amul | thoughts on the wiretapping thing

I've been spending most of the day reading up on the wiretapping thing. As near as I can tell, and this is after about five solid hours of reading news articles and interviews, the argument goes something like this:

The Law: You cannot wiretap a US citizen without a written court order.

Nixon: Well, that's only for the FBI. I hereby empower a new branch of government to do the exact same thing as the old branches, but without all those messy legal complications.

The Law: Nice try, but you still can't tap a citizen's phone without an expressly written warrant stating who, why, when, and for how long.

Reagan: Well, what if I try to buy you off?

The Law: Then I'm just going to have to nominate a subcommittee to watch both of us and make sure we don't become corrupt.

Clinton: But it'd be really nice if we could.

The Law: See, there's this little thing called "due process." We kind of founded an entire country based on the fact that we didn't have it before.

George W: Fuck that noise. I'm just going to write a law that says I can.

The Law: You can't do that. You're not the Legislative Branch.

George W: ....and then I'm going to create another FBI-like group to watch over the FBI and the NSA and do all the things that my shiny new law lets them do.

The Law: No, you don't understand. You can't do that. That's an impeachable offense. It says so, right here.

George W: Nonsense, you get impeached for blowjobs, not crimes against the country. Hey, guys, look! I made a law!

Telecoms: Ooooooh. Pretty.

Pardon me if that version seems a little biased to you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

yeah, that about sums it up.

Pretty darn close, yeah.

You forgot the part where 'The Law' says "unless you ask us nicely afterwards, and we say it's ok" in the first bit.

And Carter, etc.

Uh, really? That did not come up in my exploration yesterday.

Yeah. The FISA law specifically allows for retroactive warrants.

Y'know, the Democrats couldn't *ask* for a better opportunity to get rid of Bush. He's now been caught lying (Iraq), fucking up severely (Katrina), and breaking the law (domestic spying). The fact that nothing is likely to happen to Bush speaks volumes about what a charade the two-party system is. And people wonder why I don't vote.

Yeah, but the Republicans have the entire governmental process whipped. That was the whole point of the Clinton scandals, to show Dems just how vicious they're willing to fight. What have the Dems done in response, "Oh, we'll filibuster!"

Please. It's pathetic.

There's a great line in one of the early seasons of West Wing: "Because I'm tired of being part of a party that cowers in the corner and says, 'Please don't hurt us.' I want to fight."

In my opinion, it's not the Democrats are weak or whipped, it's that in fact for the most part they really have same ruling class interests as the Republicans. Look how many of them supported the Iraq war and Patriot Act in the first place. They're not losing out much -- their sons and daughters aren't being killed in Iraq, they get their corp kickbacks from the war economy, and they also get the same job security that the current police state/NSA spying provides (keeping dissidents in line).

Y'know, the Democrats couldn't *ask* for a better opportunity to get rid of Bush. He's now been caught lying (Iraq),

False. It's been confirmed that Iraqi WMD's were moved to Syria before the invasion.

fucking up severely (Katrina),

False. He offered aid several days prior to the hurricane's impact and was flat-out refused by Governor Blanco.

and breaking the law (domestic spying).

Currently under investigation, the facts are not yet clear. It appears that you may have this one but it's not time to call yet.

The fact that nothing is likely to happen to Bush speaks volumes about what a charade the two-party system is. And people wonder why I don't vote.

Well, it certainly is a charade. We have the Party of Stupid Idiots and the Party of Stupid Jerks.

When it comes down to a world in which people are trying to kill us, I'd rather have the Party of Stupidly Killing All The People Who Are Trying To Kill Us rather than the Party of Stupidly Trying To Figure Out Why They Want To Kill Us So We Can Give Them What They Want (It's to KILL US, moron).

And that's the problem with this country, isn;t it? the only people voting are the ones putting jerks like Bush in power IN THE FIRSTPLACE. So what I suggest you and everyone else that is complaining about the current state of the country do is register to vote AND THEN ACTUALLY DO IT. You're not allowed to complain unless you actually physically voted. Otherwise, STFU.

And people in this country wonder why I hate other people in this country...

hrm. Been there, tried that. Got involved further. Still didn't make a difference.

This country isn't a democracy any longer. The idea that we have a say in government is a myth.

Well if we all collectively give up (which it appears we have) then the people have failed the country and we have nothing to complain about. But if we rise up together and make our voices hears, changes can...and will be made.

Call me idealistic or stupid. Both are probably pretty accurate. But I beleive this can happen but we have to do something no one in this country seems to want to do. And that is work together.

Big words from someone who posts anonymously.

The underlying problem of what we're discussing is that in addition to robbing the people of a voice, politicians, particularly the religious right lobbyists, have convinced us that there is no power in being a consumer, that we are too fractured, and those working to effect change prove them right by allowing petty disagreements in philsophy get in the way of developing a power base.

They tell us we cannot organize effectively, and we prove them right.

And there you hit it on the head exactly. Too many people beleive what they hear and the net effect is complacency to the way things are as opposed to what they should or could be. I wish i knew of an effective way to get people to collectively stand as one and oust those in power who prey upon them and the very country they have sworn to protect. But alas, I am not that smart. But I will not give up my voice, even if it is rendered moot by those around me that beleive differently.

Fact is the Republicans like to keep thier voting public stupid. It's why they continually slash funding for schools. They then prey on thier fears because they are too ignorant to think for themselves. Note, I chose the word ignorant which means uneducated. To use the word "stupid" would signify that they WANTED to be kept that way and that isn;t necessarily the case. Though I'm sure there are some peole that would fal into that category as well. but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm waiting for that one day when the people of this country remember what freedom is and decide to take the power back from those who have collectively seized it from us. I pray it isn't until we have lost all power completely and have to resort to some form of revolution to invoke those changes which are supposed to be guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

It's in the nature of humans to believe what they hear. The problem, or rather, the diffeence between now and the oil crisis of the 70s, is one of decentralization, not politicians.

In the 70s, citizens got their news and organized through three venues: Television, news radio, and newspapers. The newspapers were in collusion with the radio, and the TV reporters were friends with both of the other sets. What's more, their was a spirit of investigative journalism. Problems were reported and discussed.

By contrast, most people these days get their news from either lobbyist organizations masquerading as news programs, or blogs. We're too decentralized. Efforts to create National No Buy days, the most effective demonstration of consumer power, is hampered by the fact that we can't reach all of America.

I have a hard time imagining an era when the majority of our leaders were legitimately concerned more with good governance than their own fortunes, but the history books insist is was so.

Jon Stewart said something that really hit home for me, in that Daily Show bit that's going around. Alexander Hamiliton once challenged a man to a duel over matters of honor and governance. By contrast, our leaders accidentally shoot each other while hunting quailtards & hanging out with lobbyists.

As for the rest of your comment, it's no good setting up a soapbox on my LJ. I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't already agree with you.

Touche and a good pooint at that. I take my exit, sir...

thoughts on the wiretapping thing

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject