become whether the senior al Qaeda leader will reveal key information about the terrorist network. If he doesn't, should he be tortured to make him tell what he knows?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

The interview begins with:

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

DERSHOWITZ: I don't think so. This is not the ticking-bomb terrorist case, at least so far as we know. Of course, the difficult question is the chicken-egg question: We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures.

My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don't think we're in that situation in this case.

At another point later on this comment:

DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know, and that's why [we could use] a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this horrible, horrible technique of torture. I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.

I found the whole interview very scary but also interesting. Regards, Len

earler

January 7th, 2006, 05:21 PM

Indeed, electronic surveillance, in its broader sense, includes listening to individuals. However, the administration seems more interested in being able to monitor all communications, watching for key phrases or patterns that would lead to closer examination. As far as I know, no president, including this one, has ever countenanced the recording of calls made by opponents, though the fbi certainly has done this over the years.

-er

earler

January 7th, 2006, 05:23 PM

Isn't that sufficient reason to approve the nomination if he is "that he has the integrity, education and intelligence to serve"?

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 11:33 PM

No. A political viewpoint sufficiently outside the mainstream to be out of touch with the majority of Americans would be disqualifying, in my opinion, despite integrity, education and intelligence.

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 11:35 PM

Scary, indeed, but this is one area where I simply have to disagree with Dershowitz. I think McCain is right: torture doesn't get you correct information as much as it gets you whatever information the person thinks will stop the torture. It therefore isn't a sure bet to get you what you need, and it diminishes us as a people so much more.

Judy G. Russell

January 7th, 2006, 11:39 PM

RayB (France)

January 8th, 2006, 02:12 AM

Bush himself said the need for action was because "This is a different era, a different war.... People are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent ... it requires quick action." That, to me, means telephone conversations, not key phrases or patterns. That's the reason why this surveillance IMO violations the FISA.

And if that action is taken in an effort to save lives it doesn't matter because 'THE LAW SAYS!!!. Sigh!!

earler

January 8th, 2006, 04:21 AM

Judges are supposed to uphold the law and respect the constitution. A good one will take decisions according to these and not to his personal political opinions.

Democratic governments, by the way, make decisions that the majority don't countenance, at least not at first. Recent examples were america's entry into the 2nd world war and the french government's ban on capital punishment in 1981.

Majorities often reflect the mob or at best misguided ideas. A majority of the voters in california voted for proposition 13 thirty years ago. A dreaful burden that led to many of the state's problems today. Governments must often make unpopular decisions. The major weakness of democracies today is the too great influence of the mob. Look back at the history of the roman republic. Its end was marked by this, too, and led to the emperors. Fortunately for rome the early ones were mostly quite good.

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 8th, 2006, 02:04 PM

Our system of government is based on tripartite checks and balances. Each of three co-equal branches is intended to act as a check and a balance to the others. When any of those three gets power out of balance, and the others fail to act as a check, we can have serious problems. That is one concern here. Additionally, and beyond that concern, there is the concern that justices (different from judges) have the responsibility not merely to apply the law but to be the ultimate arbiters of what our fundamental legal charter (the Constitution) means and how it is to be applied to factual circumstances that could not have been foreseen by the Founding Fathers. In that regard, they are -- as all high court members in common law jurisdictions are -- lawmakers. When a lawmaker in the executive or legislative branches is seriously out of step with the views of the American majority, the legal check is the next election. There is no such check on a justice. So making sure a justice is thoroughly vetted before he/she/it is confirmed is critical.

Judy G. Russell

January 8th, 2006, 02:06 PM

Not at all, Ray. The FISA itself provides a method not only for expeditious approval in emergent situations but also for after-the-fact judicial review of emergent decisions taken when even the expeditious approval methods are too slow. So the executive branch can act and then get the court to say it was right or wrong in acting. What the Bush Administration has said, in effect, is, "Laws? Laws? We don't need no steeenkin' laws!"

earler

January 8th, 2006, 03:24 PM

According to the dictionaries I just consulted (ahd4, random house, nsoed, merriam webster) a justice is a judge. It is usually used to refer to a judge presiding over or belong to a superior court. Therefore, my use of the word judge for a supreme court justice is correct.

You go on to speak of the sysem of checks and balances in the usa, a subject I did not address in my message. So, why do you do so now?

-er

ndebord

January 8th, 2006, 03:26 PM

And if that action is taken in an effort to save lives it doesn't matter because 'THE LAW SAYS!!!. Sigh!!

Ray,

The law says you have 72 hours to ask for a warrant AFTER you have already tapped the conversation(s). And since they have only disapproved 4 (I believe) wiretaps out of how many thousands? I don't think you need worry about not being able to tap someone. Not to mention the obvious disconnect here. Assume that the Judge doesn't want to approve a tap that has already taken place. Does the information go into the toilet after it has been collected? I don't think so!

The real question to my mind, is whether or not the NSA has expanded the wiretapping past incoming calls from Al Qaida to include the general domestic population. And whistleblowers have not had an easy time of it in this administration, so we don't really know what they are doing over there in the NSA and you gotta wonder if Cheney has a NSA version of his private inteligence agency that coopted CIA info in the leadup to the war in Iraq.

Judy G. Russell

January 8th, 2006, 05:19 PM

(a) A Justice is a judge. A judge, however, is not a Justice. (In the federal system, only Supreme Court justices are called justice. All other federal judges are called judge.)

(b) Because you asked a question that called for that response. Read back.

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 10:33 PM

Earle,

Are you trying to say that warrantless eavesdropping on millions of people in a general sweep is somehow less objectionable than warrantless eavesdropping on particular people, and that it is somehow not unconstitutional? I'd sure like to hear the legal argument for that.

Meanwhile, you have tapdanced all around my question: What evidence do you have that Bill Clinton conducted a program of illegal wiretaps?

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 11:14 PM

Dear lady, you may feel less free now than 6 years ago, but you probably also feel less safe, too.
Actually, no, I don't feel less safe -- except from my own government.

Alas, this is what we have to live with, and even if you move to nova scotia, you will have to put up with such annoyances there, too.
I have not heard that Canada has begun spying on its own citizens, that the Canadian prime minister has declared that he is a law unto himself, that Canada has endorsed "preventive war," or that the Canadians have endorsed torture and secret detentions.

As for pinochet, let's put this in perspective. His administration committed some heinous crimes against a few people, some of whom died.
A few? Pinochet has been charged with the abduction, torture, disappearance, and execution of thousands of political opponents.

There were 3,197 victims of executions, "disappearance" and killings from 1973 to 1990, according to the Rettig Commission and its successor, the National Corporation of Reparation and Reconciliation. Government agents secretly disposed of more than 1,000 of these victims presumably after their torture and murder. Except in 178 cases, the fate or burial places of the "disappeared" remains unknown to this day. General Pinochet suppressed members of the Chilean armed forces who opposed the growing power of the DINA and its notoriously abusive behavior and called for an early return to democracy. In addition to extrajudicial executions, "disappearances," and torture, Pinochet's regime was also responsible for widespread arbitrary detention, lack of due process, exile and internal banishment of government opponents, and other systematic violations of civil and political rights.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/chile/Patrick-01.htm#P167_51534

The Pinochet regime also illegally detained hundreds of thousands, and up to 1 million Chilean citizens fled into involuntary exile. I guess by your standards, the number of people directly affected by 9/11 was miniscule, huh?

However, allende was another castro sort and under him the country was going to hell, too, with arbitrary arrests and executions. Chili today is the most stable and prosperous country in south america, thanks to the administration of which pinochet was really just a figure head. It is perhaps the first time in modern history that a military dictatorship was wise enough to employ capable admistrators to lift the country out of the mess in which it was under allende, then to cede power to civilians.
Why am I reminded of early apologists for Mussolini who said in his favor that at least he made the trains run on time?

Pinochet . . . was just one of several senior officers, but the one who was put in place as president.
By a military coup!! In the aftermath of which thousands died, and democratic institutions were suppressed. I'm sorry, no amount of "cleaning up" justifies what went on in Chile under Pinochet.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 11:16 PM

I like the poetic phrase too... but don't think it would work in legal briefs today!
Fortunately, I don't write legal briefs. :p

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 11:22 PM

I see them as interrelated: the undue interference of government with the lives of the people.
The desire to overturn Roe v Wade and the assertion of virtually unlimited executive power, you mean? Hmmm. To a certain extent I agree with you, but I see the latter as more far-reaching and dangerous. Bush seems to be saying that the president can overrule both the legislature and the courts whenever he sees fit. (More precisely, I suppose, it's "whenever he deems it to be necessary for national security," but as you have pointed out, you can drum up a national security issue to try to justify just about anything, especially when he declares that we are engaged in a "war" that has no clearly defined enemy and no clear endpoint.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 11:30 PM

I think the key question is how much delay it would take using the neutral magistrate. . . . If all that's involved is a 4 minute delay then I'm not sure the President's case holds up.
It's not even 4 minutes; it's minus 72 hours. That is, the wiretapping can be begun up to 72 hours before even applying for a warrant if speed is of the essence.

Either the Bush Administration simply doesn't want to be bothered with asking for a warrant, or whatever this program entails is so far beyond what the Fourth Amendment would allow that they knew that it wouldn't be able to clear even the very low bar set by the FISA court, and that the necessary amendments to the current law wouldn't pass muster with Congress, either.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 8th, 2006, 11:54 PM

Judy, just as a hypothetical what if it was proved that it did produce results.
Well, gee, just as a hypothetical, what if we proved that the world was actually flat? The fact is, Len, that experience has demonstrated, time and again, that torture is NOT a good way to get reliable intelligence. Even if it were, I think it is morally WRONG, and certainly against everything we say that we stand for as a nation.

Andrew Sullivan had a powerful argument in The New Republic last month against the use of torture, powerful and eloquent to the point that I hesitate to excerpt from it. The article is here (http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051219&s=sullivan121905) if you're interested in reading it. If you can't get to it, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. (I had a free subscription to the NRO from Salon.com at one time, but I thought it had long since expired. Still seems to be working, though.)

>Where does it all stop?<

I guess debates like we are having and at a more decisive level examinations and debates by our law makers and judges.
Which is exactly why I don't want to see Alito confirmed.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)

January 9th, 2006, 03:39 AM

[QUOTE

Which is exactly why I don't want to see Alito confirmed.

--Lindsey[/QUOTE]

If someone you backed were confirmed, would that not just put the shoe on the other foot?

earler

January 9th, 2006, 08:49 AM

I never said a judge was necessarily a justice. Why imply that I did?

Your message pontificated about the american system of checks and balances. It wasn't a reply to my message that addressed the problem of direct democracy, especially referenda and that governments do make decisions that aren't countenanced by the majority. I cited examples.

-er

earler

January 9th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Bear in mind that allende wasn't a choir boy and that he was doing similar things. The chilean situation was such that drastic measures had to be taken. I regret that the abuses took place and the guilty parties should have been punished. However, though the price paid was high, perhaps too high, the result is that chile is today a prosperous and stable democracy.

-er

ndebord

January 9th, 2006, 11:16 AM

Bush himself said the need for action was because "This is a different era, a different war.... People are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent ... it requires quick action." That, to me, means telephone conversations, not key phrases or patterns. That's the reason why this surveillance IMO violations the FISA.

Judy,

The NYTimes weighed in again on the wiretapping issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/books/09bamf.html

Nobody knows how much domestic spying the NSA has been indulging in with the overt support of GWB, despite law to the contrary.

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:17 PM

Unfortunately, I teach people how to write them! But I do encourage a neat turn of phrase... and discourage the legal Latin!

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:23 PM

From what I understand, the time required for one of these warrants is relatively small (putting the paperwork together probably consumes the biggest chunk of time), and as Lindsey points out you can go ahead and start wiretapping while you get your paperwork together. You'd just have to stop if the court then said no.

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:24 PM

How would your civil liberties be threatened by a justice who believed truly in checks and balances?

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Well, a book review isn't exactly "weighing in".

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:27 PM

In Bush's case, I'm afraid he sees it all as the God-given right of kings to say what is and what should be.

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 01:30 PM

Your message talked about the role of the judiciary, the point to which I chose to respond. And no, you didn't say that a judge was necessarily a justice; I clarified that there are two types of judges, and their roles are different. READ the messages, please.

earler

January 9th, 2006, 03:59 PM

Here is what I wrote:

"Judges are supposed to uphold the law and respect the constitution. A good one will take decisions according to these and not to his personal political opinions.

Democratic governments, by the way, make decisions that the majority don't countenance, at least not at first. Recent examples were america's entry into the 2nd world war and the french government's ban on capital punishment in 1981.

Majorities often reflect the mob or at best misguided ideas. A majority of the voters in california voted for proposition 13 thirty years ago. A dreaful burden that led to many of the state's problems today. Governments must often make unpopular decisions. The major weakness of democracies today is the too great influence of the mob. Look back at the history of the roman republic. Its end was marked by this, too, and led to the emperors. Fortunately for rome the early ones were mostly quite good."

As you can see, I didn't speak of the "role of the judiciary". I said that a good judge wlll uphold the law and respect the constitution. I then went on to discuss how governments really act and you ignored those remarks, but wrote about checks and balances.

Finally you didn't need to clarifiy there are different sorts of judges and how their roles differ. I knew that already. I'm almost surprised you didn't speak of justices of the peace, too. After all they are also judges.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

-er

Lindsey

January 9th, 2006, 04:40 PM

If someone you backed were confirmed, would that not just put the shoe on the other foot?
Could you clarify the question, please? I don't understand what you are getting at.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 9th, 2006, 05:25 PM

Bear in mind that allende wasn't a choir boy and that he was doing similar things.
Would you care to document that? I don't claim to be an authority on Chile or Allende, but I have never heard (and cannot find) anything even close to your claims that Allende was engaging in mass executions, suppression of the press, and secret detentions of political prisoners.

I regret that the abuses [on the part of Pinochet's government] took place and the guilty parties should have been punished.
We are talking about imprisonment and summary execution on a massive scale, Earle, not the roughing up of just a few dissidents. Chile is succesful today IN SPITE of Pinochet, not because of him.

--Lindsey

rlohmann

January 9th, 2006, 05:57 PM

I've hung back from this discussion because it has so far not been entirely clear to me what, exactly, the Bush Adminstration has been doing to generate this media furor; I'm still not satisfied that I know exactly what the "wiretapping" is.

The news reports I've read do not seem to distinguish--perhaps because the reporters do not understandthe difference--between listening to individual conversations and "traffic analysis," which is what the NSA appears to be doing.

Do you have any credible evidence that the NSA, or anybody else, is listening to individual conversations as opposed to mere traffic analysis?

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 09:49 PM

Interesting that you don't think a comment as to what judges should and shouldn't do doesn't speak to the role of the judiciary...

Judy G. Russell

January 9th, 2006, 09:58 PM

If you credit any portion of the NY Times report that triggered this discussion (see here (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm)), then yes, they are listening to individual conversations and not just doing traffic analysis.

Lindsey

January 9th, 2006, 10:28 PM

Do you have any credible evidence that the NSA, or anybody else, is listening to individual conversations as opposed to mere traffic analysis?
What Judy said.

--Lindsey

ndebord

January 10th, 2006, 12:42 AM

Earl,

"Democratic governments, by the way, make decisions that the majority don't countenance, at least not at first. Recent examples were america's entry into the 2nd world war..."

(Choke!) Surely you jest. After the bombing at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, Americans overwhelmingly went to war willingly. If, as I suspect, you are talking about the runup to war and our buildup of the military prior to Pearl Harbor and FDR's use of lendlease to help the Brits, then that is a different story.

earler

January 10th, 2006, 05:02 AM

As concerns allende all I can do is to say read the objective books about the period. I also was fortunate to have a chilean friend, probably the most apolitical person I've ever known --he had only two interests: painting and shagging--, who was a contemporary of allende and knew him too well.

There is no question that allende was leading the country to collectivization and a totalitarian regime. People killed would have been different and the economy would have become like the one cuba enjoys today.

-er

earler

January 10th, 2006, 05:06 AM

Yes, the attack on pearl harbor made it easy to declare war on japan. However, the majority of americans were against participating in the european war. Roosevelt knew this and had to mask his actions, like selling old destroyers to the british navy. Fdr wanted to enter the war earlier but was unable to do so because of american public opinion. There are still americans who say we shouldn't have entered the 2nd world war in europe.

Even the american entry in the 1st world war was far from popular, and the isolationist backlash after the armistice led to the congress refusing to agree to join the league of nations.

-er

Lindsey

January 10th, 2006, 05:42 PM

There is no question that allende was leading the country to collectivization and a totalitarian regime. People killed would have been different and the economy would have become like the one cuba enjoys today.
Now you're changing the subject. Collectivization was not what we were talking about earlier, it was gross violations of human rights: mass murder, mass arrests, secret detentions. And you said that Allende was doing "similar things". Collectivization is not the same thing as mass murder.

And what evidence do you have that Allende was moving toward totalitarianism? That was the accusation made by Pinochet and his supporters, but I don't believe there was ever any evidence for it, and the current thinking appears to be that was simply propaganda. Allende was, according to the accounts I read of him, a committed constitutionalist. A socialist, yes, but one who nevertheless believed in democracy.

You mentioned "objective books," but you don't give specifics. What books do you recommend as "objective"?

--Lindsey

earler

January 11th, 2006, 07:25 AM

Though the subject wasn't collectivization, it is germane since in all modern cases of this, gulags and mass murders have ensued. Witness the soviet union beginning in the 30s, and more recently cuba and cambodia.

As for evidence concerning allende, all I can do is to point toward history, perhaps beginning by googling his name.

Socialism, at least the marxist variety espoused by allende has always led to disaster, usually including totalitarian government. France was an exception, but the damage to the economy was severe, very severe. Look at the results of the first mitterand government from 1981 to 1983. Socialism has never worked and there is no reason to believe it ever will.

-er

rlohmann

January 11th, 2006, 05:57 PM

You maybe should.

Go to law school. You'd be good at it.

rlohmann

January 11th, 2006, 06:16 PM

Sometimes--I hope Dodi Schulz is reading this--the line between the NYT and the "Common Dreams News Center" ("Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community") get a little fuzzy. In any event, assertions by "unnamed officials," "members of Congress," "senior officials," and "some of those who object to the operation," are difficult to evaluate for credibility.

I do not know exactly what the Administration is doing. I doubt that the "Common Dreams News Center" does, either, but it certainly uses a lot of ink to talk around its lack of concrete information.

Judy G. Russell

January 11th, 2006, 08:21 PM

Lindsey

January 11th, 2006, 08:39 PM

in all modern cases of this, gulags and mass murders have ensued.
If that's true, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to come up with examples connected to Allende. I don't think you can. It's not collectivization that necessarily leads to those abuses, but totalitarianism. Those are two different things.

As for evidence concerning allende, all I can do is to point toward history, perhaps beginning by googling his name.
Oh, I had already done that several days ago, before I posted the first message about him. I Googled "allende AND 'human rights'" expecting to see at least some right-wing accusations of human rights violations against him. What I found was NOTHING. NO allegations of human rights violations by Allende from ANYONE. If it's so easy to find them, then by all means, show us where they are.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 11th, 2006, 08:41 PM

Go to law school. You'd be good at it.
Hah! I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. ;) But the truth is, I have no interest in pursuing law. Never did. Just not my cup of tea.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 11th, 2006, 08:45 PM

I do not know exactly what the Administration is doing. I doubt that the "Common Dreams News Center" does, either, but it certainly uses a lot of ink to talk around its lack of concrete information.
Uh, take a closer look at the top of that page. "Published on Friday, December 16, 2005 by the New York Times". The story was from the NYT; Common Dreams simply reproduced it on their site. Judy pointed to it there, I imagine, because you have to pay to access stories that are more than a week old on the NYT web site.

--Lindsey

earler

January 12th, 2006, 06:36 AM

Totalitarianism doesn't necessarily lead to collectivization, vid nazi germany. However, collectivization always leads to totalitarianism, though sometimes the latter precedes it.

As for allende, I could point you to a couple of books in spanish and one in french, but what is the point since you don't read those languages. I recall at least one in english, too, but forget its title and author.

-er

Wayne Scott

January 12th, 2006, 11:55 AM

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to me that there is almost no reasonable excuse for POTUS to be flouting what appears to me, and I think to you, to be the clear language of the law in this matter.
Dragging in non-sequiters like "do you think you have as much influence as the CEO of Halliburton?" is simply not germaine to the subject. I would ask Sarah if she thinks she has as much influence with, say, Senator Schumer as the head of NOW.
To get back to the current matter, would it possible or practical for a high court, say the appeals court with jurisdiction over D.C., or a justice of SCOTUS to issue an order to POTUS to cease and desist?

Baffled in Bulgaria

Lindsey

January 12th, 2006, 06:42 PM

collectivization always leads to totalitarianism
That's a rather sweeping statement, and depending on just what you mean by "collectivism," possibly easily disproven. By some standards, for example, the Israeli kibbutzim are collectivist (though less so now than they once were); they are not totalitarian. And then there is Denmark's Freetown Christiania. There are some who call democracies a form of collectivism, since they operate according to the collective will of the people ("mob rule" to you, I guess).

But never mind about that: Chile was not a totalitarian state at the time Allende was overthrown.

As for allende, I could point you to a couple of books in spanish and one in french
I wish you would.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 12th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Dragging in non-sequiters like "do you think you have as much influence as the CEO of Halliburton?" is simply not germaine to the subject.
As opposed to other non-sequiters that would be germaine to the subject?

But influence is most certainly germaine to the question of the health of a democracy, and that is what Len and I were discussing at that point.

Chuck Schumer is not my senator, so I would expect to have little influence with him in any case. But I wasn't talking about influence with any particular politician, or even any particular party. I was talking about influence in general with legislators and administrators. The system as it is is badly broken, and is in desperate need of attention.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 12th, 2006, 06:52 PM

To get back to the current matter, would it possible or practical for a high court, say the appeals court with jurisdiction over D.C., or a justice of SCOTUS to issue an order to POTUS to cease and desist?
Judy will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure, but as I understand the issue, the problem is one of having standing to bring the case to court in the first place. The only people who can do that are those who have been spied upon, and since the whole thing is so highly secretive, it's not likely that someone who was the subject of the surveillance would know about it.

I saw somewhere, though, that one someone who did happen to learn that his communications had been eavesdropped upon had agreed to take the case to court, but I don't know who that was, or who has taken up his case. (I'm guessing it would be the ACLU, though.)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell

January 12th, 2006, 09:22 PM

To get back to the current matter, would it possible or practical for a high court, say the appeals court with jurisdiction over D.C., or a justice of SCOTUS to issue an order to POTUS to cease and desist?Lindsey is quite right: someone would have to have standing (i.e., be able to show an injury recognized by the law) to be able to challenge it. And it would go first to a trial court, then to the appeals court and then, if and only if the Court allowed, to the Supreme Court.

ndebord

January 12th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Lindsey

January 12th, 2006, 10:58 PM

someone would have to have standing (i.e., be able to show an injury recognized by the law) to be able to challenge it.
There was an article about the case I was thinking of on Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/23/nsa/). And he's not an ideal plaintiff; he's hardly an innocent victim, but he may well be the only one we'll ever know about. (Unless, perhaps, the rumors about Christiane Amanpour also getting caught in the wiretap net prove to be true.)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell

January 12th, 2006, 11:27 PM

Yeah, saying he'd be an unsympathetic plaintiff is an understatement. (He's also an idiot... what -- he thought nobody would notice him trying to torch a bridge?)

ndebord

January 13th, 2006, 01:24 AM

earler

January 13th, 2006, 04:12 AM

I didn't speak of colleciivism, whatever that might be, but of collectivization. I should have also said enforced collectivization, usually the case. The israeli kibbutz are voluntary groups, not mandated by the israeli government. In any case the kibbutz turned out not to be so practical economically. Cooperatives, of which kibbutz is a type, weren't very practical either and have been mostly abandoned. They were a fad in wisconsin and/or minnesota some years ago.

-er

earler

January 13th, 2006, 04:14 AM

Alas, those books are now stored in boxes. I had to sort books several years ago since the bookshelves here have only so much space.

-er

earler

January 13th, 2006, 04:15 AM

Chile wasn't yet totalitarian under allende. He wasn't in power long enough, but he was going in that direction as a faithful acolyte of fidel castro.

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 13th, 2006, 09:00 AM

Jeff

January 13th, 2006, 12:32 PM

Impeachment should be the course of last resort in our political system. Political errors should be corrected at the ballotbox. But when anyone misuses the powers of the office he or she holds, then impeachment must be considered.

Yeah, we just recalled the first DA in the history of Colorado, by a 4 to 1 margin and just days after the six month mandatory waiting period after her election. But then, that would be a form of impeachment, wouldn't it?

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell

January 13th, 2006, 12:34 PM

Jeff

January 13th, 2006, 01:17 PM

Not exactly, though both have the effect of potentially removing someone from office. Recall is a process initiated by the electorate (or some portion thereof) and requiring a popular vote. Impeachment is a more judicial process.

Well she's also under investigation for ethics violations by the Office of the CO Supreme Court which does such things. It's too late for them to throw her out of office, although with luck her license to practice may be at risk. The legal milieu in this District will be interesting for years to come. The letters to the editor already have been.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell

January 13th, 2006, 02:07 PM

she's also under investigation for ethics violations by the Office of the CO Supreme CourtOuch. No wonder she was recalled!

Lindsey

January 13th, 2006, 05:04 PM

I didn't speak of colleciivism, whatever that might be, but of collectivization.
Distinction without a difference. The definition of "collectivization" offered at Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/collectivization&r=67) is "To organize (an economy, industry, or enterprise) on the basis of collectivism."

I should have also said enforced collectivization, usually the case.
Well, that may depend on just what you mean by "enforced." Any societal organization has to enforce it's organizational rules in some way or another, unless you are proposing an anarchy, which I rather doubt you are. Allende was elected democratically (despite the efforts of the United States to torpedo his candidacy) and, so far as I am aware, governed by the rules under which he was elected. Yes, he won only on a narrow plurality, but that meant a coalition government, which would have made it more difficult, not less, to govern by personal fiat.

In any case the kibbutz turned out not to be so practical economically.
Practicality or long-term feasibility wasn't the question. You said collectivization inevitably led to totalitarianism, which is demonstrably not the case.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 13th, 2006, 05:07 PM

Alas, those books are now stored in boxes. I had to sort books several years ago since the bookshelves here have only so much space.

Ah. You say I should read the "objective" accounts about Allende, but you cannot give me the name or author of even one book or article. You say the information should be easy to find on the web, but you cannot give me even one URL.

Forgive me if I find your argument less than convincing.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 13th, 2006, 05:51 PM

he was going in that direction
So you say. But on the basis of no evidence that you have yet seen fit to offer. In the aftermath of the 1973 coup, the Junta floated allegations of a "Plan Z" that Allende's party supposedly had drawn up to assassinate opponents and seize control of the government, but the CIA itself regarded it from the beginning as Junta propaganda. If you have information to the contrary, by all means, tell us.

Meanwhile, there is no question about the authoritarian nature of Pinochet's regime, and no one disputes its massive violation of human rights.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 13th, 2006, 05:54 PM

Impeachment should be the course of last resort in our political system. Political errors should be corrected at the ballotbox. But when anyone misuses the powers of the office he or she holds, then impeachment must be considered.
Especially when the system offers no other means of removing a president before the end of his term. There is no recall provision in the US Constitution.

The only means, other than impeachment (or serious threat of it) to check a president's abuse of power is for the Congress or the federal courts (or both) to step up to the plate and say "No more." We're seeing a little of that now, but not nearly enough.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell

January 13th, 2006, 06:04 PM

The only means, other than impeachment (or serious threat of it) to check a president's abuse of power is for the Congress or the federal courts (or both) to step up to the plate and say "No more." We're seeing a little of that now, but not nearly enough.And, of course, if there aren't enough votes for checks and balances in Congress, there certainly aren't enough votes for impeachment.

Lindsey

January 13th, 2006, 06:06 PM

And, of course, if there aren't enough votes for checks and balances in Congress, there certainly aren't enough votes for impeachment.
Very true.

--Lindsey

earler

January 14th, 2006, 07:24 AM

I said, or meant to say, enforced collectivization. In fact, when one speaks of it it is almost always in the sense of being forced. I know of no farmers who would give up their land voluntarily.

-er

earler

January 14th, 2006, 07:35 AM

Oh I forgive you.

-er

Lindsey

January 14th, 2006, 09:00 PM

I said, or meant to say, enforced collectivization.
Read the rest of my earlier answer.

--Lindsey

earler

January 15th, 2006, 03:43 AM

I have and have addressed the questions raised. However, since you think collectivization is a fine and dandy policy what more can I add?

-er

Lindsey

January 15th, 2006, 10:36 PM

I have and have addressed the questions raised. However, since you think collectivization is a fine and dandy policy what more can I add?

I have said nothing about the merits of collectivization. I have only questioned your contention that it inevitably leads to totalitarianism, which in turn seems to be the only support you have for your allegation that Allende committed human rights violations.

--Lindsey

ndebord

January 16th, 2006, 01:32 AM

earler

January 16th, 2006, 03:22 AM

Once again, please cite a single country where collectivization (enforced, not kibbutzes, please) hasn't led to or been a result of a totalitarian government.

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 16th, 2006, 08:52 AM

Tenet the source? Oh my...

Lindsey

January 16th, 2006, 10:08 PM

Once again, please cite a single country where collectivization (enforced, not kibbutzes, please) hasn't led to or been a result of a totalitarian government.
I gave you examples of collectives that were not totalitarian; then you inserted the requirement of "enforced." I asked you to define "enforced," but you have not done that.

--Lindsey

ndebord

January 16th, 2006, 11:39 PM

Tenet the source? Oh my...

Judy,

Gore jumped into the fray. Numerous articles on his call for an independent special prosecutor.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-17T031521Z_01_SCH368338_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml

Lindsey

January 17th, 2006, 12:41 AM

Gore jumped into the fray.
I had begun to wonder what had happened to Al Gore!

--Lindsey

RayB (France)

January 17th, 2006, 02:20 AM

I had begun to wonder what had happened to Al Gore!

--Lindsey

Who?

earler

January 17th, 2006, 10:23 AM

You never asked me before to define enforced. Its meaning is clear. It means an involuntary action, in this case collectivization. I really don't care about voluntary collective groups, such as kibbutz. They were never part of the discussion. I have to assume you approved of the collectivizations done in the soviet union, china and cambodia.

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 17th, 2006, 12:27 PM

Yeah, I was listening to him on the radio last night.

ndebord

January 17th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Yeah, I was listening to him on the radio last night.

Judy,

I missed him on the radio and CSPAN. But the picture I saw of him today looks horrible. He looks bloated.

ndebord

January 17th, 2006, 07:34 PM

I have had good reason to question the NYT (remember that I spent several years working for the NY News), but this is one of those areas where I think the Times got it basically right: Bush has essentially admitted it in terms that don't suggest anything other than listening to individual conversations involving targeted American citizens.

Judy,

AP WIRE TUESDAY-

"Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday in federal court that seek to end President Bush's electronic eavesdropping program, saying it is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers.

The lawsuits - one filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the other in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups - say the program bypasses safeguards in a 1978 law requiring court approval of electronic monitoring.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Bush, the head of the National Security Agency and the heads of the other major security agencies.

The organization, which represents hundreds of men held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must now audit old communications to determine whether ``anything was disclosed that might undermine our representation of our clients,'' said Bill Goodman, the center's director."

Judy G. Russell

January 17th, 2006, 10:31 PM

Watch these suits get thrown out for lack of standing.

Lindsey

January 17th, 2006, 11:06 PM

You never asked me before to define enforced.
Well, actually, I did. Message #128 (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12687&postcount=128)(!) in this thread: "Well, that may depend on just what you mean by 'enforced.' Any societal organization has to enforce it's organizational rules in some way or another, unless you are proposing an anarchy, which I rather doubt you are." The US government compels people into actions that are not voluntary on their part all the time. (Example: the VietNam-era draft) Should I assume you think we have been on the verge of totalitarianism since Day 1?

I really don't care about voluntary collective groups, such as kibbutz. They were never part of the discussion.
Well, yes they were, until you realized they disproved your point and unilaterally disqualified them.

I have to assume you approved of the collectivizations done in the soviet union, china and cambodia.
In which case you would, once again, be assuming wrong. See message #138 (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12748&postcount=138).

But never mind all that. What you are arguing does not seem to make sense. You say that because Allende was pushing land reform, it was inevitable that he would lead Chile into totalitarianism, resulting in gulags and mass murder. So to avoid that terrible fate, it was necessary for the military to stage a coup d'état, and impose -- totalitarianism, which resulted in gulags and mass murder.

Please explain the logic of this to me, because I am just not seeing it.

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 17th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Watch these suits get thrown out for lack of standing.
Maybe, but the CCR's contention is that they fit the definition of people and organizations targeted by the warrantless wiretap program: Those in communication with people thought to be terrorists or members of Al Qaeda. And since they are defending people accused of terrorism and links to Al Qaeda...

--Lindsey

Lindsey

January 17th, 2006, 11:20 PM

Watch these suits get thrown out for lack of standing.
Meanwhile, remember Bush complaining that his administration was being criticized immediately after 9/11 for not connecting the dots, and that now that they were connecting the dots, they was being criticized for that?

According to Tuesday's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-eavesdropping-report.html), what the Bush administration is doing is not connecting dots, but collecting so many more of them that the investigators are drowning in them, spending enormous amounts of time chasing down phony leads. This is not a strategy designed to make us safer; it's only a strategy designed to provide a CYA defense for the White House.

--Lindsey

earler

January 18th, 2006, 07:13 AM

You compare collectivization of agricultural with the draft? Oh my!
There is no purpose in continuing this discussion given your attitude. You really should read history and learn of the awful results of collectivization in the soviet union, china and cambodia. I have nothing more to add.

-er

Lindsey

January 18th, 2006, 10:15 PM

There is no purpose in continuing this discussion given your attitude.
If you're going to continue to distort what I have said beyond all recognition, then I would have to agree: there's no point in continuing the discussion.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell

January 18th, 2006, 11:08 PM

The problem in part is that the burden of establishing standing is on the party asserting the claim. How do you prove that you're being targeted when the government won't say who's being targeted?

ndebord

January 19th, 2006, 01:19 AM

The problem in part is that the burden of establishing standing is on the party asserting the claim. How do you prove that you're being targeted when the government won't say who's being targeted?

Judy,

While they don't say who is being targeted, the specifics of the allegation has been fleshed out. Allegedly the NSA targeted thousands (how many thousands we do not know) of Americans and dumped that info into the laps of the FBI to follow up. Again, allegedly, all those little knocks at the doors of American citizens turned up zilch, nada, nothing....except the cutting torch episode to "burn" down the Brooklyn bridge and one other incident which I can't recall at the moment.

earler

January 19th, 2006, 09:01 AM

It is you, dear lady, who is distorting what I said. Your questions are like, when did you stop beating your wife.

-er

Judy G. Russell

January 19th, 2006, 11:39 AM

I understand, but none of that may help establish standing.

ndebord

January 19th, 2006, 01:44 PM

The problem in part is that the burden of establishing standing is on the party asserting the claim. How do you prove that you're being targeted when the government won't say who's being targeted?

Judy,

Without due process, we might as well live in a dictatorship. Either the government is accountable to the citizens (and I might add, the Congress) or it is not a democracy.

Judy G. Russell

January 19th, 2006, 02:43 PM

You're not going to get any argument from me, but remember: the questions here will be (a) what process is due and (b) to whom?

Peter Creasey

January 19th, 2006, 04:03 PM

what, exactly, the Bush Adminstration has been doing to generate this media furor

Regarding the liberal press...

While the Pope was in DC for a visit, President Bush took him out for
an afternoon on the Potomac sailing on the presidential yacht, the
Sequoia.
They were admiring the sights when all of a sudden, the Pope's hat
(zucchetto) blew off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys
started to launch a boat, but Bush waved them off, saying, "Wait, wait.
I'll take care of this. Don't worry."

Bush then stepped off the yacht onto the surface of the water and
walked out to where the Holy Father's little skull cap was floating,
bent over and picked it up, then walked back across the water to the
yacht and climbed aboard. He handed the hat to the Pope amid stunned
silence.

The next morning the headline topic on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC news
programs and headlines in the New York & L.A.Times was . . . . . .

"BUSH CAN'T SWIM"