sexual_chocolate

You've never had a friendship go sour? Good on ya. And yeah, the democracy improved vitally upon the Shah's rise to power, thank you very much. I think there is a point you're trying to make in there somewhere, something about the positives of the Shah's reign of autocracy, methinks.

SAVAGE

Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Needless to say, the dictator didn't become a very popular fellow in Iran, except with the monied classes. Unrest grew, and was squelched with means that compare to Saddam's previous methods. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power).

Just a friendly poke in the ribs…….trying to bring some humor to this heated debate. Even if I am the only one who thinks it to be funny……ha ha. To answer your question above…..I honestly don’t know. I cant hang with all you college types……brainy folk…… I do know how to belay and lead climb. I guess I play guitar a lot too…… It's all good, no offense taken. I was hoping you knew something about FISA constitutionality, that's all.

Treat a brother with love, holmes, and speak to me softly about FISA and the constitution. Yo brother, I need answers! Use all sources necessary to obtain answer: Did FISA violate any constitutional standards?

Judiciary oversight. Previously, if the government had probable cause, it would take it to the FISA court and attempt to obtain a warrant. The court would rule on its merits. In "emergencies", the government could execute a search, but would need to report to the court within 72 hours with case specifics. The current protocol does away with this mechanism entirely, replacing it with a quarterly judiciary review that does not even go into case specifics. No evidence is brought before a court, no probable cause in any case by case sense. This should trouble anyone with constitutional and legal precedent knowledge. ? I'm a little confused here; I thought it was self-evident that the "powers" we speak of are surveillance powers, unmitigated by constitutional safeguards? In this context, "intent" and the "means" are somewhat insignificant and misleading, since the legislation itself is a product of the "intent", and the "means" are given by said legislation (both of which have no bearing on the constitutionality of the legislation). It is said that the "abuses" have already occurred, if we mean by "abuses" non-constitutional activity. And yes the "abuse" would occur into the next administration, as long as non-constitutional legislation existed. And since we all know what YOU meant by the above, I'd have to answer by saying that it could be difficult to know, due to the seemingly limited amount of judiciary oversight (back to this one again). Remind me of this language, for seemingly I have, how does one put it....Spaced.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that searches and seizures conducted under governmental authority be "reasonable". Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court. Did FISA comply with the above?

How does a non-court authorized wire tap violate Habeas Corpus and the 4th amendment?

BY the omission of previous safeguards against such activities, the concern arises that indeed such activity can be imagined possible, with no mechanism to ensure that it isn't. I would be inclined to think (as would you) that the administration would not outline such powers explicitly (since such an act would quite obviously be outside of law and constitution), but please answer: Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to levels below FISA? Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to a quarterly "procedural" review? Does it not concern you that during these quarterly "reviews", no specific case information will be discussed? It seems to me, that without resorting to paranoia, a reasonable mind might conclude that indeed the situation could be ripe for abuse. To whom you are refering above is anybody's guess, so I have a hard time responding. I'll assume it's the lefty boogyman, so I'll leave it to him to craft a repartee.

No, it's actually a major modification. Prior to the current legislated changes, there was judiciary oversight, complete with probable cause requirements etc.; now, citing executive privelege, the current administration claims the right to surveil those it deems as risks (tell me how they might establish this?), without the need to report ANY case specifics to any oversight entity, EVER. Only a quarterly report outlining "procedures" is required. (And to compare the un-monitered illegal unconstitutional collection of information on americans to the monitered collection of medical information within a format yet to be decided on seems, on the surface, to be nothing but a play on a rather naive and blithely dismissive reading of "left" and "right" political stereotyping).

I approve of it Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family? If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family. you'll have the oportunity to give up more. were fucked either way, enjoy your family and freedom while it last. come on, dude, we'll form militias and shit, with shotguns.

I'm always humored by these "by the numbers" people who don't have any flexibility in their thinking. We are under threat, and they seem intent on making this a discussion about our "civil liberties". I can't think of a single freedom of mine that has been taken away. Last time I checked, I could still do everything I was able to do before. It's not like they are putting a video camera in my home; it's just a microphone really, when you think about it. Plus, think about all the other criminal activity that they'll be able to put an end to. And we certainly don't need a judge to see the "evidence", before allowing the eaves-dropping. How can a judge possibly check the evidence on millions of phone calls? He can't! Plus, what if he is one of these "civil liberties" types that wants a lot of evidence? You know you have a good lead, a feeling, you know? He's not going to listen to your feelings. He's going to want facts, and we don't have time for that. FISA put way too many burdens on intelligence collection, binding it to constitutional priciples and protections (as if we could have both; another example of the lefty idealism).

Kinda.... I heard he talked with people about it, studied topos, looked at photos, and checked it with binoculars.

The late Michael Reardon's solo of The Romantic Warrior I think is far and away the most "off the hook" rock climb evar. I don't think anything else even comes close (except maybe his Gan Kai Koo onsight FA with V4 slab way up).

Gorton has stepped into the sonics fight. there's a chance the new owners'll get sick of mounting expenses and try to unload the team? It'd be fun to see durant play regular-like.

Surely you realize that terrorism never played a role in this? It was about oil, with some attendant contingencies of various relevance. Pretty simple, really. And what the fuck am I doing babbling about this self-evident shit anyways? OUT!

So direct barbs, such as the ones you fling at me, are ok, Mr. magna cum filled laude pastry boy? Hypocritical russian.

Damn dude, i don't have the time to try to educate a magna cum filled laude pastry boy in basic variable and non-variable logic. goddamnit, one more try: A situation exists. Non-static of course (is anything ever? Even the variable x, post-value defined?), but let's pretend it's relatively stable. Iraq, for instance. ok fucked up situation, but clearly not a threat to anyone: no weaponry, poor army, eradicated infrastructure, high infant mortality rate (thanks to clinton's siege; perhaps he was softening them up for Bush? Booga Booga!). So the US goes in, and it's a conflagration. A "terrorist" recruiter's wet dream. I mean this is better than hundreds of virgins in heaven. US servicemen and women die, BY THE THOUSANDS; ask them if things are more dangerous. Our entry CREATED this danger. Very clear. It's a catalyst, nitroglycerin. The chain of events is already set off. It doesn't logically follow (why do you insist it does?) that a sudden departure would somehow bring back an initial set-point? It can't, since that set-point has long since disappeared. We can talk about what effect a sudden departure might have, but it's not a question of the false (non-) logical progression that you present. Your "logic" is incoherent, and your argument is tendentious.

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise.... But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc.... "By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck. The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe; the position is: x makes us unsafe. It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed.

Surely you jest. "The prevailing opinion"? I guess Limbaugh skews more than I realized. Or is this the propaganda the Russian papers feed you? I've never met a "lefty" who has said there isn't a terrorist threat. As a matter of fact, it was your conservative Bush administration that completely ignored the terrorist threat until 9/11. Care to argue otherwise? I'd like to hear one salient point contrasting the above with what I assume is your assumption, that indeed "our involvement" is making us MORE safe. Please.

Huh? I guess you still view it as part of the great Soviet Empire? This pretty much disqualifies you from future debate. BTW; your buddy Stalin killed/starved a bunch of folks there once who wouldn't turn over their farms to the state. Look into it. hey man, there was nothing great about the soviet empire; how dare you imply such a thing. i thought you were a reactionary. ps. which do you think has been responsible for more deaths: capitalism or communism?

oh sure, try to bring the cia website to prove me wrong. booga booga!

Ukraine isn't a country.

Resistance simply increased the force of china's oppression. How could one have expected an arms- and technology-barren country such as tibet to have put up any serious fight? It's a silly idea, especially since no foreign power wished to involve itself.... Think about the countries usurped by Russia. Ukraine went down without a peep, continuing to be a soviet entity until 1991.

From what I've read, considerable debate arose regarding an "appropriate" response to the chinese invasion. It seems that the dalai lama was always against any violent response, whereas quite a few monks argued otherwise, even taking up arms. There is an ethic of non-violence that runs deeply in the practice of Buddhism. Christianity has at its roots such an ethic also, but witness the bastardization of this by those who profess to speak for Jesus ("forgive them, for they know not what they do." can a person of violence utter these words when facing death at the hands of those who despise him?). I see a strong similarity in the mindset/heartset that can say these words and really understand them, and the goals of a Buddhist practice. I'm reminded of a story that the Dalai Lama told, of a nun who had been taken prisoner by the chinese. They tortured her, and raped her repeatedly, over the course of years. When asked how she dealt with this situation, and if she ever became angry or wanted revenge, she said no, how could she? All she felt was pity and compassion for these poor men who were so lost, so lost that they could do the things they were doing to her. As I understand the Dalai Lama's position, a victory through armed struggle and violence would be worse (and impossible, only bringing more hardship to the Tibetans) than the continuation of the present state, since it would be a victory for violence itself (always at best a temporary "solution").