Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

[Txgoodoldboy]

This is great news! I hope someone will charge George W. Bush for this crime. He stomps all over the Constitution and he keeps on smiling.

[DryIce]

Will someone please impeach that motherfucker Bush already??? Or are we going to have to see him disembowling babies on national television before anyone steps up to the plate??? What's it gonna take???

[lickya42000]

Yay for democracy!

[doctorsun]

It's about time this administration starts facing consequences for its actions. They can't just do whatever the hell they want and expect people to stand by and watch.

Not only should the practice be abolished, but those who allowed it thus far should be charged, including Bush.

[jkirk3000]

Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

[TylerKS]

Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

Thank you, I swear these people that bitch non stop about the NSA doing this piss me off. They're doing this trying to protect human lives. Its not like there are 258375236 people that sit there and listen to every single phone call.

Fucking idiots piss me off when someone tries to do something to protect others.

I hope all you people that bitch about the NSA don't get affected by the next terrorist act that they could have stopped. If so then Karma is a bitch eh?

[MidnightPrism]

Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

from your link:

Washington's surveillance occurred before the existence of the U.S. Constitution, and the other historical precedents cited by the administration were before the passage of FISA, and therefore did not directly contravene federal law.

[Txgoodoldboy]

Isn't it strange that all you Republicans are for law and order, until one of your guys, George W. Bush, breaks the law. Then it's okay. All Bush had to do was go to the FISA courts (that's the law), but no, he is above the law. Do you guys think the government won't abuse its powers, if it has a chance? Does J. Edgar Hoover or Richard M. Nixson ring a bell?

[snapcat]

Haze, thanks for posting this.

I trust everyone will refrain from personal insults for the remainder of this thread?

[crlcxll]

There are legal ways to do this through the FISA in the United States. The White House did not utilise this method. Do you gentlemen who agree with this really want to lower the bar that low? Many people say: "I have nothing to hide". That satement right there is giving up every right they may have. The lower the bar goes, the more the government has the right to do whatever it wants. I simply cannot believe that there are so many Americans who actually believe that anything is okay as long as they think that they are being protected. The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf. The rise of the Third Reich. My father grew up with this in Germany, and that is exactly what the Third Reich did to gain control.

Is the Constitution of no value to any of you?

[opinterph]

… The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf …

Hi crlcxll,

I don’t recognize the term “democratic dictatorship cf.” (Google doesn’t help.) Can you explain the term, please?

[Centexfarmer]

Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

Whoa!

So you're argument, in effect, is that because George Washington used intercepted intelligence during the American Revolution and before there was was a United States Constitution, that it's okay for George Bush to toss the United States Constitution because we're fighting some ambiguous "war on terror?"

This is whas U.S. District Judge Taylor said:

Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.

''It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,'' she wrote. ''The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.''

I'm not a Bush basher, the guy doesn't need my help to show that he and his entire administration are nothing more than duplicitous demagogues.

dem·a·gogue also dem·a·gog

NOUN:

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

In the case of "wire-taps" replace prejudices of the populace with fears of the populace.

du·plic·i·tous

ADJECTIVE:

Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.

Is your logic based upon fear, or some misquided devotion to a President who's so devoid of Leadership that he has to use scare tactics to usurp the U.S. Constitution, and to pussy-whip half the country into going along with his ambiguity and thirst for unfettered power?

The reason there are "checks and balances" is to ensure that each branch of government is doing what they say they're doing.

If I get whacked by some terrorist, I would rather die a free American, than to live in fear of what my government is doing in regard to my privacy.

[crlcxll]

Hi crlcxll,

I don’t recognize the term “democratic dictatorship cf.” (Google doesn’t help.) Can you explain the term, please?

People's democratic dictatorship is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong. The phrase is notable for being one of the few cases in which the term "dictatorship" is used in a non-pejorative manner.
The premise of the "People's democratic dictatorship" is that the Communist Party of China and state act on behalf of the people, but can and do use dictatorial methods in order to remain in power in the face of hostile forces. Implicit in the concept of the people's democratic dictatorship is the notion that dictatorial means are a necessary evil, and that without a dictatorship, the government may collapse and create a situation which is worse than the dictatorship.
However, some critics of the concept argue that dictatorships are inherently worse than non-dictatorships.
It was most famously used on June 30, 1949, in commemoration of the 28th Anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. In his speech, entitled "On The People's Democratic Dictatorship," Mao expounded his ideas about a People's Democratic Dictatorship as well as provided some rebuttals to criticism that he anticipated he would face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_democratic_dictatorship

[Centexfarmer]

People's democratic dictatorship is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong. The phrase is notable for being one of the few cases in which the term "dictatorship" is used in a non-pejorative manner.
The premise of the "People's democratic dictatorship" is that the Communist Party of China and state act on behalf of the people, but can and do use dictatorial methods in order to remain in power in the face of hostile forces. Implicit in the concept of the people's democratic dictatorship is the notion that dictatorial means are a necessary evil, and that without a dictatorship, the government may collapse and create a situation which is worse than the dictatorship.
However, some critics of the concept argue that dictatorships are inherently worse than non-dictatorships.
It was most famously used on June 30, 1949, in commemoration of the 28th Anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. In his speech, entitled "On The People's Democratic Dictatorship," Mao expounded his ideas about a People's Democratic Dictatorship as well as provided some rebuttals to criticism that he anticipated he would face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People'...c_dictatorship

Sounds like Propaganda to me.

The Matter of Propaganda

This isn't an attempt to hijack this thread, but rather an oppurtunity to determine the difference between how those who defend President Bush's wiretapping policies, and the actual facts of the matter.

[naked gent]

There are legal ways to do this through the FISA in the United States. The White House did not utilise this method. Do you gentlemen who agree with this really want to lower the bar that low? Many people say: "I have nothing to hide". That satement right there is giving up every right they may have. The lower the bar goes, the more the government has the right to do whatever it wants. I simply cannot believe that there are so many Americans who actually believe that anything is okay as long as they think that they are being protected. The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf. The rise of the Third Reich. My father grew up with this in Germany, and that is exactly what the Third Reich did to gain control.

Is the Constitution of no value to any of you?

A democratic dictatorship never!

Friendly fascism thats the american way

[crlcxll]

It is NOT propaganda!! It is the definition of democratic dictatorship. And let's just get real here. Bush is a fascist dictator. Bush & Company have been trying to take over the US ever since, and even before, he hijacked the election in 2000.

Cognitive Dissonance is the operative expression here. People who cannot believe that the government of the United States is moving in a dictatorial way, need to find a way to excuse it and resolve their own internal dissonance, i.e., deny everything in order to believe that you are being protected.... One morning you will wake up to find that you have no civil rights. Bush fills the country with propaganda. Americans don't understand what we know in Europe after having gone through what we have gone through over the decades.

[crlcxll]

A democratic dictatorship never!

Friendly fascism thats the american way

Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.

[opinterph]

crlcxll,

Thanks for providing an explanation for the term “democratic dictatorship.” My newly-formed impression of the concept is that the primary purpose of government is to maintain order while also providing an appropriate focus for the population. In this regard, it is counterproductive for government to entertain (tolerate) internal challenges, as they detract from the efficiency of implementing the government’s agenda.

Goula’s suggestion of the alternative concept of a “totalitarian democracy” is similarly rooted in collectivism; however, its description seems a bit more inclined to involve either charisma of leadership or the less-attractive component of brute-force.

We are involved in a war. … We need to use [our advantage] to the utmost.

The war in which we are involved is a somewhat broad-based challenge against terrorism. Although our government may use its official capacity to label various groups as “terrorists,” – the term itself is perhaps more aptly used to describe a tactic, rather than any particular organization(s).

The outcomes of war are certainly tied to the manner in which each respective opponent uses their advantages. If it is reasonable to legitimize the notion that each side of a conflict “needs to use” its advantage to the utmost, how can we be certain that the tactic of terrorism is not regarded as “an advantage” by one or more of the contestants?

If I get whacked by some terrorist, I would rather die a free American, than to live in fear of what my government is doing in regard to my privacy.

I reckon some folks simply prefer to embrace a more democratic-dictatorship-style of government that takes care of all the details and provides a certainty of focus, while others are more inclined to demand that the liberties inherent in the Constitution be upheld. Today’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ended with a quote from Justice Warren’s opinion in U.S. v. Robel, circa 1967:

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart … It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

[smelter]

Granted ...... this is a different kind of war than we've faced before in our history.

Agreed ....... we need to employ the latest technology to detect and thwart our enemies.

Bogus ........ the President has the power to circumvent our Constitution and be the sole arbiter as to which laws he chooses to obey.

A Plan ....... examine our current laws in view of this new kind of war and have Congress pass new laws to bring us up to speed where necessary.

Take ........ away the President's ability to make signing statements that render Congress' laws and the Supreme Court's interpretations of those laws null and void.

Impeach ... the sonofabitch if he does it again!

[jkirk3000]

Granted ...... this is a different kind of war than we've faced before in our history.

Agreed ....... we need to employ the latest technology to detect and thwart our enemies.

Bogus ........ the President has the power to circumvent our Constitution and be the sole arbiter as to which laws he chooses to obey.

A Plan ....... examine our current laws in view of this new kind of war and have Congress pass new laws to bring us up to speed where necessary.

Take ........ away the President's ability to make signing statements that render Congress' laws and the Supreme Court's interpretations of those laws null and void.

Impeach ... the sonofabitch if he does it again!

I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread.

As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?

[Centexfarmer]

I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread.

As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?

Absolutely!

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with.

I'm not about to give up my liberties because someone wishes me harm.

[jkirk3000]

Absolutely!

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with.

I'm not about to give up my liberties because someone wishes me harm.

So, you are unwilling to have phone calls monitored going to Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Norrth Korea when may they involve chatter relating to terrorist acts? Is that a liberty that you so need to preserve that you are willing to give up the opportunity to thwart an attack that may kill hundreds or thousands?

What sacrifices if any would you be willing to make to preserve your life?

[naked gent]

Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.

Cricxll I think you misunderstood my post. A democratic dictatorship suggests to me a few men pushing a rapid change and I don't believe that is what will happen. Friendly facisim I see as a more gradual change where voters slowly vote away their rights in the name of security.

We have already started down this road with the creation of the nanny state where just driving your car without a seatbelt on has you running afoul of the state.

While a dictatorship is not always a top down event it usually is, in america it will come from the bottom up where as Peter Finch put it so well in the movie Network americans will say 'just leave me alone with my t.v. my microwave and my steelbelted radials."

Technology is creating more ways every year for goverments to keep an eye on us all, I see in that trend far more of a threat to our way of life than anything terrorists can throw at us.

[ComNavFdgPk]

Absolutely!

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with. ...

And I'll trot out one of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes (I wish I could quote it exactly, but this is the best I can do):

Citizens who are willing to surrender some of their rights for the sake of a little bit of safety deserve neither the rights nor the safety.

[crlcxll]

Naked Agent! I see what you are saying. I did misunderstand what you were previously saying and agree with you completely. It is a slow, insiduous way of "taking over" that most citizens don't even realise.

[smelter]

I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread. <snip>

If SCOTUS rules that the President has violated the law and continues to do so, what alternative is left. That is the whole basis of separation of powers, don't you agree?

While I agree that Presidential Signing Statements might be better suited to a separate thread devoted to it solely, I disagree with your assessment that it is not an integral part of this one. Afterall, what's to prevent the President from invoking it one more time to nullify new Congressional legislation passed to resolve this very issue?

[jkirk3000]

If SCOTUS rules that the President has violated the law and continues to do so, what alternative is left. That is the whole basis of separation of powers, don't you agree?

While I agree that Presidential Signing Statements might be better suited to a separate thread devoted to it solely, I disagree with your assessment that it is not an integral part of this one. Afterall, what's to prevent the President from invoking it one more time to nullify new Congressional legislation passed to resolve this very issue?

First, while I wouldn't bet my house on it, I suspect this won't even make it to the Supreme Court. From what I've read, this will probably be overturned in the District Court. However, should it reach the Supreme Court, AND it is upheld, Congress would pass a law granting the President this authority. Even the Democrats agree that this is important, and have pledged to work with Republicans to put forth a functional law. The issue is not that the NSA shouldn't be doing this, just that Congress hasn't given the President authority to do it.

As to signing statements, most of them relate to add-ons to legislation and interpretations of the statutes passed. This is something else that the courts are going to have to sort out.

[Centexfarmer]

So, you are unwilling to have phone calls monitored going to Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Norrth Korea when may they involve chatter relating to terrorist acts? Is that a liberty that you so need to preserve that you are willing to give up the opportunity to thwart an attack that may kill hundreds or thousands?

What sacrifices if any would you be willing to make to preserve your life?

I never said that I'm opposed to wire-taps. What I am UNWILLING to accept is one branch of the United States Government having carte blanche authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, laws, legal precedents, and tossing out the Bill of Rights, without any oversight. There are checks and balances in place to ensure our liberties.

What sacrifices am I will to make to preserve my life, or yours?

Having served in the United States Military, I have put my life on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That was my oath. I never swore an oath to protect and defend the President of the United States, or his foreign policies.

On the topic of freedom Benjamin Franklin sums up how I feel about those who are willing to toss the baby out with the bath water all in the name of "national security."

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[jkirk3000]

Thank you for your service to our country! Those of us who have never served, myself included, owe you the deepest gratitude and respect for keeping us safe.

I guess it is a matter of degree. I just don't see the NSA program as being offensive and intrusive. Now if they were arbitrarily searching to look for other things such as say tax evasion, then I would object.

As I stated, the final say will be in the courts. And should the upper courts agree with this ruling, both parties in Congress have already gone on record stating they would pass legislation allowing this type of spying...so, in the end, it will be a moot point.

[kev]

This is yet another example of a plain lack of common sense, written by a President Carter appointee...go figure.

She seems to think that the "rights" of journalists, attorneys, and "scholars" to talk to Al Quaeda is more important than the safety of American citizens.

I don't buy into all of your rubbish about the President usurping his Constitutional authority either. Jamie Gorelick, of President Clinton's Justice Department (remember that fabulous attorney on the 9/11 Commission?), testified before Congress in the early 1990s that such surveillance was legal, but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House then.

Kevina predicts that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.

[Centexfarmer]

This is yet another example of a plain lack of common sense, written by a President Carter appointee...go figure.

She seems to think that the "rights" of journalists, attorneys, and "scholars" to talk to Al Quaeda is more important than the safety of American citizens.

I don't buy into all of your rubbish about the President usurping his Constitutional authority either. Jamie Gorelick, of President Clinton's Justice Department (remember that fabulous attorney on the 9/11 Commission?), testified before Congress in the early 1990s that such surveillance was legal, but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House then.

Kevina predicts that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Honestly I don't give a flying rats ass which party is in power, if either Republicans or Democrats presume to run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution they're going to run afoul of me.

Congress passes laws all the time, that doesn't mean that in the longterm that those laws will pass Constitutional muster.

I believe that one of the duties of Government are to provide for the security of our country. However, I have enough faith within the provisions of the Constitution that security can be provided without my having to give up my (or your) civil liberties to do it.

[Sausy]

Thank you for your service to our country! Those of us who have never served, myself included, owe you the deepest gratitude and respect for keeping us safe.

I guess it is a matter of degree. I just don't see the NSA program as being offensive and intrusive. Now if they were arbitrarily searching to look for other things such as say tax evasion, then I would object.

As I stated, the final say will be in the courts. And should the upper courts agree with this ruling, both parties in Congress have already gone on record stating they would pass legislation allowing this type of spying...so, in the end, it will be a moot point.

This kind of spying requires the strictest,most careful oversight.I believe that the Administration would be best served by applying for delayed warrants,up to 72 hours after the activity in the most sensitive cases.I don't see the logic in allowing a policy of warrantless searches,without the need to ever receive even a delayed approval -there is too much potential for abuse without direction,limits,and strong oversight ,regardless of whatever party is in control of the White House.It seems to go much farther to shift the power of the federal government toward the executive rather than a balanced,responsible separation of powers throughout our government-most importantly the oversight powers of the Congress.

[ComNavFdgPk]

Thanks, centexfarmer, for getting the verbatim quote. I've used it before and will (in all probability) have to use it again, so I've saved it on my desktop.

[smelter]

Bush Blasts Court Ruling on Surveillance
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 18, 2006

CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live." "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld."

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.
"If al-Qaida is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling," Bush said.

Critics say the surveillance program skirts the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping. The administration has argued that obtaining warrants from a secret court set up under FISA is a time-consuming process unsuited for the government's fast-moving war on terror.

The judge said the government, in defending the program, appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion. "... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

Just follow the law, Mr. President, or ask for new legislation to be enacted that changes existing law ........ that's all we're asking. It's as simple as that!

[beekman001]

As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?

Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.

[Sausy]

Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.

While we have to remain vigilant and always insist in strong oversight of the security measures our government engages in,this statement is wrong.Those who wish to destroy our lives cannot be reasoned with,there are no checks and balances where they re concerned.We must not overreact and compromise the freedoms we hold so dear in maintaining our security,but terrorists could cause ,with the variety and sophistication of weapons,either inflict death and destruction or even wreck our economy by disrupting communications.As bad as our government may appear to many here,the terrorists are infinitely worse.

[jkirk3000]

Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.

WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!

[beekman001]

WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!

First off I dont buy the "But THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL US!!!! AHHHHH!!!" argument. You're a citizen of the US and as such you may be called on to give your life defending your liberty, try to be a man about it.

The government is fundamentally as fallable as any human being which is why it is dangerous. The risk is not from someone comming in and "taking away" our rights but from slowly surrendering them for temporary gains in safety, security and civil order. This is doubly dangerous because as we surrender our liberties we give up our principles which destroys our moral authority on the world stage.

[Kulindahr]

Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.

I'm waiting till they make us go naked!

[Kulindahr]

WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!

That's a load of crap!
"Throw the bums out" only works if we have a choice who AREN'T bums... which the major parties aren't providing. Now if we could vote "None Of The Above", you might have a case.

[Kulindahr]

How does a vote for "none of the above" work anyway? If "none of the above" gets the most vote the seat remains vacant? How is "none of the above" different from just not voting?

I don't know if they still do, but Russia had a NOTA option right after the SovUnion fell apart. If NOTA got the most votes, everyone in the race was tossed out and they had to get new candidates, Until an election elected a person, the seat remained vacant.

The typical NOTA system I'm familiar with allows NOTA to win on a plurality, whereas a candidate has to have an actual majority. Some versions of NOTA would have the office/seat remain vacant until the next election, but that gets iffy when you're dealing with something like Congress, where the seat has to be filled. Are we to shut down Congress for an entire senatorial term, for example? Not that I think we might not be better off if we did, but there are better ways of fixing Congress than just shutting it down, so replacement elections would seem to be the better option.
So the difference between NOTA and not voting is that not voting equates to letting anyone be elected, whereas NOTA is a vote against all of the names on the ballot; it's a demand for better choices rather than an abdication of choice.

[Kulindahr]

I would be interested in seeing how NOTA would work here then. It would've been a nice option in 2004, I'm sure.

And in 2000... and in 1996... and in 1992...

The place I would really like to see it is in all the local races where there's only one candidate. In such cases, if NOTA won, I'd have a requirement for at least two candidates in the new election.

I can't remember the source, but I recall a poll taken after one major state election wherein people who hadn't voted were asked, "If you could have voted 'None Of The Above', would you have gone to the polls?", and something on the order of 15% said "Yes!" That's an indication of just how many Americans don't vote because they believe there really isn't a choice worth the effort.
The place to start would be in a state like Nevada, which has a pretty independent-minded electorate anyway. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work, and once it got going, I think it would spread.

[Kulindahr]

The left has its own problems, but you sure pegged the typical "True-Blue American" conservative... who would have been a Loyalist in the American Revolution.

I have never understood the willingness of the right to gladly, and quickly, surrender to fear -- it's really quite telling, it really is astounding how they just throw in the towel! One little bottle of water on a 747 and they want to throw their legs over al-Queda's shoulders and beg for mercy, giving up OUR libertés civiles as quickly as possible.