Supreme Court says Bush acted illegally

[Ski_Banker]

1. Clearly we are all making assumptions here on what is and what is not addressed when terror threats are discussed, but I find it reasonable to suggest the focus on liquid explosives might have been limited because it was deemed to be less of a threat than other more-immediate concerns; if you have a finite level of resources you can either go after something like knives, or you could squander those resources away trying to find a liquid explosive, which is a threat that takes considerable knowledge to construct and operate. If 9/11 was the result of some 'dudes with knives' it was deemed creating armored cockpit doors, inspecting for these types of edged weapons, and looking deeper into the structure of terror networks was a better use of our limited resources than inspecting every liquid on the off chance you might be dealing with an expert explosives terrorist with an exotic liquid bomb in his gatorade/ipod. Obviously when intelligence pointed to this being an immediate threat, rather than someone in a cave playing with chemicals, our focus shifted and the terror plot from liquid bombs was eliminated - this is a win, not a "why weren't they looking for this" situation.

For a similar category, look at the concept of port security - while certain people in congress rant about inspecting 'every container' entering the US this is not a practical goal, as the cost for a minimal threat would be billions of dollars in equipment, massive delays in shipping transit times, and the paralysis of our shipping infrastructure, which is by no means in any position to undertake this task. Our government has decided on a different use for that money, which it feels will lead to better results.

2. There was an interview, and it escapes me for the moment where I saw this interview, but it was on the program this thread is discussing. One of the experts in this field stated the benefit of the current plan, as it is in place now, is it searches phone calls for certain patterns of speech, and gives returns based on that information. So, for instance, if a certain phone call were to originate in Pakistan and called a US number on a biweekly basis, to discuss the "Brooklyn Bridge" at length, a flag would be raised - it is because of this aspect of the program that it becomes unreasonable to obtain a warrent, be it secret or open - you do not know what you're looking for, you do not know who or what you are trying to find, so how do you obtain a warrent to listen for it?

I would imagine those who defend this program are being intentionally vague in their defense, as any value had by the program is being decreased as people demand to know how, why, and where it works - by asking these questions it becomes less effective, if one of the 'key players' were to step out and address, completly, any questions about the program it would be seriously injured - this is why certain members of congress were fully briefed on the program, and had no complaints. Everyone cannot be fully briefed on the nature of the program if you expect it to continue providing some degree of safety for the American public - certain people are more interested in buzz words, or partisan politics, and fail to see this aspect of the defense of this program.

3. I do not think it is possible to 'win the war on terror' - I do feel we should be aggressive in our pursuit of terrorists, and I find it sad when certain people take advantage of the situation we are in for political gain, but that is the nature of our political system - certain people will attack programs designed to provide benefits to the american public, based on the fear of hurting the rights of terrorists, just as people on the 'other side' will hype up terrorist activity, when the true threat is minimal. I do not see us in a terror war, I see us in a position of having to keep an aggressive stance against terrorism. Would I approach certain events differently, either in retrospect or from my spectator view of reading websites and watching news reports? Perhaps, but I also understand we will not know the full story until many years from now, and despite it being the 'in thing' to criticize our elected government I see a great deal of their policies as benefiting the public, and many of their detractors as being afraid of offending the terrorists.

4. Why haven't we caught Bin Laden - I am sure we would all love to see this joker dead or in prison, to pose this question makes it seem as though we have the capacity to 'get him' at will - I do not believe this is the case at the moment, although there are many instances where we could have 'gotten him' in the past and did not, dating beyond the current administration. In the current sense the reason Bin Laden is not being pursued aggresively is one of politics, not in the sense of what you are suggesting (which is offensive and baseless), but rather politics in Pakistan play a greater role than you might assume. If Pakistan's government were to aggressively go after Bin Laden they would lose the teneious hold they have on that country, and if we were to go into regions of Pakistan for them it would also have a bad impact on the government of Pakistan. So, while we could pursue Bin Laden to a greater degree it would result in the almost certain loss of Pakistan as an ally against terror, which is a relationship that has resulted in a great deal of positives in the last few years. Bin Laden is symbolic, but if our goal is to prevent terrorism alienating Pakistan could result in more attacks against the United States, for the goal of eliminating a guy who is no longer in the 'operational loop'. This is not to say we aren't still looking for the guy, I would be suprised if we didn't have robotic drones in this region of Pakistan scouring caves, and significant ELAnt looking for Bin Laden, but without 'boots on the ground' we are not going to find him, and we are not in a position to do this ourselves, nor can we count on the government of Pakistan to do it for us.

Ugh, this is a lot, but here goes:
1 & 4: EVERY SINGLE DAY, either the White House Press Secretary or GB himself, relate some event to our "War on Terror." With that level of commitment, dedication, and the vast resources we have at our disposal, you would THINK that we could actually effect some change to the system. Be it strengthening our port security (which we have not, see 9/11 Commission Report now 2 years dated), overhauling airline security (besides asking us to take off our shoes and putting door locks in the cockpit - excellent solution BTW), doing SOMETHING to address rail security (frankly, that one might be impossible), or catching Osama Bin Laden. Yes, our resources are not unlimited, but Bush's mission since 9/11 has been pinpoint focused on fighting this War on Terror and yet the OBVIOUS changes have yet to be made! Why?? Because the administration has been even MORE focused on generating & maintaining fear - people will do anything when afraid. And, I agree with you, that Bin Laden is a figurehead, but he hasn't been *caught* because that would signal an END to the War on Terror, thereby eroding the power that Bush has generated by instilling FEAR in the populace.


2. To quote you, "you do not know what you're looking for, you do not know who or what you are trying to find, so how do you obtain a warrent to listen for it." I COULDN'T AGREE MORE! The Feds under this program can, search/listen somewhat randomly, in hopes of finding something, to justify that search and move forward with charges. The traditional FISA system doesn't allow this because it requires -eventually- a warrant, granted by an official in the Judicial Branch, for every case. What you are saying, in fact arguing for, is that the executive government should be authorized to search for evidence of any crime (or "Terrorism"), without oversight, and IF something of interest is discovered, the Feds should be able to act on it. I guess if you've been paralyzed with terrorism-related fear, you're willing to allow such actions.

3. I agree, this isn't a "war" that can be won. And like you, I think reasonable steps should be taken (BTW, airport searches could be conducted reasonably, in my estimation) to prevent serious terrorist actions. Nuclear weapons, likely coming through our ports, being BY FAR the most important to guard against.

To your point, that, by disclosing our programs, we are weakening ourselves: In almost all instances, that argument is absurd. THINK FOR A MINUTE! Do you not believe that would-be terrorists don't contemplate that they are being spied upon?? Are they so stupid that they pick up their home phone, dial Pakistan, and discuss blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge? Even more absurd is that this argument (gotta keep all programs a secret, liberals are weakening the country, etc.) was used by Bush and Cheney themselves in response to the hardly-even-newsworthy-article detailing bank wire transfer tracking. Bush and Friends had the gall, after this was "revealed", to attack the NY Times as leftist press trying to weaken the U.S. Such statements, made by the Commander in Chief himself, are COMPLETE BS. Anyone in the entire financial services industry has known about these types of money laundering, wire tracking programs which have been in place since even before 9/11. And yet, you still trust his every word, huh?

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

[ChopsJazz]

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

and...

Thomas Jefferson:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

to attack the NY Times as leftist press trying to weaken the U.S. Such statements, made by the Commander in Chief himself, are COMPLETE BS.

Bush will continue to play the "9/11 card" as often as he can because it works. Fear generates fear and an well-informed public is his worst enemy.

 

[scorp965]

"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."

- Rudyard Kipling​

 

[ekin95]

No offense, but they already did have the authority to do so. They could/can do wiretaps and then get a warrant 36 hours later. So they can/could get a warrant 36 hours after the fact and a special court to get approval. The special court was needed because or government had been abusing it's authority. Now the current administration says that court takes to long ( yes that's exactly what Bush said ). That's just stupid talk ,but it works because the majority of the country is stupid. How can we talk about terrorism in our country when we just destabilized an entire country.

How many innocent Iraqi's have died ,because of our illegal occupation of Iraq? This is scary to me because as an American I know if some outside country came over here and did the same thing we'd all be looking for some retribution. Would we be terrorists ,because we wanted revenge for our loved ones??? It's uncomfortable when your right shoe is on your left foot:wink:

You know I love ya bro ,but don't believe the hype!

Oh ya! Well I know where you live! :wink: J/K

Seriously though, by reading some of these responses some of you may want to run for congress or local govt. Some of you guys seem to know more than some of our leaders and have a beter idea of fixing the problems w/ this world.

 

[WingZ]

Oh ya! Well I know where you live! :wink: J/K

Seriously though, by reading some of these responses some of you may want to run for congress or local govt. Some of you guys seem to know more than some of our leaders and have a beter idea of fixing the problems w/ this world.

Unfortunately buddy anyone smart enough to do the job doesn't want it. Those willing to try get tired of fighting and usually get bought out. Clinton fought hard to get public government sponsered healthcare for everyone and was fought tooth and nail by the Republican controlled house, senate and big business. Now look at the mess healthcare is in in this country. American business is struggling to compete and keep costs down just to stay alive. Jobs get shipped overseas where labour is cheaper mostly because of healthcare. Of course all he gets know for now is trying to get some trim. Supposedly the richest country in the world yet borrowing about 2 billion a month just to run day to day operations. Most Americans just don't understand the monetary cost of Iraq. It's sad really really sad:frown:

 

[brahtw8]

There is significant oversight and a number of restrictions.

I love how this is often categorized as "spying on American citizens." Of course, no one has put forth any instances of abuse of this program. Remember that this warrantless surveillance can ONLY be applied on overseas communications with al Qaeda. American citizens (or most likely illegals here on expired visas, etc) who are communicating with al Qaeda overseas...

Now there's a group of people who's rights we want to protect!

One thing I'd like to know...

Where were all you guys who are complaining about warrentless searches, when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12949?

Please take a few minutes to read the order...

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

This order expanded FISA to enable the legal authority to approve black-bag operations to authorize Department of Justice (DoJ) requests to conduct physical as well as electronic searches, without obtaining a warrant in open court, without notifying the subject, without providing an inventory of items seized. The targets need not be under suspicion of committing a crime, but may be investigated when probable cause results solely from their associations or status: for example, belonging to, or aiding and abetting organizations deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Sounds to me like President Bush and Atty General Gonzales already had the authorization to do warrantless activities, even without the Congress OK to use force.

And 12949 had pretty much no restrictions other than deeming that it posed a threat to national security. At least with the current activities, there's oversight and a requirement of an overseas al Qaeda connection.

Please don't believe the hype. There were two executive orders, one by Carter and one by Clinton, that were part of the RNC press release to try and spin Bush's actions.

RNC Points To Spy Orders By Carter, Clinton

Thursday, December 22, 2005; A12

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

**

You can find the orders yourself and confirm this here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

You also have to look up the FISA law referenced here:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

**

It is the certifications that preclude the application to US property or persons referenced above:

Section 302 is 50 U.S.C. 1802:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.



Carry on.

 

[minervoflorida]

I say leave Iraq now and let it fail.
Bush has more wars he wants to fight, Iran is on his short list, then Syria, Pakistan.
Heck he might even fight NK if he had troops.

Why should he work on our energy crisis or Social Sec., or medicare or our safety at borders and airports?

Go Halliburton.

We don't need no stinking diplomacy.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Oh ya! Well I know where you live! :wink: J/K

Seriously though, by reading some of these responses some of you may want to run for congress or local govt. Some of you guys seem to know more than some of our leaders and have a beter idea of fixing the problems w/ this world.

NSXTASY for President! :biggrin:

Oh, and "Bear" thanks for the kind words in your PM today. I'll spare everyone the details, out of respect for the *private message* format. But, suffice it to say, the fact that you are now disregarding my points because you just realized I was a lowly "Systems Analyst" speaks volumes about how you view the world and the trust you'll ascribe to authority figures. So, today, I changed my occupation to "Telemarketer" and the first poll I will be conducting is on who is the most gullible member of NSX Prime. :biggrin:

 

[WingZ]

Please don't believe the hype. There were two executive orders, one by Carter and one by Clinton, that were part of the RNC press release to try and spin Bush's actions.

RNC Points To Spy Orders By Carter, Clinton

Thursday, December 22, 2005; A12

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

**

You can find the orders yourself and confirm this here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

You also have to look up the FISA law referenced here:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

**

It is the certifications that preclude the application to US property or persons referenced above:

Section 302 is 50 U.S.C. 1802:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.



Carry on.

Ouch! now we really won't hear from Jimbo:biggrin:

 

[brahtw8]

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, I offer it for your consideration:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

9:49 A.M. EDT

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

 

[WingZ]

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, I offer it for your consideration:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

9:49 A.M. EDT

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Here's another quote from his speech.

But thanks for coming today. This message today is aimed as much at you as it is anybody else. Today, we have got an interesting -- a lot of families with us, but one that struck me as worthy of note, and that's the Conroy family. Where's Peggy Conroy? Somewhere. There she is. Good. Hi, Peggy. Thanks. The reason I brought up Peggy is I want you to know that Peggy's husband is a Staff Sergeant in the National Guard, the 105th Military Police Unit in Karbala, Iraq. She represents many of the families of this area and the country who are sacrificing to see to it that the world is more free and more peaceful.

1. Did he really say that last part?
2. What planet is he referring to?
3. Did he say this with a straight face?

 

[myf16]

Getting back to the topic at hand - the legality of the administration's electronic eavesdropping activities - I see that no one has yet answered my question, why the administration couldn't have simply gotten secret court orders in such cases, as provided by existing law. Again, it seems there is no answer, other than outright incompetence and/or a belief that they are above the requirements of the law.

I probably should have my head examined for posting in this thread, but maybe I should have my head examined regardless. :biggrin:

I'm no expert on this, but gathering intelligence covers a continuum from pattern analysis to actual eavesdropping (humans listening to phone calls and reading emails). The automated tools are valuable, but until you analyze the patterns you have nothing that could support a court order. You are fishing for clues, rather than acting on them.

This may be the problem that the administration has, or they may be other weaknesses of the court order procedure, weaknesses which they prefer not to expose to any and all adversaries. When the government successfully keeps a secret, that means we will not have the full picture to make up our minds. At that point, you can choose to trust or distrust the government, a decision which is inevitably colored by partisanship.

Funny, I've seen this issue debated elsewhere. Concerns of govt infringing on constitutional rights, Dems vs Repubs, "I don't have anything to worry about therefore why should I care", Big Brother and the slippery slope if left unchecked - you know, those sorts of issues. No where was that?? Let me think. Hmmmmmmmmmm....

Oh yeah!

Gun control

Note: Hope you're views on the two issues are consistant, b/c 90% of the public that follows party lines wouldn't be!

That's an excellent observation. Here's my take, FWIW: Plenty of people like to fantasize about becoming Zorro, defender of the righteous against a tyrannical government. It's not much of a stretch for today's hard left to imagine a US government they would take up arms against. On the hard right, the KKK nearly did so in the 1960s. Left of center people may have favored gun control as a reaction to that, trusting the government more than they trusted gun owners. Today I'd bet that at least the hard left is becoming opposed to gun control -- I doubt they'd want Bush taking away whetever guns they have.

Anyway, the common theme is Zorro. Any government monitoring, automated or not, has the potential to foil (get it?) Zorro. Zorro needs to act without being seen.

Unfortunately, the conditions that Zorro requires to succeed against a tyrannical government are precisely the conditions that terrorists need to succeed. IMHO, it's time for everyone to give up the Zorro fantasy and deal with the terrorist reality.

In the modern world, we don't need Zorro. No government can long survive the enmity of a large majority of its people. We the people have far too many non-violent tools at our disposal, everything from plain old voting to general strikes. The Internet has made Zorro obsolete.

 

[ChopsJazz]

Anyway, the common theme is Zorro. Any government monitoring, automated or not, has the potential to foil (get it?) Zorro. Zorro needs to act without being seen.

So, you're saying Bush is trying to be Zorro? Not Zero? :wink:

Sorry, I had to say it.

 

[queenlives]

So, you're saying Bush is trying to be Zorro? Not Zero? :wink:

Sorry, I had to say it.

i'm sure he meant to say, Zaino or Zymol.

 

[myf16]

i'm sure he meant to say, Zaino or Zymol.

You may laugh now, but just wait until you see that giant Z scratched into your hood!

 

[ChopsJazz]

i'm sure he meant to say, Zaino or Zymol.

:biggrin:

 

[Stick-e-rice]

Since this is wandering off topic... I'm going to make one fundamental point.

YOU CAN'T KILL AN IDEA

There is nothing on the planet more powerful than a strong belief. Look at any religion, look at stories passed down from generations. You want to stop Muslim terrorists? Find out why they're so pissed off at you, and try - slowly - to change their minds or your behaviors. Our current approach uses the same asinine ideology as trying to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. Walls, in the history of mankind, have never worked in the long run. You want to keep Mexicans out of the U.S.? Figure out why they're coming here in the first place (hmm, our unskilled citizens are on welfare perhaps?).

A few wackjob Muslims were pissed off at us before the Iraq war - before we invaded their country and killed thousands - guess how many Muslims are pissed at us now? Take a guess, genius. Look at the Cold War. Did the U.S. win because we killed all the commies? No (we "lost" the only times we tried) - we proved, eventually, to have a superior economic system which changed the Russian's minds. How about the "War on Drugs?" How many drug dealers and lowlifes have been killed, jailed, etc. - and yet, our country's drug problem is UNCHANGED. Not one thing has been accomplished.

In 2003, the U.S. dropped a Daisy Cutter on Baghdad, and out flew an entire nation of future terrorists.

If you believe that this War on Terrorism can be won by "killing all the terrorists", you are as stupid as the keyboard I'm typing on. My NSX is smarter than you (and it doesn't need a Shepherd). Bring on the flames, I can't wait.

I would have to totally agree with Ski Banker here. We are not solving problems from the source? Why? In most cases it all comes down to money.

There is no simple quick fix solution with the problems we have today in our society. We are a product of our own society and lifestyle. There are sacrifices that we must make to attain a very fruitful economy. We have to sacrifice so much to acquire wealth, usually at the expense of others.

Every political system has a flaw because it assumes that the elected party will be acting in goodwill in behalf of the people. Leaders must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the people. Are they willing to?

King Bhumipol of Thailand is one of the rare Kings that make a constitutional monarchy work. He is the longest king in history to reign for 60 years and it loved completely by his people. I don't think I've met a single Thai person who will disagree. But a constitutional monarchy system is only as good as its king. Thailand, could very much be in position like the United States in a couple of decades as we strive to grow and strengthen our economy. Thailand's prime minister, is already trying to move the country in that direction.

When we had an Economic crisis, which was much worse than what the U.S. is experiencing now. The king simply explained to its people the Buddhist way. What goes up must one day come down as nothing in this world is permanent or forever as peace from within. He encouraged our country to simply spend less and save more, live with what you have and can earn.

Bush is as human as any other leader, but he is just not as good as covering it up. I think Bush's presidency is a very important time in history, as he has shown to the world without question, how abnoxious we, Americans can really be. Clinton was cherished because of the booming economy during his presidency and it is that that gains popular opinion.

When economy and wealth is the goal of your country, the problems we see today are simply sacrifices you must be willing to make.

We try to do what we can to make this world a better place. I think what has happened here, might not be a bad thing, as it has waken up a lot of people to voice out their opinions. Debates such as these will draw action and we can all do our parts by participating.

Buddhists place value most on reason and causation. What we do today will determine the outcome of our lives. Maybe in another life or maybe real late in life. But we believe you can't be saved by God. Once you have done bad, that is done. You will pay for that. You can, however, do good, which will reap you the rewards of that action, but it will not cancel what bad you have done.

The Buddhist way has given me light. If any of you are interested in any literature, PM me and I will ship it to you free of charge. I was lucky to have met and be taught by many famous monks, while I was in Thailand including Panya Nanta Bhikkhu

There is not much literature in English, but there is a lot more offerred now than before.

I was an Atheist before, because I couldn't have Faith without Reason.

The biggest misconception Buddhism gets is that Buddhism doesn't encourage you to give up your wealth and be a monk. Meditation is not a waste of time and monks are not lazy people who have given up to a life in search of materialism.

Buddhism is used in many large corporations in Thailand to educate their officers and employees to become a more responsible company, produce better people, and provide better products and services for its consumer.

Check out www.dharma.org for more information. I can answer some questions if you have any. It might be the solution of what we all really need, as it was for me. Money and a loving family wasn't enough for me, as I had to really understand what life was before I could really focus on what I planned to do the rest of my life with.

I love the United States as it is my other home and it has provided the means for me to support myself here. I felt the need to give back and post on this forum as I've met many nice people here.:smile:

 

[queenlives]

You may laugh now, but just wait until you see that giant Z scratched into your hood!

 

[Ski_Banker]

I would have to totally agree with Ski Banker here. We are not solving problems from the source? Why? In most cases it all comes down to money.

There is no simple quick fix solution with the problems we have today in our society. We are a product of our own society and lifestyle. There are sacrifices that we must make to attain a very fruitful economy. We have to sacrifice so much to acquire wealth, usually at the expense of others.

Every political system has a flaw because it assumes that the elected party will be acting in goodwill in behalf of the people. Leaders must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the people. Are they willing to?

King Bhumipol of Thailand is one of the rare Kings that make a constitutional monarchy work. He is the longest king in history to reign for 60 years and it loved completely by his people. I don't think I've met a single Thai person who will disagree. But a constitutional monarchy system is only as good as its king. Thailand, could very much be in position like the United States in a couple of decades as we strive to grow and strengthen our economy. Thailand's prime minister, is already trying to move the country in that direction.

When we had an Economic crisis, which was much worse than what the U.S. is experiencing now. The king simply explained to its people the Buddhist way. What goes up must one day come down as nothing in this world is permanent or forever as peace from within. He encouraged our country to simply spend less and save more, live with what you have and can earn.

Bush is as human as any other leader, but he is just not as good as covering it up. I think Bush's presidency is a very important time in history, as he has shown to the world without question, how abnoxious we, Americans can really be. Clinton was cherished because of the booming economy during his presidency and it is that that gains popular opinion.

When economy and wealth is the goal of your country, the problems we see today are simply sacrifices you must be willing to make.

We try to do what we can to make this world a better place. I think what has happened here, might not be a bad thing, as it has waken up a lot of people to voice out their opinions. Debates such as these will draw action and we can all do our parts by participating.

Buddhists place value most on reason and causation. What we do today will determine the outcome of our lives. Maybe in another life or maybe real late in life. But we believe you can't be saved by God. Once you have done bad, that is done. You will pay for that. You can, however, do good, which will reap you the rewards of that action, but it will not cancel what bad you have done.

The Buddhist way has given me light. If any of you are interested in any literature, PM me and I will ship it to you free of charge. I was lucky to have met and be taught by many famous monks, while I was in Thailand including Panya Nanta Bhikkhu

There is not much literature in English, but there is a lot more offerred now than before.

I was an Atheist before, because I couldn't have Faith without Reason.

The biggest misconception Buddhism gets is that Buddhism doesn't encourage you to give up your wealth and be a monk. Meditation is not a waste of time and monks are not lazy people who have given up to a life in search of materialism.

Buddhism is used in many large corporations in Thailand to educate their officers and employees to become a more responsible company, produce better people, and provide better products and services for its consumer.

Check out www.dharma.org for more information. I can answer some questions if you have any. It might be the solution of what we all really need, as it was for me. Money and a loving family wasn't enough for me, as I had to really understand what life was before I could really focus on what I planned to do the rest of my life with.

I love the United States as it is my other home and it has provided the means for me to support myself here. I felt the need to give back and post on this forum as I've met many nice people here.:smile:

Thanks for posting this. IMO, one of the best serious posts on Prime I have seen in a while. :smile:

 

[johnny010]

Thanks for posting this. IMO, one of the best serious posts on Prime I have seen in a while. :smile:

Which part? The advertisement?

 

[Ski_Banker]

Which part? The advertisement?

No, not really. Just based on the tone and rational content of his post. Made me think.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Agreed then...NSXTASY for president! :biggrin:

 

[Patricio]

Has anyone noticed that although we have our reasons for fighting, whether monetary or Oil, whatever we are leaded to believe Democrat, or Republican. There is another side to analyze. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? The tantalizing attitude of Bush using the name of god every chance he gets, is what fuel’s the terrorist war.

Every time we as American residents hear someone using the name of Allah during a political display by an Arab, you probably think; damm Religious fanatics why are they fighting us over religion? We are not fighting based on religion why don’t they stop this religious bull sh*t?

Here is the example most people don’t notice:
Our ears are trained to hear the name of god. How do you think a Muslim fanatic feels every time our president says the words in the name of god? No president in recent history has ever demonstrated religious beliefs publicly as much as bush; it’s in almost every statement he gives. How normal is it for a state official to constantly refer to a specific religious denomination? Is this coincidence or purposely the main attraction set up to tantalize the Muslim fanatics?

If you were on the other side, where you watch the president of the US referring to every statement with religious comments, this would lead you to believe your religious battle holds strong, because of this you continue to bomb and run around like a Looney on TV, which in return shows us Americans on TV that the Muslims are religious fanatics fighting for the wrong reasons, since we as a country do not fight religious wars. Wrong.

This Oil battle is being blindly fueled by our president using religious statements which cause more opposition which in return cause us Americans to believe deadly force is necessary. It all starts here. Analyze the psychological effects of the word GOD to a Muslim fanatic wanting to kill anything catholic or Christian. They don’t care about their Oil they would give it to us in Exchange for our blood.

One major Solution;
The Re-Separation of church and State would make a big difference to our safety in the close future. Homeland security…. How about religious differences of our Homeland? Our president is purposely waiving a Catholic/Christian flag at the front line, tantalizing fanatics which convince us to be his puppets to approve, and support war.
Bush needs to be gagged, before war reaches our shores.

Yes Im catholic, but not a fanatic nor very involved in religion.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Has anyone noticed that although we have our reasons for fighting, whether monetary or Oil, whatever we are leaded to believe Democrat, or Republican. There is another side to analyze. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? The tantalizing attitude of Bush using the name of god every chance he gets, is what fuel’s the terrorist war.

Here is the example most people don’t notice:
Every time we as American residents hear someone using the name of Allah during a political display by an Arab, you probably think; damm Religious fanatics why are they fighting us over religion? We are not fighting based on religion why don’t they stop this religious bull sh*t?

But, this is because our ears are trained to hear the name of god. How do you think a Muslim fanatic feels every time our president says the words in the name of god? No president in recent history has ever demonstrated religious beliefs publicly as much as bush; it’s in almost every statement he gives. How normal is it for a state official to constantly refer to a specific religious denomination? Is this coincidence or purposely the main attraction set up to tantalize the Muslim fanatics?

If you were in the other side, were you watch the president of the US referring to every statement with religious comments this would lead to believe your religious battle holds strong, because of this you continue to bomb and run around like a Looney on TV, which in return shows us Americans on TV that the Muslims are religious fanatics fighting for the wrong reasons, since we as a country do not fight religious wars. Wrong.

This Oil battle is being blindly fueled by our president using religious statements which cause more opposition which in return cause us Americans to believe deadly force is necessary. It all starts here. Analyze the psychological effects of the word GOD to a Muslim fanatic wanting to kill anything catholic or Christian. They don’t care about their Oil they would give it to us in Exchange for our blood.

One major Solution;
The Re-Separation of church and State would make a big difference to our safety in the close future. Homeland security…. How about religious differences of our Homeland? Our president is purposely waiving a catholic flag at the front line, tantalizing fanatics which convince us to be his puppets to approve, and support war.
Bush needs to be gagged, before war reaches our shores.

Yes Im catholic before you ask.

You bring up some good points, really. Clearly church/state separation is a big issue with this administration, and I, *personally* agree that we have crossed the line there in many ways. I just wish that the solution was as simple as symantics, because I really don't think it is. This radical Islamic movement did not begin with Bush and his wording, and 9/11 wasn't associated with him IMO. Clinton could have been in office for #3 and it still would have happened. However, Bush's approach to this War on Terror has been inflammatory and, IMO again, the best policy may not be to rhetorically highlight our differences. It's always tougher to *negotiate* when both sides have drawn the line and dug in their heels. Remains to be seen...

Your friend is still a douche though.

 

[WingZ]

Has anyone noticed that although we have our reasons for fighting, whether monetary or Oil, whatever we are leaded to believe Democrat, or Republican. There is another side to analyze. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? The tantalizing attitude of Bush using the name of god every chance he gets, is what fuel’s the terrorist war.

Every time we as American residents hear someone using the name of Allah during a political display by an Arab, you probably think; damm Religious fanatics why are they fighting us over religion? We are not fighting based on religion why don’t they stop this religious bull sh*t?

Here is the example most people don’t notice:
Our ears are trained to hear the name of god. How do you think a Muslim fanatic feels every time our president says the words in the name of god? No president in recent history has ever demonstrated religious beliefs publicly as much as bush; it’s in almost every statement he gives. How normal is it for a state official to constantly refer to a specific religious denomination? Is this coincidence or purposely the main attraction set up to tantalize the Muslim fanatics?

If you were on the other side, where you watch the president of the US referring to every statement with religious comments, this would lead you to believe your religious battle holds strong, because of this you continue to bomb and run around like a Looney on TV, which in return shows us Americans on TV that the Muslims are religious fanatics fighting for the wrong reasons, since we as a country do not fight religious wars. Wrong.

This Oil battle is being blindly fueled by our president using religious statements which cause more opposition which in return cause us Americans to believe deadly force is necessary. It all starts here. Analyze the psychological effects of the word GOD to a Muslim fanatic wanting to kill anything catholic or Christian. They don’t care about their Oil they would give it to us in Exchange for our blood.

One major Solution;
The Re-Separation of church and State would make a big difference to our safety in the close future. Homeland security…. How about religious differences of our Homeland? Our president is purposely waiving a Catholic/Christian flag at the front line, tantalizing fanatics which convince us to be his puppets to approve, and support war.
Bush needs to be gagged, before war reaches our shores.

Yes Im catholic, but not a fanatic nor very involved in religion.

Hold up chief. Don't go blaming christianity for that idiot. Go back in time to right after 9/11 before the Iraq war and you'll see that Bush's pastor told him not to go to war with Iraq. Right wing conservatives claim to be following God ,but show by their fruits to be doing anything but that. Once prayer left the schools violence did increase. There's nothing in the constituition about seperating church and state although many claim this. Scripture says when evil men are in power the people languish. Which is just what is happening right now. Not everybody who calls on Gods name is Christian and those that do it the loudest are Con men. I'm Christian and understand the danger of religon ,becuase religon has no heart and is generally used to enslave people. People died because they believed that you and I should have personal access to scripture. That personal access lets you see crook and charltans a mile away. I can say with great confidence that Bush and his cronys will reap what they've sown ( as is already apparent ). Also quit calling yourself Catholic if you don't follow it, that's retarded. Be agnostic or whatever ever you want to call it. Don't shame the name.