h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's no past tense in regards to its skullduggery. These abuses are going on right here and now.

Read the American Constitution. Where does it say the Federal Government can establish a department whose purpose is interference in other nation's governments? The Monroe Doctrine, the earliest proclamation regarding foreign policy, dealt with European interference in the Western Hemisphere. And it was established 20+ years after the writing of the Constitution.

You missed my point - what I am asking is just because its members have acted in a unconstitutional manner is the organization unconstitutional after all if a President acted in a unconstitutional manner would you turn around and say the office of President was unconstitutional?
Intelligence gathering is something that is essential to the security of any country which is why you would be hard pushed to find a nation that did not have some sort of intelligence gathering organization the problem with the CIA is that in the past it has been a little bit too pro-active in its operations and it hasn't just limited itself to intelligence gathering.

This post has been removed.

Who sent troops to Little Rock to let black students attend high school? Why were there US Marshals deployed to portect black students going to college? Becaus the federal govenment was enforcing court orders pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court took several decades to really apply the 14th Amendment in the way it is understood today.

I think states and localities should be able to customize their governments and laws based on the culture of the states. Some states are very liberal and have absurd gun laws. I don't see why they shouldn't have that right. That's what they are comfortable with. While you do have federal rights, your rights do change as you cross state lines.

I'd never looked at the CIA that way. I think the CIA is probably necesary to support Department of State (which I think would fall under the implied power of the executive) and the military. As such, I think you could make a very strong arguement that it is necesary and proper to form a seperate intelligence agency. I think it's also appropriate for the funding to be classified. It is still purposed and approved by our duly elected Congress.

We've done some pretty nasty things in the past in the name of our own defense. We had a real threat to our nation and our allies with whom we had treaties. Some of the things we have done were appropriate, some of them were foolish, some of them were wrong.

I'm not so sure about some of the 'democratically' elected governments you mention. I don't recall the communists having free elections in Vietnam or Cuba. I do recall the incident with Chilie. I'm not sure about the rest.

You can do something about it. You can prosecute people for commiting crimes. If Congress wants, they can have the Slecet Comittee on Intelligence hold hearings, and propose changes to the CIA.

This post has been removed.

That would be an amusing concept if more of our state governors were like Jesse Ventura. I am rather fond of the man. Anyone who says exactly what he thinks, and damns the political ramifications, is A-OK with me.

Happy and Two Bit, I'm sticking by my guns.
If any other agency or elected official commits illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional abuses of power then the American public, through their duly elected officials, has recourse to punishment or removal. Not so with the CIA. The system of checks and balances set forth in our constitution does not apply to this agency! I'm not arguing against intelligence gathering per se, but that is not the sole mission of the CIA. The other activites this agency is involved in, and the lack of oversight, is inherently unconstitutional. I've already listed the reasons why, over and over.

Illegal and unconstitutional do not always have the same meaning. One is wrong according to the laws, ethics, and values of a certain time and place. The other runs against a particular governmental system
established by the citizens of a nation. It's a case of shades of gray, not black and white. Call me a hairsplitter...

Two Bit, a majority of the people in Vietnam and Cuba chose to have a communist system of government. Just because you abhor communism, you cannot deny another nation's right to have the government of their choice. Unfortunately, both revolutions occurred at the height of the Cold War, so America felt it had to intervene in both cases--The Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War. Both were spectacular failures, as you well know. Democracy is the greatest system of government, but not everyone is ready for it. It's only through our mistakes that we learn...

If they want to be oppressed, I guess that's cool. I've never heard anyone say that they chose to be oppressed before I read this thread.

Hey, depends on who's doing the oppressing. Fidel Castro in Cuba or Corporate America?

Limited health care available,
fighting against attempts to raise wages,
strike breaking and union suppression,
monitoring of bathroom breaks, internet usage, and phone calls,
billions of taxpayer dollars siphoned off for corporate welfare,
violation and undermining of environmental standards and laws,
discrimination based on political affiliation, sex, race, religion, sexual preference,
special kickbacks from friends in high places because of political "donations".

Which country is this?

Maybe we have to redefine oppression.

But in a democracy you get the chance to change all that at ballot box.

No. We don't. Corporate America is heavily invested in both parties in American politics. Both parties are interested in keeping the status quo. So unless Americans break out of the tired old two-party paradigm, the only thing that changes is the nature of our betrayer.

So you have finaly given corporations the vote then ? Unless you have that argument dosn't hold water - it down to the corporations taking advantage of the Gulability & Stupidity of the populas.

There you go. People are stupid. And that, my friends, summarizes the entire political situation of the United States... or were those Florida ballots not convincing enough? :P

Stupid or intelligent the Ballot gives everyone the right to participate in the choice of goverment - the unfortunate fact is that most people are happy with the status quo.

It's hard to say which country you are refering to. I expect you'll find examples of both in either country. Except that in Cuba, all of it is done by the government. In this country, when the things you mention are done, they're largely done to people who agree to be there.

If you take money from a company, they can monitor your activities at work. They can negotiate with you about pay. If you don't like it you can find a better company, or even start your own. In Cuba, they don't much like folks who try to find a better country.

Colenel, people can influence the government. Obviously, we can all vote. People, by and large, are morons, and they're easily swayed. Still, individuals can make a difference.

When it comes down to it, the country is run by people who show up to meetings. If you don't like the way things are, go to a party meeting. I went my county republican party meeting one time. I met with the county chairman, and by the end of the meeting he was trying to put me on some board or another. If a person has the time to be active in politics, they can make a difference.

I wonder if they can do that in Cuba?

What ever they can do in Cuba there is one thing they have in common with the USA - they fought a war of revolution - for the right to have a goverment system they wanted.

You're right, we do have the ballot box. But no matter who you vote into office on the local, state, or federal level, once they get to the halls of power they become beholden to the lobbyists and corporations who gave them money before the election. The turnaround once these people get into office is amazing. Before the election they were the protector of rights, defender of the people, just an average joe. Now they're the Junket Kings and Queens, with election war chests consisting of millions of dollars. Rare is the person who can resist the seduction of the lobbyists.

Political soft-money and hard-money donations are the biggest single thing that is awry with our system today. That is why I wrote in on the ballot for the presidental election Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold, the co-sponsors of the Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Just for your edification, Happy Dude, the Supreme Court has ruled that in regards to the First Amendment a corporation is on the same footing as an individual. They are "persons" in their right, and have the same access to political system accordingly. To restrict their donations to any campaign would be violating their First Amendment rights. When they have rights, the citizens lose theirs.

Over here (UK) the same rules apply as in a individule or coporation can make donations of any ammount, all but the smallest of these donations are a matter of public record now thanks to a recent change in the law - however we have laws limiting how much can be spent on elections - The Party can spend as much as it wants advertising its self (although they can't advertise on TV or Radio - on these mediums they get a limited amount of free time for Part Political Broadcast), however the amount inividule candiates can spend is strictley limited.

Now Why do people vote for canditates that they know have been compermised by big spending lobbyists, are we all really that susceptable to slick advertising ?

The Ballot gives people the choice and for a long time in both the US & the UK people have chosen to maintain the status quo moving every now and again from center right to center left and back again.

I don't know. Not logical, principled, moral, or intelligent, is it? People just don't care. That's what I think. A good example is our junior Senator, Conrad Burns. He was just re-elected this month despite:
1) A campaign promise 12 years ago to serve only two terms in office. This was his third.
2) Referring to Afro-Americans as n*****s, Arabs as ragheads, and gays as fags (And getting caught on more than one occasion telling racist jokes).
3) 75% of his campaign donations coming from out-of-state interests
4) Being among the top five Congressmen who bring home pork-barrel projects, wasting taxpayer dollars.
5) Also among the top five in international retreats and junkets sponsored by Corporate America.

I don't normally go for bumper-sticker philosophy, but I saw a great one the other day.

"Invest in America! Buy a Congressman!"

This post has been removed.