Fascism, Special Interests Fluffing, and Non Representative Self Serving Congress are good for America?

" Fear and exaggeration," says Democrat
Sen. Feingold. Let's see, that big hole in
downtown Manhattan is exaggeration?
How about the devastation at the Pentagon? Maybe the USS Cole? All exaggerated. Surely can't happen again! Feingold and the others wanting to limit the U.S. ability to prevent attacks need to learn that Al Queda terrorists don't need Congress' protection, they manage very well on their own. This is not a partisan issue; it is a self preservation issue.

I hope Bush gets the immunities for the phone companies he's looking for. It's hard to help protect America against people that don't see our points of view if you have "mom" telling you that you can't do that, it's illegal. And the people bringing up lawsuits against the phone companies for violation of their privacy should just realize that they are indeed taking being free for granted if they sue the phone company for violation of privacy, even if it is in their legal right and freedom to do so. If the phone companies or government really cared about your conversation, they'd do it the legal way as I'm sure that you wouldn't be committing acts of terrorism and could kill thousands of people. The government or phone companies wouldn't illegally tap a house just because a thug is selling drugs on a street corner, for example. REMEMBER 9/11!!!

(There have been people falsely accused who had to defend themselves against charges and then there are people who claimed to be falsely accused and later revealed that they were middle-eastern American who had been recruited by Osama, realized that when they went over there, they were in a terriost training ground and never told anyone, withholding information that could have protected his/her country even after they asked Osama to leave. Let the government sort it out.)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
---
Terrorism is the use of fear to control a nation. Thomas Jefferson

Checks and Balances are essential. This was written a year or so ago, not by me, but I can't improve upon it.

'Rights too precious to be so easily lost.

It is unbelievable there are “Americans” who are so casual about how the government should be allowed to violate their constitutional rights. How many of our troops throughout history have died or been maimed defending our rights to prevent these very government intrusions?
For the past 2¨ years, our men and women in uniform have been in harm’s way trying to give the Iraqis this same freedom, and we have American citizens who, without a thought, make statements like: “If the government wants to listen to my ....conversations, then I say knock yourself out”. Or “You have nothing to hide if you are not a terrorist...”.
Ask the families in Iraq who have experienced torture, or had relatives killed under Saddam, if a government should be left unchecked? If you want to support our troops, then protect the very rights they are fighting and dying for. Otherwise, you insult every man and woman who has served defending these rights.
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin).'

bush will burn :D

How easily you are willing to throw away your constitutional and legal rights! A terrorist threatens us and bam! throw it all out the window? That is cowardice.

The FISA court allows a legal way to conduct this surveillance, so let the administration use it instead of ripping up the constitution. If we throw away the rights and privileges that make us Americans in the first place, then the terrorists win as surely as if they blow up a building. The building is a means -- the destruction of america is the ends. If we destroy ourselves from fear and cowardice, then they win. Don't you forget it.

The reason I worry about the President's request has nothing to do with his desire to protect Americans. I think we all want to do that.
The problem comes in when we look at the administration's track record for efficiency. The current administration has a long track record of fabricating information (nuclear capabilities in Iraq), bad decisions (Blackwater's big presence in Iraq and their trigger-happy employees), and questionable interpretations of existing law (torture at Gitmo and elsewhere).

The real issue isn't about protecting Americans; the real issue is about the capacity for the administration to apply the law appropriately.

In response to Anonymous "This is not a partisan issue; it is a self preservation issue."

The Twin Towers and the Cole, etc. were terrible criminal events, but the perpetrators were never life threatening to this country. There is a name for people who sacrifice their defining principles because they are afraid...

Be afraid, be terribly afraid. Evil awful hateful monsters are "gonna get you."

How appropriate here it is almost Halloween and ONCE AGAIN Bush is warning us of the Bogyman. It's a one note symphony and after almost 7 years I am sick of it.

BOOOOooo aren't you afraid?

You Republicans can sure talk a good game of bravery but when it comes right down to it you are quite literally afraid of your own shadow!

You only have one answer for everything and that answer is FEAR!!!

Anonymous - when the President was warned of an impending attack in August of 2001, and told that foreigners were in flight schools learning to fly but not land a plane, he did nothing. If Illegally listening to American's phone calls would have prevented the attacks, why didn't he do it then? Why didn't he do anything?

Go away anonymous, your fascist ideals are not welcome here in America.

We value our liberty over a fear induced fake security proposed by your fearless leader in order to give himself more facsist power.

You and your whole ilk need to go crawl back under your ingorant rock from which you emerged after 2000.

You will not hold intellgient discourse with a Conservative defending this administration. All the intelligent conservatives jumped ship over a year ago, and all that remain are the bottom-of-the-barrel religious crusaders, bigots, warmongers, hypocrits and profiteers. They are the 25 percenters.

I wonder if the Left nutroots and 9/11 "troofers" posting above subscribe to the Al Quaeda "Bill of Rights":

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of foreign terrorists to communicate with each other outside the United States.

Amendment II

The right of foreign terrorists to freely plan and coordinate attacks on the United States shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No intelligence officer shall, in time of peace, monitor terrorist communication, without the consent of a court, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by MoveOn.org.

Amendment IV

The right of the terrorists to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against reasonable surveillance to protect American lives, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No foreign terrorist unlawfully waging war against the United States on foreign soil shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all prosecutions of foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits against foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted on foreign terrorists captured on foreign battlefields unlawfully waging war against the United States.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the terrorists.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the terrorists by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to MoveOn.org respectively, or to the New York Times editorial board."

from redstate.com

I think what so many people fail to realize is that, prior to 9/11 and before our liberties were violated in the name of national security, our government had all the information it needed to potentially stop the 9/11 attacks months before they happened. This information was gathered within the constraints that existed at the time and which the administration now deems too restrictive to keep us protected.

CIA director George Tenet in June and July of 2001 repeatedly warned National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice about the seemingly eminent potential for attacks by Al-Qaeda. He was quoted as saying "the entire warning system was blinking red." The President was warned in a briefing about the same. Over and over the warnings were ignored.

There is obviously no guarantee 9/11 could have been prevented, but the information was certainly there and it absolutely was not taken as seriously as it should have been. The problem was not lack of intelligence; it was lack of organization and direction to act on the intelligence.

So, I find the argument absolutely ridiculous that Americans should have to give up the protections afforded them in the Bill of Rights in the name of protection from "evil-doers." The power grab taking place within the administration is a slippery slope and I think it needs to be stopped at all costs or we risk setting up future generations with problems much more dangerous than terrorism.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

-Benjamin Franklin
"Poor Richard's Almanac"
1738

The current administration has a long track record of fabricating information (nuclear capabilities in Iraq),
Posted by: Just a bystander | October 11, 2007 9:18 AM

bystander: Let me refresh your memory, in regards to your revisionist history post.
Just about all European intel. agencies,the Israelis intel, and numerous Arab nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the U.N., and numerous statements by our heroes on the left John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and the fellow who invented the internet Al Gore, also agreeing to the nuclear threat. By the way, these statements were made before Mr. Bush went to the U.N., this was common knowledge in the Clinton administration. Your problem is you think people on this blog are as dumb as you.

Those that would give up any amount of freedom for security deserve neither. I would rather be killed in an attack than allow this destruction of the American way of life and our freedoms. The phone companies that went along with this rape of our rights deserve millions of dollars in damages, and Bush should be kicked out of Washington.

As a child, in college and so far as an adult, I could never comprehend how the citizens of Italy and Germany could so easily support fascists like Mussolini and Hitler -- and simply give away all their freedoms -- when the scapegoat and ultra-nationalistic tactics Mussolini and Hitler used to manipulate the people were so plainly transparent and obvious (or at least they are to us NOW, 70 years later).

But, I completely understand it now. There is not ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE between the mechanisms those dictators used over 70 years ago, and those being used today.

As on track - GOP keeps rolling out the terror issue. Elections are fast approaching and the scare tactics will continue. Bush is the worst leader of in U.S. history. Just goes to show you what a cheerleading, drunk, "C" student is capable of.

I'm glad to see that the anti-Bush crowd (just from sampling here) numbers about 10:1 against Bush.

Franklin was right about liberty; selling liberty for safety is a fool's bargain. Liberty is the only thing that makes America special and worth protecting; it's the "great idea" that we showed the world.

If we ditch it just because we're scared of the "terr'rists" (Bush can't even enunciate, it seems), then we're not Americans after all.

We're just lemmings.

Create a Police State in order to "Preserve Freedom"... Interesting concept..

President Bush will not sign a law that unduly limits his authority to eavesdrop. Power is the ability to do something. Authority is the right to do so.

Does the President have the constitutional authority to eavesdrop? I would think not.

[Posted by: Bruce | October 11, 2007 9:40 AM], Very good quatation!

Bruce (amendment I-X)is an example of a minority of americans who think the Bill of Rights is a nuisance. The type that would salute our flag even if a Swastika started to appear on it.

Back in the cold war days, the Soviet Union sympathy crowd in this country had a saying, "BETTER RED THAN DEAD." I don't know what Al Queda's colors are,
but I see the same logic represented in many of the foregoing comments. The only difference is that the lack of surveillance will not only protect the terrorists' "civil rights," but lead to
Americans being dead as well.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermann Goering

Funny that the Loony Left pulls all these quotes from past historical figures to bolster their case. What is ironic is that these same people take their marching orders from folks and organizations who have made it their mission to turn the U.S. into a socialist/communist state in which the government decides all for the people and the people become dependent on the government.

Our civil rights are special and must be defended. Those civil rights also include not being killed by terrorists. It is the federal government's first and foremost responsibility to protect the citizens of this country.

By the way, Bruce, excellent info you provided on the Terrorists Bill of Rights.

well considering they knew 9/11 was going to happen and were all for it..and it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon..flight 93 was shot down (if it even was 93) and they profited billions from (watch "loose change" or look up some videos on youtube) BUSH IS A CRIMINAL AND DESERVES TO BE TRIED AND CONVICTED!

Re: the terrorist bill of rights, particularly "amendment VI" -- word-swap idiocy aside, THIS is our moral high ground. THIS is what makes us better than the people we're fighting against. If we scrub the Bill of Rights and the Constitution just because some of our citizens die, what remains for the ones who are left?

Some people posting here are horrible American citizens. I've never said it before, but if you have such hatred and disdain for our freedoms, maybe YOU should go to another country. I don't want your cowardice and hatred for American traditions ruining our nation more than you already have.

People who are as cowardly and who hold the pathetic sensibilities of "billy" have done more damage to our nation than terrorists could even WANT to do.

These losers should at a minimum do their patriotic duty and NOT VOTE so as to protect this country from their fear and their desire for fascism.

I think it's ironic. Certain people don't want the government to have anything to do with health care, which directly effects individual's immediate health and safety, because not only is it patently wrong to put the well being of the poor and sick above the financial interests of the medical and insurance industries, but also our government is too inept to do it correctly (though other Western governments seem to do just fine). However, when it comes to the rights and liberties of individual citizens, the government is more than well equipped to properly decide what actions are necessary to take, though they may or may not eventually protect our health and safety. I don't understand how you can say the health and safety of people isn't worth infringing (metaphorically) on commercial rights, but it is worth infringing (literally) on individual's rights. Or how the lives of 3000 people who died in the World Trade Center (though obviously very tragic) are more valuable than the hundreds of thousands who have died at the hands of a broken medical system.

Also, it should be remembered that our laws, which were designed to protect the health and safety while also preserving necessary rights and liberties, did provide information which could have been used to stop the 9/11 attacks. It's amazing how often people forget the Bush administration received a memo which specifically stated, in the title even, that al Qaeda was planning on using planes to attack the WTC. Was the information in the report inadequate to form an appropriate response? No, it was ignored.

John D - You're not as big of an enemy of the state as your comments indicate, are you? You truly hate our nation that much that you slander The Law of the Land? Please do the nation a favor and stay home on election day; people like you have no business ruining our nation.

As the late Ann Richards said of our beloved bungling president - "Poor George - He can't help himself, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." How telling that was - back in 1999. The poor man can't seem to get anything right. The good news is soon he will be back in Crawford, screwing up things there.

quote from above: "The only difference is that the lack of surveillance will not only protect the terrorists' "civil rights," but lead to
Americans being dead as well."

Folks, lets get one thing clear here: there isn't a "lack of surveillance" here in the US - there is and has always been legal ways to go about surveillance. What CheneyBush has done and wants to continue to do is disobey the law. Basically what he's saying is that as president, he's above the law.

You neocons posting here HAVE to ask yourself: is this REALLY the kind of leadership you signed on for? An unintelligent cowboy who thinks he's above the law and that this is the wild west? If so, you're free to leave - America is not the place for you.

Bruce and John D, you both have way too much time on your hands. I suggest you use your time more judiciously and realize the real aims of Bush's need for unlimited and unchallenged power. Your rights are under attack as well, but if you want to trade them in because you are gullible and afraid, more power to you. I for one fear the abuses of power in this country more than these "big bad wolves" in far off evil lands.

Bush and Cheney are evil! they don't care about the American people. The Bush admin. has done nothing to protect us. We are more likely to be attacked under a republican admin. than a democrat one.

Tim's right! Bush is the real terrorist here, not Bin Laden! Bush created the hatred that these other countries have for us.

To protect us by taking away our liberties is letting the terrorists win believe it or not. If they are smart enough to supposedly cause havoc on sept 11 then they would have the intelligence to know that liberties, which make us American, would be lost thus making us less "free" and more like them in regards to Muslim fundamentalisms rights. Both Muslims and this administration gain from the removal of liberties in this country and we as Americans are too dumb to see it. The administration gains more power and the right to invade countries and why wouldn't terrorist want to fight Americans on their own soil? It seems as though by them attacking us, we have made it easier for them to kill Americans on their soil. Bush would rather have the terrorists killing poor soldiers instead of killing on middle and upper class American civilians. So Is there a way to protect Americans without letting the terrorists "win"?

I don't take my freedoms for granted, that's why I care so much when even the slightest is take away. History has shown us that more freedom has to be fought for when the opposite (tyranny) is enacted when we do nothing.

Wars on foreign soil are pointless... the one question I have for all neocons who support the war is: How do you defend against someone who blows themselves up??

Sadly, BushCo's track record of lies and abuses may have already harmed America. This fact should preclude Bush/Cheney/Incompetents from being given more "flexibility", and more liberties with our liberty. I trust the courts- now- more than I trust Bush. We should revist this once a new administration is in office. For now, just get more judges in the special 24/7 courts, and let them look at, and weigh the facts, then expedite warrants as needed. When I read that Bush "demands" anything- I shake my head and wonder if he has any idea just how little respect he carries.

Dan, if you don't know the meaning of the word, "neocon," don't use it. Look it up.
It means a "new conservative," basically
a former liberal now espousing conservative views. Ever hear of a
neo-lib, a new liberal? A former conservative turned liberal? Never happens. Insofar as cowboys are concerned, the cowboys were hard working good guys fighting the bad guys.
I'm happy to be a "cowboy."

How is it possible people cannot see the agenda? Cheney is the dummy`s string puller - building 7 proves the lengths to which he will go. It ain`t over yet folks.

I find it incredibly sad that out of all these comments, only a handful are constructive or insightful. It is terrifying to me that people are so enamored with one ideology of liberalism or conservatism that they have been blinded into being unable to see that there is no meaningful difference between Republican and Democrat any longer.

The truth of the matter is that, yes, we need adequate security measures and surveillance to prevent further attacks on the USA, however the laws and regulations regarding FISA are satisfactory. At issue here is the legal protection of government-aiding corporations, which I see as having no benefit to the average US citizen. I don't see how protecting a corporate CEO from litigiation makes our nation safer from terrorists.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

" It is the federal government's first and foremost responsibility to protect the citizens of this country."

No John D, it is not. The founders were extremely clear on what the first responsiblity of memebers of the Federal government is. That thought it was so important that they wrote specific words that the President of the United States would have to recite upon taking office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Preserve protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States.

The Federal Government's first and foremost duty is to protect our liberties and our form of government as enshrined in the Constitution. Bush is failing in that duty.

How many times can this president lie to the American people before we wake up and realize we are being lied to. Sure we all want to be "safe" but what has this administration done to keep us safe? Bush ignored the warnings before 9/11, he botched every attempt to catch Osama (now he says Osama doesn't matter), he invaded Iraq based on intel that his people simply made up to justify the invasion, he screwed up the war so badly that we almost surely will never leave with anything resembling a victory, he estimated the cost of the war at $50 billion yet today congress is arguing a $200 billion war funding bill that only pays for less than a year of the war, he lied about domestic survelance, his attorney general lied about everything, etc. etc. So now we are still wondering about whether he is telling the truth about his need for a domestic spying program, come on. The expression fool me once shame on you, fool me twice (how about a hundred times) shame on me.

Our right to privacy and the obligation of the government to obtain a warrent prior to violating that right is one of the founding principles of America. If we give it up to "fight terrorism" then they have already won. If we need to give up the basic principles that this country was founded on to keep our people safe, then we are keeping them safe by putting them all in a country they wouldn't want to live in.

"AS HOMELAND SECURITY TAKES OVER AMERICA" BUSH SPEAKS"

JUST GIVE ME MY IMMUNITY.
JUST GIVE AT&T AND GERMAN COMPANY OWNED VERIZON WIRELESS IMMUNITY FROM BREAKING THE LAW OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS!

No just give all of them the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and ALBERTO GONZALES attorneys name and number.

CASE CLOSED!

King George is at it again, and his neocon serfs rejoice.

Don B. wrote: "Just about all European intel. agencies,the Israelis intel, and numerous Arab nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the U.N., and numerous statements by our heroes on the left John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and the fellow who invented the internet Al Gore, also agreeing to the nuclear threat."

Just about all intel agencies depended on the bulk of their information from the US intel agencies controlled and cherry picked by the administration.

Most other independent entities -- including the UN weapons inspectors who were bullied out from Iraq before their work was concluded, and the IAEA -- disagreed with US intel. You can't hide a wolf amongst the sheep. History will not be revised but stated as seen from independent perspective.

Insofar as cowboys are concerned, the cowboys were hard working good guys fighting the bad guys.
I'm happy to be a "cowboy."

Posted by: Ben | October 11, 2007 1:16 PM

Who were the bad guys Ben? The Native Americans who were trying to defend their land, their way of life, and their very existance?

Ben, It is Bush's cowboy policies that have gotten us into the trouble we have. We did'nt have these issues before the Bush-Cheney machine rolled roughshod all over the constitution! REPUBLICANS SUCK!!

Comments by Franklin and Jefferson are irrelvant because the historical context is different. The current lot of terrorists believe their acts are divinely blessed - they'll go to Paradise by killing "unbelievers" (read Westerners). These are people who'll cut your throat while singing the praises of Allah. The fact that our Supreme court yesterday told the German muslim "too bad" about his abduction shows at least SOME people take the threat seriously. And I have to ask the question - what is any law-abiding American doing making international phone calls to suspected terrorists in the first place? Or is that an ugly fact you professional bleeding hearts just want to sweep under the rug?

The only way to be truly effective in dealing with the terrorist threat - whether it be islamic, drug-related, whatever - is to employ the methods the Roman legions successfully employed two millenia ago - complete, total and absolute annihilation.

Posted by: Siegfried | October 11, 2007 3:40 PM

Exhibit #1 to show the fascism that lurks at the edges of today's Republican Party.

Seigfried, if you really believe the crap you just said, there's little hope for you. Bush is a bigger hatemonger than anyone! do you think he'll stop at surveillance? no, just wait till him and his co-douchbag Cheney get through with you civil liberties! You are not very smart.

If it is true that there is still a three week lag time at the FBI for translating recordings and written documents from Farsi or Arabic into English, then can someone tell me what the hurry is to wiretap someone without a warrant?

Anonymous and AJF: Typical bleeding heart response - another unsuccessful use of the old high school debater's trick of personally attacking the person making the argument than rebutting the argument itself. Sorry guys - didn't work back in high school and it doesn't work now.

So long as we treat the terorist threat - whether islamic, narco-related, whatever - as a criminal law problem rather than a true war against an enemy who deserves no quarter, we are ultimately doomed. Why? Because the enemy will use our own legal system against us and find plenty of "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) who will assist and support them.

Good point VF. The FISA court is always available and the warrants can be issued a day or two after surveillance starts, if necessary. Do you think the problem is that the administration would rather not leave an incriminating paper trail or is it simply that the administration personnel are not competent to do their jobs and fill out the FISA paperwork for the warrants.

Seigfreid-

A call to Genocide is an arguement that rebuts itself.

Mass slaughter won't solve either the war on terror or the war on drugs. It will however make this nation a empire based on oppression like the Romans you so admire.

The real reason for the wiretapping has more to do with self-preservation of Bush and Cheney. They know they did something wrong and paranoia is eating at their very souls. Their remedy is to pass laws to make certain that no one else knows what they did, so eavesdrop on anyone who is a threat to them and their friends, not necessarily to the American people. 9/11 - they knew about it and allowed it to happen. Eventually, the truth will be revealed.

Siegfried,

Your clever plan to follow the Roman example sounds great. So do you suggest we completely depopulate the middle east, following the Roman's example with the Carthaginians? They killed men, women, and children and burned Carthage to the ground. Is genocide what you are proposing?

Or do you favor a gentler approach like the one the Romans took with the Chistians? Stuff like whipping, stoning, dismembering, lion feeding, and crucifiction?

Are we ultimately doomed? We are if we plan to follow the example of the Romans...