Being thankful for small favors
Bookworm on Aug 14 2006 at 10:38 am | Filed under: Silly Stuff
From Jay Leno, via Townhall:
“British authorities said they were able to detect the terrorist plot using a surveillance program that the “New York Times” hadn’t got around to exposing yet.”
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “Being thankful for small favors”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
that’s because the all of the methods that were used were LEGAL and constitutional and employed well-established warranting procedure priot to their efforts.
read more:
“One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot. The government usually averages a few dozen a week for all counterintelligence investigations, according to federal statistics.
The purpose of the recent warrants included monitoring telephone calls that some of the London suspects made to the United States, two sources said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053_2.html
–in short, the already-established methods WORKED. without the need to employ any extra-constitutional methods which further erode the rights of citizens.
peace
Uh… dagon… we don’t KNOW what the sources of information were. They haven’t been exposed.
What has been released to the public is what has been cleared to be released. Those were things that have already been compromised by the NYT.
They still have an ace up their sleeves, and you and I do NOT know what it is.
Dagon–you are aware that Leno was making a joke, aren’t you?
uh, yeah trish.
but i also am fully aware of the point that bw was trying to make by posting it; hence my response.
peace
The police powers of Britain are legal, while the far less intrusive things in America are illegal. It’s a weird world view to say the least.
Some people have no sense of humor.
sorry z,
i’ve got a great sense of humor. show me something funny. although i doubt that you can do better than this gem:
[At a black-tie dinner for journalists, Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members of his administration.
One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said.
And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"]
–now that one’s a laugh riot, don’t you think?
peace
I got it, dagon, and I responded to your comment.
You did not respond to mine.
Please check comment #2 and tell me what you think.
mamapajamas
there’s nothing to respond to really. all indications from the brits state that these arrests were derived from methods well within the letter of the law. there appears to be no equivalency to the bush admin’s clandestine circumvention of FISA which hersh (rightfully) disclosed to the american people.
people
But, dear dagon, my comment wasn’t directed at you.
read it here first bookworm
federal judge tells bush where to stick his illegal wiretapping program of american citizens:
[Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH
AP
DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L6862339D
peace
Dagon, the judge is a Carter appointee, and exemplifies everything I hate about liberal judges. And, in case you’re interested, I began hating liberal judges before I crossed my own personal Rubicon from liberal to conservative myself. Without exception, appearing before those judges is a Kafka-esque nightmare, where the judge appears to believe that his or her black robe, like a priest’s vestments, gives the judge a direct line to some perfect justice unfettered by constitution, case law or statutory authority. I can state with absolute certainty that, in my almost twenty year career, I’ve never had a liberal judge who made a good decision or a conservative judge who made a bad one. And as I said, I would have made that statement, albeit with liberal guilt, with just as much certainty before my political conversion.
I have no doubt that this decision will be overruled by the 6th Circuit and no doubt that the Supreme Court will affirm the 6th Circuit’s decision.
there’s nothing to respond to really. all indications from the brits state that these arrests were derived from methods well within the letter of the law. there appears to be no equivalency to the bush admin’s clandestine circumvention of FISA which hersh (rightfully) disclosed to the american people.
Just a little contrast and compare, but here’s what Dagon said to me before (scroll past to near bottom).
But before that, this should settle more firmly into people’s minds just what some libertarians and all fake liberals mean by “illegal” when it comes to civil rights violations and government programs. Unlike true caretakers of human rights, they don’t care about the actual status of the downtrodden, what they care is whether things done can be justified and their consciences eased.
Some are just ignorant, true, but most are not. So long as secret police powers are “within the letter of the law”, I do not believe fake liberals will have much problems with it. It’s a neat and tidy solution for crusading moralists that do not truly want to upset the status quo. Others here have disagreed with me about what Democrats would do in the war on terror. I said that all they needed was a pretext, a justification, to destroy the Arabs with nuclear fire, and that the Democrats are clever and ruthless enough to sacrifice a few Marine units to get that pretext. Legality is just another pretext, and not only are the Democrats willing to go to Truman like lengths in the foreign policy field, but they are also willing to go to such lengths here in America, in terms of police powers. Do you not find it incongrunous, Bookworm room readers, that the Left, fake liberals and Democrats, spout off about protecting civil liberties so much while at the same time arguing that terrorism should be fought with police powers? What kind of police powers do you think they’ll use? Waco like police powers perhaps?
Judges have done more to upset the careful construction of the Constitution than any other branch, ever since the slavery days. They were made to be the weakest branch precisely because they should not have the power to change the Constitution. This soft power of arbitration in court cases began translating into national policy when judges ruled on freed slavery cases. The judges were not meant to be represent the will of the people, nor were they meant to change the Constitution which did represent the best interests of the people. Few people I think understand the dangers of the Judicial branch, in these times. They are too mesmerized by the instant power and soft power acceptance from a victory in court. That can have a dangerous affect on large groups of people, if not contained and restricted.
terrific, now i know exactly what kind of crack you are smoking and can feel comfortable putting you on permanent ignore.
i’m not a democrat btw, i lean more to the libertarian left. - dagon
Like most fake liberals, they cannot keep a promise, they have no honor, and they have no conception of true loyalty to human rights.
A party is only as good as the people in it, the libertarians do not exactly have the best and the brightest at the moment.
ymarsakar
“Dagon partisan likeship.”
elaborate please.
Dagon also said that, in reply to me.
I guess I should have waited until Dagon elaborated on his confusion for me when he wrote this.
i’m always a jerk. it’s kind of my style. doesn’t make me wrong. it just rattles would-be svengalis like yourself when you find that you have nothing to contribute.
Given a master of division, would he not be interested in the partisanship divide, eh?
As many times as fake liberals and Democrats and other people calling themselves by other names, seem to claim that they believe power comes from the people, they do not truly act as if that is true. They act as if power comes from themselves. Dagon here, seeks to please himself rather than focus on where the power is. That power rests within the people on this forum, since the ability to convince the people will allow a person to draw the power of the people to make use of it constructively. Relying upon personal power or the power to manipulate others for your own ends, is limited. Dagon doesn’t attempt to convince anyone, much like me. The differences are I believe rather large however. While I don’t attempt to convince people because I believe people can make up their own minds, except in specific cases, Dagon is different. Dagon doesn’t bother convincing people because he feels there is no need to convince anyone.
And thus is the consequences to the Democrat party and the Libertarian party as well. The excuse not to convince people, has longer term consequences than just the personal satisfaction of “not being wrong while being a jerk”.
In a way, I’d like for people to be convinced, but coercion and shock is only a temporary means to do that. While convenient and perhaps necessary against the enemy, it is of limited endurance. True power comes from honest convictions, and such a strong conviction only occurs when the person believes that he himself derived his conclusions. The better a person knows himself and the more fervently he believes in a cause, the more power that he can apply in the world. You cannot force someone to believe in the US Constitution, the power derived from such belief is orders of magnitude less than true belief in the US Constitution.
A lot of Democrats and Americans and Hollywood act like they can somehow make a deal and be loved by the world, for their own various self-interests. Is that true love? I think not, bought love perhaps.
How do you get the Iraqis to love America? Where does real respect come from and how do you get it? These are the secrets derived from wisdom that fake liberals do not have access to. THat is why giving them the power of the US, as was when Clinton had that power, produces some very bad future incidents.
Intelligence does not matter, because it is only a potential not an actuality, and it is not earned in the least. Wisdom, is the real deal, because it is the practical application of kinetic energy, in the real world, without the fuzziness of theory.
So in conclusion, Dagon’s belief that the NSA taps are illegal while Britain’s secret police powers are legal, is a fiction. It is a fiction written on paper, legal paper, which is worth as much as the bribe charge for a judge. Does it have any relation to real practical wisdom in how to go about fighting the war on terror and protecting civil rights? Not in the least.
I lay things out in an orderly fashion so that people like mama, danny, and others can take it and use it to form their own perspectives. Combat is for personal improvement, when I seek to surpass inner or outer limitations, of myself or others. Subtleness is solely for the benefit of others. This is something I do not believe the vast majority of the Left has learned, perhaps it is something they do not want to learn.
I made the above without reading Book’s reply to Dagon, FYI.
Book is a lawyer, she knows the frailty of the judicial branch, or at least she should. It was wise not to allow judges too much power. We saw the end result in the beginning before the Civil War, in which judges attempted to solve slavery, often to the benefit of those who were unjust. Justices siding with the unjust, part of human nature, and therefore part of the limitations of power confered by government under the Constitution.
Judges cannot enforce anything, they couldn’t even if they had access to the power. It was designed to be this way. An unelected position for life is an aristocratic position, that if given powers of enforcement and punishment would be called an oliarchy, rule by nobles. Historically, rule by king was favorable to rule by nobles. You trade a bunch of sadistic teenagers in turn for one shot at the craps table. One dice, one chance, for however good or bad a monarch. With houses full of nobles in control, an oligarchy, you’ll always have constant warfare and disunity. One house attacking the other, making everyone miserable as was during the 30 years war in Europe.
With unity comes a decrease in discord. I don’t think a lot of people know this, but Jefferson wasn’t around when the beginning of the Constitution was written. The idea of balanced powers was a politician’s idea, I believe Madison’s. Jefferson, being a lawyer, in my view would have a curious contribution to the balance of powers. Unfortunately they didn’t get into his contribution. The Executive Branch was setup in large part by George Washington himself. He was the leader during the Revolution, he knew what it meant for a leader to have clear lines of command, authority, and resources. His vision of the Executive branch has served this country well for two centuries. The Colonies almost didn’t make it because of the bickering between Washington and Philadelphia.
People have to realize that laws did not make this country, wisdom, practicality, and common sense did, along with a lot of sacrifice and bloodshed. What a Revolutionary Order needs to maintain a government is law, but it was not law that created the unity of government. So what we have is basically the wisdom of George Washington as represented in the Executive Branch, facing off against the theoretical theologians on the Left that focuses on legality.
Did laws win the Revolutionary War and allow Washington to lead this country away from division to true Union? Or did Washington and Executive leadership lead this country away from division to true Union and prosperity?
Every person has to decide for himself which path he will tread. The intellectual’s path of self-righteous conviction, or the modest nature of Washington’s wisdom born from life and experience, war and peace.
Some have tread both, some have seen their self-conviction wither and die, only to be transformed into something greater and stronger later in life as they corrected their earlier mistakes. It is no shame to be wrong, but it is a shame to waste good potential on worthless avenues of pursuit, however.
We hear Bookworm’s protestations against liberal judges, but I ask that people look at the bigger picture and not stop just with those judges that you disagree with. Look into the true nature of judges, judging, and the balance of powers, and then square that with what Dagon advocates.
well book,
you have ‘no doubt’ about a lot of things and in just my short time coming here you’ve been WAAY off base a number of times. so i guess, your prognostications aside, we’ll both just have to wait and see if more judges rule the same way or if it gets overturned.
peace