tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post113493547347806314..comments2024-01-20T05:01:49.819-07:00Comments on Agora: The Questions in Question:Lysishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-11954446141122246202011-03-26T04:54:10.955-06:002011-03-26T04:54:10.955-06:00I even understand that there is a special court to...I even understand that there is a special court to expedite and keep secret the issuance of such permission.About Health Bloghttp://8stress8.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135460955197598522005-12-24T14:49:00.000-07:002005-12-24T14:49:00.000-07:00Supersonic – Glad to have you here in the Agora. T...Supersonic – Glad to have you here in the Agora. The president’s justification for listening to terrorists is not that Bill Clinton did it. The justification for the President’s actions is that we are at war, and fighting these foreign enemies is the job of the President, the NSA, and the military; not the judicial system. The President is doing his job. If you read carefully above and especially if you actually go to the NY Times article that our “Anonymous friend” is referencing, you will see that the NSA has not been listening to “average Americans” and has not been listening in on purely domestic phone traffic. These accusations are purely the concoction of the anit-Bush media desperately pushed here in the Agora by Anonymous. The problem he faces here is that “Agorites” take the trouble to check out the stories.<BR/><BR/>Here is an example. Anonymous references a Fox News – no doubt his favorite network – story about a NY Times story on “Spy Agency [read NSA] Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report”. If you or Anonymous will take the trouble to read the article in the Times you will find that what the story reports is that the NSA has been “Encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through America-based switches.” The article explains that “The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many INTERNATIONAL-TO-INTERNATIONAL calls are also routed through such American switches.”<BR/><BR/>What you have here Supersonic, is another example of Anonymous’ lack of depth of understanding into the headlines that get him salivating. In every case, as the truth comes out, he and his ilk are left with egg on their faces and, in this case, a nice dish of crow for Christmas dinner.<BR/><BR/>What President Bush and the NAS are doing is exactly what “We the People” hired them to do; which is everything possible to keep us safe form our foreign enemies. Please remember 9/12, meaning how you felt the day after 9/11. If anything Bush has been a victim of his own success. He has kept us so safe for so long that his enemies are cooking up smear attacks, reliant on our unwillingness to go past cursory listening to headlines on Fox News. A moment of studying the facts will quickly dissipated such disingenuous lies like the blast of foul hot air they are.<BR/><BR/>Merry Christmas.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135460662513881542005-12-24T14:44:00.000-07:002005-12-24T14:44:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135427639858892452005-12-24T05:33:00.000-07:002005-12-24T05:33:00.000-07:00I don't mean to swamp you when you are struggling ...I don't mean to swamp you when you are struggling to keep up Lysis but I thought you should consider this damning report of King George's paranoid spying from Fox News:<BR/><BR/>"WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 — The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls — without court orders — than the Bush administration has acknowledged."<BR/><BR/>The NSA obtained access to streams of domestic communications, unidentified current and former government officials said. <BR/><BR/>"Since the New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to Al Qaeda.<BR/><BR/>But the unamed NSA officials said technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.<BR/><BR/>The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the Times said."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Lysis, you look worse and worse for your statement that "anyone who says average Americans are being spied on are liars!!!" Will you formally withdraw it and acknowledge that perhaps Bush is not the Africanus you thought he was?<BR/><BR/>Hope this doesn't ruin your holiday. Remember to say hello to DICK cheney when you make those calls to loved ones this weekend!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135353653410038122005-12-23T09:00:00.000-07:002005-12-23T09:00:00.000-07:00I'll be right here when you finally catch up with ...I'll be right here when you finally catch up with the rest of the class and figure it out Lysis, ready to finish your education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135350943085093952005-12-23T08:15:00.000-07:002005-12-23T08:15:00.000-07:00Anonymous, Thanks for coming back. Odd that you sh...Anonymous, Thanks for coming back. Odd that you should seem offended by my giving a little information about Voltaire; I guess you know everything about everything, so our discussions seems trivial to you. I have already referenced your blistering wit and profound logic (Sarcastically) <BR/><BR/>As for your fatigue in the discussion:<BR/><BR/>Sometimes in the midst of a lucid and probing classroom discussion with students far more brilliant than I am, the fascinating nuance of ideas is considered by those who have done their home work. I will ask a question of the class. From amongst the eagerly raised hands, I select one of the duller chaps; relieved to see he wants to participate. When given a chance to share he asks, “When is this class over?” There is a general groan among the scholars eagerly involved in the discussion. I wink at them and reply to the query of the dullard – “Don’t worry, just follow along as best you can, it will be over soon.”<BR/><BR/>A question of on the Constitution has been asked. Anonymous, just follow along as best you can, the discussion will be over soon. WINK WINKLysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135327247896800592005-12-23T01:40:00.000-07:002005-12-23T01:40:00.000-07:00Why does anyone care what happened to Voltaire, Ly...Why does anyone care what happened to Voltaire, Lysis? I think almost all of your posts are "relevantly challenged" - to use a euphism - but your biography of Voltaire's last days is really over the top! Who cares? I referenced an amusing quote of his earlier only to touch on the ridiculousness of some who argue here and you oblige! The quote came with two punch lines! (Three for Rumpole who also got a kick out it.)<BR/><BR/>Rumpole, what is this about a "Pearl Harbor File?" This smacks of "Conspiracy Theory" and as pure speculation belongs in that most dreaded section of the book store. I can't believe that I was derided for believing in intrigue by anyone who imagines a shadowy world of underlings creating two scenarios of reality for every situation and storing them in secret vaults for later surprise. That truly sounds like a bizarro world but I am sure it won't stop some from believing in it.<BR/><BR/>Lysis, must everyone repeat their arguments for the criminality of the Bush Administration again? The battlefield is strewn with your dead arguments and clouded by the fog of your biased war on all who disagree. Let the smoke clear. Do you really think there is ANYTHING that anyone could say that would change your perspective? Of course there is not. Your mind is already made up. Besides, your own words illustrate the limits of your capacity, and the futility of any attempt, you do not "comprehend the nuance or even the existence of any differences" in the legal arguments being made. Quit baiting. Leave the field.<BR/><BR/>As to my blistering wit and powerful logic - thank you, I am sure your noted sarcasm did not extend to this part of your true statement - I did dress them in a velvet glove for Bryan. I thought we were playing the "Weekend Update Catch Phrase Game" and my threat of pursuit to his blog "Two Stupid White Guys," which I cannot recommend highly enough!, was the only way I could think of to allude to Chevy Chase. My more important response to him still stands without apology though. I think that any Congressional representative that was "briefed" about Bush's secret actions was in fact lied to or completely misinformed as to the extent of the President's actions. That is why none of them are standing up and demanding that no investigation is necessary at all. Rather the opposite. And this leads directly to my argument that Congress is no longer a coequal branch of government. They have no oversight of Bush's activities, and those that they have tried to employ, FISA for example, Bush has ignored. This is not good for our Constitution and it is not good for us as Americans, no matter what you say.<BR/><BR/>I do take heart though Lysis that you have welcomed a full investigation of the President's actions. Let us hope that it is "fair and balanced." I consider it a moral victory against your big Red brick wall of an intellect that you have at least accepted this humble point.<BR/><BR/>Now have a good night and a pleasant tomorrow!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135322372524809742005-12-23T00:19:00.000-07:002005-12-23T00:19:00.000-07:00To Dannyboy, Bryan, Aeneas, and the other “Legal M...To Dannyboy, Bryan, Aeneas, and the other “Legal Minds” who might care to read. You are probably wondering why I am having trouble accepting the outrage expressed against President Bush for spying on U.S. Citizens. I don’t see how citizenship should be the “Bright Line” that Dannyboy and Bryan seem to see. The common sense line seems to me to be foreign – vs. – domestic. <BR/><BR/>After all, don’t Constitutional rights apply to human beings (except unborn ones) in the United States in general? Isn’t that the great advantage of being an “illegal alien” in America, that the Constitution still applies? I mean, we do provide due process to all, we do require Miranda rights be read, we prohibit torture and cruel and unusual treatment of even foreign criminals. We do deport them, but if they were to come to trial for some crime committed; surely they would be guaranteed all the rights accorded citizens.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, - and I know most of you dismissed the MaCarthy article, - although the man is a former Federal Prosecutor, hardly an “L1” kind of guy, - MaCarthy did list twenty seven examples in which American Citizens can be subject to warrantless searches; including two in school buildings. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that circumstance not citizenship dictates the conditions under which Constitutional protections must be provided. The protection from warrantless, even covert, search and seizure does not appear to be some blanket protection for Citizens which can never be breached concerning them but can be overlooked in reference to non-citizens.<BR/><BR/>There is a clear constitutional obligation of the President to protect the nation and the Constitution from foreign enemies. His method in carrying out this protection, once Congress has set him to it; has long had enormous latitude of action beyond what he could do in combating domestic challenges. Could not this key term “foreign” relate to the nature of the attack, not the citizenship of the attackers? <BR/><BR/>It seems quite clear to me that the NSA program approved by the President and sanctioned by congress was one relating to foreign enemies of the U.S. communicating to their operatives in the United States. The fact that those operatives are in country and perhaps citizens does not make the nature of their attacks on America any less of a foreign war, or any less the Presidents obligation and prerogative to combat. <BR/><BR/>Again, I’m not trained to comprehend the nuance or even the existence of any differences. Then neither was Henry II, when he set out to gather the Laws of England and sift it into the foundation of English Common law. It seems to me that a good share of that Common in Common Law, is common sense. As a layman, my common sense seems to indicate that a foreign enemy that employs residents or even citizens as the tools and weapons of his attack, has expunged their assumptions of constitutional protection and therefore all who join in acts of foreign war are forewarned of the Constitutionally sanctioned ability of the forces of the United States to treat them all as foreign enemies and not as specially protected and privileged citizens.<BR/><BR/>I hope this explanation of my confusion will help you clarify your position or at least enlighten my error.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135316356788534722005-12-22T22:39:00.000-07:002005-12-22T22:39:00.000-07:00Oh, by the way, Anonymous, the French drove Voltai...Oh, by the way, Anonymous, the French drove Voltaire out of the country. He built a palace and lived like a king in Switzerland. Go figure!Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135316098988886672005-12-22T22:34:00.000-07:002005-12-22T22:34:00.000-07:00I am interested to see that Anonymous holds the sa...I am interested to see that Anonymous holds the same opinions of Democrat Senators and Representatives as Murtha holds of American military officers. According to them the whole double batch are a bunch of lying cowards. You’ll remember that Murtha said that American officers in Iraq knew they were losing the war, but were afraid to tell the truth because of what “Bush did to Shinseki (sp)”.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Anonymous attributes Pelosi’s acquiescence to the NSA’s covert actions to cowardice as well. Seems to me that Harry Reid was also in on the plan, and either accepted it or cowered in fear of President Bush. <BR/><BR/>Since neither Pelosi nor Read seem to harbor any great terror of the President – the first explanation, that they agreed with Bush, seems most plausible. Of course, now, some Democrats are pleading ignorance. “They didn’t know how much spying was going on!” The argument is silly; it’s like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. Either they believe spying on terrorists in the U.S. was going on and wrong, or that it was going on and right. Since they have never been willing to let Bush do anything that they thought was in anyway wrong, they must have agreed with the President, the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, the Clinton and Carter Administrations, and me. Now that there seems to be a way to make political hay, or at least sell some books, they are eager to appear outraged at their own behavior. The New York Times says jump, and the Democrat leadership says, “How High?” on the way up! <BR/><BR/>Bryan, I guess Anonymous thinks you’re a coward too; else why the terrifying threat to come after you on your web log. I imagine fear of his blistering wit and profound logic has you wishing you were anonymous after all. (That’s sarcasm, Anonymous; I really don’t believe Bryan is afraid of you so please don’t waist our time by telling US that I called Bryan a coward and drove him from the Agora.)<BR/><BR/>Dannyboy, now you are keeping me waiting! Could you please explain your lingering Constitutional concerns?Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135306905455998832005-12-22T20:01:00.000-07:002005-12-22T20:01:00.000-07:00Listening,Here is my differing view to Anonymous o...Listening,<BR/><BR/>Here is my differing view to Anonymous on the timing of the Rockefeller letter. Quite often underlings in organizations will build what I have heard referred to as a “Pearl Harbor File”. These files typically consist of whatever negativity can be found as to one’s adversary; then, when the time is right, the individual will pull out the surprise- attack bombshell.<BR/><BR/>I certainly don’t claim to know Rockefeller’s motives, but when considering the political climate in Washington I think this is a far more plausible explanation than Anonymous’. I don’t think either view can be proven. Maybe Anonymous will beg to differ upon his return.<BR/><BR/>No matter what view you accept it certainly makes for interesting discussion.Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135295756233968672005-12-22T16:55:00.000-07:002005-12-22T16:55:00.000-07:00Hello again Bryan! Welcome back to the discussion...Hello again Bryan! Welcome back to the discussion. I am Anonymous and you aren't. I will follow you to your blog so watch out!<BR/><BR/>Do I think that %70 percent of Americans who just answered a recent poll have to worry? No, it, like most polls was conducted Anonymosly. Those 70% are probably safe from fear, for now. More importantly though, none of those 70% polled are running for statewide public office in West Virginia. I think that if they were they would put more importance on the statements they made to any media person that called up and wanted to know their views on the President's conduct of the war on terrorism, specifically any super secret spying programs he may be running, revealing the name of which would "seriously hurt America" and "help the terrorists." So, do I think it is plausible that Senator Rockefeller felt pressured to say nothing for fear of political repurcussions in a Red state? Without question. Is that the only reason he witheld his letter? No, he probably believed, like I said, that the program was not as entirely intrusive or outrageous as is being hinted at in press reports now. He probably made the same mistake that many on this blog make all of the time: He believed King George.<BR/><BR/>That is my post and I aM OUTTA HERE!! - for a little while anyways.<BR/><BR/><BR/>P.S. Lysis, it makes me feel good to see we have something in common, and with the French too! There is hope for us all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135289129000443392005-12-22T15:05:00.000-07:002005-12-22T15:05:00.000-07:00Rumpole, I am familiar with Voltaire. Like all of...Rumpole, I am familiar with Voltaire. Like all of us, Voltaire could be right sometimes, wrong others.<BR/><BR/>He was a French Philosopher, and advisor to Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, and Fredrick the Great, King of Prussia. Voltaire championed an idea knows as Enlightened Despotism and was against democracy. He believed that the masses were too stupid to govern themselves. Sound’s a lot like the elites of the media and the neo-libs you have been discussion with “Listening”, pundits who vomit out unsubstantiated vitriol and refuse to give either facts or reason to support their fear mongering. They are well represented here in the Agora by our Anonymous friend who continually references him. It is the hallmark of modern liberalism to keep the people dumb and stir them up with lies and fear; then you can use their stupidity to gain power through lies. <BR/><BR/>Voltaire was also strongly against what he considered “legal injustice”. He believed, as do I, that law should be based on a reliance on common sense not manmade statutes which lack flexibility or reason. I guess both I and Anonymous have things in common with this Frenchman. <BR/><BR/>He did a lot of talking with his friends; I don’t believe he ever went to law school.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135288038344844062005-12-22T14:47:00.000-07:002005-12-22T14:47:00.000-07:00Anonymous, you ignorant slut.The "everyone's afrai...Anonymous, you ignorant slut.<BR/><BR/>The "everyone's afraid to speak out argument" is getting old. Do you honestly believe that the environment is such that people are "afraid" to publicly disagree with the President?<BR/><BR/>So, do the 70% of those polled in the most recent public opinion polls have something to worry about? What about the (not quite) half the country that voted against him in the election?<BR/><BR/>Gosh...if Bush was able to rule with such an iron fist, you'd think he'd have been able to pass social security reform or any other major part of his domestic agenda.<BR/><BR/>You lefties are always in such a hurry to feel persecuted, whether or not the persecution actually exists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671774783083889565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135286298109799542005-12-22T14:18:00.000-07:002005-12-22T14:18:00.000-07:00I think Rockefeller was probably scared. You may ...I think Rockefeller was probably scared. You may have noticed, it is dificult to disagree with the President lately without being branded a coward, unpatriotic or someone who wants to destroy American and give tools to terrorists that will help them win. Besides, if he had known the full extent of the program - something no one yet knows - or even what the New York Times has published recently I believe his concerns would have been greater than they were and he would have come out sooner. None of the representatives briefed that have spoken on record have said this is what they thought was going on. It now seems the opaqueness of the Whitehouse concealed the extent of the actions even from them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135286061416544832005-12-22T14:14:00.000-07:002005-12-22T14:14:00.000-07:00Anonymous,I must admit I’m not incredibly familiar...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I must admit I’m not incredibly familiar with Voltaire, but his quote is excellent! His prayer has been granted! He must have been a Conservative!Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135285169737565312005-12-22T13:59:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:59:00.000-07:00Aye Anonymous, but just like there probably should...Aye Anonymous, but just like there probably should be an investigation and certainly a good debate about the issue of national security vs. civil rights, there is a question regarding Rockefeller's letter that begs asking. He could be worried about both issues, but why wait? Why not seek an investigation years ago if concerned. He could have done so secretly. I don't question the content of the letter, I question his timing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135285036127585292005-12-22T13:57:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:57:00.000-07:00Anonymous, your answer to 1 makes so many things m...Anonymous, your answer to 1 makes so many things more clear. You obviously don't bother to find out if your statements are true or not.<BR/><BR/>I would direct anyone interested in the actual truth to go here.<BR/><BR/>http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/cassellp/website/index.html<BR/><BR/>This has links to the oral arguments of the case, the S.C. opinion, etc..<BR/><BR/>Judge Cassell's arguments were against Miranda, not against civil liberties. If you want to understand them, I would suggest you either read the transcript, one of the numerous law journal articles he has written, or any other number of ways to actually understand the argument.<BR/><BR/>Cassell may have used students, I don't know frankly, but I can guarantee that ANY law student would be out of this world excited to help on a Supreme Court appellate brief, even if they did not agree with the argument, just for the experience.<BR/><BR/>You should also check out Cassell's bio before you cast judgement. The man did clerk for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Burger, not Rehnquist.)<BR/><BR/>As far as the other, if you don't want everyone to assume the comments are for them, perhaps you shouldn't make blanket statements.<BR/><BR/>"Congrats on passing all of your "milestones" in the legal profession. I am truly amazed"<BR/><BR/>"Dido-Heads and pseudo legal scholars"<BR/><BR/>These statements make me question whether or not you meant those comments for me. Either way, you didn't mention Drudge when you mentioned 'pseudo legal scholars', so don't blame me if you didn't specify before shooting off your vitriol.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135283963015494452005-12-22T13:39:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:39:00.000-07:00Rumpole, I don't know about Walt Kelly but it was ...Rumpole, I don't know about Walt Kelly but it was Voltaire who said, "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.<BR/><BR/>Mostly Listening, considering the criminal implications being pondered perhaps Senator Rockefeller was equally concerned about both, protecting himself and civil liberties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135283813980436542005-12-22T13:36:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:36:00.000-07:00There is some more irony for you. I meant Pat Rob...There is some more irony for you. I meant Pat Roberts. Pat Robertson is someone entirely different as all here are well aware I am sure. What a slip!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135283702378618282005-12-22T13:35:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:35:00.000-07:00Pat Robertson questioned Senator Rockefeller on hi...Pat Robertson questioned Senator Rockefeller on his letter to the VP. He is on the same committee, the committee chair specifically, and knew nothing of the letter or of Senator Rockefeller's protests until Jay Rockefeller produced the letter the other day. Like you, he questioned the Senator's timing and wondered if he was more concerned with civil rights or protecting himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135282762735552692005-12-22T13:19:00.000-07:002005-12-22T13:19:00.000-07:00Vegimatic,I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I only ...Vegimatic,<BR/><BR/>I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I only know you through your postings here at the Agora. Those postings have led to my respect for you. You have accurately described many of the traits that I believe define a modern day liberal, and more specifically a modern day Democrat. I don’t know (and I don’t care) if the Anonomy are either of these because they have never told us. They do, however, seem to possess all the characteristics.<BR/><BR/>I know I am in no position to do so, but if I may take some liberty, don’t take the attacks from the Anonomy personally. Speaking as one who has his family attacked constantly, it isn’t worth it. The Anonomy (and this is the reason why they remain anonymous) live for the reaction. You only give them what they seek, the desired attention by pushing whatever button possible.<BR/><BR/>This is really the Anonymy’s cry for help!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mostly,<BR/><BR/>I didn’t hear Pat Robertson’s comments. But what a great complement to Lysis and the far reaching effects of the Agora!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I can’t give you a DITTO! You haven’t listened THREE HOURS A DAY like Hannity asks!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for agreeing with me on how to make the war better! Certainly it would be better at home if we all truly understood the nature of the enemy as well as you do! I’m glad you realize that the battle at home will be more effectively waged by bringing all to understand the depth of hatred the enemy has for us. We must work to protect our civil liberties at home, for the enemy is bent on destroying them!<BR/><BR/>Even Sadaam understands this important point! He is willing to take up the cause for our enemies at home! Did you see his testimony today? He is the victim! He is the one who has been tortured! Perhaps he could replace Howard Dean as the party chair! Boy, I would sure like to be arguing on the same side of the table with such a vocal champion of civil liberties and human rights!<BR/><BR/>Was it Walt Kelly who first said – “WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US!”Kristi Meyers Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616142971823734868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135280989218858302005-12-22T12:49:00.000-07:002005-12-22T12:49:00.000-07:00Mostly Just Listening, I can very be very reasonab...Mostly Just Listening, I can very be very reasonable so please, recognize that I am nothing like Lysis. He is wrong and I am right! Just kidding, I appreciate your irony. But I will not comprimise on the existence of and a need for an independent judicial check on Executive power with such huge potential for destructive abuse of American civil rights. Despite the declaration by Lysis and others that we should actually thank Bush for spying on our private correspondences there will have to be a full investigation into the possible criminalities of these Whitehouse actions.<BR/> <BR/>Vegimatic, far be it from me to impune your honor. I would be going way overboard to do that and I would also consider a good shooting of one us to be the only remedy for such an unreconcilable situation. I merely recommend though that if you do not want your family mentioned in debate that you not bring them into it. Stick to real argument. I am additionally sorry that the "setting-in-of-life" has robbed you of your idealism and hopes. It sounds like you have had a very bad time of it in life. In fact, the more I read your posts the more sorry I feel for you.<BR/><BR/>DannyBoy2 I think I see your confusion. You think everything is directed to you. It is not. The following numbered portions of this post are.<BR/><BR/>1. I did ask whether your law school argued against Miranda. You pointed out that it was not the school but only the most respected professor at the school. I suppose he was paid by the school while he worked on this, took some students to work on it for him, gamed the questions in class, perhaps even headed up clinic work on the project. This one professor is not the same thing as the school arguing against Miranda I know, but my point is the same, it still informs of the kind of education you received about civil liberties at your school from your professors.<BR/><BR/>2. I do not think that everyone reading this blog is marching in lockstep with the Republican party line. I can see that you think that Bush has committed a crime. I am sure other people are approaching this reasonably as well. I do think that I have mentioned at least twice that Rumpole, Vegimatic, and Lysis are the targets of this "blinders on" criticism. Still, from past bogging experience with you, I would not call you exactly independent.<BR/><BR/>3. Lysis, Rumpole, and Vegimatic are the ones blinded to all reason by the glory of Bush. I recognize that you believe the administration has acted illegaly and, as this topic draws to a close, it is probably the best thing I have read in it all week.<BR/><BR/>4. The Republican Ditto-Head Matt Drudge - the hackeyed web master that barely passes for a journalist - is a pseudo legal scholar. The article written to enflame and posted by Lysis was a pseudo legal scholarly piece. The conclusion reached by Lysis is a pseudo legal scholarly opinion that is actually based on nothing more than his preconceived notion that Bush is only capable of Godly acts. I do not think you are a pseudo legal scholar. You are a licensed attorney, you told us so.<BR/><BR/>5. Perhaps you do not believe it but there are secret prisoners like Solzhenitsyn being held in secret prisons by the U.S. government around the world who have no access to a judicial review and no clear term of sentence, like Solzhenitsyn. As well, we have just learned that the U.S. governemnt has authorized spying on its own citizens without check on the power or judicial reivew as is supposed to be required in a free democratic country. This is not a rich fantasy I have concocted, rather it is the makings of a dark nightmare.<BR/><BR/>In the future please be considerate that not every comment is addressed to you personally DannyBoy2. I enjoy ridiculing others just as much. Will you still insist that I have not answered your points?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135280287607746352005-12-22T12:38:00.000-07:002005-12-22T12:38:00.000-07:00Vegimatic, you remind me of Zell Miller, as I reme...Vegimatic, you remind me of Zell Miller, as I remember he is a Democrat who came to “see the light”. I was impressed by him, I remain impressed by you. <BR/><BR/>I want to continue to speak and listen to Anonymous. I hope he will stick with us. He seems a little tougher than L.V. As LISTENING and Rumple have pointed out, sometimes it is the absurdity of the opposition's position that sheds light on the truth. By the way, I’d like to hear more about the Rockefeller letter.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous I agree with you that the revelation of the President’s innocence was inevitable. Had President Bush broken the law or violated the Constitution, then that discovery too would have been inexorable. That is the way the truth works. I do support a full bipartisan and open investigation into the slanders thrown at the Administration. I am now confident their discovery will be the same as OURS. I am delighted to have this argument in front of the American people who will soon see where justice and their best interests lie. Let’s shine the light of truth. <BR/><BR/>I am also sure that once the legality of the NSA directive has been proclaimed by the bipartisan commission and the Supreme Court, that you, Anonymous, will continue to believe that Bush and Cheney ordered secret wiretaps on innocent and “average” Americans. Even as you now believe the NYT article we have both read says that Bush ordered such surveillance and that listening in on the calls of know terrorizes is like putting a man in a slave labor camp because he referred to Stalin’s mustache. I would bet you still believe Clinton was framed by Ken Starr, that Gore won the 2000 election, that Bush and Cheney delayed help to New Orleans in order to kill black people, that the CIA has secret torture chambers, where Bush and Cheney torture for fun an pleasure, that Coalition troops have murdered 100,000 + innocent civilian Iraqis, that the Iraqi election was rigged, that life was better in Iraq under Saddam, that the terrorists are winning the war, that Saddam had no intention of getting or sharing nukes, and on and on and on. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous, WE listen patiently to what you believe in, and we wait patiently for you to provide one iota of evidence to support your beliefs, or one reasoned argument to dispel the evidence marshaled against the claims you either concoct or barrow whole cloth from the anti-Bush media. <BR/><BR/>Dannyboy: What is your “citizens must be treated different under the constitution argument, and how does it square with the case law Aeneas and others have posted. Why doesn’t the fact that these phone calls are acts of war involving “foreign” powers bent on acts of war against America put combating their agents into the President’s national defense purview? It seems to me that law and practice allow the president to deal with even American citizens in league with foreign powers in acts of war by virtue of his Constitutional powers to act without involvement of the courts in national defense situations.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-1135279096370558772005-12-22T12:18:00.000-07:002005-12-22T12:18:00.000-07:00Lysis, just so I don't fall in the same category a...Lysis, just so I don't fall in the same category as anonymous, let me get to the questions/points you have made.<BR/><BR/>Partisan may have been the wrong word, as I don't see you basing anything on 'the party said x'. However, let me note, I think you are jumping to quickly to the conclusion that there is NO constitutional question.<BR/><BR/>To say you are convinced is one thing, that is your perogative, as there is evidence to back up your position. I just do not believe that there is a strong enough position to proclaim the constitutional question here fully resolved and at rest.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the clarification this whole thing will create will in the end be good, no matter which direction it goes.<BR/><BR/>That, anonymous, is what makes our government different from the Gestapo and the KGB (I can't believe I even have to explain this). If we don't like it, we can change it.<BR/><BR/>And if you can't get enough people to agree with you and change it, you still get to complain to your hearts content, without getting sent to Siberia.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.com