'An Evangelical Manifesto' criticizes politics of faith

[frazzledgear]

I have been listening/reading news since I can remember and it comes from all sorts of sources – BBC, The Independent, CNN, Fox, Washington Times and Post, NY Post and Times, Time and Newsweek, plus a host of other sources. Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass were sacked for their fabrications. Just because a journalist in one newspaper does wrong, doesn’t mean you can paint the whole organisation with the same brush. I don’t think all Yanks are mass murderers because of Ed Kempler, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy or Gary Ridgeway. Since I can remember three or four items of news on our national news has been from the US. Hell, I remember as a bright-eyed bushy tailed seven year old listening to Nixon’s resignation being piped live through our school speaker system. Don’t let my nationality give you the excuse to think I am misinformed or adds any weight to your argument.



You took me task for misusing a word and you are doing the same. A liberal is not a communist. A communist is a communist. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between a fascist and a conservative. The ideologies are linked, but they are not the same. As stated on two previous occasions, you Yanks need to get out more and realise there are more than two ideologies going around.



Same with our system of govt. It is very hard for one party to take control, and in fact, since MMP was introduced 12 years ago, there has never been a majority govt. The problem with your system is there are only two ideologies, and even in my life time, they seem to be getting extreme with each passing election.



What makes you think any of us TRUST our govts? Hint: We don’t. You completely missed my point about whining; we do it too, but on a much lower scale because we realise there has to be compromise for a govt to work properly and efficiently. In the seven years I’ve been on messageboards I am seeing that there is a severe lack of wanting said compromise in the US. As I said, time to grow up and stop arguing for arguing’s sake.



Freedom of assembly and speech? Really? Wear a “I hate Bush” shirt to one of his speeches? Ditto a similar Obama shirt to one of his rallies. Take your memory back to going through US customs pre 9-11 and now. I don’t live in the UK, but that aside, the thing I love most about the 5th is that as soon as somebody takes it, it makes them guilty IMO. You don’t think juries take that into consideration when deliberating?? LOL…



Ah, the old Dressing-up-taking-liberties-away-for-you-own-good scenario. What was that about liberals and communists again? I have no problem with them intercepting phone calls from terrorists, but I do remember straight after the patriot act was passed, federal law enforcement did try and arrest somebody unrelated to terror using those powers. Can’t remember the exact case, but I remember some true-blue right-wingers on the messageboard I was posting on were doing the old “I told you so” to the rest of us.



The Red Cross does not have full access to the detainees. It is limited. And are they the most dangerous people? How come some have been released? How come there is no transparency? I’ll tell you why, because the US military don’t know themselves. You do know there are instances when Abdul has told the US forces that his neighbour Mohammed is a terrorist and they’ve just bowled in, taken him away and stuck him in Gitmo for a couple of years without trial, right? Again, it’s not lost on me that you anti-abortion types who hold all human life sacrosanct, are more than happy to throw your fellow human beings to the dogs with little or no evidence, just a perceived threat. How benevolent of you. But they’re only ragheads, right. Muslims to boot – and I’ve already seen your right-wing Christian whackjob opinions on Muslims. Don’t bitch to me about human life, when obviously even you don’t believe what you are spouting in that regard. My God, how nice of the US to feed them and give them dental care. They must really be glad they stay inside 23 hours a day and get to read books and are away from their families. My problem with Gitmo isn’t the guilty ones, it’s the innocent ones and the lack of transparency.



As I said, I have no problems with you keeping real terrorists. I couldn’t give a shit about enemy combatants and their status. The very reason they were given that status was so the US could side-step natural justice and do what they want.
And I know some have gone back to the fight, but what you don’t say is why. You don’t think Abdul the goat herder who spent five years in Gitmo for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to want a little payback when released? My country does not benefit one iota from you keeping them. There has only ever been one act of terrorism carried out on NZ soil and that was by the French secret service back in 1985 who blew up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. The ship was about to embark on protest action at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia where the Frogs carried out nuclear testing.

These get lengthy with the inclusion of so many different topics. Whatever you were bitching about with the Patriot Act, perhaps you are unaware that nearly every single measure in that Act was already in existence as law -measures passed years ago that could only be used to fight organized crime and no other kind of crime. Some of those measures used only against organized crime were simply bundled together and called "Patriot Act" in order to expand their use to fight terrorism -which is also a form of organized crime. The only entirely NEW measure in the Patriot Act was making warrants for phone taps apply to the individual regardless of what phone he uses -instead of having to get a new warrant each time he changed phones like they used to have to do. So it was a lot of phony hoopla that this was something unheard of involving all sorts of loss of rights. Total BS because all those measures are decades old and simply expanded to recognize the fact that terrorism is also a form of organized crime. The RICO Act has also been misapplied in the past -an act intended to fight organized crime and misapplied. The courts hold prosecutions to the letter of the law with these kinds of acts and if they find it doesn't apply, they throw out the charges. The beauty of a system of checks-and-balance -but it is after such measures are first passed that misapplications of the law are most likely to happen. The fact that this one too was once misapplied isn't nearly as important as the fact our court system recognized it was. I'm pretty sure misapplications of the law are not unique to just THIS country and never happens in your own. LOL

You don't understand the right to assembly. It means a right for YOU to create an assembly of like-minded people for a specific purpose and hold that assembly without disruption or arrest by government. It doesn't mean a right to disrupt or exploit for your own purposes someone else's assembly.

If a politician holds a rally or event for a speech, then it is HIS assembly -not yours. He doesn't lose his right of assembly just because he's running for office. So people who attend such functions and make it clear their reason for being there is to disrupt it in some way -can be denied entrance or removed. And intent to disrupt can legally be determined by clothing you choose to wear that make your intentions known. All politicians do this and all of them have done it. And they will all continue to do it. If they are creating the assembly, they get to make the rules about who can attend it. Someone who made it clear they supported Obama was ejected from Bill Clinton's audience just a couple of days ago while he was campaigning for Hillary. That assembly was created for supporters of Hillary -not Obama.

Now if you want to create your OWN assembly and gather a group of people together in order to display your anti-Bush Tshirts and chant your anti-Bush slogans -you have that right. And Bush has no right to come in and try to exploit that assembly for his own purposes.

And you are wrong about the Red Cross and access to all detainees -it does. The Red Cross does not claim it is being prevented from seeing any detainee -they know exactly how many are there, their names and physical and mental condition. But I did see that CNN news report where a reporter who went to Gitmo was allowed to interview detainees. One detainee claimed the US military refused to allow him to see the Red Cross. What a hoot -they won't let the Red Cross see the guy but will let a reporter interview him so he can make that claim to the whole world? Yeah, real believable. About as believable as the ones who are released, were seen all the time by the Red Cross while being held -and then claimed they were TORTURED. Oh and by the way -CNN reported this story as if it were true. Fox first went to the Red Cross to find out if it were true they had not been able to see that particular detainee -and reported the fact that the detainee lied about it. As far as I know, CNN never corrected their report.

Detainees held at Gitmo were caught in battle -and those who were released, were those believed least likely to return to battle after interviews, background checks and checking their stories about how they came to be captured in war. All were captured in Afghanistan which was not a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions. Which is why it doesn't apply to them -whether an Afghan national or a foreign fighter who entered, if you fight on the side that did not sign the Geneva Conventions, they cannot claim the protection of the Geneva Conventions. And that isn't even touching on what the Conventions say about fighters who attack civilians and hide among them. They have no right to access our civilian justice system -but bringing them inside our country would do just that. And in spite of trying to be sure before releasing detainees, they got it wrong about 200 times -which gives you an idea what convincing liars they can be. And how much benefit of the doubt our military gave them.

As for the news media -in this country, publications like the NY Times, LA Times, CBS and other "news" fabricating outlets trying to foist their political agenda off as "news" are well known and their circulation and audience numbers have sharply dropped off. Most people I know wouldn't use the NY Times to wrap their garbage in much less read it.

And as for liberals and communists -sorry, but in this country US liberals tend to openly admire socialism and communism, openly admire people like Castro and Chavez and make no bones about the direction they wish this country would take. Policy statements of leftwing organizations are quite revealing.

Do not confuse political parties with people being liberal or conservative. It doesn't work that way here. There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans -but liberals are a minority in this country. The majority of Democrats are not liberals although there is a very vocal leftwing fringe in the Democrat Party. But candidates who openly campaign as a liberal are not electable in this country because the general population is much more conservative than it is in the UK or Europe. Liberals are a minority here -but they are extremely vocal which should not be confused with somehow having greater numbers than they really do.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/

"So 41% of the country self-identifies as “conservative,” 34% as “moderate,” and only 21% as “liberal.” Further, 14% consider themselves “strong conservatives” vs. only 6% “strong liberals.” So, not only are there twice as many who consider themselves “conservatives” as “liberals,” but two thirds as many “strong conservatives” as “liberals,” period.

 

[jillian]

Wrong-o, buckaroo... the changes in the patriot act were that previously within 72 hours of commencing surveillance, a warrant had to be obtained. warrantless searches were never permitted under FISA until its recent incarnation.

i couldn't even get past your first sentence without finding a critical error. annoying really. i just can't figure out if they're lies or you're just really misinformed.

 

[Dr Grump]

These get lengthy with the inclusion of so many different topics. Whatever you were bitching about with the Patriot Act, perhaps you are unaware that nearly every single measure in that Act was already in existence as law -measures passed years ago that could only be used to fight organized crime and no other kind of crime. Some of those measures used only against organized crime were simply bundled together and called "Patriot Act" in order to expand their use to fight terrorism -which is also a form of organized crime. The only entirely NEW measure in the Patriot Act was making warrants for phone taps apply to the individual regardless of what phone he uses -instead of having to get a new warrant each time he changed phones like they used to have to do. So it was a lot of phony hoopla that this was something unheard of involving all sorts of loss of rights. Total BS because all those measures are decades old and simply expanded to recognize the fact that terrorism is also a form of organized crime. The RICO Act has also been misapplied in the past -an act intended to fight organized crime and misapplied. The courts hold prosecutions to the letter of the law with these kinds of acts and if they find it doesn't apply, they throw out the charges. The beauty of a system of checks-and-balance -but it is after such measures are first passed that misapplications of the law are most likely to happen. The fact that this one too was once misapplied isn't nearly as important as the fact our court system recognized it was. I'm pretty sure misapplications of the law are not unique to just THIS country and never happens in your own. LOL

You don't understand the right to assembly. It means a right for YOU to create an assembly of like-minded people for a specific purpose and hold that assembly without disruption or arrest by government. It doesn't mean a right to disrupt or exploit for your own purposes someone else's assembly.

If a politician holds a rally or event for a speech, then it is HIS assembly -not yours. He doesn't lose his right of assembly just because he's running for office. So people who attend such functions and make it clear their reason for being there is to disrupt it in some way -can be denied entrance or removed. And intent to disrupt can legally be determined by clothing you choose to wear that make your intentions known. All politicians do this and all of them have done it. And they will all continue to do it. If they are creating the assembly, they get to make the rules about who can attend it. Someone who made it clear they supported Obama was ejected from Bill Clinton's audience just a couple of days ago while he was campaigning for Hillary. That assembly was created for supporters of Hillary -not Obama.

Now if you want to create your OWN assembly and gather a group of people together in order to display your anti-Bush Tshirts and chant your anti-Bush slogans -you have that right. And Bush has no right to come in and try to exploit that assembly for his own purposes.

And you are wrong about the Red Cross and access to all detainees -it does. The Red Cross does not claim it is being prevented from seeing any detainee -they know exactly how many are there, their names and physical and mental condition. But I did see that CNN news report where a reporter who went to Gitmo was allowed to interview detainees. One detainee claimed the US military refused to allow him to see the Red Cross. What a hoot -they won't let the Red Cross see the guy but will let a reporter interview him so he can make that claim to the whole world? Yeah, real believable. About as believable as the ones who are released, were seen all the time by the Red Cross while being held -and then claimed they were TORTURED. Oh and by the way -CNN reported this story as if it were true. Fox first went to the Red Cross to find out if it were true they had not been able to see that particular detainee -and reported the fact that the detainee lied about it. As far as I know, CNN never corrected their report.

Detainees held at Gitmo were caught in battle -and those who were released, were those believed least likely to return to battle after interviews, background checks and checking their stories about how they came to be captured in war. All were captured in Afghanistan which was not a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions. Which is why it doesn't apply to them -whether an Afghan national or a foreign fighter who entered, if you fight on the side that did not sign the Geneva Conventions, they cannot claim the protection of the Geneva Conventions. And that isn't even touching on what the Conventions say about fighters who attack civilians and hide among them. They have no right to access our civilian justice system -but bringing them inside our country would do just that. And in spite of trying to be sure before releasing detainees, they got it wrong about 200 times -which gives you an idea what convincing liars they can be. And how much benefit of the doubt our military gave them.

As for the news media -in this country, publications like the NY Times, LA Times, CBS and other "news" fabricating outlets trying to foist their political agenda off as "news" are well known and their circulation and audience numbers have sharply dropped off. Most people I know wouldn't use the NY Times to wrap their garbage in much less read it.

And as for liberals and communists -sorry, but in this country US liberals tend to openly admire socialism and communism, openly admire people like Castro and Chavez and make no bones about the direction they wish this country would take. Policy statements of leftwing organizations are quite revealing.

Do not confuse political parties with people being liberal or conservative. It doesn't work that way here. There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans -but liberals are a minority in this country. The majority of Democrats are not liberals although there is a very vocal leftwing fringe in the Democrat Party. But candidates who openly campaign as a liberal are not electable in this country because the general population is much more conservative than it is in the UK or Europe. Liberals are a minority here -but they are extremely vocal which should not be confused with somehow having greater numbers than they really do.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/

"So 41% of the country self-identifies as “conservative,” 34% as “moderate,” and only 21% as “liberal.” Further, 14% consider themselves “strong conservatives” vs. only 6% “strong liberals.” So, not only are there twice as many who consider themselves “conservatives” as “liberals,” but two thirds as many “strong conservatives” as “liberals,” period.

I know regarding the right of assembly. What about the right of free speech? Can I go into a political rally wearing a T-shirt denouncing the person speaking down here? You betcha I can.

I say, ONCE AGAIN, that just because Americans see the corelation between liberals and communism, doesn't mean it is so. You are really hard on words having specific meanings. Communism has a specific meaning. Liberal does too. Chavez is not a communist, he is a socialist - and they too, have two different meanings. Castro is an admitted communist (although, since the Bolshevik revolution the term has been misused and bastardised).

As for News-Fabricating outlets, you missed out the mother of them all - the Leader of the Pack, the "fair and balanced" Faux News.

Bullshit re detainees caught in battle. Your own armed forces have admitted on several occasions of taking people NOT caught in battle, and then releasing them from Gitmo when it has become apparent they were not part of any terrorist cell. As for Afghanis not having rights, that doesn't make their detention right, especially if they are innocent. Where did you get your gen with regard to them all being caught in battle, Fox or Rush?

And you are wrong about the Red Cross. There have been many documented cases of the Gitmo heirachy not allowing them to visit. And when they do visit, their own guidelines (which I believe they had no say in, but were told by the US govt it was a condition of their entry) state they cannot comment on what they have done in there or whom they have visited.

 

[frazzledgear]

Ah, the old Dressing-up-taking-liberties-away-for-you-own-good scenario. What was that about liberals and communists again? I have no problem with them intercepting phone calls from terrorists, but I do remember straight after the patriot act was passed, federal law enforcement did try and arrest somebody unrelated to terror using those powers. Can’t remember the exact case, but I remember some true-blue right-wingers on the messageboard I was posting on were doing the old “I told you so” to the rest of us.

This one I had to address separately because I have never seen such DELIBERATE misinformation put out by liberals and liberal media as it has with this one. And one so easily shown to be utter lies and deliberate distortion -yet swallowed so easily by those who NEED to believe the worst.

This is how warrants to tap phone lines work in this country if the reason for the phone tap is the intention to charge someone with a crime. Whatever agency desires to tap someone's phone who is either inside this country or is an American who is outside the country -must first know the person's name they want to tap and provide reasonable cause to a judge for the need to tap his phone. You can't get a warrant without providing these two things to a judge. However, the law distinguishes between wiretapping for reasons of national security and wiretapping for the purpose of charging someone with a crime and it is slightly different. If a wiretap occurs inside this country or on an American outside this country for reasons of national security without a warrant -the results of those phone calls may not EVER be used to charge him with a crime. So most times government wants a warrant just in case they end up wanting to charge him with a crime.

Because there was some question about the proper procedure in the event it occurred - the executive order that Bush gave the NSA, which was ONLY intercepting and listening in on the phone calls of known foreign terrorists inside OTHER countries for reasons of national security, was that IF that known terrorist they were already spying on, made or received a phone call to/from someone inside this country, they were to continue listening and not break off. It was the phone of the known FOREIGN terrorist who was inside another country whose phone was at all times being intercepted -not that of Americans or anyone inside this country. They listened to phone calls that were made to and from that known terrorist's phone.

If the NSA or some other agency is listening in on the phone calls of a foreigner inside another country -no US court has jurisdiction to issue a warrant for that. So the NSA never required a warrant to listen in on those calls and no court had the jurisdiction to even issue one.

So far no problem listening in to the phone calls of known foreign terrorists inside another country. IF that terrorist inside another country called up or received a call from someone in the US -AND as a result of that phone call, that person came under suspicion for terrorist activity -then, in order to also listen in on that person's phone from THAT POINT ON, it required a warrant under FISA regulations. And investigations have proved that procedure was followed once a known foreign terrorist inside another country called up or received a call from someone inside the US who was previously unknown. So Bush was telling the truth when he said that no one inside this country had their phone tapped without a FISA warrant.

But until a known terrorist called up such a person, there was no name OR reasonable cause to get a warrant. You can't get a warrant to tap a nameless person's phone inside this country. And NO US court has jurisdiction to issue a warrant in order to listen in on the phone calls of a foreigner's phone inside another country.

It is the call from that foreign terrorist that provided reasonable cause AND the name -until that call, neither existed. Bush's order was to listen in on that call and if, as a result of that call, that person was suspected of terrorist activity -GET A WARRANT in order to listen in on that guy's phone calls too. So liberals falsely portrayed this as "illegal wiretapping" of American citizens. NO SUCH THING HAPPENED.

A perfect example of what really occurs is this:

If the courts grant permission to the FBI to tap Joe Smith's phone and YOU call up Joe Smith, they get to listen in on that call even though it isn't your phone being tapped. They still get to listen to everything you say to Joe. If, as a result of that call, you come under suspicion of criminal activity too then the the FBI can use the results of that call you made to a phone they had a warrant to listen to - to show a judge why YOUR phone also needs to be tapped.

The only difference is that the NSA never needed a warrant to listen in on the calls to and from a foreign terrorist inside another country and no US court ever has jurisdiction to issue one anyway. So in order to remove any doubt about what to do, Bush told them to continue listening in on those calls even if they made or received a call to someone inside this country. THEN, if that call put that person inside this country under suspicion -they needed a warrant in order to listen to all the calls that guy made from his own phone. Aside from investigations proving this was never abused, the fact this executive order expires every 30 days is proof it does not involve illegal or longtime surveillance of the phone of anyone inside this country.

Its just not that hard to get once you understand what was really taking place. Was any innocent American ever at risk of having the NSA illegally listen in on their innocent calls? NEVER. No one inside this country would EVER come to the attention of the NSA unless they were on speed dial of a foreign terrorist inside another country and made or received a call from that known terrorist inside another country. No government agency has the manpower or funds to do any such thing -they focus their efforts on the biggest payouts. Listen in on the foreign terrorist inside another country and see who calls him up and who he calls and go from there.

So do I want my government intercepting and listening in on the phone calls of known foreign terrorists inside another country? ABSOLUTELY, without question. Do I want them to continue listening if that foreign terrorist inside another country calls up someone inside this country? YOU BET I DO. It may well be the single most important phone call that foreign terrorist makes.

And I'm thrilled you think your country receives no benefit from the fact we hold foreign terrorists captive. I just love it when people from other, smaller western countries pretend THEY are quite safe just because they targeted us first. You already have some issues regarding Muslim extremism too. Did you know that Al Qaeda targeted the US first for a specific reason? They believe that once we fall -all the rest of the smaller western nations will quickly crumble and give them a quick, cheap and easy victory -so it is necessary to take us out first and remove us from the equation. That is either true or it is not. I know what I think is true. But if we fall, just who are you counting on to come to your rescue when they turn their sights on your country? I hope it isn't France. And maybe you can understand why some Americans think western nations see us as the sacrificial goat they will willingly see slaughtered by the enemy in the deluded belief it will solve the problem. Sacrificing us to an enemy you can't bring yourself to admit is also yours, won't save you any more than sacrificing the Sudentland saved the rest of Europe from Hitler.

 

[frazzledgear]

I know regarding the right of assembly. What about the right of free speech? Can I go into a political rally wearing a T-shirt denouncing the person speaking down here? You betcha I can.

I say, ONCE AGAIN, that just because Americans see the corelation between liberals and communism, doesn't mean it is so. You are really hard on words having specific meanings. Communism has a specific meaning. Liberal does too. Chavez is not a communist, he is a socialist - and they too, have two different meanings. Castro is an admitted communist (although, since the Bolshevik revolution the term has been misused and bastardised).

As for News-Fabricating outlets, you missed out the mother of them all - the Leader of the Pack, the "fair and balanced" Faux News.

Bullshit re detainees caught in battle. Your own armed forces have admitted on several occasions of taking people NOT caught in battle, and then releasing them from Gitmo when it has become apparent they were not part of any terrorist cell. As for Afghanis not having rights, that doesn't make their detention right, especially if they are innocent. Where did you get your gen with regard to them all being caught in battle, Fox or Rush?

And you are wrong about the Red Cross. There have been many documented cases of the Gitmo heirachy not allowing them to visit. And when they do visit, their own guidelines (which I believe they had no say in, but were told by the US govt it was a condition of their entry) state they cannot comment on what they have done in there or whom they have visited.

I can't believe you are still arguing this point. Do you think if you go to a movie and decide to spend your time talking loudly on the phone that you won't be ejected from the movie? FREE SPEECH and all, right? Your right of free speech -written or verbal -never comes at the expense of people who gathered for ANOTHER PURPOSE and your "speech" is interfering with their ability to hear and see it. Your free speech rights do not come with a right to an AUDIENCE. There is no "right" to force other people to listen or read your free speech. So -no, you don't get to gatecrash someone else's assembly, gathering, event, production whatever -just so you can hold the audience hostage to your speech instead. DEAL WITH IT. If a politician is holding a rally for his supporters then it is HIS assembly and HE gets to makes the rules about who can attend. Not you. If he decides only his supporters may attend, that is HIS RIGHT -not those who oppose him hoping to use that event in order to disrupt it somehow.

This issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court when it was more liberal than it is now - and upheld. Including the fact that wearing clothing with words that already indicate you are there for another purpose is legitimate grounds to remove that person. He who creates the assembly gets to make the rules about who can attend -PERIOD. Your free speech rights do not supercede HIS rights. Your free speech is still intact -you can stand on the corner and scream how much you hate that politician. But you never have a right to the audience in someone else's assembly in order to exercise that right. Get it?

If you don't, then try this one. Free speech rights only means that government cannot ARREST you for what you said or wrote. It still doesn't come with any "right" to an audience gathered for another purpose. And it sure doesn't mean you get to occupy a particular piece of real estate in order to do it. It only means you can't be arrested for what you said or wrote. It's not that hard to comprehend. It has NEVER meant that other people must forfeit their collective rights for YOU to hold them hostage to your speech. And it has NEVER meant that you can't suffer the other consequences for the irresponsible exercise of that right. If, while on the job you tell some customer at work to F-off -then you can legally be fired for that. You just can't be ARRESTED for it. The right was given in order to restrict government from certain actions -it was never intended that all citizens must cowtow to your irresponsible use of that right.

I agree that communism has a specific meaning. But let's deal in facts. The minority of Americans who identify themselves as "liberals" already know they are going NOWHERE if they openly push a communist agenda. You have to look elsewhere beyond their mere words to figure out where they are coming from and you have to understand what keywords like "progressive" actually mean in this country. Like I said, policy statements of leftwing groups they belong to and the political agendas themselves -reveal MUCH more than the carefully couched words they use for public consumption. Just like checking out the ACLU's agenda, policy statements and very purpose as identified by its founders and unchanged since its inception is also far more revealing than the statements they make for public consumption. The ACLU does not exist to protect my rights and it never has. They couldn't care less about my rights. Their purpose is something else entirely.

US liberals are a minority in this country and for a reason. And they may or may not have much in common with the people you consider to be liberals in your own country. So what? I'm talking about my own country. The fact is our political process is unlike that of any other country and words like "conservative" and "liberal" really do have different meanings from country to country. A fundamentalist Muslim is not the equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian. A conservative American is not the same thing as a conservative Iranian. A liberal Republican is not the same thing as a liberal Russian. I can't help it if you think US liberals are no different from liberals in your own country. I don't know if they are or not. I only know what the leftwing liberal agenda in THIS country is.

And since Chavez has gone about dismantling the very democratic institutions that could have removed him from office and he has nearly finished insuring that Venezuelans can never remove him for another leader of their choice -you really want to argue that means he is just a "socialist"? Chavez is the perfect example of the point I was trying to make earlier. ROFLMAO! Maybe you forget -but Hitler was democratically elected too as the candidate from the National Socialist Party. And the very first thing he did was make sure Germans could never remove HIM from office either. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

 

[frazzledgear]

Wrong-o, buckaroo... the changes in the patriot act were that previously within 72 hours of commencing surveillance, a warrant had to be obtained. warrantless searches were never permitted under FISA until its recent incarnation.

i couldn't even get past your first sentence without finding a critical error. annoying really. i just can't figure out if they're lies or you're just really misinformed.

Let's put it this way. If you relied upon the NY Times, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, the LA Times etc. for accurate information -then it is you who are misinformed. How about if you actually research for yourself exactly what is in the Patriot Act and where the different parts of it came from, when they first existed and for what purpose? That too hard for you and you need to have some phony "news" outlet do it for you instead? Just look up the different parts of the act itself and find out where they came from. I'll even give you a start.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html This is the actual bill -so why don't you inform us all which parts have never existed in any other form for any other reason before this act and which parts are giving government entirely new powers that have never existed, which parts infringe on the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans? I already told you which part was entirely new -but you go ahead and give it a shot. If you need help figuring out which parts have already existed for years to fight organized crime -give me a holler. But don't even try to include what happened under Clinton which forbid the sharing of information between agencies -that was created under him and removed by this Act and just returned to what it had been prior.

I'll even include the ACLU as a source -shrilly screaming about the potential for gross abuse against our own citizens that has not occured from this act even 7 years later -for a reason. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html We all know that access to what people check out at the public library is FAR more invasive than the fact the feds -and even local police - have had readily available access to bank, credit card and phone records with much less probable cause than is required to access what someone checks out at the public library! ROFL OMG! Life as we know it has ENDED! God forbid the feds find out I checked out Dean Koontz's latest novel but let's pretend it is far more invasive than the FACT they can access my bank and phone records with much less probable cause and for just about any reason they want and have been able to do so for decades. Priorities, priorities.....

Now jillian -if you want to explain how the Patriot Act or ANYTHING the Bush administration has done since then has personally impacted your freedoms, rights or ability to live the exact same life you had on Sept. 10, 2001 -we'd all like to hear it. But for me and everyone I know WITHOUT EXCEPTION -not a damn thing has changed. Not one. Can't even blame the delay at airport security personally on Bush because if that wasn't done and something happened, people like you would be the first in line to scream that he KNEW and just didn't do anything about it. (Don't you just love it when you have someone between a rock and hard place so that no matter what they do, its always something you can screech about?) So rather than generalized, meaningless sound bites swiped off some whacko website -let's just keep it to what rights and freedoms you have personally lost as a result of the Patriot Act. I've lost zero.

 

[jillian]

Again. where is the warrant requirement, even ex post facto, in the patriot act as amended?

it's effect on me is irrelevant, actually. whether or not i have been the subject of wiretaps does nothing to justify unaccountablitity and warrantless searches.

Again... kindly point to the warrant requirement in the bill as amended by Baby Bush and his republican congress.

I'll wait.

And, mind you, I'm not interested in your editorializing. Point to the warrant requirement.

 

[Dr Grump]

How come Frazelled makes such long posts, most of which are just personal rantings. He could save himself a lot of time. I rarely read the whole post...


there is usually a point in there.....


somewhere.....


way down deep.

 

[jillian]

How come Frazelled makes such long posts, most of which are just personal rantings. He could save himself a lot of time. I rarely read the whole post...


there is usually a point in there.....


somewhere.....


way down deep.

oh I get his point. it's that he doesn't care what the law is or does because he thinks it doesn't affect *him*. I don't care about that so much as I care about his ignorance about the lack of a warrant requirement.

And his "points" take far too long to get to.

 

[Dr Grump]

And I'm thrilled you think your country receives no benefit from the fact we hold foreign terrorists captive. I just love it when people from other, smaller western countries pretend THEY are quite safe just because they targeted us first. You already have some issues regarding Muslim extremism too. Did you know that Al Qaeda targeted the US first for a specific reason? They believe that once we fall -all the rest of the smaller western nations will quickly crumble and give them a quick, cheap and easy victory -so it is necessary to take us out first and remove us from the equation. That is either true or it is not. I know what I think is true. But if we fall, just who are you counting on to come to your rescue when they turn their sights on your country? I hope it isn't France. And maybe you can understand why some Americans think western nations see us as the sacrificial goat they will willingly see slaughtered by the enemy in the deluded belief it will solve the problem. Sacrificing us to an enemy you can't bring yourself to admit is also yours, won't save you any more than sacrificing the Sudentland saved the rest of Europe from Hitler.

I'll only address this part of your post, because all the other part is, is a personal rant. So is the above, but it is so full of empty rhetoric, fearmongering and bullshit, I just can't let it go.
Those guys targetted you for a specific reason all right, and it had nothing to do with taking over the world and everything to do with you supporting the House of Saud and other secular dictatorships, as well as support of Israel.

You really don't have a clue if you think they are going to come after my country. Most of these idiots are extremists who are a minority with bugger all support outside their own little fiefdom's. They didn't come after us because we don't sell military hardware to their enemies, nor do we have bases in Arab lands. You think you are doing the world a favour? You really want to do the world a favour? Keep your fucking interferring arses out of the ME, then maybe you won't be targetted. Extremists Muslims have about as much chance of taking over the world as Jesus has of coming again. Sweet fuck-all.

But you keep on telling yourself that is the case, because that is all you right-wing religious nutjobs have to keep you going to justify your own warped sense of the world.

The US offers NO protection to NZ from Muslim extremists. We have NO issues with Muslim extremists. None, none, none, none, none. GET IT? The are NOT THE NORM as far as Muslims go, just as Jim Baker, Jim Jones and David Koresh don't represent Christianity