Congress Not Told of Covert Action as Required by Law

Congress are part of the acting them selves...

Whatever happens between congress and bush is intended to happen between them to give the people the illusion that the people are still in control of the decisions being made.

While in reality, they are not.

Originally posted by selfless
Congress are part of the acting them selves...

Whatever happens between congress and bush is intended to happen between them to give the people the illusion that the people are still in control of the decisions being made.

While in reality, they are not.

the people were never in control of the decisions, just in charge of putting people who make those decisions into power. congress voted to impeach clinton when only 32% of americans wanted them to do so. it's obvious that they don't follow the will of the people, and that's good to an extent because the people are sometimes fickle.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by selfless
Congress are part of the acting them selves...

Whatever happens between congress and bush is intended to happen between them to give the people the illusion that the people are still in control of the decisions being made.

While in reality, they are not.

the people were never in control of the decisions, just in charge of putting people who make those decisions into power.

Even so, whoever the people vote to be in power is the intended decision that the one world government unite intended to happen in the first place.

They create illusions with in them selves to keep these secrets but they are quite clumsy at it.

they've been breaking that law so much, it's not even relevant. Many acts of aggression have been undertaken by the President without notifying Congress. For many terms ...

[edit on 11-5-2007 by acegotflows]

Originally posted by loam
I can think of no greater ignorance, and threat to our American way of life, than a position that advocates disrespect for the law, a lack of accountability, and an effort to emulate the methodologies and logic of our very enemies.

America is losing its grace because of thinking like that. The danger we face as a nation is not only from beyond, but from within. In my book, that means we have a war on two fronts.

I will not so easily forsake our American principles and call that victory in an effort to defeat those who would seek our destruction.

We are a better people than that...and the legacy of our forefathers deserves better respect.


[edit on 10-5-2007 by loam]

Careful here loam. You walk a very fine line. There are limits to our patience, as our founders pointed out.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

We, the People, ultimately have the say in what gets done in this country. For it to be any other way would make this nation something other than the America that our "Founding Fathers" died for. What do you think Jefferson would say if he were alive today? I think it might be something like what he's already said:

"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:391

We've been nearly 200 years without one. I think he was merely stating with this statement that we need to keep the pressure on those that we elect, to make sure that they don't stray off the path of governance. If they do, however, there was that insurrection clause that was left to us as a last resort, to sort out the mess that those we elected got us into.

This sums up my opinion on this. You can thank Thomas Jefferson for the quotes, as without him, none of us would be sitting here right now saying these things.

Again, thanks Thomas...

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
Careful here loam. You walk a very fine line. There are limits to our patience, as our founders pointed out.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

We, the People, ultimately have the say in what gets done in this country.
TheBorg

Well said! I may just barrow that quote from Mr. Jefferson.

I'm in complete agreement. When the congress no longer works for it's people, but governs more for the benefit of corporations, I think it's the people's turn to step in and work for congress. They've had their chance and squandered it for their own selfish benefit.

TheBorg & tyranny22:

I think you have missed some of my point.

To be clear, I'm in no way advocating insurrection. Frankly, Jefferson’s quotes are unresponsive to the problem I perceive we face.

It is my view that the issues we find in our government are merely a reflection of the apparent ignorance and apathy of the underlying populous. How many vote? Compare that against the most recent French elections. Why do they get voter participation right and we don’t?

Why are so many willing, in an apparent dissatisfaction with one or more of our branches of government, so willing to vilify the very institutions that offer us the best hope for accountability?

Government will always be an imperfect tool of equitable treatment, fairness, justice and opportunity. But what America offers is the best solution man has found in its 6000+ year history of governance. Obviously, the cards and history are stacked against us.

But when Americans start advocating lawlessness and disrespect the notion of Checks and Balances, we are assured absolute failure.

As I stated previously, our vigilance should not be marshaled solely against the threats from abroad, but also against those from within.

When your neighbor sees you as the enemy merely because you hold a different view on some issue, and is willing to place its importance in advance of our American institutions, I think we are much further down the road to self-destruction than many realize.

I hope I am wrong.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by loam]

Loam...voting...voting in this country is a joke. You actually believe your vote matters. We are a country of unbelievable technology. We went to the moon (well MAYBE we did ), we have planes and weaponry that are unmatched, we have computers and the ability to do ALMOST anything with them, etc...but when it comes to voting we have what? Paper, OLD machines that may or may not be accurate. A few touch screen machines that low and behold never work right. Our voting system is a joke. We count on people to sit and count the votes then submit their numbers to determine who runs this country and represents the people. There is so much room for mistakes and abuse its rediculous. Would WE THE PEOPLE actually ever know if the vote we cast was ever actually included. NOPE! We ASSuME our political people in charge are honest enough to get it right. It wouldn't be very hard to convince most americans these days if they decided to start doing their own thing on capital hill!

I hear you, but it's not the concept of voting for a representative government that is flawed, it's how we execute that concept that is flawed.

Originally posted by loam
I think you have missed some of my point.

To be clear, I'm in no way advocating insurrection. Frankly, Jefferson’s quotes are unresponsive to the problem I perceive we face.

I do understand what you're trying to get across, but I think Jefferson's quotes are very adequate for the problems facing America.

To your point, the entire administration should be held accountable for the actions they implement and all major military action should be approved by congress. That's why they've been voted into office. In regard to topic I agree and this, I'm sure, is a major problem with our legislature.

But to touch on issues a bit deeper and venturing a bit off thread, I think congress has lost touch with everyday American's concerns with this country and to me I fear this to be a greater threat. If Congress would put more importance on human issues than corporate issues maybe they wouldn't have allowed this administration's power hungry control to get this out of hand. As well, I think the focus of congress has lead to the majority of American's non-interest in the laws and regulations being approved and dismissed through congress. It's a sad state of affairs.

Government will always be an imperfect tool of equitable treatment, fairness, justice and opportunity. But what America offers is the best solution man has found in its 6000+ year history of governance. Obviously, the cards and history are stacked against us.

But when Americans start advocating lawlessness and disrespect the notion of Checks and Balances, we are assured absolute failure.

Agreed. I'm not aware of a more balanced government when all cylinders are firing. But, as it is, the American governing machine seems to be missing a bit and is in need of a tune up. This is very well represented by the thread issue of covert action not being approved my congress before implementation.

I suggested no lawlessness. Who's to say that we couldn't resolve these issues by perfectly legal and peaceful means? I'm sure we can find enough documentation set forth by our fore-fathers to make a case for a new congress. We, at least, could ask for their resignation, even just to make a point and raise awareness to the general population.

When your neighbor sees you as the enemy merely because you hold a different view on some issue, and is willing to place its importance in advance of our American institutions, I think we are much further down the road to self-destruction than many realize.

But that is the very reason the government was set up the way it is. When this nation is split on an opinion, it's left up to who we put in office to listen to everyone's side and know which side the majority resides with and regulate laws in accordance.

Originally posted by loam

When your neighbor sees you as the enemy merely because you hold a different view on some issue, and is willing to place its importance in advance of our American institutions, I think we are much further down the road to self-destruction than many realize.

You see...this notion applies to our elected toadies as well. That was the point of my first post. I wasn't excusing or rationalizing whatever covert activity was being questioned by the congressional comittee or the story. Rather, I was speaking to the same concept as you just did....and that's half of the people in Washington are the enemies of the other half. It's very difficult to accomplish ANYTHING when one party will find faults in the policies of the opposite party and use it's views regarding those faults to sabotage the political future of the other party. It wasn't long ago that politics ended at the shore. It's not that way anymore.

It's a big, complicated, power, greed and envy driven world, and to expect all of the tens of thousands of empowered decision makers in the government, the military, and the intelligence community to behave within all of the laws all of the time is, unfortunately, idealistic. You may be altruistic but most are not.

Again, I'm not excusing any behavior, just pointing out the realities of society, and human nature.



[edit on 5/11/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by RRconservative
I supported Iran-Contra also. During that time we had another hate America 1st Congress. The Contras were fighting against a Communist regeime, but Congress refused to help them out because they had a love-affair with Communist Daniel Ortega. Something had to be done, and Oliver North was the man to do it! Oliver North, now that is a great American!

When someone posts opinions on this site, I didn't realize they were for sale?

Have you ever received money for your posts? If not, does that mean no one was buying what you were saying???

The contra's were fighting in the name of private capital against social revolution. They werent fighting for the good of the people, they were fighting for the good of private wealth. They were fighting to re-institute a rightwing, procapitalist, dictatorship like the previous Samoza government.

The Iran-Contra scandal was just one of many instances where the US national security state apparatus used proxy warfare to destablize and overthrow a revolutionary government. They did this in Chile, in Angola, In Mozambique, in Libia, in Iraq (with the installation of Saddam), in Afganistan (before the soviets showed any interest), and in other countries as well.

US policy makers and leaders care less about protecting Democracy and care more about protecting the capital accumulation process. This is why they fought communism, not because of its "undemocratic" system of rule, but because it threatened the process of capitalism within its own states, and abroad (as many smaller nations realized that being milked for resources by western capitalist nations sucked, big time)

Dont believe me? Then why have US leaders and policy makers supported such rightwing, fascist or autocratic governments such as Pinoche in Chile, UNITA in Angola, or RENAMO in Mozambique? Those governments are far less democractic than communist or socialist governments, but have had the full priviledge of US military and foreign Aid. Maybe its because those governemnts have an inherent dedication to the capitalist accumulation process.

If you supported the war of attrition in Nicaragua (through covert actions such as the iran contra scandal) then you would also support the massacre in Angola or Mozambique.

These covert actions that bypass congress and its counterparts arent simply ment "to get the job done" they're ment to undermine the very system that OK's these actions.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
They did this in Chile, in Angola, In Mozambique, in Libia, in Iraq (with the installation of Saddam), in Afganistan (before the soviets showed any interest), and in other countries as well.

Don't forget about Panama with Manuel Noriega.

How many people have we put in power, only to later oust and throw in prison ... or hang?

[edit]
This may not apply, though because though the empowerment of Noriega may have been a U.S. covert co-operation, the invasion to capture him was not. That was national news and I'm sure congress-approved.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
They did this in Chile, in Angola, In Mozambique, in Libia, in Iraq (with the installation of Saddam), in Afganistan (before the soviets showed any interest), and in other countries as well.

Don't forget about Panama with Manuel Noriega.

How many people have we put in power, only to later oust and throw in prison ... or hang?

There are too many to list.

But i think Americans should stop using words like "we" and "us" when talking about foreign policy, because it implies a common cause with those that make and execute such policies, of which, i believe the common american has none.

I am of the opinion that they went after Noriega because he wouldnt participate in the anti-Sandanista war.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Well, to redirect this thread back to the topic, I'd like to make a couple statements regarding my opinions on what should happen.

I believe that to have a Republic that functions, we need to eliminate all third party "political contributions" and "lobbying/bribing", so that those that we elect will have no reason to vote for anything BUT what's in the best interests of their constituents. To expound upon this, I also believe that the candidates shouldn't be allowed to accept any money from any business during the campaign. I think candidates should be elected based on their views and how they plan to make their region better for their constituents, not on how much money went into their campaign fund.

To fix these problems, I think there should be a regular inquiry a couple of months before the elections where the people get to go and do extensive research on their candidates, so that they can make a more educated decision. This could include extensive interviews locally with the people of the towns that the candidate is running for, or something as high-profile as a TV appearance, where people can call in with pertinent questions. This would give the People at least some chance to see what/how the candidates think.

I don't think that any huge amount of money should be spent on the campaigns either, as that's just leaving a huge hole open for corruption and exploitation, as can be witnessed by the current state of affairs in our very corrupt government. With all of that money floating around, it's no wonder they don't listen to us; they don't need to. They have everything they need. Their corporate-backed electors protect them, knowing that they will get the legislation passed that they want, while the People, the REAL voice of America, gets the shaft.

Again, it's time for this to cease. I'm gonna start writing letters here soon I guess, as nothing gets fixed as long as I sit here wishing for it to go away. Someone's gotta take the lead; might as well be someone that's adamant about it as much as I. I'll keep everyone updated.

Oh, one last thing. Should everything we try fail, there is one legal option left to us that most people don't think is legal. Again, I'll turn to my best friend Thomas Jefferson for that explanation:

"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.

TheBorg

We, the People, ultimately have the say in what gets done in this countryTheBorg

Really? We do? When that happen?