Iran soon?

Originally Posted by Nehmi

If you want to really explore this line of thought, you are going to dark, dark places. Really, you can't expect the government to to be unaware of certain things that happen. Why do they support Israel so much, when all it causes is trouble? You have to come to your own conclusions.
http://judicial-inc.biz/False_Flags_summary.htm

We support Israel so much because they are our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Which is our number one priority region for more then one reason. Also, we sell a great deal of arms to Israel. Which sometimes get sold to our enemies through Israel. But money is money and hey, our bombs have to go somewhere when they're not flying in Baghdad yeah?

No rational debate is possible when talking about Israel and the US's foreign policy concerning them. Because if you're not pro-Israel you're a anti-semite!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a_tree

I was under the impression that we support Israel so much because otherwise all the Jews in America would cry about how we're going to let another holocaust happen, as impossible as it maybe,

We have other more important reasons besides that. Government(s) do not dictate their foreign policy out of the kindness or sympathy of their hearts. The American government's apathy to the jews getting gased in concentration camps is a good example. There was no public outcry or even acknowledgement about it. Even though accurate and detailed intelligence about the concentration camps came via the Polish resistence.

Israel would not exist as a state without it's "little brother" American mandate. Israel has defied twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq did under Saddam. But as long as they play their part we'll let that slide.

Originally Posted by a_tree

then proceed paint whoever proposes a withdrawl of support as a pro-Nazi/Anti-Semitisc. As evidenced by this article.

It's not just the proposal of the complete withdrawl of support that draws the anti-semitic label. The advocates of strengthening the Palestinian position often draw that label. Even though, ironically enough Palestinians/Arabs are a semitic people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Wesker

All that being said....whats done is done, and Israel now stands as the only free democratic state in the Middle east and has every right to continue to exist They are a staunch ally of the U.S. and for reasons wide and varied the U.S. is and should continue to be counted on to come to the defense of Israel.

If you consider Palestine a nation-state they're also a democracy. Whether you like the fact that Hamas is in power or not. I wouldn't call Israel "free" either. Did you know that in Israel there's Jews-only highways? Doesn't sound that free to me. With the repression of the minorities and all.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Are they?

If you can think of another word for a state that receives the most military and economic aid from us in a mutual benefitial relationship I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Disregarding Israel's numerous unfriendly actions towards the United States, what treaty of alliance is there between the United States and Israel?

I can only assume you're referring to the numerous espionage cases involving Israel. My response is that both countries throughly compromise each other through the Mossad/CIA. Even though espionage is a "unfriendly" act we still do it to our allies and friends as much as we do it to our enemies.

On the written treaty of alliance I have no clue. History has been definitive on the matter though. Quiet support for most, if not all of Israel's actions ranging from the wars against it's Arab neighbors to the Palestine question has come out of Washington.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

For that matter, what has Israel ever done for us?

Mutually supporting each other's positions in the United Nations. Provided us with a armed military camp in a vital, yet political unstable region. Acted as cut outs for the CIA/Government in such cases such as the Iran-Contra affair. Probably a lot more then either you or I know. Or should know. It's more then just a "Oh my god! Israel controls the U.S." conspiracy theory.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

What are these reasons? Please tell me it's more than 'supporting democracy and freedom'.

Israel is a integral part of our defense industries. Not from merely a sales conduct standpoint. But the research, manufacturing, and testing.

That has 'national security' written all over it for both the United States and Israel.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a_tree

Mutual? Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What exactly are we getting back from this "mutual" relationship?

Well I've already elaborated quite a bit. But eh I can keep going. It is illegal for the US to spy on it's own citizens. (Or it used to be) But it's not illegal for British intelligence or the Mossad to do it now is it? Once the domestic intelligence is gathered it's shared.

Originally Posted by a_tree

How is Israel "supporting" the US?

Don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair do you? All the weapons sales went through Israel.

As far as the UN goes, Israel isn't the only country to do some very unpopular stuff in the United Nations. Bottom line, is that we're both there for each other. We look out for each other's interests no questions asked.

Originally Posted by a_tree

Finally, whatever Israel could offer in us terms of an armed military camp probably isn't very valuable to us anyways. If we need airpower in the reigon we could just put a carrier in the Mediterranean sea or the gulf. This is in addition to the various military bases we have in Europe and Diego Garcia. And all of the above are out of reach of Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers. The only value I see in having a base in Israel is merely to field a heavily armed quick reaction force.

Our Navy is limited. It can't be everywhere at once. Although it certainly tries to be. That aircraft carrier is best suited elsewhere. And why not? We hardly need it there when a close reliable strategic ally is present there for us. You're ignoring the fact that we'd have to violate somebody's airspace in the process of those bombing runs. Take a look at where Israel sits on a map.

Oh, and if we were satisfied with the amount of military bases we had in the Middle East we wouldn't have grudgingly withdrew from the bases we had in Saudi Arabia. Or depending on how you look at it, we wouldn't be building "temporary" bases in Iraq that look quite permanent to some people.

Originally Posted by a_tree

I don't see what Israel has that our various weapons testing sites here in the US don't have other than live targets.

There you go. You said it yourself; live targets. Again, manufacturing is just as important, and having a deniable sales conduct is... essential.

"What? We're selling high tech weapons to China!? No we're not! We gave them to Israel..."

You might not like it, and I might not like it. We're not required too. It's just politics.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

And obviously thats why our own intelligence agencies still have conducted illegal wire-tappings. You know, just to piss off the public and whatnot and to look like they're doing something.

Well the illegal wire taps are only a recent development. Pretty sure the domestic intel sharing has gone back as far as the end of the second World War. As far as our intelligence services go, we hear about their failures more then we hear about their successes. Who really knows what they're doing anyway? We only get leaks of information about what they're doing.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You're right, Israel certainly isn't the only country to do unpopular things. But I never said they were. Difference lies in what happens after they commit the act. Where other countries have to face the UN security council's rulings and whatever consequences there might have, all Israel has to do is to sit back and wait for the US to cast that veto. Israel has really nothing equivalent to offer us inside the UN building. Compared to the number of UN resolutions and sanctions the US has helped Israel veto, their support for us is a mere drop in the bucket, then throw in all the heat we get for supporting Israel from the Middle East and all the trouble its caused us, then it becomes a drop in the ocean.

You put a awful lot of emphasis into the power and prestige of the UN. Way more then I do anyway. Let's be honest, if the UN could actually do anything of significance the Iranians right now wouldn't be openly taunting them to impose sanctions.

As for the trouble we get from supporting Israel, I figure the powers that be think it's a fair trade for what we receive in return. I don't subscribe to the notion that Israel uses the United States as some pawn they're in complete control of.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You have to keep in mind that while our navy cannot be everywhere at once its certainly unlikely that the rest of the world can come up with enough hotspots that we care about to occupy our entire fleet of carriers

Nothing in life is certain. We have a awful lot of commitments worldwide. That's a pretty large stretch of my imagination to say that we could cover any possible situation that might arise.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Israel sits on a tiny parcel of land next to the mediterranean on my maps, whatever airspace restrictions we might have in that area can be easily circumvented through passages over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq. Exactly what I was thinking.

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Turkey, well that depends on you what you think would happen if Iraq broke up and one of it's successor states happened to be Kurdistan. Given the fact they (the Turks) have been relatively swift in putting down their own Kurdish minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this prevoked some invasion. Regardless Iraq is under our care as some form of a protectorate. So bases to "keep the peace" seem ideal. Why waste a carrier group?

Iraq, uhh does anything really need to be said here on the benefits of the Israeli alliance when it involves Iraq?

Originally Posted by Radical Dreamer

That's bullshit. How did you come up with that?

Is it really that big of a stretch of the imagination? Last I heard, the Israelis were building a security wall around the occupied territories. For security purposes of course. Do you think that travel from said territories is any less controlled or regulated?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Do you have any evidence or proof to support what you've said?

Sure, not all of it I'd take to court so to say. Enough evidence for me though. A day or two after 9/11 President Putin was on MSNBC talking about how he was trying to warn the US about the possibility of the coming attacks. Russia isn't exactly our closest ally, but they still handed over domestic intelligence. How complete we'll never know. (Ugh, this is where conspiracies are born) It's still a quite recent example of domestic intelligence being shared. Even among not so close partners.

Maybe what/how I said it came off a little wrong. Is it really that surprising that we share important strategic information with our closest allies? Couple years back, there was a spat in the news about how American intelligence shared some very complete and accurate satallite intelligence with Britain during the Falklands War. I would rate that more important then just some irrelevant domestic intelligence wouldn't you? Especially if it wasn't on a pro-quo basis.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

I am not particularly fond of the UN myself and while the UN certainly is lacking in power (and the backbone) to enforce and to do the things they say they want to do, nonetheless the UN is still a well known and in some ways well respected organization, and so therefore the significance of what we do for Israel inside the UN building isn't really affected by what we think of the UN, or for that matter Iran. Not to mention probably one of the biggest reasons Iran even dares to taunt the UN is because of its oil fields.

You have a point there. It's still is, using our own terminology a popularity contest of sorts. Public opinion still counts in the world. I can agree with that what you said about Iran too. Iran certainly has some leverage on the UN. Sanctions in any case would hurt everybody. Not just Iran.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the whole US is Israel's pawn nonsense either, I'm merely doubting the whole notion of how we support each other equally (or somewhat equally).

Doubt is never a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to be blind to not see how much influence AIPAC wields. But so do a lot of other lobbyist groups in Washington.

You could always ask one our esteemed elected representives what benefits they see in continuing our current relationship with Israel. Probably would get better information then from me... probably. heh.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

The chances of there being enough situations around the world that would occupy all of our carriers all at once is slim. For the most part we can simply drop a Marine carrier in the reigon and deploy a few Marines to cool the hotspot (for the most part its what we do anyways). In addition the whole world does not need our constant attention. For example we don't constantly need a fleet off of Europe's shores.

I've got no idea what our military thinks. But from West Africa, to Asia. To maybe even South America. (President Chavez comes to mind....) That's a heck of a lot of planet to cover. Especially if things go shitty all at once. Big 'if', but I don't doubt that our military has to prepare itself for such situations.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You have a point in pointing out that each of the countries I named are rather unstable. However should something happen in those countries that we needed to take care of we would still need the permission of Israel's neighbors to really be able to deploy anything from our Israeli bases be it land or air. And even if we were to move our assets through the Mediterranean we would still need a Naval presence to carry all of our troops to the target area.

Last time I checked we had 100,000+ troops in Iraq. Who knows whether that would be enough, but where in the world would the rest come from?

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian

AIPAC isn't just powerful, its considered the second most powerful lobby orginization in the US, ranked only behind the AARP. Even the NRA fails to compete against it. There's a difference between being a powerful lobby and one so influential that any major decision in Congress needs its approval. AIPAC ranks as the latter.

I still think that people give AIPAC too much credit. Israel/AIPAC still has not secured the release of Jonathan Pollard even though they've asked a half a dozen times or more. From both Democrat and Republican presidents. It seems that AIPAC has been taking an increasing amount of heat for the US's actions involving Palestine over the years though. So at least there's a scapegoat.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Saudi Arabia is much, much more stable than almost any other Middle Eastern country except Israel in many ways. It maintains an extremely capable army and national guard whos land forces can rival any
other country in the region, including Iran. It maintains huge investments for keeping up the Grand Mosque and the Hajj in ways nobody can imagine. That alone hugely bolsters the Monarchy's position. In addition, it has led the country very, very well in the past decades. It has presided over enormous economic growth and wealth, and helped its people evolve. The Saudi economy is more resilient than any other in the region, it has proven virtually immune to the damage of terrorist attacks and stock market plunges. Lastly, the current King has a roughly 70-80% approval rating last I heard. US bases in the Kingdom has always been a contentious issue, but at the same time, the government is a respected international authority in the global and especially the Islamic world. It's a much more important and beneficial ally to the US.

I'll take your word for most of what you talked about. The news we get over here about that particular country is too skewed to make much sense of it. On the financial front though, no economist in their right mind will believe that Saudi Arabia is 100% immune from terrorist attacks on refineries or other oil infastructure.

I would like to know where you're getting your numbers though. Outside of Al Jazeera (sp?) I don't think they have a lot of independent media in the region. So anything else is state owned. Forgive me for being a little skeptical, but we are talking about an autocratic monarchy.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

So no, Saudi Arabia, while a monarchy, is in fact a very stable and secure country. The Iraq invasion also has no bearing on supporting the royal family, if you learned more about how the country functions, you'd find out that in fact Iraq harms the royal families stability so much more than it helps. The US has two military systems in the country (USMTM and OPM-SANG) to ensure the countries stability, and in any event of a real crisis, the US 5th Fleet and its troops are all in Bahrain, as is an air wing in Qatar.

What about Bin laden's influence? He's a Saudi after all, and his family is influencial or so I hear. As for the US military deployments in the region I had no clue.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

I don't know anything about the Russians handing over intelligence to us so I'm not really going to say anything about it. However as with us sharing intelligence with Britian I think its important to keep in mind that we were talking about other governments providing intelligence to us about our own citizens, domestic intelligence. During the Falkland Wars our intelligence was about Argentina, not about British citizens. What we gave Britian was foreign intelligence.

I still consider foreign intelligence more important then domestic intelligence. Especially in an armed confrontation between two allies where we loudly proclaimed our neutrality. After all, that intel we gave them probably revealed how capable our satalites and other intelligence gathering was. I doubt any of our intelligence agencies liked that one bit.

I'm slightly torn on the issue of the domestic spying issue. On one hand there's the fact that organizations like INTERPOL and other countries more then likely don't respect our rights to our citizens and "guests" privacy. (There's another example. The FBI/CIA and INTERPOL routinely share domestic intelligence. Why wouldn't they?) Only the rights are guaranteed to our citizens though. How is the NSA anyone going to know which phone calls have actual citizens on the line? If they're just sweeping up and filtering everybody's international calls that'd be impossible. This is such a messy issue and more then the "THIS IS TO CATCH TERRORISTS!" or "BUSH IS SUCH A DICTATOR! POLICE STATE AMERICA HERE WE COME!" arguments. But this is totally off topic here.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Unfortunately for us each time we help Israel veto a sanction or resolution against Israel public opinion about the US in the middle east takes a plunge.

I think worldwide public opinion of the 'States is already at rock bottom. What with the war in Iraq, the prison scandals, and numerous other reasons. Our actions involving Israel does not need to help kill our country's reputation or popularity any.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Our military does have a lot to keep an eye on, but not all hotspots that spring up will require the immediate attention of a carrier group. And even then, enough hotspots to take away all of our available carriers? I certainly admit it might happen, but I just don't think its very likely.


While our bases in Israel does help in the projection of our forces I remind you again that our presence will mean nothing if we can't use the presence and project our force. We still need permission from neighboring countries to use their airspace and what not in order to strike where we want from our bases. I understand that bases in Israel means freed up CBGs, however those bases are not absolutely essential, and now especially since we've got bases in Iraq and Afghanistan as well (Kuwait too I think? I'm not sure) and finally all this is on top of our permanent Mediterranean naval presence (I can't confirm this at the time of typing up this post but if I find evidence I'll post it). They have the same restraints as CBGs only difference is that if things get too hot a group of rouge gunmen can physically harm those bases.

Think Adamgian took care of most of this. My knowledge on this type of matter is very limited.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Maybe, although heh, we're both guilty of trying to place a somewhat numerical value on influence, and in that regard, its difficult to judge the power of a group. It's all very relative.

Yeah, I suppose. It still makes for a compelling debate. Especially with the latest scandal allegedly involving Condi Rice and AIPAC. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101648_pf.html)

Originally Posted by Adamgian

I forget where, and in general, it might not be a number so much as a popular feel. The King has a good reputation, much better than his predecessor, and hes done a lot with the influx of oil money to increase his popularity.

Ugh, is that the newly crowned King or the one that passed away?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The Bin Laden family is a touchy issue. He has support among some poor groups, although some actions he sponsored were not popular, and attacks against economic infastructure do not go over well in the country overall.
His family disowned him as well, and for good reason. They're one of the wealthiest families in the world, and have strong ties to the royal family and many US corporations.

Still doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden wants to overthrow the monarchy who he views as American pawns. Given the oppurtunity he probably would. So that's still a source of instability in my mind.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Actually, you'd be surprised. In the Arab world and Europe, its in the shitter. But looking at polls in places like India, I actually think that its not overly negative. US ideals and the dream of a better life still cling on, and since India feels unthreatened by the US, people are more willing to look at the positive side.

In the Arab world also, its not overly atrocious. You have all the groups, but as well, many realize what the US has done for these nations. The Gulf would never be what it is today without huge US help, and Iranians on the streets are generally friendly to US views.

In general, people don't hate the US. They just hate the Bush administration.

I don't think anybody in the world blames Americans per say for what our government has done foreign policy-wise. Certainly didn't detect any resentment or scorn during the Iraq war being abroad. I just wish I could say that Americans were like that themselves. Freedom fries anyone? Liberty Cabbage maybe?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

But when you are asking other countries to do your domestic spying for you in order to circumvent whatever restrictions your own government has placed over domestic spying the situation changes, its no longer just a simple sharing of intelligence it becomes the executive branch trying to undermine the laws and restrictions set in place by the other two branches. And while foreign intelligence certainly is more important than domestic intelligence during times of war it doesn't mean domestic intelligence isn't any less important.

Where is the line drawn though? This is basically what the debate is about. There has to be some fine balance between the respect and protection of our civil liberties, and cordinating law enforcement internationally. You say that this is the executive branch trying to undermine the laws, but the general concensus is that that current laws are not adequate. Laws cannot determine whims or motives. Again this is a very messy debate. I'm really not trying to take Bush's side. Sure sounds like it though.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

If world opinion of the US really is already at rock bottom then the only place it can go is up right? If so then we don't need any more issues weighing down our world opinion, especially when it comes to issues that really should be another country's issues.

Sure. But the Palestine question concerns everybody and not just Israel. It was really the UN that started this mess in the first place.

Originally Posted by Radical Dreamer

It is. Why making stuf up in this debate?
Is this really a serious debate or just propaganda?
In my eyes your credibility dropped down to zero.

I'm not making anything up. Just providing a different prespective. Challenging another person's prespective requires them to think. That, or get emotional which underminds their point.

As far as my credibility goes, I never thought it was higher then zero. I am not going to change the way anybody thinks here. I have no influence or power in that regard. However I can provide an alternative prespective to consider or outright reject.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

King Abdullah, the newly crowned one.

Ahh okay. That's what I thought. The old king wouldn't have been able to do much in his final years with the stroke practically incapacitating him. I gather he was still relatively popular though?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The Palestine issue concerns the entire region especially. The US needs to remain involved, and US opinion isn't at rock bottom anyways.

I'm not disagreeing with that any. Well, except where world opinion of the US's foreign policy lies. But on the Palestine issue I mean. I don't think Yggdrasil was either.

Originally Posted by Radical Dreamer

No no no. There are perspectives/opinions and there are facts. Don't mix between them.

I still don't know which facts you're denying. The fact that Israel is building a barrier wall around the occupied/annexed territories. The fact that the Israeli military rigidly controls the roadways in and out of said territories. Or the now recently reported fact that the IDF is making it impossible for Palestinians to leave the occupied/annexed territories even if they have a permit to leave. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4830654.stm) The last two facts brought about my observation that there were "jews-only highways". While being slightly antagonist, it still appears true from my perspective.

Ahh well. 'Least I wasn't called a anti-semite.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

I admit that our current laws are indeed sorely lacking but does that mean we can just start circumventing the laws? On that same basis would torture be justified because our current interrogation techniques are not adequate so we've instead opted to circumvent the interrogation guidelines and start to use torture?

Laws are circumvented all the time. What's the difference between an individual flaunting and/or circumventing the law as opposed to an agent of the government? It doesn't necessarily have to be a elected official. It could be a police officer. I guess this is just another way of saying at what point can we validate that the "spirit" of the law has been violated?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

We have systems in place to change the laws, unfortunately however it is here that we see some of democracy's downsides where changing such laws under a democratic system takes some time. But we adhere to the system nonetheless.

If the law is not treated seriously, then all legitimacy is lost. It was Martin Lurther King that said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If all legitimacy is lost, then government is unjust. Like in the case of segregation. Is that really a bad thing? That's the only way a discussion or legal furry is going to be stirred up to affect any sort of change. People have to ignore the legitimacy and primacy of the laws/government before a positive change can even take root.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

From what you are saying it seems we should just not have laws at all.

You misunderstand me. I don't really have a problem with the law per say. It's more or less with the centralized institutions that are authoritarian purely by their own nature in how they operate.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

And yes, people certainly are flaunting laws all the time, but thats why we have consequences and punishments. And again, there are ways to change the law without breaking them.

"Consequences and punishments?". Don't do this, or I'm gonna fucking spank you? That sounds more like extortion. Hardly democratic eh? I wish I could say people were afraid of the consequences, but I doubt people that commit murder who are clearly irrational think of the consequences.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

And again, there are ways to change the law without breaking them.

Mmm, there is. But what better way to change the law then to ignore it completely? By your rational we would still probably have prohibition, and we would still grovel for our right to alcohol. We need to live in a ideal and ordered world and play by the rules even if we don't agree with them. "What, you disagree? Don't question my authority." There's no room for meaningful dissent.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yggdrasil, if you want to continue this just private message me or something. Otherwise just consider this the "final word" from me on this particular topic. We've throughly derailed this topic so I don't know if it will matter either way. Although the discussion has been quite fruitful in organizing my thoughts on these particular matters.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Well if consequences and punishments sounds like extortion to you then what idea do you have in mind on how to keep the order?

Absolutely. I don't believe that without a authoritarian institution in control of things that there would be disorder. There's plenty of examples to the contrary. The old west for one. Despite most movies to the contrary, (Thanks Hollywood) there was little crime in the old west. While there was plenty of saloon shootouts (guns and alcohol don't mix well!) overall crime was relatively small.

If you can't buy that particular example just think of how much chaos and disorder those very same institutions we mention has caused. From the genocide of the Native Americans. To the violent suppression of trade unions. This were not examples of disorder caused by Anarchy or rather the lack of control of a central authority. These particular events were caused by the central authority "taking the gloves" off so to say.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

While irrational murderers certainly don't think of consequences when they pull the trigger but what are we supposed to do? Just let them go simply because they didn't have their head on straight

There's a fine line between consequences and justice. Realisticly, I don't know where that's drawn. But I refuse to believe that consequences should be used to intimidate you to stop you from utilizing your judgement. It's an affont to human dignity. As well as crossing a very dangerous line with that sort of thinking.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

While breaking the law to change the law works, when it comes to matters such as exchanging domestic intelligence by our very own government to circumvent laws that itself had put there then its a new problem. The founding fathers created 3 branches of government for a reason, and when one branch of the government goes about to undermine the authority of the other 2 branches it isn't breaking laws to change laws, its breaking laws to change the government.

I can't argue with the governments shouldn't be breaking their own laws. At least by doing so it started a dialogue on how the founding fathers would spy on the domestic population and cordinate international crime in these modern times.

I was speaking idiomatically.