Thank you for clearing that up, however it's not that of an exposure in my opinion. Nothing much is really exposed. Coincidently i found a nice summation to this whole affair that mirrors my opinion exactly. The bad guys know they are being monitored even if it wasn't said by the whitehouse or the NYT or whomever. These guys are not idiots and they are very well aware of the things that can cause their downfall. Not trying to defend them but these pigs shaggers (Terrorists) are not the average purse snatching numbed out crack junkie you see stumble down the street. What's the big deal? *Shrug*
Gee, I thought that was what you were doing by hammering away at the few words regarding treason, all while ignoring the Bill of Rights, 200 years of Court interpretaions of the Constitution, background such as the Federalisst Papers and other documents produced by our Founding Fathers and everthing else that gives the words in the Constitution context and meaning. I am afraid that by implication you have - to wit you frequent reference to "Government" and "Congressional Oversight", etc. I fail to find reference to Citizens, individual liberties, freedom of the press, etc. in any of your posts. I have used the term regime since my first post in this thread. You are slow on the uptake if you are now just catching on But, since we are on the subject of writing style and choice of term, why don't you capitalize Country and Citizen? Isn't it just a bit disrespectful to use the lowercase? I was not aware that NYT phoned or wrote to al Quaida or other terroist groups, on the sly, and gave them warning about the Govt.'s secret surveillance of its own Citizens. I thought that they had published an article informing US Citizens of yet another example of Govt. intrusion into their private affairs - a phenomenon that is turning into a significant pattern of late what with news of warrantless wiretaps and all. The press has both the right (duly protected by the First Amendment) and the responsibility to inform the Citizens of our Country about its government's activities. I would think that our enemies already acted as if these programs were taking place, if they did not have direct knowledge of them. They aren't stupid. I suspect they know far more about what our government is up to than the average Citizen on the street! I doubt that the NYT article had a significant effect on their planning or actions. You need to study your history. Our Founding Fathers "sold out" their country (Britain). When one grows beyond simplistic notions such as "country" as an institution, one begins to grasp larger Truths. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." How can the uninformed give their consent? It is far to easy too operate in secrecy, whether it be justified by executive privilege or national security. The current regime is not the first to have tried to hide their excesses of power behind such shrouds. Tell us all, exactly what harm was done that their shenanigans were exposed to US Citizens? What harm is there in finding out about questionable intrusions into our private lives, our homes, our communications, our financial transactions? What harm in finding out that our leaders justify the use of torture, secret prisons on foriegn soil, deceit and dishonesty with their Citizens, retribution towards their political opponents, and the stripping away of long held civil liberties. What harm in exposing our leaders imperialistic impulses, their poor judgment in selection of allies, their communications and financial transactions that enrich they and their friends at our expense? What harm in exposing our leaders abject failure to protect us from disaster and harm, whether man-made or natural? The secrecy that you so vehemently defend is rooted in our leaders need to protect themselves, and their power, not in protecting us. It has very little to do with establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, or securing the blessings of liberty for US Citizens.
You need to study your history. Our Founding Fathers "sold out" their country FOR FREEDOM. Not terrorists. Yet it must be done. The NYT is not helping our war effort, it is hindering it. The leaders are not trying to protect themselves. They are trying to protect everyone. I think keeping terrorists at bay is "establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, or securing the blessings of liberty for US Citizens".
Ah, full circle to my original post in this thread. Where's the war? At best we have an "authorized use of force" in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no "war" on terror, anymore than there was a war on drugs. It is a turn of phrase used to stir up the populace, and to justify the erosion of personal liberties. Truth be told, precious few of our resources are dedicated to fighting terrorists. Bin Ladin might well have been captured had our resources been deployed for that purpose instead of an ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. (Remember Tora Bora?)
Nothing will ever justify stealing our freedoms. Bin laden might have been caught, except bush doesn't really care to find him.... "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Now THIS is interesting! One liberal just turned on another. Hmm... shows how well you guys understand what you're thinking and believing. Please: do cite this. I want full context. HELLO! We're spreading freedom, not eroding it. And if you have been in a hole the past 5 years, the war is over in the middle east. And there's another big one in our country: right vs. wrong.
LOL - you expect me to believe THAT, which is still out of context, and especially from a site called "50 Bush FlipFlops"??? That is still not in context. That is really no much more than you gave us here on the forums.
Bush did say that (I forget exactly when, though), but he was making a point. He was trying to say that capturing bin laden wouldn't end the war on terror and that using up resources to find one person was not a wise idea. But reading between the lines is beyond some people. Personally, I think Bin-Laden is perfectly fine alive. Look at him. Useless and only able to make inane speeches. He has become the paper tiger that he once accused the US of being (especially after Mogadishu, this was a common hit against the US). Every time he makes a speech promising action against the infidels (US, et al), and nothing happens, his reputation diminishes.
compuxp... he said it and i really could care less what you believe. You're just riding around life in complete ignorance to everything you don't want to believe. I'm not doing your research for you... wake up and do it yourself.
Yeah, this way we have to continue devoting troops to finding him, so he can't continue planning terrorist plots. Once we find him, troop usage would decrease. I think you liberals are the ignorant ones. No, not ignorant, just stubborn and being your good ol' liberal selves.
True. But there is a LOT to be said to letting him discredit himself. By making promises and not being able to fulfill them. Only thing better than him being dead is being a joke, right?
The choice of term tells me your point of view. Of which I suspected all along. That's because you twisted the words I wrote in determining what you were not aware of. However, you should be aware that: A veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. No one is questioning that. What they do not have the right to do, is expose secret legal programs that have Congressional oversight used by our government to fight terrorism. What you think doesn't excuse treason. Some have argued that. Our founding fathers never gave permission to the media to expose secret legal programs with Congressional oversight to our enemies. There was no consent to give. But now that the NYT has exposed the details, terrorists may freely give thier consent. I wonder what that consent would be? I've already shown the harm it's caused, and that just within the first 24 hours. Time will tell what more harm the NYT has done to our country. This program also had Congressional oversight. Are you suggesting now that you are a terrorist? I ask, because that's what the program targeted. So when you use terms such as "our private lives, our homes, our communications, our financial transactions," it sends a clear signal of what group you believe you belong to. Grasping for straws now. Didn't take long! Incorrect. The secrecy involves a secret legal program with Congressional oversight that is used to fight the enemies of our country. Exposing details of such is giving aid and comfort to our (perhaps I should not be using "our," given that you support giving secret information to enemies of the USA) country. Some questions you continue to avoid: How would exposing such a program benefit the US? So in your opinion, giving away secrets to our enemies is beneficial to our country? What other secrets would you like the NYT to give away to our enemies? Still no comment? Are you ashamed to admit you support giving secrets used to fight our enemies, to our enemies?
Yeah, just a few wars I wonder what zarqawi would say about that? Ooops, he got taken out in that pesky "war on terror!" We'll never know! Erosion of personal liberties? Hmm, what personal liberty have I given up? Let's see, I can post on forums and watch others who claim to lose liberties post about how they support terrorists and treason. Nope, that liberty is not lost. Hmm, Sanford and Son comes on at 8:30. Nope, haven't lost the liberty to watch Redd Foxx! Let's see, I went to a family reunion last month. Long trip. No one stole my personal liberty to do that. Oops, another misleading stay free maxipad commercial during dinner. You know the ones, where they start off with attractive women smiling and jumping in the air and you think "damn!" only to cut away to a box of maxipads! Oh, I hate those. Nope, I still have the right to see those while eating dinner. What else do we have? Well, I just talked to my mom on the phone. And I didn't hear Bush gigling in the background. But, well, I'm not a terrorist and I don't have ties to them, so that's expected. Oh, here's a good one! I recently used my credit card to buy one of those remote control fart machines! You know the ones...little black box with a remote control and you can hide it on some unsuspecting poor soul, then click the remote to make it sound like a fart! I didn't lose my right to use a credit card and oddly enough, no men in black suits showed up outside my home when it arrived. I exercised my right to vote in the last election. Couldn't have someone who committed treason in office. Nope, didn't lose that right! I read an article by the NYT the other day and apparently I have inherited new rights! I now have the right to know every secret program the USA uses to combat terrorism. Who would have thought, I had no idea I had *that* right? Remember Sandy Berger? I wonder what he and Clinton would think about letting bin laden go three times? Hmmm...
I know I can no longer go to libraries to look up child porn and learn how to make risin (sp?) in my home. Dammit. That's booolshit.
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I can't believe Boooosssshhhhh and the oil criminals took these personal liberties away from us! Fascists, nazis, brownshirts! Too funny Lorien!
Whats lorien going to say here in a year or two, when there's a second attack on US soil... and bin laden claims responsibility for it....
Lorien's tough to place. I like/agree with some of his posts but don't others.... lorien: where do you stand? Republican/Democrat/Moderate? Do you lean any particular direction? I haven't been here long enough to find out
I know he just joker, the head of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world, and the behind 9/11 but he's ok, he doesn't mean anything, he seems like a real joke as people line to kill and die in his name.