Bush betrayed the United States?!

[Fenguin]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/gore.bush.ap/index.html

Basically, Gore wants to get back at Bush because he didn't think he should lose the election [since he won the popular vote]. So then, to look cool and feel cool, says that Bush betrayed the nation by invading Iraq.

Personally, I think that Gore does have a point, as not many of us actually wanted a war with Iraq. Reminds you of how Gore lost the election, doesn't it? :)

Debate and Discuss ;)

[WeekendLazyness]

Bush is just finishing what his father started. Invading Iraq and trying to get people to Mars.

[OboeGuru]

Wow, fiesty Gore. Didn't think he had it in him. I'm not to surprised about the massive attack on George Bush though, I mean there is an election coming up, one that will be very interesting to watch.

[Luther-Stark]

I love what the media is doing to bush :)

[LuckyBastard]

Bush didn't betray us. He just used the facts that were given to him, it's not his fault that those facts have proved to be false. And due to the effective argument that he made, the Congress passed the war and paid the money for it. It was all legal, the Democrats are just exaggerating the whole thing to get more votes. :mad:

[OboeGuru]

Effective government? He surrounded himself with his oil cronies, and the Department of Homeland security is a joke.

[Fenguin]

Phe didn't say effective government ;) Phe only referred to the effective argument that Bush made to get them to declare war ;)

[LuckyBastard]

Effective government? He surrounded himself with his oil cronies, and the Department of Homeland security is a joke.
Wtf??? where did this come from? :p

[OboeGuru]

Heh, I can't read. "Argument" looked like "government".

[T-Dawg]

Gore still has spunk in him? Trying to look good for the election eh?

[OboeGuru]

What's really funny is that Gore was supporting Dean. And now Gore has a Dean-esque outburst. Dean needs to go home, John Edwards needs to become Kerry's running mate, Wesley Clark should drop out of the race in favor of being the secretary of Defense under Kerry, Kucinich... welll... should write a book, and Sharpton needs to realize that he was never ever in the running.

[Nozomu]

Wtf??? where did this come from? :p

I don't know. It came from the "idea void". You know, the place where all unsubstantiated statements come from. Ideas like "selling lumber contracts to Bush's dad's friends to prevent forest fires", and "going to war to save the Iraqi people, whom we didn't give a shit about until now". If you blindly accept everything Bush says, why not at least give the same courtesy to other people? Oh, oh, here's another one: "We've tightened security to prevent terrorist attacks". I personally feel no safer.

Here's something to think about: What's stopping a terrorist from blowing himself up in an airport before the security checkpoints? He could still kill the same amount of people, and easily end all air travel in the country, destroying the airospace industry. Probably wouldn't be a mission to Mars after that, either. Great attack anticipation, Bush. I, a 19-year-old student, have found a way around your brilliant defense against terror.

Machiavelli wrote, "A prince is always doing great things". Wars, great missions (to Mars, maybe?), broad, sweeping speeches, etc. Bush is doing what Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Hitler did to stay in power. He's relying on unquestioning devtion to noble causes to keep his support. Tell me - would you still support Bush if he hadn't gone to war? Any free-thinking individual knows the right answer. Gore, while somewhat close-mindedly Democratic, at least has a good enough head on his shoulders to exercise his right to free speech and say his mind. Only a conservative would be against freedom of speech, or being "unpatrotic", as I've heard it said. I feel betrayed by Bush. The least he could do with his stolen Presidency is some good.

[T-Dawg]

Please oh mighty great one speak more of this "idea void." I must learn to access this power and weild for my own. MUAHAHAHA!

[Vashy]

Gore is a moron. He goes into a temper tantrum and screams like a moron(Dean anybody?), and he also ditches his former running mate for the same moron he is screaming like? Gore doesn't belong in the politcal arena anylonger. Hes a lot like Jimmy Carter. He says a lot of stuff, but not too many people listen.

[LuckyBastard]

I don't know. It came from the "idea void". You know, the place where all unsubstantiated statements come from. Ideas like "selling lumber contracts to Bush's dad's friends to prevent forest fires", and "going to war to save the Iraqi people, whom we didn't give a shit about until now". If you blindly accept everything Bush says, why not at least give the same courtesy to other people? Oh, oh, here's another one: "We've tightened security to prevent terrorist attacks". I personally feel no safer.

Here's something to think about: What's stopping a terrorist from blowing himself up in an airport before the security checkpoints? He could still kill the same amount of people, and easily end all air travel in the country, destroying the airospace industry. Probably wouldn't be a mission to Mars after that, either. Great attack anticipation, Bush. I, a 19-year-old student, have found a way around your brilliant defense against terror.

Machiavelli wrote, "A prince is always doing great things". Wars, great missions (to Mars, maybe?), broad, sweeping speeches, etc. Bush is doing what Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Hitler did to stay in power. He's relying on unquestioning devtion to noble causes to keep his support. Tell me - would you still support Bush if he hadn't gone to war? Any free-thinking individual knows the right answer. Gore, while somewhat close-mindedly Democratic, at least has a good enough head on his shoulders to exercise his right to free speech and say his mind. Only a conservative would be against freedom of speech, or being "unpatrotic", as I've heard it said. I feel betrayed by Bush. The least he could do with his stolen Presidency is some good.

Man people need to stop assuming stuff...

I was talking strictly about the war on Iraq, since that was what the article was about, but if you would like to go further and question all his decisions as a president I see no harm in doing so. Please, by all means, proceed.

Just to clarify something however:

1. I realize that Bush made some very poor decisions. (The Patriot Act, the growing debt, and just recently recovering economy, and that recent immigration thing)
2. I do not believe everything Bush says, in fact, I don’t trust anyone “blindly”.
3. I agree that our national defense system needs work, but the other Democratic candidates don’t even seem to care much about our national security.
4. Bush did not lie or betray us, he just made some decisions that are “wrong” in your eyes. (Don’t even bring up the “no WMD found” argument since both David Kay and George J. Tenet have said that Bush had nothing to do with our Intelligence’s inaccuracies.)

[OboeGuru]

I object to his "screw you UN, we're going to war" decision and the subsequent asking for assistance in the reconstruction. We're quite possibly going to be the worst UN member of this time period. We should be a sort of model member considering we helped form it in the first place.

[Nozomu]

Sorry, LuckyBastard, it just seems like the vast majority of Bush supporters I've ever encountered prefers not to use logic when forming opinions. I'm glad to know there are some out there who think for themselves.

One thing, though - the Democratic candidates don't have much of a defense standpoint because under a Democrat Presidency we won't need much of one. It's a non-issue, because most Democrats have refrained from pissing off the entire world throughout their careers. If we had a politician and foreign policy expert like Clinton (or, dare I say, Gore) back in the White House, we could have negotiated through any problems that may have arisen. Clinton's stance on noninterventionism even got him in trouble unjustly - remember Rwanda? People still blame him personally for that genocide, even though it's none of his, or America's, business. Sure, Al-Quaida would still exist, but they would have a much tinier platform with which to recruit followers.

Here's another tough question: Is Bush a murderer for sending our soldiers to die for a false war? If he had deliberated for even a month more, we would have had more information on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof. We would have been better able to judge whether or not it was right to go to war. Of course, WMD or no, the plan for the war was in motion way before 9/11. So it never mattered in the first place whether or not the WMD were there. That was just an excuse to get America behind Bush. How about the "Bring 'em on!" comment? What kind of leader actually encourages attacks on his own soldiers?

Sorry about the rant. just opinions. Anyone with a better idea of the situation, please say so.

[Nuts]

Anybody who truly believes that Bush is soley responsbile for invading Iraq should have their head examined. Your dear Mr. Kerry had the same intelliegnce and came to the same conclusion, and voted to permit Bush the use of military force in Iraq. Now Kerry does a 180 and you people claim that Bush is the one who can't make up his mind?

And Lucky, I might remind you that the economy took a dump only two months (according to many experts) into Bush's term, which would indicate a trend from the prior adminstration. Tax cuts are the reason you are seeing this economic recovery. Argue all you like, it won't make it any better.

[Nozomu]

Why do people say tax cuts are like the holy grail of economy-saving? They're incredibly short-sighted. Hey, I'm going to have to pay tons of taxes in ten years, but who cares? Our giant corporations are thriving again! Bush and his buddies will die fat and happy and future leaders and Americans in general will pay for it. Great plan!

Yeah, and the dot-com bubble was 100% Clinton's fault. You nailed him on that one.

[Nuts]

Why do people say tax cuts are like the holy grail of economy-saving? They're incredibly short-sighted. Hey, I'm going to have to pay tons of taxes in ten years, but who cares? Our giant corporations are thriving again! Bush and his buddies will die fat and happy and future leaders and Americans in general will pay for it. Great plan!


Bush isn't alone in this line of thinking. Take a look at the patriot quoted below and ask yourself, does this make sense?

America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery. But recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of growth and full employment.

For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more each year in production, profits, wages, and public revenues. It would mean an end to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5 percent for 61 out of the past 62 months - and an end to the growing pressures for such restrictive measures as the 35-hour week, which alone could increase hourly labor costs by as much as 14 percent, start a new wage-price spiral of inflation, and undercut our efforts to compete with other nations.

To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential - the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.

For it is increasingly clear - to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success - that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.



These words alone are extremely powerful, but when you realize who spoke them, you just might reconsider your position. History is a great teacher folks.

[Kopaka]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/gore.bush.ap/index.html

Basically, Gore wants to get back at Bush because he didn't think he should lose the election [since he won the popular vote]. So then, to look cool and feel cool, says that Bush betrayed the nation by invading Iraq.

Personally, I think that Gore does have a point, as not many of us actually wanted a war with Iraq. Reminds you of how Gore lost the election, doesn't it? :)

Debate and Discuss ;)

Definately. I think that Bush is just taking care of what his father didn't do. :D

[Nuts]

Definately. I think that Bush is just taking care of what his father didn't do. :D

*Sigh*

[T-Dawg]

Because personal vendettas are a great way to rule this country. Great leadership.. real great!

Bush, just wants to look good in office, *that* is the american way after all. Shine in the limelight and shrink away.

[Nuts]

That's one hell of an unsupported assertion there T. Care to back that up with any facts?

Since when has Bush done anything popular to shine?

Let's count the "unpopular" things he has done.

- Invaded Iraq without UN approval (tsk, tsk)

- Proposed a very unpopular immigration policy

- Passed the medicare drug program (which angered his own party)

- Passed tax cuts (which angered democrats)

This man hasn't done a single thing that hasn't ticked off one person or another, so either he's a schizophrenic or perhaps, just maybe he's using his conscience and doing what he feels is the right instead of what the political winds are telling him at the moment. His actions are far from indicative of a man whom is trying to shine or impress anyone.

Instead they seem to represnt the actions of a man with a spine instead of the typcial worms that occupy Washington.

[GrassDragon]

I agree with Nuts. He may not have pleased many people but at least he got things done. Unlike Clinton who aimed to please *everyone*, even when it wasnt an advantage to do so.

[ChaosZon]

I find it far more common that anti-Bushies would rather use rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, half-truths and outright lies to make their arguments, rather than any logical base. They immediately assume that they hold the moral high ground and their main counterargument is "I'm right, you're wrong, Bush is bad, comon, its obvious."

Any attempts to force them to back up their claims are quickly met with idiotic replies about the "brainwashed masses," "propaganda," etc. All show, no substance.

I find myself disappointed with George W. Bush, though. I wish Richard Nixon were President. He'd go on TV and rip Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Gore, whoever-the-hell-is-the-Democrat-of-the-moment a new asshole, and he would even make his notorious five o'clock shadow look cool while doing it.

For example:

"BUSH WAS AOL!!1!11!" - Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the DNC

Only NOW has Bush released pay records that allegedly prove he wasn't AWOL.

Would someone like Richard Nixon react in the way Bush has?

No. He'd come out, he'd already HAVE the records ready to go in case it came up, he'd go on TV, he'd flash those records on the TV sets of 80 million people, and in the course of half an hour, he'd use a ten-page speech to, in effect, say "Fuck off, dicksmack. You've just been owned."

Where is the defiance from George W. Bush? Where the hell is it? Has it gone AWOL? We got to see plenty of it at Ground Zero. We got to see plenty of it when he stared down Kofi Annan like the pompous, overblown little bureaucrat Mr. Annan is.

Where is it now? George W. Bush faced off against the UN. He won. He faced off against Saddam Hussein. He won.

He's facing, at the moment, John Kerry. Does anyone here think that the man who defied 'the world' couldn't eat John Kerry for breakfast?

For God's sake, it sickens me to watch a man turn the other cheek when he could be, and should be, smacking his enemy in the face.

[Nuts]

Relax Chaos, there's plenty of time left till November. ;)

[cole]

Vote Cole for president. Screw bush and gore.

[Nuts]

Vote Cole for president. Screw bush and gore.

That would be mildly entertaining if Gore were a candidate. This forum is reserved for discussion of a more serious nature, please respect that. Thanks.

[Dark_Soul74]

I overall dislike Bush greatly. Not only did he start a war that nobody wanted, and turned out to be for practically naught, having found none of the WMD's that they had 'facts' on, but he is just continuing his father's legacy, which really doesn't help him any. He passed a bill that did almost the same thing as the Alien Act, and allowed the government to arrest anyone they thought had something to do with terrorism, or search anyone's property. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' and searching without a warrant was one of the reasons we started a war with Britain and gained our independence. We wanted freedom, but that act is killing it. Though some things he did were good, he is really, in my eyes, running our country right...into the ground.

[Nozomu]

Just what we need in office, ChaosZon! I absolutely agree! Only tough, war-mongering, blood-thirsty people should rule! People who use logic should be beaten and sent crying to their mommas! Everyone should have a handgun! No, wait, everyone should have two handguns! We'd all be much safer if people would just kill each other and be done with it, without all of that useless talking!

Jesus. You make it sound like the UN is a frickin' terrorist group. Yeah, I know that they're out to get us. Maybe we shouldn't have pissed them off in the first place, huh? Let's just fight every country we come across until we're the only one left standing! If those Arabs are gettin' uppity, let's whup their asses! Why Arabs? Because we'd never get away with bombing white people.

Guess what? There's a reason cowboys don't exist anymore. It's called civilization. Hey, if Bush has all the answers with his "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, why haven't any Bush-heads responded to any of the statements I made above? Would Al-Quaida and other terrorist groups have anywhere near the amount of recruits they now have if Bush had lost the election? What kind of leader encourages attacks on his own soldiers?

I also love how the statement quoted above actually says that our tax system increases the deficit. Oh, so cutting taxes will decrease it? Maybe spending $87 billion on a false, unjustified war will decrease it. Oh, wait.

[Nuts]

Just what we need in office, ChaosZon! I absolutely agree! Only tough, war-mongering, blood-thirsty people should rule! People who use logic should be beaten and sent crying to their mommas! Everyone should have a handgun! No, wait, everyone should have two handguns! We'd all be much safer if people would just kill each other and be done with it, without all of that useless talking!

I fail to see where Chaos has said anything remotely close to this, but oh well, make some more rash generalizations while you're at it, it makes for a fun read.

Jesus. You make it sound like the UN is a frickin' terrorist group. Yeah, I know that they're out to get us. Maybe we shouldn't have pissed them off in the first place, huh? Let's just fight every country we come across until we're the only one left standing! If those Arabs are gettin' uppity, let's whup their asses! Why Arabs? Because we'd never get away with bombing white people.

The U.N. receives a majority of their funding from who? Yes, America. The U.N. passed resolution 1441 claiming Iraq's posession and unaccounting for WMD's based on the same information that our president had. The U.N. is relatively worthless, and should America ever decide to withdraw from the U.N., then you can pretty much kiss them goodbye. And the truth shall set you free!

Guess what? There's a reason cowboys don't exist anymore.

Can we say sterotype?

It's called civilization. Hey, if Bush has all the answers with his "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, why haven't any Bush-heads responded to any of the statements I made above?

Make a decent allegation and I'll be happy to respond. But the generalizations are really difficult to answer since you have unfounded concepts to begin with.

Would Al-Quaida and other terrorist groups have anywhere near the amount of recruits they now have if Bush had lost the election? What kind of leader encourages attacks on his own soldiers?

What kind of leader allows our U.S. embassies to be attacked without repercussion? What about the first bombing of the WTC? And the U.S.S. Cole? And I could go on, but you get my drift. I should I mention that all these attacks occured prior to the Bush adminstration.

I also love how the statement quoted above actually says that our tax system increases the deficit. Oh, so cutting taxes will decrease it? Maybe spending $87 billion on a false, unjustified war will decrease it. Oh, wait.

But yet you still can't tell me who said it?

[ChaosZon]

Just what we need in office, ChaosZon! I absolutely agree! Only tough, war-mongering, blood-thirsty people should rule! People who use logic should be beaten and sent crying to their mommas! Everyone should have a handgun! No, wait, everyone should have two handguns! We'd all be much safer if people would just kill each other and be done with it, without all of that useless talking!

You wouldn't use that strawman if only you had a brain.

Jesus. You make it sound like the UN is a frickin' terrorist group. Yeah, I know that they're out to get us. Maybe we shouldn't have pissed them off in the first place, huh? Let's just fight every country we come across until we're the only one left standing! If those Arabs are gettin' uppity, let's whup their asses! Why Arabs? Because we'd never get away with bombing white people.

You wouldn't use that strawman if only you had a brain.

By the way, ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic either.

Guess what? There's a reason cowboys don't exist anymore. It's called civilization. Hey, if Bush has all the answers with his "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, why haven't any Bush-heads responded to any of the statements I made above? Would Al-Quaida and other terrorist groups have anywhere near the amount of recruits they now have if Bush had lost the election? What kind of leader encourages attacks on his own soldiers?

You wouldn't use that strawman if only you had a brain.

I also love how the statement quoted above actually says that our tax system increases the deficit. Oh, so cutting taxes will decrease it? Maybe spending $87 billion on a false, unjustified war will decrease it. Oh, wait.

You wouldn't...

Oh, what's the point.

[Nozomu]

"You wouldn't use that strawman if only had a brain."

What the hell does that mean? Is it a statement with bad grammar or a question? Am I the strawman, and thus, lacking a brain? An insult. Ingenious. Well, I guess if logic doesn't work, resort to name-calling...

[ChaosZon]

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg

http://www.tektonics.org/logical_fallacies.html

Strawman

A strawman is a type of red herring where an opponent's position is misrepresented, and to burn a strawman means to attack and refute the misrepresentation rather than the actual argument. This is a suprizingly common fallacy, because it is easy to misunderstand another person's belief, and when one is losing a debate a strawman looks very appealing to attack. Afterall, a strawman is generally easier to fight than a well thought out argument. Obviously, burning strawmen is fallacius, because even after the strawman is vanquished, the opponent's argument still has yet to actually be addressed.

Some examples, as if you weren't expecting any:

1. [Arminian] "We teach that people can choose to resist grace."
2. [Calvinist] "A ha, so you are a Pelagian! Don't you know the Bible teaches that man is depraved and cannot seek God?"
3. [A] "Do you even know what a Pelagian is? And yes, apart from God's drawing no one cas seek God. Now, where is the evidence that grace is irresistable?

1. [Calvinist] "... so God didn't choose us based on anything we do. Predestination is based on God's good pleasure."

2. [Arminian] "So, He chose us arbitrarily. Do we serve a whimsical God?"

3. [C] Argh! That's it, where's my baseball bat? ...

Also, there is a subfallacy of Strawman, where a person's position is fairly moderate, but the opponent instead attacks the extreme position (i.e. I say "many times when the ground is wet, it is because of rain." I get the response, "how about if you have a sprinkler system? Your lawn wouldn't always be wet because of rain"). According to Fallacy Files (see references below), this is called a Strawdemon.

[MacG]

*COUGH* <Opens Briefcase>

Ladies and Gentlemen, 10 Reason why you should hate....I mean ask Bush Jr. Here. Read:

http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/g3files/lst?.dir=/Dude!+Where%27s+My+Country+Chapter+One&.view=l

I wish to address Howard Dean's little media clip that was totally overrated.
First off, he was expected to win that primary. His staff and supporters were shocked and needed to be rally back in to momentum. So in Howard Dean's excited and energtic way, he did. It doesn't matter how wierd it may look, it work for the supporters and they roar in excitement after Howard Dean's little outburst. I'm not voting for Dean in the California primary not because of that, but because I think the media had overrated and overused that clip.

Betrayal by Bush? It is totally possible. Bush took advantage of the bipartisanship of both parties to destroy our freedoms. A less used saying from Thomas Jefferson that I do not have the real quote to, basicly says Education is the foundation of Democracy. The American Public is ignorant or have the lack of knowledge of Bush's intensions. He preaches War on Terrorism and then goes in to Iraq. For 6 months we don't hear anything about "war on terrorism" anymore, nor do we hear anything about Osama Bin Laden. CIA reports in 1995, Bin Laden was sick and had lost of the use of his kidneys...

This topic is simliar to one I reply to in another forum that ask about the next war on terrorism. Coming up with a scenario China invades Taiwan and U.s intervenes.... Not to have that topic come up here, I posted some general arguments that might be a interest to this topic.

Here is the sum up version of Taiwan and China relations. The island of Taiwan was claimed by China for centuries. The inhabitaits today has not objected to this claim politically. Since the recongization of Mainland China as the real China in the international community. All major players had recongize China's claim to Taiwan. France and U.S have both outspokenly told CHEN Shui-Bian that they should not choose to become indepedent. (Bush said it would be a mistake to declare independence, French President warned Taiwan it would be a grave error to go through with the referumdum,) Tan is correct usage but the offical spelling is Chen. Like mines, Chris Chen.

In history, China itself was never a agressive civilization. Even modern history China was always at their defensive(Great wall of china, Imperial Navy of the 1400s) China only enter the Korea and Vietnam's conflicts when they thought their national borders were at risk, the distrust of europeans still remain. China has no interest in in Vietnam or North Korea itself. China enter the conflicts to protect itself. Since when did European or white civilization show respect during pre Korean War times? China had little help defending itself with little help from anyone. While Nationalist took a billion from U.S, losing most of it to corruption.

U.S has never recongize Taiwan as a indepedent state since it switch during the 70s. I don't know where you go that from. I only know a hand full of non key countries that recongizes Taiwan as a indepedent country, such as Panama which contains a large population of chinese(but there is a strong political struggle to change it as Mainland have sent diplomat to encourage a change in policy).

China has never threaten military force against Taiwan. China never shown directness in this way. They had try to intimidate, and use other methods such as the recent arrest of Taiwanese business men who were spies for the Taiwanese Government. The Businessmen publicly blamed Chen Shui-Bian for opening his mouth in his public speeches that gave their positions away. (The Chinese Missles aim'ed in Taiwan News) A attempt to damage Chen Shui Bian's chance for reelection and the referumdums that are putting up for vote.

Whenever Chen Shui Bian publicly tries to say Taiwan is a indepedent nation, Mainland China would just stomp its foot and mug back and yell WHAT DID YOU SAY? and Chen Shui Bian would shut his mouth and revise his statement.

What I believe China is doing, is reform to more like Europe, Socialism and slowly get the people of Taiwan to accept Mainland China, their motherland, and reunitify.


Now about War against Terrorism. How long have Bush stray from this path? Iraq was no where near terrorism. What happen to Osama. If you dig enough, you find out he was on Diasis(SP? Machine for a Kidney). So he would have to hop caves carrying a heavy kidney machine to help him pee.

Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, the only ones that the U.S knows of, is the ones U.S gave Saddam. The Chemcials U.S gave Saddam during his war against Iran. How about North Korea. They dying there. They even TOLD US that they have Nukes. They are jumping up and down trying to get attention!!

They are saying, hey, we willing, but we need support. Food, basics. HELLO? We want to change! U.S can easily expediate this by helping North Korea eliminate their Nukes by giving them the support they want. Their population is starving, they are willing to trade in nukes for something that will not cost us any human lives. Or will U.S blame the CIA later for not telling BUSH that huh?

Here's another thing. I like how Bush himself has executive ordered a investigation of the CIA. His Team will probably report back, let's say, after the Presidential election? Dec 2004: Hello Mr. President, our investigation tells us...... Approval Rating at 10%, but hey, you voted for him. =P


QUOTE And even with America's standing army of less than 300,000, we could obliterate the entirety of China's army. And that's simply because we tend to take out enemies at a 10:1 ratio. (or was it 100:1 ??)


Quit playing counter strike (I doubt its anything near that imaginary ratio 100:1) because if war starts, it won't be landfall on either coast til nukes are launched. I doubt U.S will get involve in a war that does not concern them, esspecially when both sides have nukes.

And you guys also forgot how PROC's navy has increase insanely from purchases from the Russians. And now E.U is deciding whether to lift the ban on high tech weapons and technology against China. A lift supported by France and many other E.U nations. UK agree is open to this idea as well.

China's is hiring many experts around the world to retrain military (Their Modernization efforts)

If landfall scenario actually occurs, of course Navy Bombardment With Submarine protection and Conventional Missles will be launch to destroy Taiwanese defense.

Edit:


QUOTE It also couldn't get passed off as anti-terror because just because China is attacking Taiwan, doesn't mean it's a terrorist attack. It means it's a head of state declaring war on another head of state. An offical, open attack, which means that they know it's coming, which decrees that it isn't terrorism.



Techincally, It's internal matters. And China is a U.S ally on the War on Terrorism anyway.

[ChaosZon]

China's Navy won't be a match for the Pacific Fleet until 2015 in the least, and that estimate was made when we had Slick Willie cutting military budgets right and left.

If China invaded Taiwan, they'd win the battle and conquer the island, and proceed to horribly lose the war.

China has never threaten military force against Taiwan. China never shown directness in this way. They had try to intimidate, and use other methods such as the recent arrest of Taiwanese business men who were spies for the Taiwanese Government. The Businessmen publicly blamed Chen Shui-Bian for opening his mouth in his public speeches that gave their positions away. (The Chinese Missles aim'ed in Taiwan News) A attempt to damage Chen Shui Bian's chance for reelection and the referumdums that are putting up for vote.

China threatens military force on Taiwan every day, and twice on Sundays.

Betrayal by Bush? It is totally possible. Bush took advantage of the bipartisanship of both parties to destroy our freedoms. A less used saying from Thomas Jefferson that I do not have the real quote to, basicly says Education is the foundation of Democracy. The American Public is ignorant or have the lack of knowledge of Bush's intensions.

I know, man, how many of your freedoms have been taken away?

None?

Thank you.

I just have to love the "the American public is ignorant" statement. Its been debunked so many times in so many different disputes that its like you've beaten the dead horse into dust, and you've now beaten the ground the dead horse lay on for so long you've made a chasm of Grand Canyon-like proportions.

I also have to chortle at the idea that America suddenly abandoned the War on Terror when it went into Iraq. I'm sorry to say it (not really), but the War on Terror has continued unhindered from Sept. 12, 2001, to today. It has not been diverted, it has not been denied resources, it has not slowed down. Sorry. Really.

[Fenguin]

I object to his "screw you UN, we're going to war" decision and the subsequent asking for assistance in the reconstruction. We're quite possibly going to be the worst UN member of this time period. We should be a sort of model member considering we helped form it in the first place.

Heyhey, it's the general Republican/conservative view. They believe we need to put America first, and screw international stuff if we're in danger. :D

Haha remember that from Gov today ;)

[ChaosZon]

We're quite possibly going to be the worst UN member of this time period. We should be a sort of model member considering we helped form it in the first place.

I know, the U.S. is a worse UN member than North Korea, or Cambodia, or the Sudan, or Rhodesia, or or or...

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

We go off and actually enforce numerous UN resolutions, something the UN seems incapable of doing nowadays (Read: Iraq, Serbia, Rhodesia), we depose a dictator who had 25 million people as his personal playthings, who started two wars, and we're worse than dictatorships who run death / concentration camps (North Korea), we're worse than countries who wage indiscriminate war against a religious minority in their country (the Sudan, 2,000,000 people killed as the Muslim government in the north oppresses and massacres the Christian / indigenous religions in the south so far and counting, that's million with an m), we (as part of NATO) put the planes in the air and the boots on the ground when the UN was unable to stop "ethnic cleansing" (Serbia, including the massacre of 8,000 Muslims by the Serb Army when they were inside a "UN Safe Zone," Uruguayan troops had to sit there and WATCH because the UN didn't let them have the weapons necessary to defend the Muslims from the Serbs)...

Ignorance; love it or leave it. A lot of people, apparently, are just fine with loving it.

[OboeGuru]

Heyhey, it's the general Republican/conservative view. They believe we need to put America first, and screw international stuff if we're in danger. :D

Haha remember that from Gov today ;)
One, that post was from before today's lesson, obviously.
Two, that's no excuse whatsoever for blowing off the UN. There's absolutely no excuse for it. Ever.

[MacG]

China's Navy won't be a match for the Pacific Fleet until 2015 in the least, and that estimate was made when we had Slick Willie cutting military budgets right and left.

If China invaded Taiwan, they'd win the battle and conquer the island, and proceed to horribly lose the war.
U.S will not enter in to a Chinese conflict. 1. because Taiwan is not a recongized Country or ally, it's a weapons/tech trade partner. 2. It's internal, not international affairs.


China threatens military force on Taiwan every day, and twice on Sundays.
Don't make up things. I get email alerts on all China, Asia news.


I know, man, how many of your freedoms have been taken away?

None?

Thank you.
Patriot Acts I and II, the censorship of media on many areas, including criticising the president will be "Unpatriotic". Many have been arrested in those terms.


I just have to love the "the American public is ignorant" statement. Its been debunked so many times in so many different disputes that its like you've beaten the dead horse into dust, and you've now beaten the ground the dead horse lay on for so long you've made a chasm of Grand Canyon-like proportions.So, if you ask a average 18-25 year old who their congress person or if they voted or even registered to vote, it would most likely be no. The lack of a political awareness (Weak Educational system), allows Rich White Men to take control of our government and pass laws in their liking.


I also have to chortle at the idea that America suddenly abandoned the War on Terror when it went into Iraq. I'm sorry to say it (not really), but the War on Terror has continued unhindered from Sept. 12, 2001, to today. It has not been diverted, it has not been denied resources, it has not slowed down. Sorry. Really.So, the instant belief that President Bush lead the Public to believe was Osama Bin Laden was the cause of Sept. 11's attack is now no longer important and suddenly, Iraq! War on Terrorism, is shifted to "We need to stop Saddam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Then it's no longer that and we shift to "We are going to liberate these Iraqi's!" Now, whose in liberated Iraq? Bush's Oil friends and Co.

I don't see any parrellism in this chain of events. We went from War on Terrorism to Liberating countries that don't concern us? While Iraq had a government working for the people in a sense, Iran and North Korea is almost near begging for help and attention. With North Korea KNOWN to have NUKES, and openly tell us they have them and willing to dismantle their nukes if they receive aid. What's U.S reponse? ...

I don't see how Bush's foreign policies have lead us to a straight path to fighting a war. We alienated the world even further, creating even greater hostile enviroment then before.

Once again, read this:
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/g3files/lst?.dir=/Dude!+Where%27s+My+Country+Chapter+One&.view=l

It is a good read.

[ChaosZon]

Patriot Acts I and II, the censorship of media on many areas, including criticising the president will be "Unpatriotic". Many have been arrested in those terms.

I'm sorry, what? I absolutely owned ATLien when he spouted the same shit at BF, do you want me to do it here too?

So, if you ask a average 18-25 year old who their congress person or if they voted or even registered to vote, it would most likely be no. The lack of a political awareness (Weak Educational system), allows Rich White Men to take control of our government and pass laws in their liking.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was going to be taking part in a Michael Moore Conversation, where Anything Goes as long as you Refuse To Back Up What You Say.

Don't make up things. I get email alerts on all China, Asia news.

Oh, yes, I forgot. Any time Taiwan exercises its power as an independent nation, China "reminds" Taiwan that it can mop the floor with them in about 72 hours. So I guess its every 2 days, and still twice on Sundays.

U.S will not enter in to a Chinese conflict. 1. because Taiwan is not a recongized Country or ally, it's a weapons/tech trade partner. 2. It's internal, not international affairs.

Who's making stuff up again?

The U.S. has specifically pledged to protect Taiwan from 1949 until today. God, learn some history before you start spouting bullshit about it "Its not a recognized country and its an internal affair." Does the PROC govern Taiwan? No. Hence, is Taiwan independent? Yes. Hence, is it an international dispute? Yes.

So, the instant belief that President Bush lead the Public to believe was Osama Bin Laden was the cause of Sept. 11's attack is now no longer important and suddenly, Iraq! War on Terrorism, is shifted to "We need to stop Saddam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Then it's no longer that and we shift to "We are going to liberate these Iraqi's!" Now, whose in liberated Iraq? Bush's Oil friends and Co.

I am amazed at the amount of naivete and bullshit you can cram into one paragraph. Really, I am. It would take several pages of debate to debunk the crap in just this paragraph, if I was inclined to do it in a polite, deferential way.

To put it bluntly: you're full of shit. Back up what you say, please.

I don't see any parrellism in this chain of events. We went from War on Terrorism to Liberating countries that don't concern us? While Iraq had a government working for the people in a sense, Iran and North Korea is almost near begging for help and attention. With North Korea KNOWN to have NUKES, and openly tell us they have them and willing to dismantle their nukes if they receive aid. What's U.S reponse? ...

Once again, big boy, back up what you say, if you don't mind. I don't like arguing against assertions; it lends them credence they don't deserve.

I don't see how Bush's foreign policies have lead us to a straight path to fighting a war. We alienated the world even further, creating even greater hostile enviroment then before.

Really? Have we? Are you going to back this up as well, or are you going to decide that your hilariously out-of-touch assertions are good enough?

[T-Dawg]

Well Chaoszon, instead of saying MacG is full of shit and near-flaming him, why don't you prove he is wrong instead of just saying you can. if you can debunk his argument then do it. back up your claims will you.

[MacG]

The U.S. has specifically pledged to protect Taiwan from 1949 until today. God, learn some history before you start spouting bullshit about it "Its not a recognized country and its an internal affair." Does the PROC govern Taiwan? No. Hence, is Taiwan independent? Yes. Hence, is it an international dispute? Yes.



Quote: So let us be clear: The Taiwan Relations Act does not commit the United States to come to the defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack. The Taiwan Relations Act commits us to provide Taiwan with the necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs.



Quote: We have been deliberately vague about what the circumstances might be under which we would come to Taiwan's defense, not only to discourage Taiwan from drawing us in by declaring independence but also to deter a Chinese attack by keeping Beijing guessing as to what the response might be.



http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0139.html (http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0139.html)



Quote: We have been straightforward about our interests, including our commitment to Taiwan's self-defense under the Taiwan Relations Act



http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0139.html (http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0139.html)



Even though I strongly believe U.S will not send any significant military force, it is still possible U.S might send military enforcement. The fact that it’s depends on how the situation is, I doubt U.S will send full military force. What was pledge during 1949, does not apply now, because U.S does NOT recognize Taiwan as China, nor does it recognize it as a independent state.



And here is a update on North Korea…

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.china.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.china.ap/index.html)



I'm sorry, what? I absolutely owned ATLien when he spouted the same shit at BF, do you want me to do it here too?



So, in your opinion, you do not think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional nor does it limit or destroy certain freedoms?



I'm sorry, I didn't know I was going to be taking part in a Michael Moore Conversation, where Anything Goes as long as you Refuse To Back Up What You Say.



What does Michael Moore have to do with anything about 18-25 year olds who don’t know shit about government and political awareness? Just because I said Rich WHITE MEN, doesn’t mean anything.



Oh, yes, I forgot. Any time Taiwan exercises its power as an independent nation, China "reminds" Taiwan that it can mop the floor with them in about 72 hours. So I guess its every 2 days, and still twice on Sundays.



Reminding Taiwan that it would be a great mistake isn’t directly threatening military force is it? And how many times did Taiwan even remotely throw the issue of independence anyway? Not every single day is it? Not even often.

[Nuts]

Question of the day: Under the Patriot Act, which of your freedoms have been abridged, removed, or hindered? Remember, I said "your" freedoms, so don't think you can spout off about some obscure news story that you found on michaelmoore.com, mmmmkay?

Answer carefully.

[Crion]

Question of the day: Under the Patriot Act, which of your freedoms have been abridged, removed, or hindered? Remember, I said "your" freedoms, so don't think you can spout off about some obscure news story that you found on michaelmoore.com, mmmmkay?

Answer carefully.

Will do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized.

Now, the way warrants are executed are as follows: counsel for the State goes before a judge and presents to that judge the reasons for probable cause to search a domicile or other piece of private property. The judge then signs a search warrant document, which is a public record in at least the State of Vermont, though I am not sure about other places. However, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a public document, as common procedure is to notify the person who the warrant is being served against as soon as possible. Now let's say the warrant is for a house. If the person is not home and the police have a search warrant for his or her house, then the police can execute their search, but they can't just leave afterwards. They must notify the owner of the property, so that the owner can be certain that what the police are doing (or did) complies (or complied) with the terms of the warrant. This is not just something the police do out of the kindness of their hearts. They are not allowed to "hide" the warrant.

However, with the advent of the PATRIOT Act...

With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result?

The section goes on to prohibit the seizure of tangible evidence and wire/electronic communications. It prohibits the "seizure" of such things.

Here's a legal definition of that term that I found on a law library website (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s022.htm):

SEIZURES - Property, including cash, real estate, vehicles, etc., used or acquired through illegal activities, that is taken by law enforcement officials. A decision is made by a court or civil authority regarding what will be done with the seizure.

The act of taking possession of the property of a person condemned by the judgment of a competent tribunal, to pay a certain sum of money, by a sheriff, constable, or other officer, lawfully authorized thereto, by virtue of an execution, for the purpose of having such property sold according to law to satisfy the judgment. By seizure is also meant the taking possession of goods for a violation of a public law; as the taking possession of a ship for attempting an illicit trade.

The seizure is complete as soon as the goods are within the power of the officer.

The taking of part of the goods in a house, however, by virtue of a fieri facias in the name of the whole, is a good seizure of all. As the seizure must be made by virtue of an execution, it is evident that it cannot be made after the return day.

NOTE: By "legal," I do not mean that the above definition is part of the criminal code of any State, but that it represents how most courts interpret that term.

So, take these things together. Under the Fourth Amendment and established common practice, warrants are public and/or non-confidential documents (depending on jurisdiction) except in cases where "absolute secrecy is required" (which was the terminology provided by the Vermont ruling establishing search warrants as public documents). The PATRIOT Act modifies this in an extreme manner: the State is now able to execute its search warrants with the intent of keeping that very fact from the owner of the property being searched, so long as they do not SEIZE anything. This means that they have almost unlimited rights to poke around in your files, your room, your house, your car, whatever the warrant covers, and it doesn't matter what they find, so long as they don't seize it. However, if the police find a dimebag of weed, that can be used as justification later on for an arrest warrant and another, more noticable search and seizure. This time around, they CAN take whatever they want, and they already know where it all is, so it'll be quick. And mysteriously, you'll find yourself not only charged with possession of an illicit substance, but recommended for deportation or imprisonment in a military facility for various subversive acts that the government doesn't really need to prove to the court or the public, falling back on the argument that disclosing exactly what you did and how they came about that conclusion is sensative and classified material that cannot be disclosed. It's become the Justice Department's modus oprendi when they want to have a chat or forty with an immigrant they think might be up to something, maybe.

So, I guess all that it has violated so far is the right of an inhabitant of the United States of America (notice I did NOT say citizen; a person does not need to be a citizen for the provisions of the Bill of Rights to apply to him or her, as per Amendment XIV) to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment IV) and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations made against him or her (Amendment VI). But that's two too many.

I have also heard in passing that it inhibits the right to a speedy and public trial, but I haven't been able to pick out the exact parts of the PATRIOT Act where that applies. I do know that the act has been used as a justification for such infringements, but I can't legally go at it yet on that note.

Now, to the matter of your question. It was very carefully worded, and I assume that your planned response is something along the lines of "it hasn't been used against you, an upstanding citizen who has done nothing wrong" or "the PATRIOT Act doesn't violate your rights as a citizen, it will only be used against foreigners" or some sort of fallacious reasoning on par with that. To be just as cliche as you, here's a little poem from Martin Niemöller. I'm sure you've seen it in your travels across cyberspace.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you need to ask how that applies to this situation, then you have no place in this forum and I am wasting my time trying to convince you of anything (this is directed at any reader, not just you, Nuts).

[ChaosZon]

That's a rather weak attack, Crion. Pick a better part of the Patriot Act.

any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result?

If the "court" so decides it, notification is not required. Since that very Constitution you mention specifically lays out that the "courts" are the sole authority that may interpret the Constitution, that part of the Patriot Act does not violate the Constitution. The FBI cannot search someone's house and never tell them on its own; it has to have authorization to do so. If it does, it does.

Go on the potential of being indefinitely held in custody without access to an attorney. That one is much better.

[Nuts]

Hrmmm, I honestly didn't expect a rebuttal that conained factual information, I might actually get to use my brain here. ;) Nobody at B.F. would/could ever properly challenge that question, I have my work cut out for me.

Stay tuned,.... I must leave for the day, but I'll be back tommorrow. ;)

[Crion]

That's a rather weak attack, Crion. Pick a better part of the Patriot Act.



If the "court" so decides it, notification is not required. Since that very Constitution you mention specifically lays out that the "courts" are the sole authority that may interpret the Constitution, that part of the Patriot Act does not violate the Constitution. The FBI cannot search someone's house and never tell them on its own; it has to have authorization to do so. If it does, it does.

Go on the potential of being indefinitely held in custody without access to an attorney. That one is much better.

One, the question mark was actually supposed to be an ellipsis, which has its own weird character or something.

Secondly, what the PATRIOT Act does, my dear Chaos, is lower the level of evidence required for a justice to make such a decision. "In cases where absolute secrecy is required" has been lowered to a level of "reasonable cause." In terms of our legal system, that is a huge, immeasurable gulf. "Reasonable cause" is a piece of cake for any half-competent lawyer to sell to a judge, no matter what the charge. Necessity is held to a much higher standard of evidence. That is the primary flaw. Oh, that and the fact that the law here is geared specifically towards espionage activities, while normal search warrants, even when "concealed," are fairly obvious in their execution. This specific action legalized domestic espionage in a very cavalier manner, and a lot of people are very unhappy about this.

Oh, and in the future, try not to be so condescending towards me. I'm a lot more competent than some of your other opponents, and we both know it. I can pick for myself which parts of the legislation I wish to disagree with.

[ChaosZon]

I'll be as condescending as I damn well please, Crion, and I'll have you know I was not intentionally being condescending in any way when I typed that.

So, in the future, if you don't like the way I say something, you're just going to have to deal with it, because I highly doubt that if Raptor didn't change me, if Userfriendly didn't change me, if WinAce and Eru and ATLien didn't change me, that you are going to.

In any case, "reasonable cause" may be a "huge, immeasurable gulf," but so are a lot of warrants. The point here is that warrants still need to be issued, not "the FBI can do whatever it damn well pleases in the name of national security," which is what has been claimed by many. Judges are not senile halfwits. Most of them, anyway.

You're still arguing hypotheticals. "Well, this could happen, and a lot of people are upset about it, so its wrong!" When in fact, any kind of analysis of it shows that what you say could happen couldn't happen and that the way you present it is entirely misleading. The implication here is that the FBI or anyone can circumvent the Fourth Amendment because "reasonable cause" is too vague, but entertain me here and explain the differences between "reasonable cause" and "probable cause," as the Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized.

It is the burden of the authorities to convince a judge that there is "probable" or "reasonable" cause. Now, there is a problem with describing the persons or things to be seized if you have "reasonable cause" but nothing in terms of hard evidence. But to say this ignores the fact that such warrants were issued all the time before the Patriot Act, and continue to be issued today, in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with national security or terrorism.

"Mr. Smith is an intimate acquaintance of Mr. Jones, we have witnesses (or other evidence) placing them together here (or several heres), Mr. Jones is a well-known embezzler (evidence here), we request a warrant to search Mr. Smith's apartment without informing him prior to that search for evidence of Crimes A, B, and C."

Warrants of that kind are issued every day, save for the notification part. Most times, notification of a search warrant is given by the police knocking on your door and telling you to get the hell out of their way. If you're not there, they sit outside your door and wait until you come back, and if you don't after a period of time, they'll go get authorization to bust your door down and go in.

So think I'm being condescending, but your disagreement with that particular part of the Patriot Act is wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/padilla.attorney.access/index.html

Better late than never... sort of... not really. That's what you should be arguing about.

[MacG]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

[ChaosZon]

And? She said the wording was too vague. Its already been appealed.

What's your point? That's the beauty of our court system. She'll get overturned, and your laughable "Hey look at this link a federal judge agrees with me so I'm right" will disappear into the tumbleweed.

[Crion]

I'll be as condescending as I damn well please, Crion, and I'll have you know I was not intentionally being condescending in any way when I typed that.

So, in the future, if you don't like the way I say something, you're just going to have to deal with it, because I highly doubt that if Raptor didn't change me, if Userfriendly didn't change me, if WinAce and Eru and ATLien didn't change me, that you are going to.

If you're going to whine, at least do it after your argument like I did, so I don't have to read it.

In any case, "reasonable cause" may be a "huge, immeasurable gulf," but so are a lot of warrants. The point here is that warrants still need to be issued, not "the FBI can do whatever it damn well pleases in the name of national security," which is what has been claimed by many. Judges are not senile halfwits. Most of them, anyway.

Ever met a judge? I have. I've met a lot of them. They're only too happy to hand out whatever kind of warrant the State wants, provided the prosecutors can provide the barest probable cause. But they do know the law, and they won't intentionally break it by making it a confidential warrant if the State does not meet the requirements it needs to meet to allow for that.

You're still arguing hypotheticals. "Well, this could happen, and a lot of people are upset about it, so its wrong!" When in fact, any kind of analysis of it shows that what you say could happen couldn't happen and that the way you present it is entirely misleading. The implication here is that the FBI or anyone can circumvent the Fourth Amendment because "reasonable cause" is too vague, but entertain me here and explain the differences between "reasonable cause" and "probable cause," as the Fourth Amendment states:

Stop twisting my words. The warrants are issued on probable cause. They were not deemed necessary of secrecy based on that standard until the arrival of the PATRIOT Act. The standard for warrant confidentiality was much, much higher than probable cause five years ago. Besides that little unsupported statement about how any analysis shows that you are right, or at the very least, that I am wrong (and whose analysis, besides your own, was it that came to the conclusion that I am being intentionally misleading?), your entire argument is based on your misconception that the issuing of the warrant and the determination to keep it confidential are made at the same time, thus creating two different types of search warrant: the secret one and the non-secret one. Therefore, you seem to argue, both types of warrants should be held to the standard of probable cause. In reality, the secrecy of the search warrant is a matter decided after the warrant has been issued. They are not bundled. Thus, they do not constitutionally have to be held to that same low standard of probable cause, and traditionally, they have not been.

And I don't feel like waiting around until the FBI and Justice Department start abusing the PATRIOT Act, even if they have the best of intentions, to say that it's wrong. Is it true that, to our knowledge, the PATRIOT Act has not been used to violate the rights of a upper-middle class white? Yes. Does that mean that we should regard this law as an efficient tool of just and constitutional law enforcement until that specific instance? No. Hopefully, I will never have to move out of the hypothetical, just like the analysts at the Department of Defense hope they'll never have to move out of the hypothetical when discussing the possibilities of a nuclear bomb going off in downtown Washington, D.C. Now, since such a bomb has never gone off in downtown D.C., do you contest that it is not possible such a bomb could go off in downtown D.C., because our security is just too good for that to happen, as evidenced by the lack of nuclear detonations in that locale up to this moment? No, you do not. That would be stupid.

It is the burden of the authorities to convince a judge that there is "probable" or "reasonable" cause. Now, there is a problem with describing the persons or things to be seized if you have "reasonable cause" but nothing in terms of hard evidence. But to say this ignores the fact that such warrants were issued all the time before the Patriot Act, and continue to be issued today, in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with national security or terrorism.

You are therefore unaware that most search warrants, the normal kind that can now be made so exquisitely secret, are based off of little more than affidavits that are inadmissible in a court of law?

In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judicial officer will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of these sources:

- a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal goings-on

- an informant who implicates herself as well as the suspect

- an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police

- a victim of a crime related to the search

- a witness to the crime related to the search, or

- another police officer.

None of these can in any way be called "hard evidence."

"Mr. Smith is an intimate acquaintance of Mr. Jones, we have witnesses (or other evidence) placing them together here (or several heres), Mr. Jones is a well-known embezzler (evidence here), we request a warrant to search Mr. Smith's apartment without informing him prior to that search for evidence of Crimes A, B, and C."

"Well-known embezzler?" Besides being laughably inadmissible, especially coming from the mouth of a prosecutor, it is unnecessary for the issuance of a warrant. No hard evidence of a criminal action is necessary, because the reason the warrant is being issued is to get such evidence. Which makes this new classified version of a warrant not really a search warrant in its function. It is merely a license to conduct espionage activities on a specific piece of property.

Warrants of that kind are issued every day, save for the notification part. Most times, notification of a search warrant is given by the police knocking on your door and telling you to get the hell out of their way. If you're not there, they sit outside your door and wait until you come back, and if you don't after a period of time, they'll go get authorization to bust your door down and go in.

So think I'm being condescending, but your disagreement with that particular part of the Patriot Act is wrong.

Additional authorization for entry when the owner of the property is not present is unnecessary. It is merely a way to pass the buck in terms of liability if the cops mess something up during the search. The search of the property can be conducted independent of whether or not the owner is about. Out of common courtesy, though, and the fact that the search will be viewed in a better light at trial if the owner was present during the search, the officers will wait a bit.

My problems with this secrecy do not merely cover the fact that the searching officers are allowed to keep the existence of the warrant from the owner of the property pre-search, but that they are allowed to do so post-search, and cover up the fact that the search ever happened until they wish to do something in court.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/padilla.attorney.access/index.html

Better late than never... sort of... not really. That's what you should be arguing about.

Your link is broken.

Edit: Actually, it seems my computer is just having issues with a lot of sites. Would someone care to PM me the text of that article?

Edit x2: It's working again. We're in the middle of another argument right now. If you want to move on to right to counsel, fine by me. I feel I've proved all I need to on this topic, even if you don't. The point here isn't to convince you of anything; nothing I say on these boards will dissuade you from voting for Bush in November, just as nothing you say will make me change my mind about voting for the opposition candidate. The point, in my view, is the education of the undecided, those still on the fence. And I've pretty much taken care of that, I think.

And? She said the wording was too vague. Its already been appealed.

What's your point? That's the beauty of our court system. She'll get overturned, and your laughable "Hey look at this link a federal judge agrees with me so I'm right" will disappear into the tumbleweed.

Explain to me how having a federal judge agreeing with me on a matter of constitutional law is laughable. Also, explain to me your certainty regarding the outcome of this appeal.

[Adovid]

If there is any way anyone can be influenced and brainwashed in anyway it is the brainwashing that has led to some of your narcasistic attitudes toward bush...

Give me a freaking break here... You people litterally think that Bush is some kind of lunatic. Like he dresses in wemons underwear while worshiping satan when no one is watching.

You make a campeighn led by a now insicure nation(9/11) about insicure information(weapons of mass destruction). Sound like some kind of political plot of world domination...

Maybe bush isn't the perfect president but I am not stupid enough to be influenced by people who are brainwashing society for their politicial purposes. The democratic party has been the minority since 1994 and their disatisfaction with their situation has definately been showing. Maybe if they stopped trying to get power by instigating sentament they wouldn't be in this little fix. Back in the war against Afghanistan Jessie Jackson and other politcal figures were already in the streets screaming about anti war sentament. They have been waiting arround for the perfect time to point the finger once again.

People tend to take them less seriously because of it. The republicans may seem a little more clear headed but Both parties are messed up as far as being single minded IMO . The repuclicans are just as quick as democats to refute any idea brought up by the opposite party and they are getting worse and its taking this country no where fast...

[MacG]

They are bashing Bush with proof and reason, not stupidity and brainwashed slogans.
"It's the Economy, STUPID!"

[Adovid]

I am not talking about mummbling about the presidents economic plans.

I am talking about people who are just about throwing themselves on the ground screaming "Insanity!" and looking and pointing their fingers and screaming "atrocity!". Then going arround saying that Bush might as well have been the one flying the plains in 9/11 and that removing saddam from power was a war crime.

[MacG]

And those people would be?

[Crion]

I am not talking about mummbling about the presidents economic plans.

I am talking about people who are just about throwing themselves on the ground screaming "Insanity!" and looking and pointing their fingers and screaming "atrocity!". Then going arround saying that Bush might as well have been the one flying the plains in 9/11 and that removing saddam from power was a war crime.

Haven't met those folks yet. They certainly don't represent the core of opposition to the President. I base my opposition on his endorsement of a flagrant violation of the Constitution and his insistence on leading the country into a war it didn't need to fight, the singular overriding justification for which just happened to be completely incorrect.

That, my friends, should be an impeachable offense. It demonstrates either willing negligence or gross incompetence on the part of the administration. The administration sent Americans do die because they didn't do their homework. While being indirectly responsible for the needless deaths of five hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis may somehow be nowhere near as bad as committing perjury while testifying to a matter outside the scope of presidential authority, I still think it merits a look.

[frogger]

wow crion, that was alot of stuff.

my opinion on whether Bush betrayed us is that he couldn't really do it. I'm not a real big fan of him, but at the same time the government it set up to move very slowly. This war in Iraq thing has been building up since desert storm, probably earlier. If Gore was elected (whom i didn't particularly like either) i think the war would have happened anyway. Once those huge government wheels start turning, you can't really stop them, short of abolishing the government that is.

[MacG]

I doubt Gore would go after Iraq, when it had nothing to do with Terrorism, if 9/11 happen if he was President, but I won't go in to that in this thread.

[frogger]

i don't think that 9/11 had much to do with the cause for the war on Iraq. I don't no as much about the government as you people seem to, but to me, the 9/11 bombings, were used to make more people support the war on Iraq. I'm not saying that we flew them in the buildings. Just that the government is oppertunistic. We found an oppertunity to get some people pissed at Iraq, which the government had been pissed off about for a long time, and took it. In time i think a war with Iraq was unavoidable. I also think it would have come sooner then later

[Scorch]

If anything, 9/11 only shows what happens when we get complacent. The assinine assumption no-ne will attack is what let our enemies do so. The past two wars we fought have showed the world that the US is still a mighty power to be feared and respected. President Bush didn't betray the states at all. He gave us our will to fight back and brought the true betrayers to light, the cowards who would give us to our enemies for drugs and gay marrige. If homeland security is such a joke, why have no further attacks taken place? They're batting 1000% so far. Pretty good for a joke organization.

[Dark_Magneto]

According to Clarke, Bush asked: was Iraq responsible for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington? Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.

Clarke was skeptical in the extreme. Six days after the president's request, Clarke says, he turned in a classified memo concluding that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11—nor any relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The memo, says Clarke, was buried by an administration that was determined to get Iraq, sooner or later.

- Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/)

[Zaph]

If anything, 9/11 only shows what happens when we get complacent. The assinine assumption no-ne will attack is what let our enemies do so. The past two wars we fought have showed the world that the US is still a mighty power to be feared and respected. President Bush didn't betray the states at all. He gave us our will to fight back and brought the true betrayers to light, the cowards who would give us to our enemies for drugs and gay marrige. If homeland security is such a joke, why have no further attacks taken place? They're batting 1000% so far. Pretty good for a joke organization.
You are partly right in that we must be on guard at all times against possible future attacks. We need to protect our homeland.

What I disagree very strongly with is your saying "Bush didn't betray" which is flat out wrong. He lied about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to 9/11 in order to get enough votes from congress to goto war. He wanted a war with Iraq prior to 9/11. This is well known. To go to war is the most profound decision leadership of a country can make. Thousands of lives were lost and we went so deep into debt that our great grand children will still be paying for it. The national debt is something 521 Billion, according the Bush Administration estimates. Who really know what the true figure is because we can't trust anything they tell us.

Did you know that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq? The Bush family has strong ties to Saudi Arabia. Dubbya has betrayed the entire nation with lies and deceit. It's an election year so he will not admit this now. Reps will do everything in their power to downplay this. They will try to convince everyone that Bush is a hero, a Warrior that put down the terrible dictator. Saddam may have been a sadistic bastard but he was a saint compared to George "Dubbya" Bush.

[Netrunner]

I'm sick of the "surrounded himself with his cronies" he didn't and I think Bush just used the wrong reason for an iraq war, we all knew something had to bring that bastard out of power

[Dark_Magneto]

The national debt is something 521 Billion, according the Bush Administration estimates. Who really know what the true figure is because we can't trust anything they tell us.


The national debt is much, much MUCH higher than a pittley ol' couple hundred billion.

Here's the current national debt at the time of this post:

$7,153,079,855,261.05

The estimated population of the United States is 293,658,639, so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,308.39. It's been increasing on an average of $1.96 billion per day since September 30, 2003

Here's an estimated national debt calculator (http://www.uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html)

[Netrunner]

The national debt is much, much MUCH higher than a pittley ol' couple hundred billion.

Here's the current national debt at the time of this post:

$7,153,079,855,261.05

The estimated population of the United States is 293,658,639, so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,308.39. It's been increasing on an average of $1.96 billion per day since September 30, 2003

Here's an estimated national debt calculator (http://www.uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html)Scary, everyone owes over 24 THOUSAND dollars to the country, we should RAISE TAXES not have the country go bankrupt and have to ask for aid from OTHER countries