  powerhogStinkin' up the jointPremium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | Thanks Thank you Mr. Klein. | |
|
 | | | Re: Thanks The terrorist thanks you too Mr. Klien. | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | | | | Re: Thanks Agreed. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps a congressional committee or two should have been informed before moving ahead with wholesale wiretaps, but Klein should have kept his mouth shut like many of us as employees are required to do. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Thanks Well said and unfortunately very pertinent. Some people can obviously be easily led like lambs to their slaughter. | |
|
| | | | | | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | Re: Thanks said by expert007:Well said and unfortunately very pertinent. Some people can obviously be easily led like lambs to their slaughter. Pretty sad that so many people are such frightened children that they feel they will give up everything for their beloved leader to keep them "safe". Funny how they call the liberals "cut-and-runners", when they're the ones who are actually running scared sh*tless. | |
|
| | | | | | | BS Well said,
Let’s look at this from a different angle: So why WOULD AT&T & Verizon provide information to the government in the first place?
Consensus seems to be that both companies are doing their civic duty to protect our country from terrorists.
I do not believe so; the number one goal of each company is to increase shareholder value. Each company is spending billions of dollars to upgrade their systems, Verizon with FiOs and ATT with U-verse. Both companies know that if they do something “nice” for the current administration they will be rewarded for their efforts. As we have read on DSL Reports, the FCC, (as well as other government agencies) has granted multiple rulings favoring Telco’s. Including, the head of the Federal Trade Commission expressing skepticism toward proposed laws regarding net neutrality. By handing over information without a court order, I believe your liberty was sold due to corporate greed. I commend Mr Kein. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Thanks No that is probably not the case. The real issue is that terrorism and all anti US violence is a threat to the stable capitalist world. Verizon and AT&T don't want a world in which class warfare and anarchy are the order of the day. Neither do you. In this sense I am glad they handed over the data. They shouldn't get jack shit from the government for it though. Unfortunately they will. | |
|
| | | |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | said by JasonD :
Agreed. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps a congressional committee or two should have been informed before moving ahead with wholesale wiretaps, but Klein should have kept his mouth shut like many of us as employees are required to do.
Apparently Klien was not required to keep his mouth shut.
Did they forget to make him sign his life away?
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
| | | |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | what a load of crap, your sorry ass just can't get a decent job so mr. boss has you by the balls and makes you do whatever he says you'll do because you're in some dead end disposable position. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Thanks said by firephoto:what a load of crap, your sorry ass just can't get a decent job so mr. boss has you by the balls and makes you do whatever he says you'll do because you're in some dead end disposable position. Psssht. Or that poster is simply what's known as a 'good company man'. Some of us still have loyalty to the corporation, especially those that still stand by their employees. Also, you're forgetting that they control your future - you need to catch the wave and get in good with the moneymen so you're not Third Worlded in the next obsolescence tide.
That's the problem with all of this oldthink; it degrades signal. You need to upgrade and download the newthink so your data is up to par. Obsolete = delete. | |
|
| | | | | |  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Re: Thanks Since when has (the new) AT&T stood by their employees? If it wouldn't be for the CWA, IBEW and other local unions, AT&T would be offshoring their local labor too (if they could!) | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Anyone who thinks the EFF is "just another Anti-Bush left wing organization" should really take a look at what the EFF does.... lest they find themselves deserving the label of "Just another right-wing nut..." | |
|
| | | | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Thanks said by KrK:Anyone who thinks the EFF is "just another Anti-Bush left wing organization" should really take a look at what the EFF does.... lest they find themselves deserving the label of "Just another right-wing nut..." it's just an easy line they use to piss off the "simple minded people". | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | GO HERE AND CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. Hope is not lost if ENOUGH people SPEAK OUT!!!
»chrisdodd.com/immunity
Support Chris DODD'S effort and let these guys know your opinion. Hopefully, you're wise enough to see the error of our ways in supporting immunity. Therefore, give these guys an earful and keep their phones ringing with your objections to anyone voting YES! | |
|
| | | | | You, sir, need a history lesson.
You obviously haven't the slightest clue about the concepts and ideas this country was founded upon.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death"? Google a little. Read about Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and what they were trying to accomplish.
Then come back and we can have an informed discussion on why a group like the EFF is or is not anti-Bush and left wing. | |
|
| | | | | Gee, I remember a couple hundred years ago where a bunch of men were fighting a government that wasn't giving them their freedoms and rights. So they threw a bunch of tea into some harbor. They too were branded 'terrorists'!
Maybe you should study what this country was founded on..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Note, I bolded the relevant parts. LIBERTY = Privacy.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | no because you think the terrorists are so dumb to not know that the US gov't is listening in on theirs and any communications they want to whenever they want to.
you're blind with something... | |
|
| | | |
| | hootch
join:2007-09-28
Vancouver, WA | said by ninjatutle:The terrorist thanks you too Mr. Klien. And when we give up our freedoms to beat the terrorists, they have just won. | |
|
| | |  cdigioiaPremium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | Re: Thanks said by hootch:And when we give up our freedoms to beat the terrorists, they have just won. But what if by not doing this the terrorists win ever bigger...by actually winning. 
Seriously, the goal of any terrorist organization is not to diminish personal freedoms in the US. If that happens, it just sucks balls for us. It doesn't count as a point for their side. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Thanks said by cdigioia:But what if by not doing this the terrorists win ever bigger...by actually winning. Seriously, the goal of any terrorist organization is not to diminish personal freedoms in the US. If that happens, it just sucks balls for us. It doesn't count as a point for their side. That's precisely the point. Self-proclaimed defenders of our rights have the advantage of not knowing what would have happened if this eavesdropping hadn't occurred (or Lincoln hadn't violated the constitution in the middle of a war by freeing slaves, or Roosevelt hadn't violated the Neutrality act by transferring 50 destroyers to Britain).
It's easy to complain that everything should be perfect -- without knowing what the outcome would have been if it had been perfect.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Thanks said by amigo_boy:said by cdigioia:But what if by not doing this the terrorists win ever bigger...by actually winning. Seriously, the goal of any terrorist organization is not to diminish personal freedoms in the US. If that happens, it just sucks balls for us. It doesn't count as a point for their side. That's precisely the point. Self-proclaimed defenders of our rights have the advantage of not knowing what would have happened if this eavesdropping hadn't occurred (or Lincoln hadn't violated the constitution in the middle of a war by freeing slaves, or Roosevelt hadn't violated the Neutrality act by transferring 50 destroyers to Britain). It's easy to complain that everything should be perfect -- without knowing what the outcome would have been if it had been perfect. Mark But we do know they ignored the warnings from Osama, and the eavesdropping of the 9/11 terrorists.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
| | | | | | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | Re: Thanks Exactly.
It's not as though the existing law didn't allow evesdropping--in fact, I've yet to hear an example of effective evesdropping on terrorist suspects that was impossible (or even difficult) under the law as it stood.
Before the 9/11 attacks, US law enforcement stopped something on the order of 125 planned terror attacks in the United States over the prior decade. Furthermore, we had the information to stop the 9/11 attacks themselves -- it simply wasn't acted upon. Sounds to me like the existing regime worked pretty well, while simultaneously preventing absolute power from corrupting absolutely.
While Mark can complain that those who oppose violations of the law (and the Constitution) "have the advantage of not knowing what would have happened", he simultaneously makes use of the same rhetorical trick he decries by fretting about "what might have happened" had the lawbreaking not occurred. The point, of course, is that no one knows "what would have happened". We do have information about what has happened, however: as noted above, under the existing law we were catching terrorists. By contrast, unfettered evesdropping (indeed, unfettered violations of 4th Amendment principles) have always led to abuses of power. That's the whole reason for the FISA law...and the 4th Amendment. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Thanks said by n0ym:While Mark can complain that those who oppose violations of the law (and the Constitution) "have the advantage of not knowing what would have happened", he simultaneously makes use of the same rhetorical trick he decries by fretting about "what might have happened" had the lawbreaking not occurred. That's a non sequitur. If you want to make a comparison of positions you'd have to take it to the other *extreme*. You'd have to argue that those who point out the contradiction of self-styled freedom fighters (ignoring 220 years of reality, benefiting from the positive results of past expedient and pragmatic governance) are in favor of total authoritarianism. Ergo: Since nothing bad happened during past "stretches" of the law to meet unexpected circumstances, it doesn't matter how far government goes because nothing bad will ever happen.
That's the fantasy of the self-proclaimed freedom fighter. We've never had perfect governance. But they argue like we always have, and we're now losing it. They get away with not being responsible for what would have happened if we had 220 years of perfection.
Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm arguing the opposite extreme: That we should be totally imperfect, authoritarian, and acting like it would work because we've always been that way (when we haven't).
That's the comparison to make between the two possible presumptions of history.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | And you have absolutely no proof that something meaningful would have occurred if this eavesdropping hadn't taken place. You have no evidence nor idea what would have happened if the administration had gone through the *proper* *frigging* *channels* to allow this eavesdropping to take place.
You are simply making stuff up in an attempt to justify an argument that consists of "the ends justify the means, yet you cannot even do that. All you can say is that, well, the ends might have justified the means. Maybe. In your fear mongering fantasy world.
And yet you completely ignore that real, actual damage that something like this causes, the precedents that are set, the unnecessary abuses of the law by those who are supposedly sworn to uphold it. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Thanks said by endsjustify :
And you have absolutely no proof that something meaningful would have occurred if this eavesdropping hadn't taken place. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'd say that we know what *didn't* occur. We know what *did* occur when eavesdropping didn't occur or wasn't acted upon (which is the same as not occurring).
Self-described freedom fighters argue from a position which expects perfection, but no history of what would have happened if government functioned perfectly. We might still operate under the Articles of Confederation (which weren't working). We might have lost the union (if Lincoln hadn't suspended habeas corpus, or violated the Constitution by freeing the slaves). We would have at least lost more US lives (if not the war) if Roosevelt hadn't transferred 50 destroyers to Britain in violation of the Neutrality Act.
We know the outcome of those imperfect moments. But, there's always someone taking the high road, claiming "that shouldn't have happened." What they don't know is what the outcome would have been if everything was always conducted by the rules, in times of emergency or attack. That's logically an unfair advantage in their argument.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | cdigioiaPremium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | Re: Thanks I don't consider myself educated enough on the matter to have a staunch opinion, but judging reasoning, I'm with amigo_boy. | |
|
| | | | | | |
3 edits | What if? What if we just did away with the constitution in favor of guilty until innocent. Think of the trillions it'd save prosecuting people. What if we just profile everyone. Mods keep deleting my post, but let's face it, Christian history is FAR MORE speckled with atrocities than any other religions. (Bosnian War had Christians murdering 1-200,000 Muslims. Timothy Mcveigh used Christian Fanaticism to perpetrate the worst attack on American soil pre 9/11. IRA used car bombings against the Protestants. Hitler used the Support of the Church (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist), to help eradicate the Jews. So what if we look back at history and find that one religion has done more harm to others than say radical Islam? Should we start accusing all members of being possible terrorists, while not focusing on others. We're so favorably doing this to Muslims, equally forgetting the other side of the spectrum. Timothy Mcveigh wasn't Muslim and look at his work? So...
There's a lot of What If's in life. Are you going to live in fear wondering what might be every day. You know, what if your brakes fail? (40,000 people die yearly in car accidents). What if you fall victim to murder (20-22,000 people die annually). Now get this what if. What if you die due to terrorism. Now here's a shocker. No more than 4-5000 people TOTAL (including good old American Terrorism), have died as a result on this soil in the last 20 years. Now look at those numbers par for par. SO what if we start using common sense, and good police work, instead of wondering what might be.... Just a final thought. What if we lived our lives NOT worrying about everyone supposedly out to get us. After all, if you are hell bent on wondering, your Christian neighbor has far more likelihood of harming you than say a Muslim..SO therefore, let's not just hand away our rights on fear. There's a lot of possibilities and chances of dying in life. However, those who trade liberties for securities simply deserve neither, REGARDLESS of the "What IFS". Life is full of the answerable but that doesn't give our government a blank check to try and control every aspect of what may or MAY NOT happen in it. Freedom comes with risk and at a cost. Giving it away due to fearing that cost, is plain irresponsible. Those who believe otherwise are simply ignoring the countless lives laid down by our forefathers to give us these rights in the first place. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·BT Broadband
1 edit | Re: Thanks I really support your argument about the FREEDOM COMING WITH THE RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY.
For example people in solitary confinement are very safe. What if corrections officers will decide to get together and beat him up a little???
Ulster issue.
If I could make a point. In Northern Ireland protestants and catholics both were murdering each other. | |
|
| | | | |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by amigo_boy:said by cdigioia:But what if by not doing this the terrorists win ever bigger...by actually winning. Seriously, the goal of any terrorist organization is not to diminish personal freedoms in the US. If that happens, it just sucks balls for us. It doesn't count as a point for their side. That's precisely the point. Self-proclaimed defenders of our rights have the advantage of not knowing what would have happened if this eavesdropping hadn't occurred (or Lincoln hadn't violated the constitution in the middle of a war by freeing slaves, or Roosevelt hadn't violated the Neutrality act by transferring 50 destroyers to Britain). It's easy to complain that everything should be perfect -- without knowing what the outcome would have been if it had been perfect. Mark The point is not that the wiretaps should not have taken place. The point is that we have a legal process to do these things that must be followed to (try and) ensure our government and it's employees are not abusing their powers. We have a court setup so that in the event that oversite approval needs to be given at the drop of a hat it can be done. The Bush administration and AT&T should have followed these legal guidelines. If you break the law you have to go to court to account for what you did.
AT&T and those that where involved need to defend what they did in court. If they are innocent, or what they did absolutely had to be done, there is not reason why they can't let a judge and jury decide how that fits in to our law.
The fact they are trying to avoid the legal court process shows to me that they feel they may not be able to explain themselves before the court. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 10 replies to this post |
| | | | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | But what if by not doing this the terrorists win ever bigger...by actually winning.
And what, exactly, would "actually winning" mean?
For too many people, there seems to be a pervasive fear that terrorist organizations could literally destroy the US. I do hope you're not one of those people. If so, you're in bad need of a reality check.
I mean, my goodness, do you actually think terrorists could bring down the United States? Honestly? just...wow.
They call them "terrorists" because they employ terror tactics in an attempt to change policies or actions (if they had the power to do more, they wouldn't need to rely on "terror tactics" to get what they want). They're trying to impact our thinking and our way of life, which (they believe) will lead to changes in US policy.
By running around in terror of their power, you are giving them exactly what they want (to say nothing of dishonoring all those who have fought and died to make this country free). | |
|
| | | | | cdigioiaPremium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | Re: Thanks said by n0ym:And what, exactly, would "actually winning" mean? Actually accomplishing their goals. The erosion of personal freedoms in the US probably not being their true goal, they're not supervillans whose arch-nemisis is freedom man.
As you said they have their own goals of policy shift, whether that be not supporting Israel, or whatever. I highly doubt that terrorists have an ingrained hatred of personal freedoms in another nation.
Actually, I think most terrorists are just poor punks who can't get laid cuz all the women are with the wealthier men (in a society where multiple wives are acceptable). And not getting laid + believing blowing yourself up gets you blown by x-# virgins in heaven cuz you're ignorant = k I'll die for my cause.
I wish a commonly accepted, less loaded word than "terrorists" would come along, I hate using it. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Beginning to wonder who is the greater threat to the USA, myself... the outside, terrorist fanatic or our own Government in league with large corporations. I'm thinking #2 is worse... | |
|
| |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by ninjatutle:The terrorist thanks you too Mr. Klien. Nah, they thank people like you that are going with their plan for america - running scared.
Ashcroft, he must be a moonbat, eh? | |
|
| | | | Terrorists aren't going to be using AT&T now are they? | |
|
| | | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Thanks said by jjeffeory:Terrorists aren't going to be using AT&T now are they? no, because before they had no clue that they might get spied on by using the phone. they only thought is was something fake done in movies and tv shows. :roll: | |
|
| | | | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | Re: Thanks no, because before they had no clue that they might get spied on by using the phone. they only thought is was something fake done in movies and tv shows.
Sure. They spoke in code over the phone because it was "cool".
Of course, they might have been wary because the existing law already allowed for eavesdropping on them, or because bin Laden himself had been spotted by his use of a satellite phone. But naw, I'm sure their first and only clue to the possibilities of being overheard was when illegal eavesdropping made the news. | |
|
| | | | | n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | Re: Thanks Heh - guess my irony detector wasn't working very well. Missed the sarcasm in the post to which I replied.  | |
|
| | | | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | said by firephoto:said by jjeffeory:Terrorists aren't going to be using AT&T now are they? no, because before they had no clue that they might get spied on by using the phone. they only thought is was something fake done in movies and tv shows. :roll: You'd think the highly publicized Watergate scandal would give the world a bit of a clue that the US is listening aye?
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
| | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| get a clue.
are the terrorist forced to use the expensive 'super secret minutes' now?
really. i'm sure mr. terrorist knows that the US gov't is spying on them (or trying to).
do you walk out to the street to pee? probably not because everyone of your neighbors could see you and you know that because IT'S OBVIOUS.
really, get a clue. | |
|
| | | | GO HERE AND CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. Hope is not lost if ENOUGH people SPEAK OUT!!!
»chrisdodd.com/immunity
Support Chris DODD'S effort and let these guys know your opinion. Hopefully, you're wise enough to see the error of our ways in supporting immunity. Therefore, give these guys an earful and keep their phones ringing with your objections to anyone voting YES! | |
|
| | MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by ninjatutle:The terrorist thanks you too Mr. Klien. No, the terrorist hate our freedoms and our happy that their actions on 9/11 have stripped us of so many of them. | |
|
| | | | said by ninjatutle:The terrorist thanks you too Mr. Klien. Agreed. Terrorists already conducted their straw poll--Hillary Clinton got 100% of the Al Qaedi vote over Rudy Guiliani. Why? Terrorists (illegal aliens too) get free health care under her "plan."
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | Good luck... and watch out for those snipers on the way across the country... you have to pass by AT&T/Republican turf on the way to D.C.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX | QFT | |
|
| | | I agree. Against the freedom fries patriots, he stands up for what he believes in -- the Constitution.
May AT&T be forced to pay their entire worth and forced into bankruptcy for the freedoms of those they were complicit with the NSA in taking away, as well as every decision-making person in the NSA and executive branch impeached.
Should happen, but won't. Oh well, can always hope.. and feel sorry for the second amendment hypocrites who value secrecy and corruption over freedom. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·BT Broadband
| 2nd? I sure hope you did not mean the 2nd
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
from Cornell Univ. Law School page. | |
|
| | |
2 edits | Re: 2nd? As in those who wish to protect the second amendment but throw away the rest of the Constitution, like checks and balances (Executive Signing), and the 4th Amendment:
»www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
"'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'"
I find it terribly funny, and laugh at the hypocrites who dismiss pretty much every other right given in the Constitution but cite the 2nd Amendment.
Hopefully that clears up your confusion. | |
|
| | | | | |  All Amendments
In my opinion there is no need to omit other amendments. They are equally important.
I am also pro 1st and 2nd, and 4th, and 5th, and so on... | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: All Amendments Settled, then, I guess.  | |
|
| | | Here is your thank you card Mr. Klein. | |
|
| | Who was turned to for information? The execs would go to the lawyers for advice. Based on prior history the lawyers would have told them it is not ok to do. However, "If the attorney general of the United States says that an intelligence-gathering operation has been determined to be lawful, a company should be able to rely on that determination." The lawyers could have done just that... and be in the clear for now. | |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| interview I listened to an interview with this guy Klein on the radio on the drive home today. When asked what specific data the NSA taps were getting from the cables they attached to, he replied that they got "all of it". In other words, not just from/to/time information, but every bit of data.
When asked how many similar rooms AT&T had around the country with NSA direct taps in them, he answered that there were 12 to 20 such rooms.
--
Sure, that'll work.. | |
|
| chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: interview Why am I not surprised about this?
In prior decades, during the "cold war" the government supposedly monitored or recorded most overseas phone calls.
What bothers me is that the government can set up a plausible scenario that exempts the phone companies, and then allows the government to stand behind sovereign immunity, the war powers acts, and even the CIA charter's classified provisions.
If the government (VA) has the gall to charge and convict a veteran with wire fraud, when the money involved was awarded to the veteran by the same VA that pursued and made the wire fraud claim, the present government is capable of almost any violation of the constitution, including violation of rights established by international law.
Understand that the whole veterans claim issue is still in the VA courts concerning the award and disagreement, with the VA failing to follow their own existing regulations and law that pertains to the VA. Instead, it seems that the VA is "punishing" the veteran for daring to try to get the VA to follow law and regulation. I do not know if the veterans claim was valid or not. The behavior of the VA seems to indicate that it was, and the VA decided to retaliate for the veteran's efforts to get the VA to provide the correct compensation.
Why are we in Iraq now, and possibly Iran in the future? OIL, OIL, OIL. (And, just maybe other minor issues, such as the three thousand uranium centrifuges and a number of disaffected terrorists that have been on our list since the 1970's.) | |
|
| | | | Re: interview said by chuckkk:If the government (VA) has the gall to charge and convict a veteran with wire fraud, when the money involved was awarded to the veteran by the same VA that pursued and made the wire fraud claim, the present government is capable of almost any violation of the constitution, including violation of rights established by international law. Where have you been the last twenty years? That's the first page in the Attorney General's manual... | |
|
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Not quite Justice in this form only results in customers paying more money and lawyers getting rich.
I can see it now:
Lawsuit Recovery Fee: $2.50 | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| at least he claims to not wish them to be sued into oblivion. I find that interesting amongst all the talk of how they'd be destroyed financially by all this.
Why not get it over with already. Admit the whole thing, say you're sorry, stop tapping "grandma rambles" and chatty shallow teenyboppers and spend some more energy on some worthy targets.
It's wasteful to expend time/energy/money on tapping what doesn't need to be tapped.
Only a brainwashed and/or oblivious fool would think that such things were NOT going on already. Just because he wouldn't keep his trap shut shouldn't mean that he should be crucified for it. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: at least because even if they admit it there's no way to prove that they have dismantled the illegal spying. does anyone trust AT&T and this administration enough to believe a lie like that? | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: at least said by morbo:because even if they admit it there's no way to prove that they have dismantled the illegal spying. does anyone trust AT&T and this administration enough to believe a lie like that? Exactly, Bush's and the Democrats wiretap bills, only cover supeona data without cause, not mirror all traffic of the USA. Im sure those room are humming and ticking as this post comes into your browser right now. | |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| :rolleyes: quote:
Klein (and the EFF, who is suing AT&T on your behalf)
No, they aren't doing anything on my behalf.
They're suing on behalf of their liberal left-wing socialist pie-in-the-sky head-in-the-clouds idea of "how things oughta be".
If they're suing on my behalf then I'd have to sue them right back -- I never authorized it, nor was I given the opportunity to opt out of a class action. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: :rolleyes: Let's see the political right support this if the legislation was "Monitor and record any Gun Owners in the USA"...
Let somehow, monitoring people on the Internet is "just some left wing socialist's concern."
I don't get it. If our Government is so trustworthy and upstanding, then hell, we don't need the Second Amendment anymore, do we? Let's just ban everything other then hunting rifles and shotguns (small pellet only) and turn the rest in, scrap our gun manufacturers and melt down all the rest for metal.
Good plan, right? I mean, we don't need to have a way to rise up against such a well meaning, well run and well intentioned Government, do we?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: :rolleyes: said by KrK:Let's see the political right support this if the legislation was "Monitor and record any Gun Owners in the USA"... Let somehow, monitoring people on the Internet is "just some left wing socialist's concern." I don't get it. If our Government is so trustworthy and upstanding, then hell, we don't need the Second Amendment anymore, do we? Let's just ban everything other then hunting rifles and shotguns (small pellet only) and turn the rest in, scrap our gun manufacturers and melt down all the rest for metal. Good plan, right? I mean, we don't need to have a way to rise up against such a well meaning, well run and well intentioned Government, do we? Unfortunately I kind of tuned out the rest of your post after the first paragraph. Do you know how many hoops people go through to buy a gun these days?
Why weren't the ACLU and other liberals here in Winnetka Illinois when they passed a law banning guns in the town, period (even in homes). Where was all the free legal aid when a guy got arrested after shooting a home invader with his otherwise legally registered and licensed sidearm? | |
|
| | |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: :rolleyes: said by jester121:Do you know how many hoops people go through to buy a gun these days? Why weren't the ACLU and other liberals here in Winnetka Illinois when they passed a law banning guns in the town, period (even in homes). Where was all the free legal aid when a guy got arrested after shooting a home invader with his otherwise legally registered and licensed sidearm? Where do you live? In my state, you can buy a gun at Wal-mart and walk out with it that day. So about the only "hoop" in most states is just getting to the store to buy the gun with a valid ID and name. | |
|
| | |
2 edits | Would that hoop be going to a gun show and having a background check done instantly? Good old instant background checks. I hope that isn't a huge inconvenience. As per the other guy's post, perfect example. Let's start a program to make EVERYONE register their guns. By register, I mean if you are caught with an illegal gun its a stiff jail sentence. Use that illegal gun in a crime, and its a good life (25 yr) minimum in jail. Sound good? I imagine not. Why, well the right-wingers seems to have problems with even registering their guns or having anyone know what they bought. Yet, they wish to hand away our rights to the SAME government they claim to fear. Now that's a hypocrisy in a nutshell.... | |
|
| n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD | Yeah, well, I'm sure there were people living in the US in the 1700's who didn't think the revolutionaries were fighting on their behalf, too.
It really doesn't matter whether you realize prevention of abuses of power by government officials, or protection of your rights, is in your best interest. The fact of the matter is, it is (unless your career goals include being a dictator, of course). | |
|
dcs2281
join:2004-09-14
Santa Clarita, CA | Doing The Right Thing He is doing the right thing. All the Government had to do if they were interested in something was get a warrant for it. If it was a "National Security Priority" and needed immediately the Government should have done what the law for years has allowed, get the data/tap the line, then get a warrant from a Judge afterwards.
The problem with getting the warrant afterwards was they were just mining data, no particular data, but everyone's data. A Judge would have never signed off on it. If it was so legal, why have they still not gone to the Judge, justify it, and received their warrant afterwards as the law allows them to?
To me it is like surrounding a city because you know there are criminals there, going door to door, searching every house until you find something. What is the difference between the two? No one would stand for the door to door searches. | |
|
|
See 16 replies to this post |
|
 Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2 | One guy One guy against the Government.
What do we expect? NOTHING!!!!!!!! (Even if we ALL already know Bush is wrong)
--
"Random chance seems to have operated in our favor" -- Spock | |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Mr. Klein is a true patriot; AT&T is the real terrorist
Defending the constitution and the rule of law, Mr. Klein should receive the highest award given to civilians.
AT&T, for spitting on the constitution with a wink wink nod nod from their lawyers, should be punished. | |
|
|
See 27 replies to this post |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | bumped off Why hasn't Klien been bumped off by CIA yet? I would expect this guy enver to show his face in public, or speak only through TOR. | |
|
|  COMMANPlug Me In
join:2000-07-17
Mount Juliet, TN
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·AT&T Southeast
·Vonage
·Cox HSI
| Re: bumped off said by patcat88:Why hasn't Klien been bumped off by CIA yet? I would expect this guy enver to show his face in public, or speak only through TOR. BECAUSE, as some of these posters have so eloquently tried to explain, we live in a country founded on the idea of rights, freedoms, and liberties, and not in a country where the government imprisons (or kills) those who speak out against it. That is the VERY REASON we all must stand, individually or collectively, for the "right thing", as Mr. Klein is doing.
We must always defend our liberties and freedoms from encroachment - be it from foreign "terrorists" OR red, white and blue-waving politicians. There will always be "terrors" around the corner - if you think the government should protect us from everything that goes "bump in the night", perhaps you should find a comfy cave, or move back in with mommy and daddy. As for me, I stand ready to defend our rights and freedoms (all of them), and don't expect Big Government or Big Business to do it for me when it goes against the very rights we are supposedly defending. If we aren't defending our constitutional rights, what are we fighting for? | |
|
|  93254336Weapons Of MasturbationPremium
join:2001-10-20
kudos:1 | It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Klein mysteriously disappears.
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
| |
|
| gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Killing him would probly make it a worse situation for the govt. Political killing seems to have lessened somewhat in recent times.
Some people seem to have learned from the past, that it causes more problems than its worth. | |
|
|
| | | Re: One Word Yes...Yes...CALEA passed into law early in the Evil BUSH administration plan to take over this county back in 1994! That was the BUSH administration RIGHT????
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279). In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service – all three types of entities are defined to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of CALEA section 102. The driving force in adopting CALEA was the FBI's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible. Since the original requirement to add CALEA-compliant interfaces required phone companies to modify or replace hardware and software in their systems, U.S. Congress included funding for a limited time period to cover such network upgrades. CALEA was passed on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995 | |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | THANK YOU! Thank You Mr. Klein. You are a true AMERICAN PATRIOT...
This comes from an independent. I support whoever is RIGHT... That means I don't care if Mr. Klein is a Republican or Democrat, he DID the RIGHT thing...
-Tzale
--
Hello Verizon FIOS 11.20.07!
457,000,000 miles of fiber optics placed and counting! | |
|
| public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | Re: THANK YOU! | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  And the Iron Cross Goes to...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | WTF?!?! I can't believe some of the responses here. Too many to be trolls.
First, where does it say in the constitution that what is lawful is EVER determined by one man?!?!?!?!?
Sure, the attorney General has more credence than the average Joe when it comes to saying what is lawful and constitutional or not but that in no way means that just because the Attorney General says something is lawful that it is.
Would we start running red lights from now on because the Attorney General said it's ok to do so? I sure wouldn't...and that's just a traffic violation, NOT THE WHOLESALE SURRENDER (and probably sale) of oceans of private communications without any judicial or congressional oversight!
Second, I get the feeling that the folks who vigorously defend these people's methods and madness only do so because they perceive no significant ramifications to their daily lives. However if their child was caught in this absurd dragnet for making a joke web page about something terror related or forwarding an email to their friend that contains "lefty wing-nut" language I would bet dollars to donuts that we'd be seeing their mugs on Frontline whining about this whole ordeal.
Step back and look at the RAMIFICATIONS of what is taking place. Think chess and and ponder the possible moves to come. What could possibly happen? Could something like the above happen? Bet your ass it could! It already has happened and it will happen again.
Third, does anyone here actually believe that AT&T were just being good corporate citizens? Does anyone believe that AT&T would actually use their own capital to build these secret rooms? Further does anyone even believe that AT&T would supply the space, engineers and equipment AT COST? If there is someone out there that believes that then I'm your long lost nephew and I need help paying my mortgage and I'll pay you back as soon as I get back on my feet. AT&T was surely richly compensated for their part (money, perks or otherwise), I would stake my next year's salary on it.
The entity AT&T cares about it's bottom line and that's it. For a corporation to behave otherwise would be suicide. Your average garden variety slug has enough sense in it's squishy noggin to know this. AT&T cares about AT&T--Bushco cares about Bushco. There is no goodwill and citizenry here.
Deeds done by way of honor, honesty and the desire to help your fellow citizens are NEVER DONE IN A CLANDESTINE BACK ROOM. NEVER. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: WTF?!?! said by badtrip:Deeds done by way of honor, honesty and the desire to help your fellow citizens are NEVER DONE IN A CLANDESTINE BACK ROOM. NEVER. So, we should put the oval office on 24-hour CSPAN? Welcome to the irrelevant fringe.
Mark | |
|
|
1 edit | I have real doughts there were any evesdropping Have any of you realized what it would take technically to accomplish this? I really don't think that there are powerful enough sniffing equipment to be able to keep up with the data rates that are transversing across those locations. This guy also doesn't have any credibility because if he had anything to do with the rooms then he would have at least a secret security clearance. | |
|
| | | Re: I have real doughts there were any evesdropping If there is equipment powerful enough to transmit it, then there surely is equipment powerful enough to receive it.
Don't be fooled. Not all spy movies are complete fiction.
--
Da Biff | |
|
| |  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: I have real doughts there were any evesdropping of course they have the technology to receive what's the point of it if they didn't. still getting a simple court order would have avoided a lot of headaches in the long run for this administration on this one issue. | |
|
| firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| all the noise (people's conversations) is just something that needs some filtering. they can filter by voice traits, speaking habits, tones, lots of things and the digital fingerprint associated with that is just a blip of noise. no different that pulling in a weak signal with a radio and using some digital filtering to eliminate the stuff you don't want to hear. | |
|
 AdamB
join:2001-01-07
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| Nothing to hide If you have nothing to hide who cares if your information goes to the NSA. Just like all those people on the no fly list who claim that they shouldn't be. They must be terrorists; our government is infallible. Surely our government wouldn't skirt laws and fuck their own citizens! Right?
Our government is a fucking joke, get these crooks out of office and put Ron Paul in. | |
|
| | | Re: Nothing to hide Don't let the door leading out of the country hit you on the way out! | |
|
| | AdamB
join:2001-01-07
Columbus, OH | Re: Nothing to hide I said the government sucked, not the country. But of course you couldn't hear that because you BAH too much you little sheeple. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·BT Broadband
| Don't let the warden hit you with the stick. Patriot is a person that fights for the country. By posting, in this case.
He (AdamB) does. You fight for the GOVERNMENT.
Being patriotic is not being pro government.
If there were more German patriots before WW II we might not have as much of a problem with Hitler.
I would risk to say that, if there were more American patriots before Civil War we probably would not have it.
So to summarise. I would much rather stay in the country with Him than build the concentration camp with You and locked myself in it. | |
|
| | | I knew someone would sneak Ron Paul into this
How farking hard is it to get a FISA warrant 72hrs after the fact post 9-11 | |
|
 ScilicetPremium
join:2005-04-11
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
·Vonage
| Due Process? Wake up! This has been going on for decades. If they don't tap the wires their satellite receivers will snatch it out of the air. And don't think for a minute that the internet is safe either. | |
|
kellenw
join:2003-11-20
Kansas City, MO | It's always gotta degrade into a right vs. left... jeez Wholesale spying on your own citizens without probable cause in the United States is a CRIME.
Lose the political slants and bashing, both right and left, and use some common sense. This has NOTHING to do with politics. It has to do with LAWS that may have been broken by our own government and may have been facilitated by a US based company including many of its employees.
Reporting a potential crime is not anti-Bush or anti-American or pro-terrorist. It has absolutely nothing to do with that, contrary to the trash typed up by so many trolls in this thread. It is "merely" your civic duty to report a potential crime.
Get real. | |
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Then prove it. "If the attorney general of the United States says that an intelligence-gathering operation has been determined to be lawful, a company should be able to rely on that determination."
Then they shouldn't have any problem proving that in a court of law, which is the proper place to prove your innocence, not through legislation. | |
|
|
|
