DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on September 04, 2007, 10:05:59 AM
-
Tuesday September 4, 2007 07:25 EST
Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal
In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith -- a right-wing lawyer with radical views of executive power and long-time friend of John Yoo -- was named by the Bush administration to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, one of the most influential legal positions in the executive branch. During his tenure, he discovered numerous legal positions which the administration had adopted (many created by Yoo) that he found baseless and even unconscionable -- from torture to detention powers to illegal surveillance -- and he repudiated many of them, thereby repeatedly infuriating the most powerful White House officials, led by Cheney top aide David Addington. As a result, his tenure was extremely brief, and he was gone a mere 9 months after he began.
Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book's key revelations.
Two revelations in particular are extraordinary and deserve (but are unlikely to receive) intense media coverage. First, it was Goldsmith who first argued that the administration's secret, warrantless surveillance programs were illegal, and it was that conclusion which sparked the now famous refusal of Ashcroft/Comey in early 2004 to certify the program's legality. Goldsmith argued continuously about his conclusion with Addington, and during the course of those arguments, this is what happened:
[Goldsmith] shared the White House's concern that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might prevent wiretaps on international calls involving terrorists. But Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court," Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.
Their goal all along was to "get rid of the obnoxious FISA court" entirely, so that they could freely eavesdrop on whomever they wanted with no warrants or oversight of any kind. And here is Dick Cheney's top aide, drooling with anticipation at the prospect of another terrorist attack so that they could seize this power without challenge. Addington views the Next Terrorist Attack as the golden opportunity to seize yet more power. Sitting around the White House dreaming of all the great new powers they will have once the new terrorist attack occurs -- as Addington was doing -- is nothing short of deranged.
Contrary to the claims made by Bush and his followers ever since the NSA scandal arose, their real objective in secretly creating "The Terrorist Surveillance Program" was never to find a narrow means to circumvent FISA when, in those few cases, it impeded necessary eavesdropping. Rather, the goal was to get rid of FISA altogether and return the country to the days when our government could spy on us in total secrecy, with no oversight. Of course, until they could "get rid of" that law altogether -- through the only tactic they know: exploitation of Terrorism -- they simply decided to violate it at will.
More revealing still is Goldsmith's description of how the Bush administration systematically violated one law after the next -- employing tactics that are truly the hallmark of the most lawless third-world dictators:
In his book, Goldsmith claims that Addington and other top officials treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the same way they handled other laws they objected to: "They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," he writes.
Goldsmith's first experienced this extraordinary concealment, or "strict compartmentalization," in late 2003 when, he recalls, Addington angrily denied a request by the N.S.A.'s inspector general to see a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel's legal analysis supporting the secret surveillance program. "Before I arrived in O.L.C., not even N.S.A. lawyers were allowed to see the Justice Department's legal analysis of what N.S.A. was doing," Goldsmith writes.
They literally decided they would break whatever laws they wanted -- one law after the next, in critical areas -- based on patently baseless memos issued by obedient followers like John Yoo. Not only did they do this in complete secrecy from Congress, they refused even to allow Executive Branch officials who were told to follow orders to see the legal basis for what they were told to do. Addington, whom Goldsmith described as "someone who spoke for and acted with the full backing of the powerful vice president," would simply demand compliance with what Cheney wanted. And anyone would objected was subjected to this (emphasis in original):
Months later, when Goldsmith tried to question another presidential decision, Addington expressed his views even more pointedly. "If you rule that way," Addington exclaimed in disgust, Goldsmith recalls, "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."
While our national media was glorifying the Great Commander-in-Chief and actively disseminating their most manipulative claims and mocking Democrats on the pettiest of grounds (The Serious National Security Grown-ups are in Charge; John Kerry windsurfs! John Edwards loves his hair!), the Bush administration was literally dismantling the rule of law, systematically violating long-standing statutes and treaties at will. We were ruled by a truly lawless government, while our media institutions and political elite sat by meek and respectful.
Perhaps most infuriating is the fact that, as it turns out, violating these laws in secret was not even necessary -- because Congress was, and still is, more than happy to legalize whatever they wanted to do. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court finally imposed some mild limitations on the President's detention and interrogation powers -- first in Hamdi, then in Hamdan -- Congress, as Goldsmith says, "promptly passed a law that gave him everything he asked for, authorizing many aspects of the military commissions that the Supreme Court had struck down."
And the terrorist bomb about which David Addington was fantasizing in order to get rid of FISA was equally unnecessary, since the Democratic Congress, in the face of the types of threats Goldsmith recounts Addington routinely made -- "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands" -- just eviscerated the crux of FISA's protections by law. Hence, what began as the administration's illegal and secret abuses have become the legally sanctioned policies of the United States.
It is critical to emphasize that Goldsmith -- like James Comey and John Ashcroft -- is no hero. He is a hard-core right-wing ideologue who continues to support many of the administration's most radical positions, including his view that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist suspects (the position rejected by Hamdan). And it was Goldsmith who ultimately approved of the modified (and plainly illegal) warrantless eavesdropping program.
Moreover, Goldsmith explains that he had not even intended to address the NSA surveillance program in his book, but changed his mind once he was served with subpoenas by the FBI in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation to find out who the whistleblower was who alerted the country to this illegality -- an investigation which Goldsmith supports. As Goldsmith says: "I'm not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn't driven by concerns about civil liberties per se."
Goldsmith is commendable only by comparison to the truly extremist and reprehensible likes of Cheney, Addington, Gonzales and Yoo. He is, by and large, a True Believer in the Bush "War on Terror" and in theories designed to expand substantially executive power. That is what makes his revelations all the more credible, and all the more disturbing. What he is describing is a band of deranged and lawless radicals who, during his tenure, ran our government and who, after they forced him out, continue to do so.
But with little meaningful opposition to any of this -- either in the media or in the Congress -- little attention will be paid to these extraordinary revelations, and our government will continue to be shaped in the image of Dick Cheney and David Addington. Now that they have obtained most of their original wish list from a compliant Congress, just imagine what they are dreaming of, the still new unchecked powers which they believe are only "one bomb away."
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/04/addington/index.html
-
Nothing quite as frustrating as worrying about paperwork when you have a fire to put out.
Greenwald wails that BushCo tried to break the system.
The system held.
-
<<The system held. >>
A - It is not "holding" if the very abuses it was designed to prevent have actually occurred with impunity.
B - No worries at all about what happens after the next bomb, apparently.
It's been said before but it bears repeating: "Terrorists" cannot destroy America. Only Americans can destroy America.
-
Nothing quite as frustrating as worrying about paperwork when you have a fire to put out. Greenwald wails that BushCo tried to break the system. The system held.
Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it?? ;)
-
It's been said before but it bears repeating: "Terrorists" cannot destroy America. Only Americans can destroy America.
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
The pendulum always rights itself.
The system held.
-
Denmark -- The Next Target
Police in Denmark have arrested eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Copenhagen as they have apparently foiled a terrorist attack. The men, ages 18 to 29, were found in raids at eleven addresses -- and authorities found more than just the men:
Danish police have arrested eight people with alleged links to al-Qaeda on suspicion of planning a bomb attack.
The eight suspects arrested late on Monday in Copenhagen form part of a terror cell with links to a senior al-Qaeda figure, police said.
The suspects, aged between 19 and 29, were of Afghan, Pakistani, Somali and Turkish origin, police said.
Police report that the men had been under surveillance for quite some time. They had begun producing an "unstable explosive" in a densely-populated area in preparation for an attack. They had lived in immigrant neighborhoods, but six of the eight have Danish citizenship.
It's not the first time Denmark has discovered plots against their people. Last year they arrested four men on suspicion of plotting terrorist attacks; that trial starts tomorrow. The coincidence of this arrest and the trial seems a little hard to swallow. If these terrorists had already started building their bomb, the attack may have been intended to either disrupt the trial or perhaps free the defendants, although that may have been a long shot.
Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.
Congratulations to Denmark for stopping these terrorists before they could attack. Has anyone noticed that the West's intel has improved substantially over the last few years? Perhaps would-be terrorists might want to consider why their cells keep getting exposed.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012467.php
-
The Lowlanders have a real problem with non-citizens as does Great Britain. A friend of mine in the Dutch military is scared to death what is happening in this regard there. He says they just let in anyone and everyone, without regard to what the immigrants could offer the country in terms of skills, etc. I have yet to understand why nations do this other than that good ole Politics comes into play. There are a few good reasons surrounding family issues, but other than that this simple question perhaps needs to be asked: "What can (the immigrant) do for me (the nation)?
It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
-
<<Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it??>>
I guess so, but why would you say "supposedly" when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?
-
<<Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it??>>
I guess so, but why would you say "supposedly" when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?
Because we keep getting told how our nation has become some form of nonsensical Fascist-like dictatorship, yet everytime anyone actually looks around, there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc. In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state. That's why one would say "supposedly"
-
<<there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc. In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state. That's why one would say "supposedly">>
I guess in your view of things, there's no reason for alarm until you actually reach the stage of full-blown fascism with all of its accoutrements. All 'er nuthin. Till the old swastika is flying over the White House, there is no cause for alarm. No such thing as steps along the way.
There are no concentration camps, but there is the naval brig in North Carolina where Jose Padillo was held for three years incommunicado and interrogated using methods that are still secret today; no media has been rounded up but demonstrators have been penned up out of sight of the politicians they were demonstrating against, phones of citizens have been tapped, patriotism of dissenters impugned by the highest elected officials and a legislative framework has been set up whereby all of the things you say have not happened could happen. The "President" of the U.S.A. has reserved for himself the right to define "torture."
The background has been set up. The time to make use of it has not yet arrived. What part of "One Bomb Away" do you not understand?
-
<<there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc. In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state. That's why one would say "supposedly">>
I guess in your view of things, there's no reason for alarm until you actually reach the stage of full-blown fascism with all of its accoutrements. All 'er nuthin. Till the old swastika is flying over the White House, there is no cause for alarm.
Actually for my "alarm", I need to see an EFFORT to impliment fascist policy, not simply hyperbolic completely meritless cries of such, from the same folks that can't see Bush being able to do anything right, including breathe & blink. You might recall that this is a Democratic society. IF Bush were this evil sinister Hitler wanna-be, you keep implying he is, and the GOP this evil corporate Christian beholden corrupt party, he'd use the power he had (especially when the GOP was also in control of congress, and had this supposedly RW court that supposedly put him into office), to impliment as many of these fascist policies as possible into play, in order to perpetuate that power. He wouldn't do it "incrimentally", since the voters wouldn't stand for it, myself included. But your blinders are so thick with Bush hatred, and your version of reality so twisted, everything has to be rationalized to fit your templates. So yea, no such things as "steps along the way", when there's not even 1 step inplace, 7yrs later.
-
I must agree with Sirs here. One Administration, in itself, is NOT enough to usher in Fascism or any serious variant thereof. It should be noted that most if not all Adminsitrations follow an ebb and flow here and I would guess that if you looked at this issue, over time, no discernible pattern would be discerned (sorry, just finished my other Master's not longer ago and it sometimes creeps in). Actions such as the Patriot Act, while appearing to be "Fascist" in design, may actually just be a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11 and NOT a Plan per se or a definite pattern.
That being said, I do indeed agree on the need for more internal security for the short term, this period of time to be delineated by the absence of apparnet increased terrorist activity. After a suitable time has elapsed and this criteria being met, then loosing prohibitions on personal conduct can be envisioned and even welcomed.
(Not bad for an old Master Gunny....lol).
-
The Dutch let anyone in because they are a member of the EC, and once a person has entered any part of the EC, he or she is free to cross into any other EC member nation. There are no customs, no immigration stops between Spain and France, France and Belgium, Belgium and the Netherlands. And on to Germany, Denmark and Finland.
Of course, gaining access to Spain or Greece, Malta or Italy is quite difficult.
This has been the situation since the mid 1990's. How strange that you would be so unperceptive as not to know this.
Deaths due to terrorism are far fewer than those due to traffic, by the way.
-
...when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?
Oh? Who got his phone tapped?
-
<<Oh? Who got his phone tapped?>>
Guess we'll have to wait for Goldsmith's book to find out:
<<Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book's key revelations.>>
sirs argues that if Bush wanted to bring in a fascist state, he could have gone a lot further in that direction. Wouldn't have "held back" as it were. I don't agree. I don't think Bush formulates any of this Patriot Act crap, there are bigger people than Bush, people who have a longer perspective, and they are pretty much attuned to how much they, or a pliant administration, can get away with at any particular time. They are content to plan for longer periods of time than four-year or eight-year administrations. They know what building blocks to lay down from A to Z, and they also know that they can't get it done all at once. Certainly the Bush administration has made giant strides towards a lawless, fascist state and the fact that they didn't go all-out and proclaim a dictatorship does not negate by one bit the progress they have made for fascism.
It stands to reason that in a country whose traditions of freedom and liberty go back over two hundred years, nobody is going to switch it to fascism overnight.
-
<<It stands to reason that in a country whose traditions of freedom and liberty go back over two hundred years, nobody is going to switch it to fascism overnight.>>
Pretty near. The 7-Year Plan is making Glorious Strides on the Way Forward, led by Our Dear Leader, who Creates his own Reality!
-
Who will you hate when Bush is out of office?
-
Did everyone who wanted Clinton impeached suffer from " Clinton Derangement Syndrome"? Did they all hate him? Or did they have real differences with him?
Bush is a fascist. You don't have to hate something, you just have to know how to identify it ("Common Western Rattlesnake") in order to avoid it, for your own good.
-
sirs argues that if Bush wanted to bring in a fascist state, he could have gone a lot further in that direction. Wouldn't have "held back" as it were. I don't agree.
Of course not. It doesn't fit the template, already concretely founded and not to be dare reconsidered. It's completely illogical for Bush, this Fascist Hitler want to be, NOT to have used his prescious corrupted GOP majority congress to lay the full groundwork for perptual Republican power, before the people had a chance to vote them out of office.
I don't think Bush formulates any of this Patriot Act crap, there are bigger people than Bush, people who have a longer perspective, and they are pretty much attuned to how much they, or a pliant administration, can get away with at any particular time. They are content to plan for longer periods of time than four-year or eight-year administrations. They know what building blocks to lay down from A to Z, and they also know that they can't get it done all at once. Certainly the Bush administration has made giant strides towards a lawless, fascist state and the fact that they didn't go all-out and proclaim a dictatorship does not negate by one bit the progress they have made for fascism.
See?, this is priceless. Completely nameless and meritless claims of fascist building blocks, but since there's nothing concrete to lay claim to, we're just going to blame Bush for that as well. WHAT BLOCK TEE?? The Patriot act was authorized by a VAST majority of congress critters, GOP & Dems alike. It was RE-authorized by a vast majority, and now that the Dems are in the majority have made NO assemblence WHAT-SO-EVER of repealing it, so trying to make this about Bush is so beyond pathetic & transparent. PLEASE, demonstrate for us these newfound laws (building blocks) that prevent its citizens from doing anything before Bush took office. Being made to feel bad or uncomforatble because someone dares criticise you isn't implimentation of a fascist state.
You know, if you want to play this mindless, evidenceless game, I can point to a particular ideological side that absolutely wants things run their way, and apparently have no problem running right over the Constitution, in the process. Our founding fathers established thru its Declaration of Independence & Constitution, a form of Government that makes every effort to LIMIT Federal power. Yet decade after decade, the founding fathers intentions keep getting ignored, when not mutated, with the left rationalizing how the Constitution allows for precisely that, the Fed to take care of everything possible. And the GOP hasn't been innocent in this endeavor either, case in point, the GOP led congress under Bush II. Point being it's the left that cries for MORE Government intervention in everyone's lives. How the GOVERNMENT knows best how to raise and educate your children, how the GOVERNMENT knows better how to spend your money. It's the Left that advocates for Judges to invent new laws helping to perpetuate Government intervention and "oversight", when legialstion has failed or worse, when the people have voted down such efforts.
And now it's the left looking to abolish the electoral college, because they believe the country has reached a point where simple majority will keep getting them elected Democrat Presidents, since the largest populated locations, all urban, pretty much vote Democrat, with very few exceptions. Our founders knew better, they knew that the Presdient of the U.S., needs to represent ALL of America, not just the most densely populated urban areas. Yet the left will argue that the Constitution allows for the people to change it if they wish, whcih it does. By all means, bring about a Constitutional convention, and let's put our money where our mouth is. Let's fully debate that issue. At that time you could also change the 2nd amendment to only allow the Government to own guns, and the 1st amendment, to only allow liberal voices on the radio. Now, who's advocating fascism again?
It stands to reason that in a country whose traditions of freedom and liberty go back over two hundred years, nobody is going to switch it to fascism overnight.
Yet, you'd think after 7yrs there'd be SOMETHING tangible, SOMETHING to lay claim as Nazi-like. Yet.........................................nothing, but empty hyperbolic rhetoric
-
sirs is obviously confusing an activist government with a tyrannical government. Minimalist government might have been appropriate in the 18th century, it certainly was not appropriate in the 20th, and the Constitution was certainly broad enough to accommodate both kinds. Hence, the Supreme Court was NOT able to roll back what sirs likes to think of as Constitutional abuses. A deprivation of freedoms and liberties such as the Bush administration has forced on the country, albeit in small steps far from completion, IS in fact a creeping nullification of the Constitution. How can you equate freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, etc. with "freedom" from activist government seeking the enforcement of equality rights?
I don't say the Democrats are innocent in this either. Bush forced this fascism-by-small-steps on the country and the Democrats rolled over. But the initiative in all of this, including torture, is mainly on the Republican side. Clinton's administration took some early steps in that direction, but the Republicans not only failed completely to roll them back, they advanced them by leaps and bounds.
-
sirs is obviously confusing an activist government with a tyrannical government.
Cute. When it's Republicans, its a tyrannical government. (minus of course any factual evidence of such), and when it's the Left and hard core Dems, it's simply "activist government". Priceless :D
-
<<Cute. When it's Republicans, its a tyrannical government. (minus of course any factual evidence of such), and when it's the Left and hard core Dems, it's simply "activist government". Priceless Cheesy>>
Well, when it's the Democrats, their interventions are to end Jim Crow, fund development in the inner cities, improve public health, regulate unsafe consumer products, etc. - - THAT kind of activism.
When it's the Republicans, it's to authorize or legitimize torture, wiretap citizen telephones, imprison without trial, try without legal safeguards, etc. THAT kind of tyranny.
Only a right-wing fruitbat would equate the "freedom" to bar blacks from the polling stations, to live a life of poverty without adequate public assistance, to poison the public air and water and to produce medicines that cause brain damage with freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from arbitrary, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
Only to a Republican screwball is an infringement of one kind of freedom the exact equivalent of an infringement of the other kind of freedom.
Cute. Priceless. Cheesey.
-
<<Cute. When it's Republicans, its a tyrannical government. (minus of course any factual evidence of such), and when it's the Left and hard core Dems, it's simply "activist government". Priceless Cheesy>>
Well, when it's the Democrats, their interventions are to end Jim Crow, fund development in the inner cities, improve public health, regulate unsafe consumer products, etc. - - THAT kind of activism. When it's the Republicans, it's to authorize or legitimize torture, wiretap citizen telephones, imprison without trial, try without legal safeguards, etc. THAT kind of tyranny.
Nice revisionist history, when not out and out lying. Especially egregious would be the supposed legitimizing torture (where the left gets to define torture) and apparently wiretapping anyone they want. (I'm assuming you're trying to reference the wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists' calls coming into this country, correct? Baldfaced, hyperbolic, Tee. Just rolls off the tongue. No need to go into the myriad of leftists' end arounds of the constitution, like trying to repeal the Electoral College, frequent attacks on the 2nd amendment, and selective application of the 1st. And we won't even delve into imminent domain or the support in murdering of the unborn. Suffice to say, the points were already made in my prior post(s), the active, nearly zealous, effort to expand Government into every aspect of a person's life, in the complete polar opposite of what our founding fathers had intended. Yet it's the Republicans who are this supposedly tyrannical fascist movement......minus of course any actual examples of such, just more of the asanine hyperbole we've all come to know and love....Tee
-
Well, when it's the Democrats, their interventions are to end Jim Crow,
Jim Crow was a Democrat.
All of his opponnts were Republicans untill 1963 , during that year all of the Democrats exchanged personaliys with Republicans.
-
<<Nice revisionist history, when not out and out lying. Especially egregious would be the supposed legitimizing torture (where the left gets to define torture) . . . >>
Well, I think you've got THAT one turned around 180 degrees. Perhaps you forgot that the "President," when finally forced to renounce torture, reserved unto HIMSELF (not the left) the right to define torture.
<< . . . and apparently wiretapping anyone they want. (I'm assuming you're trying to reference the wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists' calls coming into this country, correct?>>
Uh, not exactly. The wiretapping of Americans is being stripped of its legal safeguards and becoming easier to effect.
<< Baldfaced, hyperbolic, Tee. Just rolls off the tongue. No need to go into the myriad of leftists' end arounds of the constitution, like trying to repeal the Electoral College, >>
Well, we all know why you crypto-fascists LOVE the electoral college. How else could a man with half a million less votes than his opponent WIN the Presidential election?
<<frequent attacks on the 2nd amendment>>
Hilarious. Some of those "frequent attacks" on the 2nd amendment are supported by such "leftists" as the national association of chiefs of police.
<< . . and selective application of the 1st. >>
Who ever favoured selective application of the First Amendment? I hope you don't think anyone violates Don Imus' First Amerndment rights by cancelling his show? He's still as free to speak as Noam Chomsky (only difference being, Chomsky'd never GET a show in the first place.)
<<And we won't even delve into imminent domain . . . >>
Better not. It's got nothing to do with any freedom other than property rights and the guy who loses the property gets an equivalent amount of a different kind of property (cash,) so there's no real deprivation at all
<< or the support in murdering of the unborn. >>
Nice try, next try to rope the sperm of the masturbator into your definitions of murder victims. They're potential humans too. Do you realize how many "unborn" are lost every time a wanker flushes his load down the toilet? Why stop at abortion? Get those fucking jerk-off artists too, while you're at it. "Masturbation is murder!"
<<Suffice to say, the points were already made in my prior post(s), the active, nearly zealous, effort to expand Government into every aspect of a person's life, in the complete polar opposite of what our founding fathers had intended. >>
Yeah, they intended you to keep the life-styles of the 18th century alive in the 21st. Funny though how all the increasing government interventionist power in consumer protection, health and safety, etc., has all been deemed consistent with the Constitution by the SCOTUS? Oh well, what do those ignoramuses know, really? Pretty soon, Bush will have it packed with legal "scholars" of a less "activist" frame of mind. Maybe they can roll back all the product-safety and consumer-protection legislation of the last 75 years. Caveat emptor! It's a free market ain't it?
<<Yet it's the Republicans who are this supposedly tyrannical fascist movement......minus of course any actual examples of such, just more of the asanine hyperbole we've all come to know and love....Tee>>
Oh. Examples. You mean like, Patriot Act? Torture? Detention without charges or trial? Denial of habeas corpus? Constitutional amendments to deny gay people their constitutional rights? Attempted federal interference in the Florida State Court's rulings in the Schiavo case? Lying with impunity to lead the country into war? THOSE kind of examples? I think I've given quite a few over time.
-
<<Nice revisionist history, when not out and out lying. Especially egregious would be the supposed legitimizing torture (where the left gets to define torture) . . . >>
Well, I think you've got THAT one turned around 180 degrees.
Naaaa, got it right the 1st time. Your consistent effort to distort, exaggerate, and lie about what the Right has supposedly done, along with your rationalizations of how it's ok for the left to be "activist" pretty much was right on target.
Well, we all know why you crypto-fascists LOVE the electoral college.
Yea, those fascist founders of this country....what were they thinking? ::)
Who ever favoured selective application of the First Amendment?
Those who support the idea of the "Fairness" doctrine
<<And we won't even delve into imminent domain . . . >>
Better not. It's got nothing to do with any freedom other than property rights and the guy who loses the property gets an equivalent amount of a different kind of property (cash,) so there's no real deprivation at all
Outside of his being TAKEN his personal property, and now with it being able to be given to those corporate contruction folk that you supposedly rail against. Well, so long as it's the left that advicates it, it's ok. Gotta stick with that template. I so enjoy how you keep making my point.
<< or the support in murdering of the unborn. >>
Nice try, next try to rope the sperm of the masturbator into your definitions of murder victims. They're potential humans too.
Boy, when you get desperate, you really fall off the deep end. You'll let us know when a case is brought forth charging a man for murdering his unborn sperm analogus to when someone is charged for the murder of 2, when a pregnant woman has been killed. We'll all wait patiently.
<<Yet it's the Republicans who are this supposedly tyrannical fascist movement......minus of course any actual examples of such, just more of the asanine hyperbole we've all come to know and love....Tee>>
Oh. Examples. You mean like, Patriot Act?
You mean, the same act authroized by a majority of Dems, and RE-athorized under current Dem majority rule?? Those fascists?
Torture?
With the examples of our torturing prisoners and getting a high five atta boy being..................? Again, we'll wait patiently
Detention without charges or trial?
You mean the same "charges" and "trials" applied to prisoners during WWII?, Korea?, Vietnam?, Iraq I?? Want a do over?
Denial of habeas corpus?
Your example(s) being?
Constitutional amendments to deny gay people their constitutional rights?
You mean all those Dems, including Clinton are tyranical fascists, closet Republicans for supporting DoMA as well??
Attempted federal interference in the Florida State Court's rulings in the Schiavo case?
WOW, we might actually have 1 example finally. WOW, 1 example that makes the case that Bush Co is a tyranical Hitler want-to be :D
Lying with impunity to lead the country into war? THOSE kind of examples? I think I've given quite a few over time.
Well, considering how adnauseum that's been exposed as a lie itself, provides us with a grand total of examples for the GOP being a Tyranical Fascist arm of the Government, led by Heir Bush as....................................1. Wow, way to go Tee. Slam dunk case you got there
-
Who will you hate when Bush is out of office?
Good point. I have never understood this. I have killed many in the Serivce of my country and yet I didn't hate them. If that is the case, why would I hate someone as remote as a President? I didn't agree with much of what Preisdent Clintn did even though I voted for him, but I didn't hate him.
Isn't this somewhat infantile?
-
<<Oh? Who got his phone tapped?>>
Guess we'll have to wait for Goldsmith's book to find out:
<<Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book's key revelations.>>
sirs argues that if Bush wanted to bring in a fascist state, he could have gone a lot further in that direction. Wouldn't have "held back" as it were. I don't agree. I don't think Bush formulates any of this Patriot Act crap, there are bigger people than Bush, people who have a longer perspective, and they are pretty much attuned to how much they, or a pliant administration, can get away with at any particular time. They are content to plan for longer periods of time than four-year or eight-year administrations. They know what building blocks to lay down from A to Z, and they also know that they can't get it done all at once. Certainly the Bush administration has made giant strides towards a lawless, fascist state and the fact that they didn't go all-out and proclaim a dictatorship does not negate by one bit the progress they have made for fascism.
It stands to reason that in a country whose traditions of freedom and liberty go back over two hundred years, nobody is going to switch it to fascism overnight.
O, a conspiracy theorist!
Skull and Crossbones or some other group?
-
O, a conspiracy theorist! Skull and Crossbones or some other group?
Oh good gravy Mr P, you have no idea how big Tee, Brass, and larry when he's around are regarding their pet conspiracy theories. Tee's incredible, since so many are validated (to him at least) by the lack of evidence/facts. Demonstrates how great the Bush cabal are at keeping a lid on things, and of course reinforcing just how evil and sinsiter they are. And we won't even get into Brass's "no jet hit the Pentagon" theory :D
-
<<Skull and Crossbones or some other group?>>
Skull & Bones represent a class of people. If you want to know what particular interests would be pushing fascism, it's basically the same kind of folks who pushed it in Germany, the wealthy inheritors who stood behind the Nazi Party, backed their rise to powerand let them play their Nazi games as long as they kept Communist hands off their inherited wealth.
"The Power Elite" by Professor C. Wright Mills gives a pretty good description of this group and their power in America, they don't change all that much over time.
-
Thank you. I ordered the book just a moment ago via Amazon. Should be fine reading when I get back to the states.