Old Geezer

No, I point out examples of corrupt behavior as reasons to maintain checks and balances. If they are so irrational, then how come I can point to cases where the fears have been realized? A million reasons... Political Embarrasment (If I wanted to embarass a political rival the easiest thing for me to do would be to obtain information about his purchases, what he reads, most anything personal would be helpful) Quite right... so why not invest more funding into our lack of Human Intelligence instead of checking out if I have read Mein Kompf or not? I didnt "compare" them, I contrasted them,... our system has checks and balances, theirs doesnt... A) not necesarrilylegally true... you should check out the new definitons of "enemy combatants" these days. even if that was the case you wouldnt know, would you? A)In our unionized bureaus, you cant get fired, (without a shitload of paperwork) congress men can and often do get fired. Congress is not a bureau and I havent actually critisized their "idiocy" within the context of this discussion at all. several NGO's have agreed

WWJGD Cybernetics and Systems Theories address the concepts of "open and closed" systems. Try googling the theories. (I wrote my basic understanding of them in the thread about ecosystems) Cybernetics Developed as a multi-disciplinary approach in the 20th century. Its conceptualization of what a system is, when it is open and closed, and causality within a system has influenced fields such as (engineering, ecology, economics, sociology, family therapy, and artificial intelligence)

A)perhaps for the same reasons that 50 million people dont choose to purchase health insurance. They either can't afford it, or have different priorities. (food, rent college etc) perhaps because their ability to assess the importance or rationality of such a decision is impaired (invalids for instance, or those dumb assholes who think that if they play the lottery often enough they will win) c) perhaps its not and they are just gambling wisely (for instance, If I owe my father money he would accept a check not backed by the govt if he trusted me and the bank) d) a "safety net" mentality... thinking that Uncle Sam will find a way to provide in times of need.

Yeah, thanks to the ACLU. huh??? Anyway, it took about two years for him to be removed, and the case is still under appeal. His is a perfect example of how a transparent government is has corrective mechanisms. a) every 6 months congress receives a report of how many requests were made, and how many were granted, thats not very informative. the oversight they do have is important now because of whats known as "sunset clauses" and this is precisely why I feel they should be pressured to go back and read what they voted for. The primary reason for this discrepency is because the PATRIOT act doesnt require anyone to be informed. They can detain people secretly, they can track my library reading secretly they can investigate you secretly, they can try you secretly, they can confiscate evidence secretly, they can walk through your house secretly and you would never know, why would you complain?? and in the case of some US citizens, HOW would you complain? I think its imperative to, however recognizing a need is not proof that something exists. how did the federal government earn that trust? If you say that the trust has been earned to the extent that its transparent, I would have to agree. But if you say that it has been learned by trustworthy behavior, the history books would have to disagree. In any event, even if the trust has been earned, one need only look at countries such as egypt or Iran to see what happens when checks are removed. There are degrees of secrecy. For instance, Bush/Ashcroft could be a helluva lot more forthcoming about the "procedures" they plan to use in Military Tribunals. Without even having precise details on the procedure, how can we judge if the Tribunals are a proper mix of security and due process? (not that I think non citizens should have as much due process, I dont think they have the same entitlements, but since PATRIOT ACT II now aims to include US citizens, it is an issue of convern) OF COURSE there needs to be some limitations on public terrorism trials.. But right now getting Ashcroft to accurately describe HOW MANY trials there are , is like pulling teeth. It seems to me that the central problem now is not publicity but secrecy. as far as expanding government powers, several organizations including congress have come to the conclusion that it wasnt lack of powers that screwed up being able to stop 9-11, but good old fashioned government beuracracy and idiocy.

Marc K. Youll have to excuse the different tag Im not a comp expert and something went screwy, so I just opened up a different Tag I was reffering to irrational suspiciousness on the part of the components of the justice system. The reason I mentioned paranoia is because it is entirely within the realm of possibilitty that a judge or a plaintiff could be irrational. (e.g. Alabama 10 commandments guy for instance) Do you deny that it is possible for Judges to be irrational? If not, how do you intend to maintain quality oversight of their behaviors??? My concern isnt with the irrational use of power by a "long gone executive". (I was naming one example do I really need to name others???) My concern is with a strategy for containing the use of the power to the rational and the moral. I suppose you might reply that the strategy is "trust" But how does one establish trust?? either from a record of accountability, or from the knowledge that one can intervene if the trust is broken. Section 215 of the Patriot Act specifies this. I would love for more Americans to see the whole definition of terrorism under the Patriot Acts as well as other parts of that law.... (or even congressman for that matter) I didnt mind when the PATRIOT act was buzzed by post 9-11 without scrutiny that was completely justified But now on the eve of new legislation which will further strengthen the governments powers, it seems prudent to really look into the PATRIOT Acts and see what needs to be changed, and what needs to stay. That can not be done unless people are very familiar with the legislation and the proposed legislation. Of course... For instance the part of the PATRIOT Act which adapted to technological changes by making wiretapping warrants apply across media (cell phones, email, regular phones, smoke signals) was extremely rational and incredibly justified Also the changes in those rules which formerly limited our Human Intelligence to Politically Correct informants to one which was based on the ability of informants to deliver. also, most of the PATRIOT ACT is full of many common sense security adjustments