Comments on: Attorney general: Bush blocked review of spy program
Alberto Gonzales also presses for controversial law that would permit secret court to review NSA spy program.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Leaked HP, Gateway 'Core i3' laptops are low-cost
January 2, 2010 11:43 AM PST
- AT&T, Luke Wilson try smaller coverage number
January 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST
- For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover
January 2, 2010 6:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I thought that Government workers worked for the people, including the Persident, he is an Employee of the county and people, and he should be Fired.
I wish the laws were changed to make Presidents more accountable, because they get away with too much sh*&.
The man's current crimes and abuse of his constitutional authorised powers, literally make Richard M Nixon look like an angel!
As my other post says, I see nothing in the Constitution article two that mentions "wartime powers." All it says is the president is the commender in chief of the Army, Navy and State militias called to service.
course, our freedoms are gone in the name of security.
We are the frog in the water that is slowly being brought to a
boil.
Are we too late? Will we ever be able to recover as a country? I
really have my doubts. The abuses of power in Washington D.C.
may be too great to recover from. The President has taken over,
the Congress and Supreme Court aren't doing their job to check
his power. The result -- illegal searches and seizures, secret
prisons, secret courts, torture, and a perpetual state of war to
allow these abuses to continue.
Unfortunately, you are not expressing a logical argument. You are merely expressing anger at your country and you are using words that do not accurately reflect reality in the U.S.
I should also add that your paranoid delusions do not support your concluding arguments. WHO was illegally searched? WHERE are the secret prisons and why are they illegal? WHERE are the secret courts, and what is your problem with them? NAME JUST ONE PERSON that has been accused of actual TORTURE, and was not prosecuted.
Once you get over your emotional hatred for anything that disagrees with your idealistic view of reality, you may realize that our policy is not illegal, Americans are not being abused by a tyrranical government, and all your fears are merely speculative.
SOME PEOPLE... are working towards a very difficult goal to make you, your country, and the entire world safer. It isn't easy, and it isn't pretty, and it won't happen over night, but unless you want 9/11 to be a recurring nightmare, then change is required at the global level.
Someday, you will realize that through all your idealistic yelling and arguing... you rights haven't been infringed upon at all. Not one bit. And in the meantime, you have been protected and guarded in a world that people are working to make safer.
Drop the term fascism from your vocabulary. You have absolutely no clue what it means.
Why do you keep shooting the messenger??? Alberto Gonzales went to a hearing and explicitly told fellow REPUBLICAN Arlen Specter of the REPUBLICAN controlled judiciary commitee that the President blocked review.
Why are you trying to blame CNET for reporting the news? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in an absolute monarchy, dictatorship, or Communist state. At least in such contries, no one is allowed to report on government misdeeds. King Abdullah al-Saud and Kim Jong-il would be proud to welcome a patriot such as yourself.
absolutely no respect for the man who holds the office now.
I also love my country.. At least what it used to be. Fact is, it is
not the same country as it was 6 years ago. It is no longer a free
and thriving democracy, a model to others, a beloved leader of
the free world and a respected patron of liberty and justice. The
land of opportunity now carries the addendum :?opportunity (for
the wealthy and connected, only)? Justice for all now reads
?Justice for all (except the executive branch, any close friend,
supporter or financial contributor?
Since the installment of this administration, since the coup ..
And since the corrupt and ?fixed? second election..
This country has become a hated aggressor, a despised wielder
of irresponsible wealth and power. It is no longer a democracy,
no longer anything like what the founders intended, no longer
what countless have fought and died to defend.. It has become
exactly what they died trying to prevent.
And yes, neo con, you have it backwards. It is not my duty to
respect the president, but it is his to respect me and every other
American. It is not my duty to support the administration, but it
is the administration?s to support me and every other American..
And is not the governments right to pry open citizens private
lives at their discretion, but it is the peoples right to know what
OUR government does. It is OUR right and, in fact, our obligation
to question and debate and challenge and dispute everything the
government and the president do and decide. It is the presidnets
obligation (and the governments) to be open, forthcoming,
honest and accountable.
How dare you confuse respect with the most fundamental right
of every American to question and challenge. And how dare the
president put himself above the law, above the constitution and
above the American people,
unfortunately As Arlen Spectre states "Whatever bill the Congress may pass, he said, it can't override the president's wartime powers under the Constitution."
George Bush has declared the he is no longer bound by any law. The GOP controlled Congress agrees.
Nixon was headed down this same path. We all know where it led him.
That's about his only qualification to be in his job.
Bush did not know Gonzalez 1976 when he was 30 and got a DUI.
Gonzales is rumored to have help Bush get out of Jury duty for a female stripper's DUI court case.
It was never proven that he actually helped him get out of jury duty.
However, I am very much resigned to the belief that I think we've topped out. About the only thing that was really good about America in the past was the "freedom" we were supposed to have.
And now, all that's happening is we have the same corruption & rights violations and crime, and corrupt judiciary, and debt that all the other countries have had in the past.
I've believed, for most of my life that America was the best country in the world and best place to live. Since I've begun traveling a bit over the last couple years, I am not sure that is the case, and as the pendulum of debt from Reagan, Bush Sr., and now Jr. swings ever so closer, I really have to say that I've begun looking for other countries to live.
A lot of people moved to America over the last 100 years to escape this kind of stuff. To escape terrorism, to escape totalitarianism and dictatorship-ness. To escape being spied on and persecution. And now, here in this country, that is what is happening.
Our country is dying.
It wasn't 9/11 that did it, but ourselves (or the 20-40% of this country who really does want to see it turned into a dictatorship.
Government gets their data, suspect gets due process.
- Mike roth
These powers were further clarified by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
This article quotes Senator Spector saying "Many other lawyers in the Department of Justice had clearance. Why not OPR". My question is if many others had access, why do those opposed to the President insist that review was blocked if only a few were denied access. I'm certain if the night janitor was denied access then the left would consider it a cover-up.
The facts are congress was briefed on the program. Several Democrats have stated as such. They even state the program should continue. The authors of the law have said that no law was broken and the President was acting within his authority.
Those that are histarical about these programs are the same people complaining right after 911 that the President should have connected the dots. Yet, they wish to deny him the tools to do so, even with oversite.
The NYT is a perfect example. They expose the efforts to track the funds of terror groups through the SWIFT newtork. Yet on Sept. 24 2001 they printed an editorial stating the President should track the funding.
Let us not forget that the NSA spy program intercepting calls, referred to as ECHELON, was started under the Clinton administration.
What a role model our president shows our youth. Born and educated in the U.S. and still can not speak decent english. Lies about a soveign nation, deceives the public about spying, and uses 4 letter words. Nice going Mr. President.
Think about those and if you don't know about them...then LEARN about them!!!!!
But what suprises me more is how the technology inclined audience throws its technical understanding out the window when these articles are printed. Despite all the security warnings, articles on spyware, key loggers, root kits, etc. they think their information on the net is private.
I hate to bust your bubble, but the internet is a PUBLIC NETWORK. You shouldn't expect any more privacy on the internet that you would if you were to pass a hand written not across a crowded room. Email is not private. Public phone records are not private. This is affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1978. This audience should know how data mining works.
Just because a database engine scans records looking for matches, say for TERRORISTS PHONE RECORDS, that doesn't mean all calls are being looked at by individual human beings. If you are concerned that your phone records are being reviewed, perhaps you should stop receiving calls from known terrorist phone numbers.
You are flat wrong, however, that every war in American history was caused by a deceitful government, and that the people are honorable by changing their mind when they learn "the facts." The nobility of your suggestion is grand, but he reality is very different. Support for war never lasts long, especially on foreign soil... the reason is simple: We are no longer directly affected by it, even though it may be important.
In WWII, all the american people were affected directly, and for a decent length of time.. thus, we had tremendous support. But today, the government and our country has grown to the point where you no longer have to give up the tires on your car and send your children to work to protect our freedoms... so the American people become fickle. Sitting in their luxurious air conditioned homes, sipping iced tea, speaking as if they know about peace.
Name one group of people that has achieved and maintained peace and freedom without fighting for it.
But for all we know the President could be a figurehead.. wink wink
I'm not suggesting that we withdraw, but use our strenghs with a little more prudence, not cowboy antics, lying, cheating, stealing, and corruption is not the kind of examples we should showing our children and other nations.
They are the party of the religious. They say it, they repeat it, over and over and it becomes the new truth. Really now!!! Anyone can claim to be Christian but it is their actions that "out" them. People voted along religious lines for this president but would Jesus really endorse torture, secret prisons, human rights abuses, suppression of the truth, pointless deaths of American soldiers, wholesale slaughter of Iraqis, rape of Iraqi women, cover-ups of abuses in Iraq, cover-ups of abuses in Guantanamo, corruption, no-bid Halliburton contracts, sleazy senators, corrupt congressmen? Makes you really wonder about "Thou shall not kill", "Thou shall not steal/covet.... (our pension funds, our privacy, our rights etc.)" and a whole host of other deadly sins.
The president has wartime powers. Well another curious statement that has become "truth" in the minds of the believers (Congress, Senate, Judiciary, Boot-lickers etc.). I guess us non-believers will be banished to the pits of hell, spied on, monitored, electronically shackled for all eternity because that is how long this war will last and how long our rights will be firmly and consistently removed for our own protection.
WMDs, Al-Quaeda, 9/11 - curious how these things were focused with laser precision on a single target - Iraq. I'm still amazed at how many people still believe that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related. But when you look back through Bush and Cheney's glib speeches it becomes clear how the gullible would come to believe they were associated. Gosh look at how many times 9/11, al-Quaeda, WMDs and Saddam Hussein were consistently mentioned in the same breath. Consistent. I'll give them that.
Tax Breaks are for the American People. Sounded really good didn't it when they talked it up, over and over and over again. They just conveniently forgot to mention that the largest portions of all of the tax breaks went to the George Bush base - Capitalist Pigs, Fund-Raisers, Campaign Contributors. Curious how so few people know that and even worse, even care.
Well they were consistent with their mind-control drivel and we the people were consistently apathetic. Abuse of Power and Apathy make such great bedfellows.
Tax cuts for the rich. Thats all we hear. But when the so called rich pay 90% of the taxes, where will a majority of the tax cuts go. To send the benefits of a tax cut to those who don't pay taxes requires redefining the term to mean a redistribution of wealth.
It was very convienient for liberals to rais taxes on the wealthy under the Clinton administration. Remember? The rich were redefined to mean those that made more than $35,000 per year. Taxes were no longer taxes, but 'contributions' as stated by Stephenopolous. Now who is brainwashed, those who know what taxes are or those who follow those who have to redefine the terms.
Now, regarding 9/11. It was related to Iraq because it was terrorism. Iraq supported terrorism. This is proven by the training camps, $25,000 payments by Sadam to suicide bomber families, and the list goes on. It is very convenient to overlook these facts as well.
Besides, the whole point of going to Iraq was to enforce 16 UN resolutions ignored by Iraq over 12 years.
Concentration camps anyone?
Plus, most of the internet (save random popular boards) abide by Godwin's Law vehemently.
- A polite FYI
- by mgreere July 19, 2006 1:34 PM PDT
- Remember, attacking the messenger directly or circumstantially
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- But ad hominem attacks work so well for some!
- by chris_d July 19, 2006 2:07 PM PDT
- You made some great points. But I have to say, ad hominem attacks work great for people who know nothing about what they're talking about, who can't be bothered with time-consuming things like "research" and "facts". Those are for "socialist liberals". (Anyone who knows more than Hannity about any subject is addressed as "Mr. Liberal", regardless of his political viewpoints)
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (125 Comments)does nothing to reduce their argument if the premises are
independent of the person stating them. Though, apparently,
"swiftboating" works. It's a pathetic state of affairs when people
can't directly address the substance of an argument.
e.g., Person A pust forth the following argument (in so many
words):
The 4th Amendment states no warants for reasonable search can
be issued without "probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized."
The executive branch is operating a program that expressly
avoids a warrant process meeting those criteria.
Thus, the program is illegal vis-a-vis the letter of the
Constitution.
How can you refute the argument? Well, you can claim the
premises are not true... But that seems a like a tough road.
You could also claim that the conclusion doesn't necessarily
follow because of the President's authority, also in the
Constitution, to conduct war. Fine, but then you must argue that
(a) we are conducting a war (congress never technically
authorized war), and (b) the "all necessary force" clause included
the ability to violate the 4th amendment (it didn't, of course, and
the Supreme Court just affirmed that).
You CANNOT refute the argument by saying people will die
without the wiretapping.
You CANNOT refute the argument by saying Person A hates
America (holy false dichotomy, Batman).
You CANNOT refute the argument by saying, well, anything
about Person A. The status of person A is COMPLETELY
irrelevant to the soundness of the argument.
Ad hominem rebuttals may work well on ignorant voters, but
they leave the truth and validity of an argument untouched.
They are used when (a) someone is on the losing side and they
know it, (b) they're emotional and can't construct a real
argument quickly enough, or (c) they wrongly think attacking the
messenger is a real way to rebut an argument.
Likewise, although there are at least two sides to every debate,
they should not always be given equal weight.
e.g., the earth is flat VS the earth is spherical
Point? If you want to argue without looking like a fool, STICK TO
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT.
Cheers.
I mean, where would Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrham and Bill O'Reilly be without the regular personal slams they do on their shows? You wouldn't want them to starve, now would you? It's really easy to tell when the other side has made a good argument, because Bill or Laura will say something like -- and I'm pretty much quoting here -- "your mother would be ashamed of you!!", or "This is just Looney Tunes... where's that Twilight Zone music?"