There's no proof the empty suit in the White House is smart.
While he was relating the state of the union, mostly to the delight of his toady's in the Congess, he lectured us about our addictin to oil.
He then outlined several alternatives from hybrid vehicles to increasing the use of ethanol, made with corn, wood chips, stalk and switchgrass. There are a number of problems with the president's statement. Even as his speech echoed through the Capitol, the Energy Department was set to lay off the very researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories that would develop the technology for alternative fuels. Why? Budget cuts.
But the statement that has the administration backpedaling is, "Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal, to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025 ... and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." What did he have to say that for? According to The New York Times, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to get an explanation to the president's comments. In other words, the Saudis aren't happy. They feel picked on. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the Saudis and the rest of the Middle East accounts for only 24 percent of our oil imports. Canada is actually our biggest supplier.
Maybe he thought most Americans would be taken in by the emotion of the comment without questioning its validity. Hhe may be right.
So few have the access to him to tell him just how on his ass he really is.
>>I still contend it is within the President's war fighting powers, and responsibilities, to isten to the enemy and he doesn't need a warrant to do it.
Getting a warrant is to protect us from POTUS and CIA.
>>if we were monitoring sat comm with a freighter at see, intercepting plans to off load a WMD, we'd have to stop listening when the ship crossed into US waters....while we ran got a warrrant...this is MADNESS.
Then why don't we stop that ship before entering US Water? US water is only 12 miles. And why can't we keep listening but ask for a warrant within 3 days?
"As for your theoretical freighter carrying a WMD...solve the problem...eliminate the frieghter well prior to the entrance into US waters."
Well, although I agree, I shudder to imagine the liberal firestorm if we sunk a ship based on what they consider an "invasion of privacy".
One other point on the reason for NOT seeking a FISA warrant in all cases. I may be incorrect, but I believe if you seek a warrant, and it is denied, the target of the requested warrant is informed of the warrant request. I surely don't need to explain the negative implications of this to a surveillance program.
Re: "This concept only makes any sense if you are using the collected data for a criminal prosecution, then you could exclude the evidence if after the fact the judge denied the warrant."
It would be a conservative move to get the warrant anyway...as a just-in-case. You might be actually able to gather highly useful evidence on a non-terrorist crime. Not all intercepts may relate to terror per se. Some al Queda types may commit a non-terror crime and be put away for it.
As for your theoretical freighter carrying a WMD...solve the problem...eliminate the frieghter well prior to the entrance into US waters.
"The agents have 3 days AFTER the fact to obtain a warrant."
Could someone please explain to me how getting a warrant after the fact protects anyone against "unreasonable" search?
This concept only makes any sense if you are using the collected data for a criminal prosecution, then you could exclude the evidence if after the fact the judge denied the warrant.
BUT, we are NOT listening to these comms for the purpose of criminal prosecution, we are doing it as a normal activity of WAR. I still contend it is within the President's war fighting powers, and responsibilities, to isten to the enemy and he doesn't need a warrant to do it.
I assume under your construct, if we were monitoring sat comm with a freighter at see, intercepting plans to off load a WMD, we'd have to stop listening when the ship crossed into US waters....while we ran got a warrrant...this is MADNESS.
With all the dancing around and distorting, don't you worry about twisting something, like the facts.
First of all, I do not support giving "these prisoners who were captured on the field of battle in Afghanastan and Iraq should be given a civilian trail" or trial. American laws do not apply there, and they should be handled in military courts.
I assume that you agree with
1. Some Iraqi were imprisoned;
2. They were abused for a long time (over 1 year);
3. They were not given a trial in any court.
These facts point that an American soldier or CIA agent can/could point at one Iraqi, arrest and imprison him, abuse him without giving justification, and not allowing that person a chance to prove his innocence.
If this is acceptable, what are the differences between USA Army vs. the Nazi or Imperial Army?
Another fact you kept distorting is "It is as foolish as the concept that you should have to get warrant from a judge before you can listen to enemy communications." The agents have 3 days AFTER the fact to obtain a warrant.
"There are allegations about Gitmo."
"Several low rank officiers were found guilty of mistreating prisoners in Iraq, including abuse/torture."
To the extent that these stories are true, they should (and are being) invetigated by the military, and abusers should be punished under military law.
But that is NOT what you were gripping about. You were implying that these prisoners who were captured on the field of battle in Afghanastan and Iraq should be given a civilian trail like any common criminal.
I still reject that concept. It is as foolish as the concept that you should have to get warrant from a judge before you can listen to enemy communications.
There are allegations about Gitmo. There are other blood boiling allegation about kidnapping the wife/mother to force the terrorist to surrender. However, I am discounting them since they are not proven.
Several low rank officiers were found guilty of mistreating prisoners in Iraq, including abuse/torture.
And yes, we did send a number of Nazi and Imperial Army officiers to military court before executed them.
In case you want to ask the corollary question, the strength of USA is all the SOTA weapons that can nail a tank but leave the house nearby intact. The weaknesses of USA are these SOTA weapons cost $1B/day, and that Americans think with their hearts instead of their cheney.
<I've learned a lot from Sqzr, JOJOBA...>
Ok guys, that's the big green light. Now pedal to the metal (or fingers to the keyboard) and educate this lad.
I mean if he admits ya'll can teach him a little, that would be an accomplishmnet; but he said he's learned a LOT. WhooHoo!!!! Pour it on! A continuous deludge of post from ya'll & IRA could be my biggest fan!
You've shown i=us your ass acouple of tinmes in the past week and your comment about this being a financial message board is novel. Why don't you tkae your own advice and stop contributing to this conversation.
Our commie propoganda has contributors from both sides of the political spectrum and I've learned a lot from Sqzr, JOJOBA and a few of the other participants.
If you bring up a financial issue, someone will address it.
Now, go back to sleep, we'll wake you for the rapture.
You repeatedly refer to "accused to be "terrorist" but not proven in a court?"
Just who exactly are you talking about?
Are actually aware of any such persons?
Or are you referring to the prisoners-of-war being held in Gitmo?
Did we send Nazi, Jap, N. Korean, N. Vietnam prisoners to a civil court? I don't think so. You would apparently fight a war like it was a common criminal case. Is that what you really want?