Rant 42

in response to:"Six weeks after the 9/11 tragedy, Congress overwhelmingly voted to "roll back" Americans' civil liberties in the form of the "Patriot Act." Don't you just love the euphemisms that this administration uses? I guess if you are against the Patriot Act, you are not a Patriot? "

Good pbservation! What I find laughable now is Bush's State Of The Union Speech where he said "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists."

I just wonder how that squares with the threats and such about "invading Syria", because they were supporting the insurgents" or whatever you want to call what he was hinting at about them, and the notion of the CIA sending people to this same Syria for questioning.

Who would you question in all that? If Syria is with the terrorists, and the CIA is with Syria, and Bush is with the CIA, and we're with Bush, then who's left on "our side"? Or is there an "our side"? or did the terrorists become so intimidated they're now on our side? and... the mind boggles.

in response to:"Enough! Save, if not for warrantless wire taps, the Brooklyn Bridge would be gone. Do you honestly think the government needs or wants to listen in on your Bush bashing. Bash away free from fear of any governmental restrictions. The truth is, warrantless wire tapping is well within President Bush's LEGAL RIGHT as President!"

Interesting position, really, though fairly common these days. It also lacks much in the way of foresight. Four years into this mess, and incremental changes have cornered a lot of people into a very unusual place. It mystifies me as to why, but it's hard to get most to turn down the volume, let alone listen to themselves, for 2 minutes, so reason doesn't often get a chance. It's the time when most are apt to make shortsighted decisions.

Piece by piece I've watched people re-order the priorities of this country, or more like they're own priorities, until you really have to wonder what it is they're fighting for, or against. So far, while I can't positively determine the "against" side, I have come up with a pretty good list of what they're not fighting for:

It can't be the Constitution.
If you would fight for a piece of paper, you outa be willing to be bound by it. You can't very well throw it in the trash while fighting for it's reverence. At least 7 of the first 10 amendment arre there to specifically prevent Congress from passing any law to curb certain rights. Please note that no provision is made in any of them making exceptions for the actions of a 6' 8" tall man wandering around a cave, dragging a kidney dialisis machine behind him.

If Congress wanted to pass that abortion, there was really only one legal way.
- Pass legislation Repealling amendments 1 thru 10.
- Get that ratified by the states.
- Draft or accept as written the Patriot Act as either legislation, or a formal amendment.
- Somewhere in all this, they might even consider it a part of their responsibility as our representatives to take 5 hours from their busy schedule of press interviews and actually read the god damned fucking thing!

This seems to be where mose Republicans and I part company. I quit the Republican party the day the Patriot Act was passed. What I see most apologist engaged in is some kind of retro-patriotism. We aren't our parents, and this isn't WWII.

Congress doesn't take an oath to make the world safe for US corporations, every sad-eyed idiot who won't work, and for that matter not the President, either. They take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" and take that obligation "freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion". Every single member of Congress who voted for the Patriot Act, and also it's re-instatement, violated that oath.

If fact they held it in so little regard, most didn't even bother to read the legislation they passed. Asking me to get in line behind this is a waste of time. Asking me to show any level of respect for such vermin is out of the question.

It can't be the notion of "freedom".
Once you're willing to support illegal legislation, that countermands most of the basic tennants of the agreement which the government made in order to secure from the people the authority to act, you no longer have an agreement. Without that agreement, you can have only two things, a) an illegal government, or b) a successful coup.

One might argue a third alternative. That since the people, in their ignorance, neglect or simply the free excercise of their bad judgement are also willing to abandon that agreement, we have in effect formed a new government, relegating 90% of the government's power to whoever is currently President. (Note 1: I will get back to this one in a minute)
It can't be any pretense of human rights, either.
Sec. Rice, in the days leading up to, and during her recent Europe trip sure gave it one helluva try, but didn't quite have the marching orders straight. Neither did the folk back home. They didn't plan on the German PM's humorous touches, either.

What this administration has done to the honor of this nation, like the actions of his predecessor, will take a generation, at least to repair. I certainly hope we last that long. To listen to them on the subject of torture is telling, really. I'd say it is probably the longest series of "non-denial denials" in our history. Having to re-adjust the language when people speak out of turn, or some damn fool they can't control has the nerve to tell the truth, has kept them hopping.

The day before she left, in response to some questions on the matter, Rice talked about this being a "new war" and the need to "oppose terror with terror" and a few other phrases that kinda backfired on her. She'd come close enough to "spilling it" that the press went after her all the more during her trip. By morning she'd also changed her tune a bit. I'm sorry ,but experience with these people, has taught me that, "We are behaving in accordance with US laws", is not only a bit vague, but disingenuous, to be kind. If you think I'm being vague then I'll tell you why:

If
- we snagged some person off the street of another country, and
- flew him to Jordan, and
- then he was trucked into Syria
- And if a CIA employee happened to be going that way anyway
- was lucky enough to hitch a ride on the truck, and
- he happened to have a list of questions with him, which the guys back home would sure like to know answers to
- was kind enough to lend that list to a Syrian intelligence officer
- who came back later with some answers to those questions,
- even if he was also carrying a cattle prod and a pair of bloody pliers

Sec. Rice could still say "We are acting in accordance with US laws". Were you a relative of this missing person, would you settle for that answer? Perhaps you can. But stop for 1/2 a second, and consider what kind of answer the US will hear should they take it in their head in the next 20 years to bring up the matter of human rights with the chinese.

Piece by piece the position deteriorates (no, I refuse to use any reference to "frog on a hot plate" here, too cliche). But you've arrived at a point where this "war" is more important than, human rights, your personal freedom, personal freedom for several generations at least, I think, and the Constitution,. So as I tick these off, for lost, or unimportant I am compelled to finally just ask:

You obviously believe you're fighting for something, can you articulate what that is, and make a case for why it is more important than what you've given up?

For myself, I stopped way back up the road, at the Constitution. I have to give in to the temptation to be flippant, I just can't figure out how to ask this any other way;

Just what the hell is so important about the Brooklyn Bridge, that you would give up all this for? Do you own stock in the bloody thing?

To get behind the President just isn't possible for me. Liberal? The only Democratic Presidency in my lifetime I would consider remotely successful would be Kennedy's. I was frankly just too damned young to have an opinion then, and in 1964 I put up posters, and handed out buttons for Barry Goldwater. But if you ask me to back this President, I can only respond with, "You mean this President?"

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back.“It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Nope! Sorry.

And if you should ask

One of the words generously thrown about these days, is "traitor". Rather recklessly I might add, and typically when you turn up the volume, the first thing lost is a quiet place to think. While everyone has a right to speak their mine, they should also bring to that right a sense of the responsibility for what's said. "Traitor" misused has is very much like a loaded .45 in the hands of a 6 year old.

If you want to have a look at a real traitor, you don't have to look far. You might consider William Jefferson Clinton. (Democrats, please note, that within these parenthesees is the only place you will read the word blowjob) To help fund his re-election campaign, Clinton received $360,000 from what turned out to ultimately be the government of China. He also received about $630,000 from Loral Corp.

Right after he was re-elected, Clinton, obviously on a mere whim, directed the State Dept. to look the other way while Loral Corporation transfered missile guidance technology to China.

Now one of the last buffers between us and China we enjoyed till then was that while they had nuclear weapons, China couldn't hit Texas with a nuke on a windy day. Neither were they a credible competitor to us in the launching of government, or commercial satellites for the same reason. That all changed shortly after the elections in 1996, and 30 years of this nations R & D, and experience in the field, and the margin of safety it provided the US was sold to them for the sum of $1 million.

I not only consider Clinton a traitor, but probably the most successful one and the cheapest one to buy in modern history.

Finally,

Note 1: I've been yelling this at the top of my lungs for four years now, and it hasn't sunk in even once. It has to do with this line above:

"we have in effect formed a new government, relegating 90% of the government's power to whoever is currently President."

I'd say that the odds are still at least 50/50 that Hillary Clinton will, if not elected at least, be a contender for the Presidency in 2008. (sorta sit on that one and wiggle for a second)

I also will remind you that when she was faced with people who had the audacity to oppose her notions of socialized medicine, her plan was to go grab over 900 FBI files, belonging to those people and go digging for dirt. When it came to light she was so casual about it she didn't even bother to try and make up a good lie, to cover her tracks. The notion of their privacy, their rights, their carreers were of little importance to her. These people were, in her eyes, "enemies of the state", and deserved what they got for getting in her way.

Now I don't give a damn what you think the Patriot Act says, or how much you adore and trust G W Bush, Unless you can get him crowned king for life, in 2008 someone who you and I cannot predict, will be President. Fours years later will bring yet another. And we have no clue at to what they would use the Act for.

But I will tell you what the Act says. It says anyone who the President, or the Attorny General is willing to sign a secret directive against, claiming they are a "possible terrorist" is a terrorist, and that there is no need to even consult a judge on the matter, and there is no recourse. There is also no need to even notify a soul, so long as some judge (who mostlikely will owe his job to that same President) is notified within 60 days after they've run his life through a meatgrinder, and should that lucky citizen be you, it would be a felony for any of your neighbors to tell a soul who it was who even took you out of your home.

In the last election none of the Democratic candidates would commit themselves to repealing the Patriot Act. If the people settle for it standing, then it is forever, and a tool to be misused by every administration to come.

"But when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."