WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-12 20:11:57 +0000

While perhaps most terrorists have 'shit for brains', the successful ones are quite intelligent. Al Qaeda hasn't used phones for years, which is part of the reason the illegal wire-taps make no sense; there is no evidence that taps have helped in any regard.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-13 00:59:04 +0000

so now that we both agree its a stupid subject to talk about, why dont we move on and talk anout something else?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-13 02:26:07 +0000

Because Bush clearly broke the law. He should be removed from office. The fact that Bush and Dick "The Sniper" Cheney don't recognize this makes it even more obvious we need new executive leadership. Agreed?

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 14:07:51 +0000

The failures preceding Sept. 11, 2001 were not for a lack of signals intelligence. I refer everyone again to the fine report by the 9/11 Commision. al-Qaeda has been aware of the US's ability to intercept and collect many different forms of electronic communications. al-Qaeda is also aware of the US's inability to process that information. There was an FBI informant living with two of the hijackers in San Diego, said hijackers were taking flight licenses, we knew of the intent of terrorists to fly plans into buildings, yet we were not able to put two and two together? The _other_ danger of the NSA wiretapping program is that it swamps our currently overwhelmed analysis capabilities with more noise. Let's stop the blather about how unwarranted snooping of Americans is making us safer, so critics should shut their holes. Instead, let's discuss how this presidency has continued to fail the citizenry in preparing for and responding to the dangers of the 21st century. It's never a good idea to quell discussion. If we only had more of it, we'd be safer. I gnash my teeth every time members of the so-called liberal media let these sorts of false assumptions (more intelligence makes us safer, no one could have predicted the levees would break, Islamic fundamentalists hate us for who we are) float along, unchallenged.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-13 14:11:36 +0000

I don't know if I'd rather sneer or snore... Right now I'm leaning towards snoring...

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 15:05:03 +0000

Shutting down discussion, right, that's what your first post was about. Sorry to waste time here.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-13 15:19:42 +0000

More a reponse to DB's post than yrs, tgl. my apologies. Im trying to get a discussion going on whether ANY wiretap is efficacious, and I get hand-waving jokes about Cheney's prowess with a shotgun. I would think taxpayers would be upset when they have 8 senators on Meet tHe Press over discussing an issue that will ultimately not result in preventing further episodes of terrorism. I don't think its wrong that this disgusts me so much that I'm crying out for a paradigm shift. When I get more of the same partyline debate (whether it be left or right) from people, my eyes start to glaze over...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-02-13 15:28:00 +0000

If I'm reading your latest response correctly, NP, you essentially agree that wiretapping will not stamp out terrorism and are frustrated that the Senate is not focussing more on discussing techniques/approaches/ideas which actually have a fighting chance of doing so. Am I right? I also think that you must agree that "unauthorised" (or whatever you want to call it - illegal, unconstitutional) wiretapping is wrong and so therefore it is in fact valid to argue that the Executive Branch should not have engaged in this activity. Am I right there, because I am sort of putting words in your mouth...? If I am right, I believe that you agree with the others posting in this thread, but you: a.) find the party-politics game evasive of the real issues (I agree) and b.) wish that the government in general would get a freaking move on and do something meaningful toward making America safer (I agree) So... we're all back to being friends, right? ...right?

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 15:32:39 +0000

Well, your reply was to my comment, not db's, so it was confusing. While I dispute that wiretapping is a cure-all for defending against terrorists and it's misleading to think we'll be safer if only the NSA could wiretap at will, I think no wiretapping is not great idea either. Please find me a partisan Democrat who is adovocating the end of wiretapping. I can't find one. Who is hand-waving now? The debate isn't about whether or not wiretapping is a needed tool --everyone agrees it is--- it's whether the administration has broken laws using the tool. It has.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-02-13 15:33:27 +0000

P.S. Is anyone following the huge uproar over here regarding the Danish cartoons? Big protest here on Saturday in the main square, I'm happy to elaborate if anyone's interested - it was kind of funny, kind of sad.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 15:37:15 +0000

Yeah.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-02-13 15:40:27 +0000

Cool, wasn't sure if the reports of this past weekend's protests in London & Amsterdam (amongst other places) had reached y'all. It's a pretty big deal here, some folks feel as if it's escalating rather than calming down. Cities with large Muslim populations (read: all major cities) are feeling the heat, so to speak. I hadn't seen anyone post on that thread for a while, so I wasn't sure if the story still had legs in the US.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 15:41:53 +0000

Actually, I don't know who protested on Saturday: Islamists or Danes?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-13 15:42:20 +0000

---If I'm reading your latest response correctly, NP, you essentially agree that wiretapping will not stamp out terrorism and are frustrated that the Senate is not focusing more on discussing techniques/approaches/ideas which actually have a fighting chance of doing so. Am I right?--- Absolutely, yes. ---I also think that you must agree that "unauthorised" (or whatever you want to call it - illegal, unconstitutional) wiretapping is wrong and so therefore it is in fact valid to argue that the Executive Branch should not have engaged in this activity. Am I right there, because I am sort of putting words in your mouth...?--- I don't know. I'm not a legal expert and it is definitely a grey area. Most people were okay with Roosevelt's surveillance in WWII. the images of people flying planes into our buildings are burned in my brain. If this makes me a shortsighted, uncaring, insensitive rube, I apologize. I think its narcissistic for an average American to think that the USA is going to care much about what you are reading or who/what you are talking to on the phone. ---a.) find the party-politics game evasive of the real issues (I agree)--- yes, right on. ---b.) wish that the government in general would get a freaking move on and do something meaningful toward making America safer (I agree)--- yes, DOUBLE right on. ---So... we're all back to being friends, right? ...right?--- Absolutely, and thanks for clarifying this point on RSN. We are all friends first. This thread definitely has me on the offensive, but after 1.5 months of heating about this non-stop, I'm ready for something besides this in our political discussions. Having said that, I will practice what I preach and move on. No personal attacks meant, just a large peeve that I have now gotten off my chest.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-02-13 15:45:27 +0000

big hug I admit that I adore FDR (still my favorite President ever) and hate Bush Jr., and further admit that this affects my opinions regarding their respective "indiscretions". And you ain't no rube.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-02-13 15:51:58 +0000

Danes protest? Bah! Only if we tried to take away their porn. :-) The protests were billed as "peaceful" protests, conceived to show people that the vast majority of the Muslim population were both: 1. Peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love their country (be that the Netherlands or the UK, or wherever) and who wish to contribute to their country as responsible citizens and members of the community at large. 2. Religious people who must follow their prophet's teachings - that includes speaking up when he is ridiculed, as they feel he has been, and in turn they feel that their whole faith has been made a mockery. Unfortunately, groups of 12-to-18-year-old boys disrupted both peaceful protests (London & Amsterdam being the only 2 I've read about), but were quickly run off and/or arrested by the many cops in attendance. In Amsterdam, at least, the crowd of boys (about 50 of them) were held off partly by the peaceful protestors (about 300) together with the cops. One boy, age 14, smashed a shop window and was promptly arrested. He immediately burst into tears, according to the Dutch equivalent of the Times. The most idiotic thing? The shop which was smashed is one which I'm familiar with, and the owner and all of his staff are Muslim. Dumb kid.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 16:40:25 +0000

Ah, well, there's a difference between talking about it for 1.5 months and actually resolving the issues at hand. Some of us view this as if a bunch of firefighters were standing around talking about how our shed is on fire. Granted, it's not the house, but if they took action, we need not be worried about the house. --- The FISA law Congress passed in 1978 specifically covers this sort of surveillance. I see no gray area. If the Bush administration had a problem with the FISA law, why did they not ask Congress to change the requirements instead of purposely ignoring them? Oct. 2001 was a fairly ripe time for the administration to get anything they wanted from Congress. The administration admittedly ignored the FISA law. That is not negotiable, they say as much. Does the president have the ability to do anything he wants in war time? Maybe that's the gray area you mean; I disagree. America entered and ended WWII in less time since the "the world changed" on Sept. 11th. In fact, we've been at odds with al-Qaeda for far longer, the first WTC bombing was in 1993! Does this pass the partisan sniff test: If Clinton had engaged in this sort of surveillance then, I guarantee that Republicans would have balked. It's not about narcissism. Republican blockage of government managed healthcare is in part due to the collection of personal information by the government. I don't see how this is different. I doubt the NSA is just hitting 'delete' when it comes across emails or phone calls with no connection to terrorism. Government can't be trusted with our money, but it can be trusted with our personal correspondence. I think I got it. ;) I agree that the executive branch has war powers, however, does an ill-defined "global war on terror" that has no definitive end point give the President the power to do anything he wants in pursuit of national security? Here's a fun game, name an unbelievable excess of executive power, and I'll defend it with the excuses the Administration constantly relies on in defending it's actions:

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 16:42:53 +0000

Here we see the central problem in the global war on terror that isn't being addressed: The Middle East is full of disruptive 12-to-18-year-old boys. Yes, I know the Iraq invasion was meant to address it. So far, I see on evidence that it was been succeeding.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-13 16:54:48 +0000

a new T shirt for Biz Quig maybe?

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-13 17:11:24 +0000

If the Glob published "I Plane NY", would we stand for agitated New Yorkers calling for blood? Don't think so. Might it not be politically prudent? Maybe.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-13 18:50:05 +0000

The Cheney shotgun joke was an epithet in the subject of a sentence on topic. Hardly hand waving.