Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems Plan To Go On Offensive On National Security (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to throw cold water (none)

    But...  All the GOP/Fuhrer needs to do to kill off the entire argument, for all practical purposes, is decide the Prez acted in good faith, even though he technically did NOT have authority to spy.  In response, they declare a change to the FISA law or simply declare express authorization to do what he is doing.  They make it "legal" in this way and thus make any evidence collected via warrantless spying "legal" and thus admissible.  The Dems stand around slackjawed and breathless.  Totally stunned and gobsmacked.  POOF!  The entire episode is swept under a rug and opposition is officially irrelevant and unneeded...even unPatriotic.

    Nothing is beneath the GOP at this point in history (it's END, that is).

    Reichstag fire is to Hitler as 9/11 is to Bush

    by praedor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:09:42 AM PST

    •  agreed (none)
      I don't think domestic spying is a winner in the long run because people don't believe it really impacts them. As I said before people only have time to care about things that directly impact them.  That is why I think the Google Search thing is much more disturbing to the average American.  That is unless we can prove that the domestic spying has been used maliciously and/or politically.

      Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

      by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:17:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's something else too (none)

        Even if the evidence acquired remains inadmissible in court, so what?  KBR has an ongoing (since Bush first got into office) contract, recently renewed and expanded to ~$400 million, to build detention facilities for "immigration emergencies".  Of course, the other part of the REASON and USE of these facilities on US soil is to serve "future needs and programs..." that go beyond immigration emergencies.

        So, the Prez spying operation nets a few suspects that cannot be prosecuted in court because the evidence against them was picked up extra-Constitutionally.  The Prez declares such people, American citizen or not, an "enemy combatant" and simply stores them away in KBR detention facilities under the purview of the "future needs and programs" generalization.  Indefinite detention.

        Reichstag fire is to Hitler as 9/11 is to Bush

        by praedor on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:24:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, so what? (none)
          is what most Americans seem to think about such things.  Most people are too busy surviving to actually give a shit about things we all find crucially important.  I think it would take a clear example of malicious intent or political intent for this to get much traction.  I pray that I am wrong.

          Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

          by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:46:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Let's make them care (none)
        Okay, people don't think the wiretapping is affecting them directly? Let's make them understand how it does. I have convinced two people, both hardcore republicans (fundis and all), that it does affect them. When someone takes the time to explain things to people I find they generally listen, and if they don't fuck them anyway.
        It is part of our job as the attentive public to make this issue a winner.

        Spies, Cries, and Lies: Brought to you by the Republican Party

        by Whitney S on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:30:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how did you convince them? (none)
          frankly, my only interest is for political points.  what did you say to your friends to convince them that they should be concerned about this personally?  not just intellectually?

          Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

          by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:42:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have to approach it delicately (none)
            Do not say anything that might hint you believe this is the presidents fault. I have found that if they believe that he is getting bad advice they are more apt to accept what you have to say.
            Then, I asked them if they believed God was okay with the constitution. They replied that of course or it wouldn't have been passed. (One could use that an in for abortion, but I thought I should stick to the main issue). I explained that privacy is mentioned in almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights. Then, I started explaining how I am in some of the groups that the gov. considers terrorists. I told them how every time they make a phone call could be the last time. I then asked them, "what happens if someone calls you from a wrong number and it turns out to be a terrorist?" I told them they would be watched forever.
            I think it helped that they knew me well and knew that I wasn't a terrorist. But, my advice just approach it lightly. Talk about god. Oh, I also threw in a bit about the Romans persecuted Jesus and how right before they did it they were probably following him to get info. and now he's so widely accepted!

            Spies, Cries, and Lies: Brought to you by the Republican Party

            by Whitney S on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:04:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  What? (none)
        How did Watergate affect the average voter?

        The President is breaking the law.  The average voter doesn't own a democratic party office that Nixon was breaking into, but they were still pissed as hell the President did it.

        He thinks he's above the Law, and that sentiment should carry weight.  I know it can be tough to get people to care about esoteric notions like that, but then again, how does flag burning affect the average voter?  And yet the Republicans can find support for laws against it.  People do care about the symbols and the concepts.  

        "I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson

        by Scientician on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:54:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is ex post facto application of new laws (none)
      even permissible under the constitution, federal statutes and precedents? I.e. even if they did change FISA this way, it wouldn't necessarily apply to previous violations of FISA.

      Plus, from what I understand congress cannot pass a law short of an amendment (that then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states) that violates the constitution, which this would do, by granting the president powers that effectively made him above and outside the oversight of the other two branches of government. I think that the framers anticipated such a situation and took safeguards against it. I'll have to refer this to legal experts to make sure, though.

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

      by kovie on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:13:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site