| Conyers is my hero Nice to see (some) Dems standing up for a change. |
|
28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | Agreed. Finally showing some backbone.
Doesn't it bother even the most hardcore Bush supporters that everything is a state secret and a matter of national security?
His stonewalling tactics make Nixon look like a Boy Scout. |
|
| said by 28655376:Agreed. Finally showing some backbone. Doesn't it bother even the most hardcore Bush supporters that everything is a state secret and a matter of national security? His stonewalling tactics make Nixon look like a Boy Scout. NO
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to littlemeow
Posted by Scuttlebutt on Slashdot today:
quote:
As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. ... One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.
|
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to 28655376
said by 28655376:Doesn't it bother even the most hardcore Bush supporters that everything is a state secret and a matter of national security? No, it's too much to understand for simple minded folk. No worries if the gov't listens to them talking about nascar and the new hooters waitress. |
|
| said by firephoto:No, it's too much to understand for simple minded folk. No worries if the gov't listens to them talking about nascar and the new hooters waitress. Or reading posts like this.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to 28655376
When they finally get around to draining the Porta-Pottie that is this administration, they are gonna find some really shocking things hiding in the tank.
One of their goals will be accomplished, however: The Legacy of Nixon will be rehabilitated, albeit by The Law of Unintended Effects. |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on.
--
BlooMe |
|
| said by woody7:Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
1 edit | Which is basically rhetoric for there is no justifying the inexcusable so I'll play the "deaf, dumb, and blind" card to avoid having to concoct a pseudo answer that won't explain it anyway. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere. Even when you're posting, you're not going anywhere. You bring up a debatable position, but will only debate it up to and not past the first stage.
If your position has real substance, why wouldn't you want to teach it? If your belief would benefit society, don't you have a civic duty to get it out there?
I come here to have my frame of mind challenged. I am actively conservative, but a few issues have come up that have me arguing against the Republicans. You have the opposing view and appear to be convicted yourself.
However, when you are challenged (which is the method we use to draw out others beliefs in detail) you clam up and provide no substance past the quote of the day. Are you not able to enunciate your convictions in detail? If so, how are you able to construct your initial posts as well as you do?
Talking points without depth are just rhetoric. We're supposed to use them as bait to bring others to a place where we can present our core beliefs in detail to them. You throw out the hook, and then give nothing. That's a betrayal of expectations.
As a conservative, don't you believe in advancing conservatism? Something led you to your beliefs, and if you don't want to share what that is, you might want to stop hinting about it, via one-liners.
Frankly, you've become a bit of a tease and it's starting to piss people off.
I really don't think you're an empty suit. but you are giving the appearance of one. Sometimes you have to bear your soul and then have the courage to take whatever comes of it.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
 tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
1 edit | reply to woody7
said by woody7:Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. It's one thing for TELCO's to be involved with warrant less wire taping but when TELCO's install equipment to ALLOW our govt to monitor ANYTHING they wish WITHOUT getting permission is wrong. Why should verizon, at&t or sprint install these little "boxes" at their central offices just so the govt can have free reign? Let them sit outside, tap into fiber and/or cable and monitor away. If telco's have no knowledge of what's going on, they can't be held liable. Problem solved. So, if I was these telco's, I would be ripping out all those orange little gigavue boxes installed for the NSA then play dumb.  |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to Noah Vail
I'm not a liberal or a conservative, when I posed the question, I was trying figure out the point of view, but I couldn't get past the rhetoric. As this is a pretty open place to discuss issues, and it is your right to feel as you do, and say or not say what you will, and that should never be taken away, maybe you "TK Junk Mail" just throw stuff out and try to evoke a certain reaction. Some of us would really like to understand the rational,just not the "blind obedience" that some seem to follow. Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
| reply to woody7
said by woody7:Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. In this, they (the NSA, DIA, CIA, FBI) are looking for patterns of code words. I doubt you talking about the latest movie is a pattern of code. Once they, probably computers, find patterns of code, humans listen in on those people.
I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. Judges there should be able to see what they are doing as well.
Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE.
Give the Telecoms immunity if only the gov't is doing the spying not their employees.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Understand one thing, teleco is not getting their immunity regardless how much you or bush administration demand it. You can support teleco all you want, but in the end they will be found liable in civil court and ordered to billion of dollars in compensation.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7:why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas It may not be ok. But, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) & 2702(a)(3) & (c) don't require a warrant.
BTW: 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(ii) holds telco employees to the same penalty you're holding the government to. Why aren't self-styled freedom fighters pressing for Klein to be sued?
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:in defense of the rule of law, Why are those impassioned with "defense of the rule of law" ignoring 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(ii)? That law holds Klein to the same standard the government is being held to.
"No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. " Mark |
|
|
|
28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | Ah, you're not reading the whole thing.
device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter Now, we know the AT&T surveillance room wasn't a result of a court order, so there goes that part of the argument.
Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made.
Oh wait, it wasn't. This was a secret deal between the government and AT&T. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by 28655376:Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made. Comey's testimony makes it clear it was certified prior to Ashcroft's surgery. »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
Mark |
|
28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | I find it interesting that the testimony you link to is about the Deputy AG saying he didn't feel he could re-certify the program.
There's also:
with respect to which the person has been furnished It can easily be argued that he was unaware of such an order or certification due to the great lengths AT&T went to keep it hidden.
I think the fact he hasn't been charged with anything or fined anything is pretty compelling. If the government that doesn't bat an eye at locking up enemy combatants without trial isn't going after him, perhaps they don't have a case. |
|
