wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:04:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
And the evidence for this is???


The difference between candidate Obama circa 3q 2007 - 1q 2008 (a guy
I supported here) and president Obama today?
He has this health care red herring and that is pretty much the only
thing that makes his policies different than Bush.
He doubled down on Bush's bailouts, Didn't close Gitmo, Didn't stop
either war, didn't do anything about the erosion of our rights and
doubled Bush's deficit

New boss
... same as the old boss



He has done much more than that. Re the bailout, he listened to the
experts
and did the right thing, as evidence, the economy is slowly improving. He
is
in the process of closing Gitmo, and he's winding down the war in Iraq. He
never claimed he would do that in Afg.

Nothing has actually happened. Nixon said he would get us out of
Vietnam too. It just didn't happen until Ford finally pulled the plug.

Do you really credit Ford with ending the war? I'm inclined to give Nixon
that one, despite the timing.


I have no idea what you're talking about re "our rights." He's opened up
an
investigation (limited right now) into the torture stuff. More is surely
to
come.

Several years ago everyone on the left was howling about the patriot
act. Obama rubber stamped it. Gitmo never affected our rights, only
aliens who never set foot here (the point of Gitmo)

It absolutely has. It's a slippery slope when you start treating the worst
like animals.

If you want a real example of losing your rights, look at the drug
war. That was where the 4th amendment was shredded. It is also when
illegal domestic wiretapping really took off. I don't see Obama
softening that.

I don't know of any examples of illegal wiretapping wrt to the drug war.
However, the Bush administration pushed through the end run around the FISA
court. Obama hasn't done enough to end that end run.


While the deficit is an important issue, it's not unusual for that to
happen. The gov't has to spend money to fix the near depression we're
having.

The real question is whether we made good choices in where we spent
the money. I bet most of the people who voted for those phone book
sized bills ever read any of them. They were catch alls, scooping up
every pork bill that was languishing around the capitol for the last 8
years.

Probably right, but you really can't blame Obama for this. I'm even willing
to give Paulson a snap for doing what he and other economists thought was
right. He didn't have any accountability in what he did, and Geitner did
more toward that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
Do you really credit Ford with ending the war? I'm inclined to give Nixon
that one, despite the timing.

I certainly do. Nixon started us towards the door but we were never
going to get out of there until we got out of there.

Well, too far away to argue about now... We don't have Dick Nixon to kick
around any more. lol

I see the same thing in Iraq. All it is going to take is the
insurgents to roll over "our" side in one of those cities and we will
be back in there. Our troops are just waiting for the next battle to
start

Ok. So, what do you propose? Should we allow the Iraqi gov't to stand on its
own two feet or should be help if necessary? Do we really want that place to
descend into chaos?


I have no idea what you're talking about re "our rights." He's opened up
an
investigation (limited right now) into the torture stuff. More is surely
to
come.

Several years ago everyone on the left was howling about the patriot
act. Obama rubber stamped it. Gitmo never affected our rights, only
aliens who never set foot here (the point of Gitmo)

It absolutely has. It's a slippery slope when you start treating the worst
like animals.

I am not sure how much of that is true and how much is hype.

By the gov't's own reporting, we tortured prisoners. Some even died. At
least several were so mentally damaged that they can't stand trial. It's
pretty well documented. Heck, even Darth Vader (aka Dick Cheney) admitted to
knowing about it and agreeing with its use.


If you want a real example of losing your rights, look at the drug
war. That was where the 4th amendment was shredded. It is also when
illegal domestic wiretapping really took off. I don't see Obama
softening that.

I don't know of any examples of illegal wiretapping wrt to the drug war.

There is plenty (I get this from cops). They don't use illegal taps to
get evidence, it would not be allowed in court. They just use it to
"get lucky" on a traffic stop and say it came from an informant.
In most cases it is not really the cop who does the tap. It is a paid
informant. A distinction without a difference in my opinion

This is, of course, hearsay. If it's not used in court, then there's really
no way to show it happens or not. I believe most police to be honest and try
to follow the spirit and letter of the law. They've certainly done right by
me.


However, the Bush administration pushed through the end run around the
FISA
court. Obama hasn't done enough to end that end run.

How do you know that. FISA court proceedings are secret. All you know
is it hasn't been leaked to the press yet.

Some things are, some aren't... for example:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009...gold_fisa.html

NSA always listens, everything they do is secret and largely
unregulated in any real sense.

Especially relatively recently. Speaking of Nixon, under Bush:

In November 2002, the New York Times reported that the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was developing a tracking system called
"Total Information Awareness" (TIA), which was intended to detect terrorists
through analyzing troves of information. The system, developed under the
direction of John Poindexter, then-director of DARPA's Information Awareness
Office, was envisioned to give law enforcement access to private data
without suspicion of wrongdoing or a warrant.

Remember Poindexter? Read the section on the Iran-Contra affair if you don't
remember:

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

Probably right, but you really can't blame Obama for this. I'm even
willing
to give Paulson a snap for doing what he and other economists thought was
right. He didn't have any accountability in what he did, and Geitner did
more toward that.

You are right, it is not directly Obama's fault but we always seem to
blame the president for everything that happens on his watch. That is
why I frequently talk about congress and why I read a lot of
Thomas.loc.gov.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
Ok. So, what do you propose? Should we allow the Iraqi gov't to stand on
its
own two feet or should be help if necessary? Do we really want that place
to
descend into chaos?


It will descend into some degree of chaos, no matter what we do.
There is no way to get out without getting out. Southeast Asia was
chaos for a few years after we left but now it is pretty much what our
government always wanted it to be, a trading partner and a market for
our cigarettes and beer.

It's unclear that this is true. We've pulled back quite a bit, and the
violence has increased, but it's not out of control. I think it's too early
to just leave at this point. We'll likely have a role in the region there
for a long time.

By the gov't's own reporting, we tortured prisoners. Some even died. At
least several were so mentally damaged that they can't stand trial. It's
pretty well documented. Heck, even Darth Vader (aka Dick Cheney) admitted
to
knowing about it and agreeing with its use.

The problem is the definition of torture and that seems to be changing
by the day.

Huh? Torture has been pretty well-defined since the Spanish Inquisition. We
signed a treaty not to do it, we've prosecuted our own soldiers in the past
for it, we've put others on trial as well. It's quite clearly defined. We
should not be in that business. The situation needs to be fully investigated
and those responsible need to be held accountable.

I haven't had a problem either but I don't profile as a drug dealer I
suppose. In real life neither of us know if our phone was tapped.
I have been picked up and shaken on the highway and I went along with
an illegal search because I had places to be and I just wanted to get
out of there.

These days, it probably is on some level being "tapped," although not
specifically for anyone here.

Picked up? Physically? I've been stopped before and asked if they could
search the car. I said no, politely of course. My kids were asleep. They
didn't like it much, but they let us go. Of course, I didn't look like much
of a threat with two sleeping in the car. They didn't give me a ticket even
though I was "speeding."

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:30:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
Ok. So, what do you propose? Should we allow the Iraqi gov't to stand on
its
own two feet or should be help if necessary? Do we really want that
place
to
descend into chaos?


It will descend into some degree of chaos, no matter what we do.
There is no way to get out without getting out. Southeast Asia was
chaos for a few years after we left but now it is pretty much what our
government always wanted it to be, a trading partner and a market for
our cigarettes and beer.

It's unclear that this is true. We've pulled back quite a bit, and the
violence has increased, but it's not out of control. I think it's too
early
to just leave at this point. We'll likely have a role in the region there
for a long time.

Are we going to be the worlds policeman forever? That may have made
sense when we were rich but we are broke.

Did I or anyone say "forever"? I guess we do what we do until the people
elect someone else.

Huh? Torture has been pretty well-defined since the Spanish Inquisition.
We
signed a treaty not to do it, we've prosecuted our own soldiers in the
past
for it, we've put others on trial as well. It's quite clearly defined. We
should not be in that business. The situation needs to be fully
investigated
and those responsible need to be held accountable.

That is the problem. You confuse torture like ripping body parts off
and inviceration with sleep depravation and water boarding (something
that is a standard part of SEAL training).

Waterboarding, for example, as been around since then, and it is torture.
There are always worse things I suppose, but I don't understand your point.
A little bit of torture is still torture.

I doubt the people who were tortured by the gestapo would think it was
the same. The military established what were legal interrogation
methods and then went back on it.

Our military? Nope. Waterboarding has always been illegal here, at least in
modern times.

I grew up knowing my phone was tapped. My mom worked for Hoffa on his
legal team. That is chilling on 2 counts, warrantless taps and lawyer
client privilege. It is pretty chilling for a high school kid to see
his conversations with his girlfriend on an FBI wire tap transcript.
I am not a Kennedy fan.

Not sure what Kennedy has to do with it, but ok.

Picked up? Physically? I've been stopped before and asked if they could
search the car. I said no, politely of course. My kids were asleep. They
didn't like it much, but they let us go. Of course, I didn't look like
much
of a threat with two sleeping in the car. They didn't give me a ticket
even
though I was "speeding."

When I was stopped it wasn't really a question that cold be answered
with a no. It was, can we search your car now or do you want to wait
here for us to get a warrant? They can "search" your car with a dog
without a warrant and if they SAY the dog alerted they have probable
cause even when nothing was found. They can also detain you until the
dog gets there as long as it is a reasonable time (undefined). All
they have to do is look busy processing the traffic stop until the dog
shows up.

Sounds like normal procedure if there's something suspicious or you're
driving while black or latino.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:39:18 -0400, wrote:

When I was stopped it wasn't really a question that cold be answered
with a no. It was, can we search your car now or do you want to wait
here for us to get a warrant? They can "search" your car with a dog
without a warrant and if they SAY the dog alerted they have probable
cause even when nothing was found. They can also detain you until the
dog gets there as long as it is a reasonable time (undefined). All
they have to do is look busy processing the traffic stop until the dog
shows up.
ILLINOIS v. CABALLES
They can make everyone get out, be searched and present ID
MARYLAND v. WILSON
They can ask you questions without a Miranda warning on the side of
the road

Has any of that ever been taken all the way to the supreme court?

I once refused to answer any questions at a DUI checkpoint in the NYC
area and got the cop royally ticked off. I couldn't have gotten away
with it if I'd had even one drink prior. I finally gave him a little
speech about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. Eventually he
figured that if I was sober enough to do that, he was probably wasting
his time. My wife was ready to go hide under a rock. :-)

I've always been curious about these south Florida news reports where
someone has "agreed" to let their car be searched. You never hear
about that sort of thing in the NYC area because traffic stops and
drug busts are not generally considered to be news worthy. If it has
already been taken to the supreme court and lost, then I guess there's
no sense in trying to fight it. Otherwise I think we need more
innocent people refusing to allow a search and then following up with
legal action.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:47:16 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


Suing the government is usually a futile activity. You spend a lot of
money and seldom win.

And let's not forget the crime of driving with money.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:47:16 -0400, wrote:

Did you see the story about the 72 year old guy who was arrested last
week at a checkpoint in the cape?
He blew a 0.0 and they still insisted he was intoxicated and took
urine. The cop said it came back positive for a drug the guy says he
wasn't taking based on a test strip. Too bad, off you go.
They are still waiting for the lab report.
The Cape Chief was interviewed in the snooze press and he was asked,
what if the urine test is really indicating something you took days
ago. He said too bad, if the cop thinks you are intoxicated you are
guilty.

Interesting. I saw the original story but not the follow up. I met
Petrovich once and he seemed like a reasonable guy. Maybe not.
Something is definitely wrong with that whole incident and I hope it
gets adjudicated in an intelligent manner.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:04:09 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:47:16 -0400, wrote:

Did you see the story about the 72 year old guy who was arrested last
week at a checkpoint in the cape?
He blew a 0.0 and they still insisted he was intoxicated and took
urine. The cop said it came back positive for a drug the guy says he
wasn't taking based on a test strip. Too bad, off you go.
They are still waiting for the lab report.
The Cape Chief was interviewed in the snooze press and he was asked,
what if the urine test is really indicating something you took days
ago. He said too bad, if the cop thinks you are intoxicated you are
guilty.

Interesting. I saw the original story but not the follow up. I met
Petrovich once and he seemed like a reasonable guy. Maybe not.
Something is definitely wrong with that whole incident and I hope it
gets adjudicated in an intelligent manner.

The problem with these kinds of news reports is that you don't know
what prompted the investigation initially. It might have been an open
container - there may have been visual or verbal clues - could be
anything. I was stopped once after a 24 hour shift when we had a rash
of medical incidents and I was the only available medic - I had maybe
half hour of sleep or so and was stopped on the way home - I guess I
was less than driving a straight line. Everything came back negative,
but the cop was still suspicious, but he called the Chief and he
explained the situation - he came out, I parked the car and the Chief
took me home from there.

You just can't have an opinion based on incomplete information.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:36:24 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The problem with these kinds of news reports is that you don't know what
prompted the investigation initially. It might have been an open
container - there may have been visual or verbal clues - could be
anything. I was stopped once after a 24 hour shift when we had a rash
of medical incidents and I was the only available medic - I had maybe
half hour of sleep or so and was stopped on the way home - I guess I was
less than driving a straight line. Everything came back negative, but
the cop was still suspicious, but he called the Chief and he explained
the situation - he came out, I parked the car and the Chief took me home
from there.

You just can't have an opinion based on incomplete information.

Times may be a-changing. Here in NJ, we have Maggie's Law, which allows
sleep deprived drivers to be charged with vehicular homicide if any one
is killed because of a drowsy driver. There have been studies
demonstrating that people who have been awake for 24 hours are impaired
to the same level as someone with a blood alcohol level of .10. Which
raises all sorts of interesting liability issues:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...8/12/31404.htm

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:36:24 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

The problem with these kinds of news reports is that you don't know
what prompted the investigation initially. It might have been an open
container - there may have been visual or verbal clues - could be
anything.

I believe it was a DUI checkpoint. It will be an interesting case if
it goes to court. We have a lot of drivers in FL who are impaired by
age, nothing else.