Thread Tools
Aug 18, 2007, 02:09 AM
Closed Account
Discussion

Just approve the program AG, you don't need to know the details.


Just approve the program AG, you don't need to know the details.

And when we can finally get Ashcroft out of the way, you're our man.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html
Aug 18, 2007, 03:03 AM
"Will crash for food."
PLA0242's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1
Just approve the program AG, you don't need to know the details.

And when we can finally get Ashcroft out of the way, you're our man.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

Great article. I hope that history accurately accounts for the obvious lack of ethics in this administration. Clearly, that accountability isn't going to happen while he is in office.

-P
Aug 18, 2007, 03:09 AM
Fly safe, fly often!
Buzz_Man's Avatar
NPR did a decent job of covering this with their "insider" columnist . . . can't find the podcast but it's worth a listen.
Aug 18, 2007, 03:10 AM
"Will crash for food."
PLA0242's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz_Man
NPR did a decent job of covering this with their "insider" columnist . . . can't find the podcast but it's worth a listen.

Hey Buzz...are you stalking me!?

-Paige
Aug 18, 2007, 03:14 AM
Useful Idiot
Gonzales Hispanic origins should help him understand the significance of Mueller's gesture.
Aug 18, 2007, 08:55 AM
Registered User
peterp1964's Avatar
check this out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081502434.html

Quote:
Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A04

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 -- Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.

"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government's conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.

"This seems to put us in the 'trust us' category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " 'We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it.' "

At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that "other avenues" are available. "What is that? Impeachment?" Pregerson shot back.
...
Peter

ps. and a related piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081701923.html
Aug 18, 2007, 09:24 AM
Trampling out the vintage
Good for the judge.

The overreach (among other things) by the current Executive is the most perfect example in the history of the United States of grounds for impeachment.

It is simply breathtaking - less than 20 years after the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the government of a superpower is openly asserting that 'state security' gives it carte blance to do as it pleases.

I am beginning to think the Soviets actually won the cold war. We are adopting their system.
Aug 18, 2007, 03:58 PM
Go get them Meg!
lrsudog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
I am beginning to think the Soviets actually won the cold war. We are adopting their system.
More like without the Soviets, we have no object lesson that continuously demonstrates the ramifications of over enthusiastic "State security" advocates.
Aug 18, 2007, 04:40 PM
RRR
RRR
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrsudog
More like without the Soviets, we have no object lesson that continuously demonstrates the ramifications of over enthusiastic "State security" advocates.
Hmmmm. What about China( the country not the wrasslin chick)?
Aug 18, 2007, 06:22 PM
Go get them Meg!
lrsudog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRR
Hmmmm. What about China( the country not the wrasslin chick)?

China is to Russian Communism what Mexico is to American representational Democracy. Soviet Russia presented a far greater threat to American ideals than China does now. In fact, if China ever presents a significant threat to American interests, it will be because they have bested us at our own capitalist game. China is a only a threat because they are slowly becoming us.
Aug 18, 2007, 11:11 PM
Closed Account
Wait, I though China won the Cold War? Nixon played China off against the Soviets and the Soviets blinked.

In war isn't it "to the victor go the spoils"? China certainly has the spoils.
Aug 19, 2007, 02:43 AM
RRR
RRR
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrsudog
China is to Russian Communism what Mexico is to American representational Democracy. Soviet Russia presented a far greater threat to American ideals than China does now. In fact, if China ever presents a significant threat to American interests, it will be because they have bested us at our own capitalist game. China is a only a threat because they are slowly becoming us.
Hmmm again. So we broke the Soviets ,had nothing to do, got board(?) then into mischief? (To dumb it down to my level)
Aug 19, 2007, 03:08 AM
fix-it-up chappie
tolladay's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder1
Wait, I though China won the Cold War? Nixon played China off against the Soviets and the Soviets blinked.

In war isn't it "to the victor go the spoils"? China certainly has the spoils.
Dude, haven't you read the script. It was Reagan who made the Soviets blink.

Vae Victus
Aug 19, 2007, 03:25 AM
Suspended Account
Bilbobaker's Avatar
Tear down this wall.


http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reag...eches/wall.asp
Last edited by Bilbobaker; Aug 19, 2007 at 03:33 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to reconfigure your little Axi so you don't need the mount... Sal C Power Systems 38 Jun 06, 2008 11:29 AM
Discussion You don't need a tail on a plane ? skyking1231 Electric Plane Talk 15 Apr 26, 2007 10:39 PM
Found You don't need it, I want it, Electronic 6 RX himeros Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 0 Jan 02, 2006 11:13 AM
You don't need brushless motors!! Ripley 3D Flying 12 Jul 02, 2004 12:43 AM