On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, denstar wrote: .... > > Are you saying that you believe that the only records that the telcos > > turned over were for people with overseas calls? > > That's different than the wire-tapping story.
It's still domestic spying. > > Torture is illegal, the definition of torture is a problem. President > > McCain > > > will make sure there is no gray area on torture. > > > > See, I don't think that waterboarding, for instance, suffers from > > definition. > > McCain has already made it clear he doesn't support waterboarding. What does McCain have to do with state sponsored torture? They're trying to change the definition to cover what has been done, not what will be done. > > The bags on the heads and naked bodies and whatnot-- it wasn't all > > those lowly soldiers just doing it for kicks, I don't think. > > > > It seems to me that it was encouraged from on high. Which is horrifying. > > Evidence. Without evidence, that is idle speculation at best. Speculation? The Secretary of Defense, and the President by extension, if not outright, has hemmed and hawed about the definition of torture. Further, they've gone so far as to basically stipulate that the president could torture someone if he wanted to, and is above the law, so to speak. They're constantly trying to redefine the law, and, surprise surprise, defining it in a way that gives 'em more power. > > War is hell. We are shining beacons of humanity, or whatever. At > > least we tried to be. Now we're like "lets ask the lawyers". Bah! > > > > Mere husks of our former selves. > > Come on, hyperbole seems to be making the rounds on the list of late. Mere > husks? I like to think that even as little as 10 years ago, had crap like this gone down, people would have stood up, vs.actually trying to justify it. We're busted torturing prisoners of war (depending on your definition of war, and maybe, upon what it can be waged) and then we're actually debating waterboarding and shit? What the hell kind of message do you think that sends? Mere husks. People are trying to justify this crap, man. > > The preemptive strike stuff that Walker pushed. > > > > Why are we talking about Chuck Norris? ;-) Seriously, who is Walker, > exactly? I don't remember anyone named Walker directing our troops to invade > a country. Yup, I'm speaking of the Texas Ranger. :] > > But ensconcing this crap in law, and making it a policy... that's what > > gets me riled up. > > > > Our system of government provides checks and balances to deal with this sort > of thing, and the system is working quite well. The Executive branch takes > charge in times of emergency, then when things cool down, Congress and the > courts step in and push back against the Executive. That is how our > government has worked since its founding. Working out quite well, eh? I had thought you were a conservative, as in small government, fiscal responsibility and whatnot. Two steps forward, and three steps back, isn't give and take. > Seeing the politicians on TV, talking about pork projects, and how > > "that's how the system works" pisses me off. > > > > Bribery, eh? That's how we do it now? > > > > Congressional earmarks are fine, IMHO, as long as there is transparency in > government. Do I think it is a bad thing that Congress allocated money to > build a bike path in San Diego? Hell no, I think it's great. That bike path > wasn't free, I paid for it with my taxes. Otherwise the money gets doled out > by bureaucrats, and I would much rather have my tax dollars being directed > by an elected official who is answerable to the voters rather than an > unelected bureaucrat who can't even be fired for incompetence because of the > way federal civil service rules work. I would have thought you'd rather personally choose what the money was spent on, versus either of those choices. :-) You think it's o.k. to say "I'll get you that bike path, but you have to vote yes on bill 365"? See what I mean? > > Doesn't the way we've become just sorta sadden and anger you? Not so > > much that crap happens, but that we're saying it's o.k.. Trying to > > make it be part of what being American means (puke). > > > > > We haven't "become" anything, this is how our country works. As MD says, > people are willing to give up a little freedom (having their bags searched > on the subway in NYC) in times of trouble in exchange for protection. > Ultimately, things will change, they always do. What do people who are willing to give up liberty for temporary safety deserve? -- "What are fears but voices airy? Whispering harm where harm is not. And deluding the unwary Till the fatal bolt is shot!" ---- Wordsworth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256989 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
