Bush - Bad for the Country

[damocles]

The perjury was for lying about going to a club and not about an affair. They served 4 months. Clinton was railroaded as it was no ones business about who he had sex with. I never voted for him or Bush. At least Clinton can say he did not kill several thousand US boys in Iraq for a lie.

 

Shall we revisit?

 

Judge Hamilton presided over Miss Parsons's unsuccessful $75 million libel suit against Time Inc. Miss Parsons sued after a February 1982 article in Sports Illustrated depicted her as a lesbian involved in a love affair with the player. Judge Hamilton ordered a federal perjury investigation after conflicting testimony during the nine-day trial last May.

 

The crime was lying under oath. It could have been busimness related but it was about;

Miss Parsons sued after a February 1982 article in Sports Illustrated depicted her as a lesbian involved in a love affair with the player.

 

Clinton's legal trouble was about a lie submitted into evidence, that had it gone into public trial and been submitted before a judge or jury would have amounted to perjury.

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

 

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

 

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.

 

Clinton, in his deposition before the plaintiff's lawyers(Paula Jones' attorneys) had clearly put himself in that danger.

 

Quoting;

 

Text of petition to disbar Clinton

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

 

NO. CIV 2000 - 5677

 

JAMES A. NEAL, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

PLAINTIFF

vs.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

DEFENDANT

 

COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT

 

Comes the Plaintiff, James A. Neal, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, by and through undersigned counsel, and for his Complaint for Disbarment against the Defendant, William Jefferson Clinton, states and alleges that:

1. The Plaintiff, at the direction of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (the "Committee") and under the authority granted the Executive Director by the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, revised on January 15,1998 (the "Procedures"), initiates this disbarment action against Mr. Clinton.

2. Pursuant to Section 5K of the Procedures, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the proper venue for the adjudication of this matter.

3. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted Mr. Clinton the privilege to practice law on September 7, 1973. Mr. Clinton's Arkansas Bar Identification Number is 73019. He is the 42nd President of the United States of America. At all times material to this case, Mr. Clinton resided in Washington, D.C., but remained subject to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for the State of Arkansas. Mr. Clinton, pursuant to his request of June 30, 1990, placed his Arkansas license on inactive status for continuing legal education purposes.

4. On April 12,1999, Judge Susan Webber Wright, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, issued a 32 page Memorandum Opinion and Order (the "Order") in Jones v. Clinton, et al., Case No. LR-C-94-290, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

5. In the Order, Judge Wright held Mr. Clinton in contempt of her December 11, 1997 Discovery Orders (the "Discovery Orders"). The Order served as the basis of a judicial referral to the Committee, and serves as the basis for this Complaint for Disbarment.

6. In the Order, Judge Wright found, inter alia, the following:

(a) That Mr. Clinton gave false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process to Ms. Jones' attorneys during Mr. Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition;

(:hihi: That Mr. Clinton gave intentionally false deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone or ever engaged -in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky;

© That Mr. Clinton, in a televised Address to the Nation on August 17, 1998, acknowledged that he "misled people" with regard to the questions posed to him by Ms. Jones' attorneys.

(d) That Mr. Clinton's contumacious conduct in the Jones v. Clinton case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system.

7. As a result of these findings, Judge Wright sanctioned Mr. Clinton, ordering him to pay Ms. Jones' attorneys any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey the Court's Discovery Orders, and to pay the sum of $1,202.00 in expenses incurred by the Court in traveling to Washington, D.C. to preside over Mr. Clinton's deposition.

8. In the Order, Judge Wright offered Mr. Clinton the opportunity to demonstrate why he was not in civil contempt and why sanctions should not be imposed, or, alternatively, why the Court was otherwise in error in the manner it was proceeding.

9. Additionally, Judge Wright stayed enforcement of the Order for thirty (30) days to give Mr. Clinton an opportunity to request a hearing or to file an appeal.

10. In the Order, Judge Wright stated that the Court would entertain any legitimate and reasonable requests from Mr. Clinton for extensions of time in which to address the matter.

11. Mr. Clinton neither requested a hearing, nor did he appeal the Order.

12. On or about September 28, 1998, Mr. Clinton paid $89,484.05 in attorneys' fees to satisfy the Order, along with the $1,202.00 in costs incurred by the Court.

13. The conduct of Mr. Clinton, found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct.

14. The conduct of Mr. Clinton found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, collectively and singularly, violated the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4©,(d).

15 Mr. Clinton's conduct found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, constitutes "Serious Misconduct" as defined by Section 7B(3) of the Procedures, which defines "serious misconduct" as conduct involving "dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation by the lawyer."

16. Mr. Clinton's conduct found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, damages the legal profession and demonstrates a lack of overall fitness to hold a license to practice law.

 

WHEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, the Plaintiff prays for a judgment of this Court specifically finding that William Jefferson Clinton, Arkansas Bar ID#73019, has conducted himself in a manner that violates the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court; that Mr. Clinton's conduct warrants disbarment by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which would result in an Order from the Arkansas Supreme Court removing the name of William Jefferson Clinton from the registry of licensed attorneys maintained by the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court; and for Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief to which it may be entitled.

 

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES A. NEAL, Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, PLAINTIFF

 

BY:

Marie-Bernarde Miller, Esq. - #84107

GILL ELROD RAGON OWEN SKINNER & SHERMAN, P.A.

425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 8801

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

 

BY:

Lynn Williams, Esq. - #83183

Litigation Counsel

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct

Justice Building, Room 2200

625 Marshall Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

 

The actual citation for contempt;

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

No. LR-C-94-290

PAULA CORBIN JONES,

Plaintiff

vs.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

and DANNY FERGUSON,

Defendants.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

What began as a civil lawsuit against the President of the United States for alleged sexual harassment eventually resulted in an impeachment trial of the President in the United States Senate on two Articles of Impeachment for his actions during the course of this lawsuit and a related criminal investigation being conducted by the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC"). The civil lawsuit was settled while on appeal from this Court's decision granting summary judgment to defendants and the Senate acquitted the President of both Articles of Impeachment. Those proceedings having concluded, the Court now addresses the issue of contempt on the part of the President first raised in footnote five of the Court's Memorandum and Order of September 1, 1998. See Jones v. Clinton, 12 F.Supp.2d 931, 938 n.5 (E.D.Ark. 1998). For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby adjudges the President to be in contempt of court for his willful failure to obey this Court's discovery Orders.

<snip>

 

Read the rest of the text here:

 

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/Clinton/wrightsorder13.html

 

 

In the one case the lie that the South Carolina coach told was in reference with meeting her lover at a lesbian night club in Salt Lake City.

 

Clinton's lie under oath;

 

At his deposition, the President was questioned extensively about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, this Court having previously ruled on December 11, 1997, that plaintiff was "entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame [of May 8, 1986, up to the present] state or federal employees." See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3.(4) Based on that ruling, this Court overruled objections during the deposition from the President's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, that questions concerning Ms. Lewinsky were inappropriate areas of inquiry and required that such questions be answered by the President. See Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78. Having been so ordered, the President testified in response to questioning from plaintiff's counsel and his own attorney that he had no recollection of having ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky and he denied that he had engaged in an "extramarital sexual affair," in "sexual relations," or in a "sexual relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.(5) Id. at 52-53, 56-59, 78, 204. An affidavit submitted by Ms. Lewinsky in support of her motion to quash a subpoena for her testimony and made a part of the record of the President's deposition likewise denied that she and the President had engaged in a sexual relationship. When asked by Mr. Bennett whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President was a "true and accurate statement," the President answered, "That is absolutely true." Pres. Depo. at 204.

 

 

Quod est demonstratum.

 

Why did Mister Clinton spend millions of dollars in legal fees and have his very expensive lawyers fight so hard over every word and comma in his written depositions? Answer. To do otherwise, he would have been inexactly the same legal trouble as Pam Parsons was. He dared not go to trial and be forced to submit perjured evidence before a jury, lest his lie be legally proved as false testimony. That was the DIFFERENCE. That was why he had to settle.

 

That was why he accepted disbarment and the civil contempt. He was caught. He had to make it go away or he would go away.

 

It was/is that simple.

 

He lied about an affair in a deposition. It wasn't the affair he had to dodge, it was the lie.

 

He could have lied about eating a ham sandwich. No difference.

 

It was never the affair. It was the potential perjury he, Clinton, submitted as evidence in his deposition, should he ever go to trial.(Note that Monica Lewinsky was in similar jeopardy in the submittal of her supporting affadaviit?)

 

And that would at the least would mean civil contempt. Which he received.

 

He is legally a liar. That is not quite as bad as a convicted perjurer, but as far as any court is concerned, his testimony is worthless.

 

All of this is a matter of public record.

 

I do not care one way or the other about people's opinions of the man or his "alleged" crimes.

 

But I do care about the provable facts of public record.

 

EDIT:

I'm thinking we should turn this back to bush.

 

Agreed. I did go off topic in the above posting. My apologies.

 

As always, the best of wishes.

[IDMclean]

D, man. I am not patronizing you, nor questioning your wisdom and experience. I am just saying my piece. I know not what you do and do not know, much like I am sure you do not know what I do and do not know.

 

I only advocate that Violence in any form, without extreamely good reason is debased and immoral. It kills the soul and cracks the psyche, does nothing for fixing most problems. Most often we create more problems by reacting to violence with violence. Martin Luther King Jr. said allot that was great and in particular I would like to point to his essay "Three Ways of Meeting Oppression".

 

Ghandi, a man who fought without striking once, and freed a nation. Religions of all kinds, any moral structure. They all say the same thing, Thout shalt not kill. Jesus even said it.

 

Matthew 5:38-45

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

/rant

[InfiniteNow]

Let's see...

 

GREATER IMPACT ON

THE COUNTRY

AND

THE WORLD?

 

 

1) Receiving oral sex and lying about it

2) Starting a war based on false premises which led to great expenditures of life as well as money.

 

 

Yeah, you're right... tough call.

[Freddy]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print

 

February 14, 1985

Parsons Jailed for Perjury COLUMBIA, S.C., Feb. 13 (UPI) - Pam Parsons, the former women's basketball coach at the University of South Carolina, and Tina Buck, one of her former players, were sentenced to four months in prison today for lying to a Federal jury during a libel trial. United States District Judge Clyde Hamilton sentenced each of them to three years in prison but suspended all but four months of each term.

 

They will be on probation for five years. They will report to a Federal prison in Lexington, Ky., later this month. Judge Hamilton presided over Miss Parsons's unsuccessful $75 million libel suit against Time Inc. Miss Parsons sued after a February 1982 article in Sports Illustrated depicted her as a lesbian involved in a love affair with the player. Judge Hamilton ordered a federal perjury investigation after conflicting testimony during the nine-day trial last May. Both women pleaded guilty to perjury charges in November, admitting they lied during the trial about frequenting a Salt Lake City lesbian nightclub. Both Miss Parsons and Miss Buck apologized in court today for their perjury.

 

My argument was that the perjury charge was not for lying about who someone had sex with. It was for lying about frequenting a club as the above article states. I also questioned whether anyone has serve 5 years for lying about a sexual partner.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Established: Bill Clinton is a liar.

 

Anyone who seriously debates that is silly. Of course he's a liar.

 

Established: Bill Clinton committed a crime lying about his sex life under oath.

 

Not Established: Perjury is equal to, in terms of moral infraction, disregard for the intent of the Constitution, lying (although not under oath) about reasons for a war, violating the Geneva Conventions, endangering the future of the planet, alienating our allies, exposing a CIA agent, extraordinary rendition, torture, and dereliction of duty.

 

Okay?

 

TFS

[damocles]

Yes, I agree.

He lied about getting Blown and screwing interns...

Thats Common around the world..happens in Europe and everywhere

 

Bad, Yes. Its a Lie.

 

But hardly the DETRIMENTAL kind.

 

I disagree about Clinton in some small measure. He was a thoroughly mediocre to poor president in performance.

 

We hired him 24/7 to do his job. He failed in a different way than Bush.

 

He should have admitted his wrongdoing, taken his lumps and moved on and run the country in his befuddled way. Instead he paralyzed government for three years and bungled the following while he fought to stay out of jail;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton/China_timeline

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

 

From the mishandling of Waco to Echelon(which was a Clinton program) to the bungled handling of the USS Cole, the 1993 WTC attack, the Mogadishu bugout, the Haiti fiasco, the healthcare reform debacle, the Balkans fiasco, the Dotbomb fiasco, peddling our rocketry guidance to China for campaign contributions. hiring a total incompetent as a Veep, so we dare not fire him and move up Gore, Bill Clinton was in his way a HORRIBLE president.

 

Just to remind folks, under International Law, Mister Clinton violated a nation's sovereignty;

 

http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/nurletter.htm

 

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/22_rambo.htm

 

Nevertheless, Mister Clinton is a past issue. His many mistakes and gaffes(there were very many) is not the particular chicken we are plucking here. That particular poultry under discussion is George W. Bush. Let us review Mister Bush's track record to date.

 

1. He has done nothing with his No-Child Left Behind education initiative except add a layer of bureaucracy to the already over bureacratized public education system. What fundamental change has occurred in the teaching culture that changes the end product-the student? Nada.

 

2. What has Bush or his administration done to rationalize energy policy in this country? I admit that under his watch US refining capacity has dropped 12% through no fault of his, but has his administration even tried the bozo chimera of flex-fuels for automobiles, or tried incentive tax policies, or even raised the automobile CAFE milage standards? No.

 

3. Healthcare? (rolling on the floor derisive laughter)

 

4. What about foreign policy? What foreiogn policy? The UAE ports deal stank as much as Chinagate.

 

5. Civil rights? Patriot Act.

 

6. Warfighting? Wrong war, wrong methods, and wrong people.(Hint; keep it small, low key, and quiet. A war in the shadows is easier to justify to your friends, as your friends are more willing to help you get your people to where they can put a sack over Al Zawalhiri's head, and fly him out of Pakistan, and over the Indian Ocean; so they can push him quietly out of a plane at ten thousand feet. This is easier for your friends than it would be;if you have tanks firing shots into the Baghdad Radisson on CNN.

 

7. Political corruption? Well I don't know, but those oil companies sure have fought hard to keep their part in the nation's so called energy policy planning in 2001 secret.

 

8. How about simply running the government? Traditionally, the Democrats have won hearts and minds, but when it came to actual government operations and management, they hadn't a clue. Republicans claimed that as their forte. Has Mister Bush, as a Republican, kept up that tradition?

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-pam.htm

 

The Bush administration wargamed KATRINA. They discovered that the Louisiania government was totally corrupt, and incompetent, and couldn't be relied to do what was required in the Hurricane plan. So the Bush administration tasked FEMA to take over in the event the Louisiania government collapsed(which it did). Operation Pam II was to test this fix. It seemed to work on paper. So everybody was happy. Before Pam II though, KATRINA roars in. Five day's warning NOAA gives them . Never had so much lead tiome before.....enough time to evacuate the Mississippi delta people to high ground NW of Baton Rouge. Did it happen? I saw Louisiania cops block the main evacuation artery west out of New Orleans. People who could have fled the city on foot were turned back...... Nagin and Blanco were playing North/South Louisiana politics, as predicted, and there wasn't a Federal agency or official to be seen, until the army under General Honore came in and took over the mess-five days after the army should have.

 

That is why many people now know that Bush is bad for the country. Democrats would have screwed it up just as badly, but you expect that from them. They are, by temperament, totally disorganized. You expect more out of Republicans. Aren't they the ones who claim they are supposed to be the managers and experts in restoring order out of chaos?

 

It is my pet theory that KATRINA opened people's eyes to just how incompetent the Bush Administration is/has been.

 

As always; the best of wishes;

[InfiniteNow]

I've got three words for you considering the repsponse to my post above...

 

N

 

S

 

A.

 

 

One year ago:

"It's very targeted and specific."

 

This week:

"This might just be the largest database in existence."

[GAHD]

Yup, and good ole Canuck me is probably in it along with the rest of you dissedents and potential terrorists.

Made any interesting phonecalls lately?

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

[Michaelangelica]

I just posted this on "Evolved reasons for our behaviour" thread but it seems very pertinant to the argument here.

I have left out great chunks so go to the book if you find the argument hard to follow.

 

"The Impact of the Gene from Mendal's Peas to Designer Babies" by Colin Tudge, hill and Wang NY 2000

 

"The fact that most societies through history. . . have behaved selfishly, aggressively, and often murderously is an unfortunate oddity that can be explained perfectly well by a little game theory.. .

The point is easily made by reference to one of the simplest models in game theory: hawks versus doves. The hawks and the doves are metaphorical, of course: they refer to individuals who behave selfishly and aggressively versus people whose mien is more passive, who never pick a fight, and who do not retaliate when provoked.

. . .

Suppose, first of all, we have a society that consists only of doves. . . symbols of dovvisness, which behave dovishly...

the all dove society wastes no time at all on fighting. Where appropriate, every task is undertaken cooperatively, with all the gains that thus accrue. All energy is thus expended toward useful ends - or to sheer enjoyment- and all tasks are undertaken with high efficiency. The sum total of wealth and happiness within such an all-dove society is as high as it could possibly be. IF all the wealth and happiness is shared equally, then each individual would do very well.

 

Game theory ( and common sense) revels, however, that such asociety, though in some ways ideal, is unstable. For suppose, in the midst such a society, a hawk appears. In genetic terms, we might say a mutation occurs: a gene that hitherto encouraged cooperative peacefulness mutates into one that promotes aggression and self-centeredness. Such alone hawk has an easy time. He grabes whatever is going, without working for it, and his dovish neighbours neighbours simply stand asside. The overall productivity, happiness and well-being of the society go down because the hawk is taking without giving back. . . .

In short, an all- dove society, enviable and unimproveable though it may seem, is vulnerable. A hawk can come and prey on it.

So what happens next? The hawk grabs plenty of mates and produces plenty of offspring. Unfortunately- both for the hawk and for the society as awhole- the offspring inherit the hawkishness. Soon the society contains agret many hawks.

 

The circumstances have now changed. When the hawk was on his own, or when there were only afew hawks, they could swagger about taking what they wanted without fear of redress. Now there are plenty of hawks, and every now and again- in fact more and more frequently- a swaggering hawk meets up with another hawk. Now when a hawk simply demands, he finds himself in a fight. Soon there are fights everywhere. Everyone is now suffering.

The fact that the overall efficiency of the group goes down is true but not relevant; the hawks at least are not thinking in terms of overall well-being. What bothers the hawks is that their unalloyed hawkishness no longer pays. They keep running into trouble.

In a society shot through with hawks, the doves start to do better. They get involved in fewer fights ( since they do not provoke any) and when they meet another dove, cooperation results.

So, although the hawks do well at first, and multiply, the time soon arrives when they start to do badly Too much hawkishness may indeed drive asociety to extinction. What cannot happen is that the hawks will produce an all-hawk society. An all-dove society is vulnerable, but as long as it remains univaded it works very well. An all hawk society cannot function at all.

I turns out, then, that the only society that is truly stable is one that contains both doves and hawks.. . . .

an ESS Evolutionary Stable Strategy. . .

However, in an evolutionary stable society the doves are bound to outnumber the hawks. But- and this is the snag- because the hawkish minority are aggressive, they rise to become the leaders. . .

Thus societies may contain a huge majority of sociable, hospitable, unselfish people and yet be ruled by people. . .who are. . . dangerously mad. . .

Democracy should solve this problem. . (but hawks can prevent democracy happening at all. . .and hawks put themselves forward as candidates . . doves do not.

. . .The overwhelming task for humanity. . is to devise systems of government that make it possible for doves to rise to the top and, having risen, to conserve their dovishness. . . .

 

This analysis surely explains why the world has had so few truly great leaders, or rather, so few of dovish men. Of course, it has many larger-than-life, hyper aggressive superman-style leaders: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, classic hawks to a man. All had greatness of akind, but all, when you boil them down, were fundamentally killers. The Twentieth Century suffered scores of such people. . .Stalin, Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic, Hitler, Salazar, idi Amin Saddam Hussein and so on and so on.

 

Great doves, however- leaders who have preached and practiced cooperativeness and restraint- have been far more rare. from the twentieth century, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the present Dali lama come most easily to mind . . . yet none of the great doves has truly held power. All fought, throughout their lives, against some greater power. All in effect have been rebel leaders. . . .unless Gandhi (etc) had first been cast in the role of rebel leader, they would never have achieved power at all. In a straightforward run for power they would have been out-gunned and outsmarted by nature's hawks.

 

Jesus Christ was the archetypal dovish leader. he may have been somewhat fiercer in real life- more of an anti-roman, fiercely pro-Jewish zealot. But the Jesus of the New Testament, as portrayed by Paul, is the apotheosis of the dove. As a political leader he is in the same category as the rest: leader of agroup that was answerable to amore powerful oppressor.. he also, of course, is the world's greatest and most unequivocal advocate of dovishnmess.. . . .

(Jesus asked us to aspire to an al-dovish society). . ."

etc and more from

"The Impact of the Gene from Mendal's Peas to Designer Babies" by Colin Tudge, hill and Wang NY 2000

 

--

Michael

[GAHD]

So what does this have to do with bush?

[damocles]

I've got three words for you considering the response to my post above...

 

N

 

S

 

A.

 

 

One year ago:

"It's very targeted and specific."

 

This week:

"This might just be the largest database in existence."

 

 

Infinite, let me give you a quick read on something called "traffic analysis'.

 

When the military first used radio, messages were sent in the clear. That was obviously a bad idea so the military coded everything. That didn't stop smart peiople who needed to know what you were planning from doing pattern recognition,

 

That meant they tracked which radio messages went where, what transmitters were moving or broadcasting. You would be shocked how much information you could get out just tracking when radfios went on the air and transmitted.

 

Its how the United States won at the Coral Sea when they couldn't quite read Japanese radio messages.

 

This was nothing new.

 

The

 

F

 

B

 

I

 

has been tracking suspected gangsters and interesting citizens (Eugene Debs) phone number usage ever since MA BELL and Mister Hoover made their arrangements back in 1934.

 

If you think this is new, then I'm sad to say that it is not so. The scale is something new only in that the computational capacity to filter for suspect patterns was not available until the early 1980s. At that, the Congress balked at domestic use of ECHELON until the Clinton administration finally obtained authorization from the balky Democrats in 1992.

 

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html explains as accurately in the open source what ECHELON is and how it is used.

 

The current flap is about TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, and not MESSAGE READING. There are simply too many messages to read unless a filtering protocol is used.

 

Now Mister Bush is being blamed as the latest user of a capacity and a practice that is DECADES old. Welcome to

 

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

 

about a couple decades late I'm afraid.

 

This I find more troubling;

 

FBI Secret Probes: 3,501 Targets in the U.S.

 

May 16, 2006 5:27 PM

 

Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:

 

The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.

 

The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases.

 

The letters require telephone companies to keep secret even the existence of the request for records.

 

(Read the rest of the article here; http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/3501_americans_.html )

 

 

 

As always; the best of wishes.

[Buffy]

Infinite, let me give you a quick read on something called "traffic analysis'....The current flap is about TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, and not MESSAGE READING.

Damo, let me give you a quick read on database security. One of the best known issues in allowing users to query databases for "aggregate statistics" is that with the right query you can exactly identify individual records. DoD Orange Book specifies limits on the minimum number of records to allow as part of an aggregate query for this specific reason. "Too much data to get individual records" is patently false, and if true would make the whole exercise pointless! If you can't locate the individual records once you've done your data mining, there's nothing to do!

 

The argument that's been promulgated by the administration is that the data has been "stripped of identifying information" is so stupid that its hard to believe they are saying it with a straight face. They can remove it from the data mining database, but all you need is a distributed query back to WhitePages.com...or the original data from the phone companies. The problem that many of us have is that the administration has "parsed their words so carefully" (now who was guilty of that that was the sole reason for trying to impeach him? :phones: ), that its hard to believe that they really have "stripped the identifying data." Do *you* believe them?

The FBI has been tracking suspected gangsters and interesting citizens (Eugene Debs) phone number usage ever since MA BELL and Mister Hoover made their arrangements back in 1934.

Sure, and it generated laws to restrict it, and legal taps require either the source or the destination number. That's now antiquated, and there's certainly reason to allow taps to *people* rather than specific numbers, and that's happening (even Democrats are for it!).

At that, the Congress balked at domestic use of ECHELON until the Clinton administration finally obtained authorization from the balky Democrats in 1992.

According to the article you cite Eschelon can *only* "access and process most of the worlds satellite communications" but not any other calls or communications. If so, then there's really not much reason to have it used in the US, since the only users of sat communications are big companies who are easy to watch. Eschelon does do more...

Now Mister Bush is being blamed as the latest user of a capacity and a practice that is DECADES old.

But not in the US!

 

What we're getting to here is the fundamental debate over right to privacy. The Communitarians (right-wingers who are *for* big government watching over you 1984-like), believe there is none. Most Americans think they have it, and some states like left-wing looney California actually have it in their state constitutions.

 

I repeat my standard question on this. Do you support the government's ability to snoop into your house to say, confiscate your guns? Find out what religion you are and feed it to their political machines?

 

Not possible? Are you *sure*? Some who support the administration I can imagine will be very nervous about it when the Democrats come back into power.

 

Are you not willing to pay the price of risk to have real freedom?

 

Have the terrorists *won*?

 

I'm only paranoid because they want me dead, :shrug:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

As usual, Buffy's post was informative and poignant. Thanks madam mod...

 

 

Damocles,

You've raised some interesting points, but let me restate mine.

 

War is bad. Blow jobs are good.

 

 

Cheers. :shade:

[damocles]

Damo, let me give you a quick read on database security. One of the best known issues in allowing users to query databases for "aggregate statistics" is that with the right query you can exactly identify individual records. <snip>

 

Buffy, I recognize that fact. It's quite clear where GOOGLE and its clones originated.

 

The argument that's been promulgated by the administration is that the data has been "stripped of identifying information" is so stupid that its hard to believe they are saying it with a straight face.<snip>

 

[You can recover anything that is recorded. Anything. You may not be able to decrypt it, but once the event is recorded, it is. D.]

 

According to the article you cite Eschelon can *only* "access and process most of the worlds satellite communications" but not any other calls or communications. If so, then there's really not much reason to have it used in the US, since the only users of sat communications are big companies who are easy to watch. Eschelon does do more...

But not in the US!

 

Yes. Right. Not in the US? Like there isn't a capacity to intercept and analyze the simple little over the air(cell phones) and intra-nation land cable traffic inside the Republic......Echelon has satellites and land stations that can do that as part of its network. (IVY BELLS, a wrap around undersea cable trunk message reader was as much a part of the USSSS effort as any earth satellite station. That device has its beginning from land-based cousins from which it originated. Dig a hole or find a maintenance node at a land cable repeater. Or simply park a pick-up truck-sized unit over the buried cable. Bell South will never know![sarcasm at the intent directed.] Electromagnetic transmission means electomagnetic interception. D.)

 

Aside from Echelon, which is a part of the USSSS effort, there is our little friend known as the Internet. Many people who use it, either the public net or the so-called secured networks, are well aware that the architecture is deliberately compromised, so that the builders of the same, can read the traffic-despite encryption and vain attempts at secure message routing.

 

What we're getting to here is the fundamental debate over right to privacy. The Communitarians (right-wingers who are *for* big government watching over you 1984-like), believe there is none. Most Americans think they have it, and some states like left-wing looney California actually have it in their state constitutions.

 

The US has read its enemies'/allies' foreign mail and its citizen's correspondence since the Jefferson Administration read French diplomatic traffic and the private letters of Aaron Burr. The US Army's Signal Corps began its real history by reading Western Union telegraphy just for grins and giggles. The American people HAVE NEVER HAD secure private communication, despite all the laws passed to guarantee it. Capabilities are used.

 

I repeat my standard question on this. Do you support the government's ability to snoop into your house to say, confiscate your guns? Find out what religion you are and feed it to their political machines?

 

Obviously, no. But as you well outlined, that data is commercially available to any off the shelf data-miner. Take a look at your real credit history? Not the one the credit reporting services provide, but the one that includes virtually every financial transaction you have ever made? CARFAX applied to people with a vengeance. It's commercially available to banks, insurance companies, employers(if they pay for it), you(if you know where to look.), and of course, the government.

 

Not possible? Are you *sure*? Some who support the administration I can imagine will be very nervous about it when the Democrats come back into power.

 

I'm sure that my privacy is an "illusion".

 

Are you not willing to pay the price of risk to have real freedom?

 

Eternal vigilance, etc. We can't stop the b******s, but we can make them sweat for it.

 

Have the terrorists *won*?

 

Since 1802? Yes.

I'm only paranoid because they want me dead, :shrug:

Buffy

 

I'm only paranoid, because I KNOW they're out to get me.

 

War is bad. Blow jobs are good.

 

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98-485.pdf

 

China acted out of its legitimate national security concerns. It had no guaranteed minimal deterrent against a US pre-emptive attack before the LORAL/Clinton political campaign contribution scandals. It's, China's, history has always shown a MINIMUM deterrent force posture. Subsequent theft of US lightweight warhead designs, theft of Russian solid fuel rocket technology and the selling of US solid state inertial guidance missile system technology gave the Chinese the pieces to finally field a guaranteed deterrent posture as of 2003-at least as far as Hawaii and Alaska is concerned. It is still doubtful that they can glass the west coast yet, but the DF 41 is supposed to be their answer to that problem.

 

Some interesting reading.

 

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/coxfinal3.pdf

 

This alleges that the Clinton/LORAL sellouts were not critical;

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/rostow.pdf

 

The analysis refutes the above assertion and suggests that the Cox Report is accurate.(Which unfortunately it is.)

 

This is the Cox Report;

 

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/

 

This is the CRS followup to the Cox Committee Report;

 

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/chinanukesecrets.pdf

 

The Chinese deployed their own first generation GPS, system. It is small and very limited. But it is notable that it has ONLY ONE PURPOSE.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/12-3_Forden_219-250.pdf

 

You can use FENDON to guide MIRV warheaded missiles to the US.

 

This is a legitimate self-defense measure that the Chinese desperately seek, because they are a genuinely frightened nation that seeks its own self-defense against genuinely hostile and powerful enemies.

 

Nevertheless Clinton's responsibility, as president, was to prevent Chinese access to the required technologies.

 

He facilitated the transfers for his own short-term political advantage. In his demented calculus, the US deterent would be unaffected by a countervailing Chinese developed equivalence. He was/is wrong.

 

There is a game model that suggests that the more nations that have a secure second strike capability, the greater the likelihood of nuclear war.

 

There is also the stability of the Chinese totalitarian regime to consider.

 

http://www.dodccrp.org/iamwg/archive/02_18_05_Hawkins_Thursdays_Child.ppt

 

That is not the evolution of a defensive-minded thought.

 

http://www.wsichina.org/attach/china_security.pdf

 

There is a game model that suggests that the more nations that have a secure second strike capability, the greater the likelihood of nuclear war among them.

 

Read On Nuclear War by Hermann Kahn. Multi-polar nuclear war is not only more likely than bi-polar deterence, it is a certainty. Clinton ignored that FACT when he made his calculations concerning his political dealings with China.

 

Bush is making the same mistakes with his policy choices regarding India's nuclear program.

Non-proliferation of key technology is there for a very good reason.

 

There are blowjobs, Infinite, and there are blowjobs.

 

As always, the best of wishes.

[Buffy]

Absolutely. Except for the fact that its not an issue of "technically possible to snoop" its an issue of "actually doing it when there are laws against it". Some will essentially claim that "we have to do some bad things to survive," but if you don't ask WWJD, and answer honestly, you're going to end up in a very unpleasant place. While riding into power on an image of moral superiority, the current administration has--by breaking every moral precept that this country has lived by in the name of "expediency" and "security"--completely retreated from the high moral ground that we have enjoyed even with the ups and downs of our foes. It will not be regained easily, and it has weakened our geopolitical position.

 

The issues you raise viz China are very important to understand, and unfortunately the ability of the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Al Qaeda, to tut-tut and say we are just as immoral as we claim they are makes us completely impotent except for our war making ability, and as you point out, that's a scary road to go down.

 

We have seen the enemy and he is us, :shrug:

Buffy

[IDMclean]

The issues you raise viz China are very important to understand, and unfortunately the ability of the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Al Qaeda, to tut-tut and say we are just as immoral as we claim they are makes us completely impotent except for our war making ability, and as you point out, that's a scary road to go down.

 

We have seen the enemy and he is us, :shrug:

Buffy

 

I couldn't say it better. We have become a nation conflicted and our trials will only increase as our apathy and disregard for the rest of the world increase.

 

I personally predict a major decline in the USAs global power and position. However the only thing that can be solidly said, with emperical evidence is that the world, it is a changing.

 

We are looking at a major change in the next half century. It will happen wheather we like it or not, and no ammount of weapons will help. Infact I feel that our investment in our weapons programs will ultimately end up to our deteriment.

 

We are lagging behind, and we are feeling it. I believe it frustrates us on a whole and so we fight harder and slip more and more.

 

Our elected leader is mearly a symptome of a much bigger problem, a scapegoat, a cultural sacrifice as we strive to make our way in the world.

 

It is sad what we do to make ourselves more important. As our efforts only seem to alienate us from the rest of the world.

 

I fought the beast of anger, it is a scary creature, more so than any other that resides upon this globe... It is the kind that I know of which will consume you from the inside, and that is what I see in america.

 

I see this beast stirring, and I see us pointing our collective fingers at others, blaming them for our short comings. All the while blithely ignoring that which is within and if we do not acknowledge our wrongness and do something about it swiftly we will change in a painful way.

 

When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always.

- Mahatma Gandhi

[Michaelangelica]

So what does this have to do with bush?

 

I see the present administration as "hawkish"

According to evolutionary-theory/game-theory we will see (or need) more "doves" to emerge;.

in order to push society towards more cooperative, helpful behaviours

The problem is that doves (many of whom are posting on this forum-quoting Gandhi etc)

will

1.not put themselves forward for election

2 not be seen by voters as tough enough to lead

3. find that, once elected, discover the sociology/group dynamics of the system of government forces them to behave "hawkishly"

 

So "We'll all be doomed", as Hanrihan said, to 'hawkish' ways of governing and solving problems

 

Doves have only been seen to emerge at the head of a popular revolutionary movement.

Do you see that happening in the US of A?

--

Michael