how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
708 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Man, these documents must really have some juicy information in it | |
|   davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
 ·Comporium
| Re: Man, these documents must Doubtful. Otherwise they would have pulled the "national security" card and buried it.
They just have info that the telcos don't want released and have paid big money to ensure never reaches the light of day.
This is a money game. Not a disclosure game.
}Davoice | |
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Talk about a witch hunt. If you are a terrorist out to bomb subway trains, or are a blind cleric you will have left wing lawyers out declaring you have all the rights the world but if you are doing something to protect the United States the American Communist Liberal Unit will drag you through the courts. It is amazing the only calls that where monitored where specific calls to overseas phone numbers known to be used by Islamic Terrorist organizations had been forgotten in order for the ACLU and company to go after the holy grail of these organizations, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, and a wet dream fantasy George Bush up on charges of whatever. I wonder is the ACLU would change their tune if these same Islamic terrorist groups started to bomb ACLU offices, but that would never happen These terrorists know which side butters their bread.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Man, these documents must dam Transmaster, you sound awful scared of the big, bad terists. do you spend a lot of your time hiding under the bed?
me? I'm much more worried about my constitutional liberties. You know that saying by Ben Franklin?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
you may be too scared to care about your liberties, but I'm not. | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Man, these documents must I was out defending My country in the United States Navy so you can post this sacastic whine, what my I ask did you do to protect and defend the United States of America. No I don't hide under my bed, I helped make these terrorists hide under theirs.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Re: Man, these documents must Transmaster - Let me just say that I respect, admire, and appreciate your military service in protection of our United States of America and the freedoms that we enjoy.
Our country appears to be on the brink right now and all of the things that make our country so great are being dismantled little by little. It's not us though - it's them. None of these people that we elect to represent us seem to be interested in doing anything other than what benefits them personally - and it's been like this for a long, long time.
So, in reality, at least to me, it's no longer about them and what side they happen to be on. It's about us and making sure that we DEMAND a return to the true democratic principles and ideals that have made us great.
The first step in this process is holding them accountable. I truly believe that releasing this information is a start to this long and painful process that we must go through. In the end, it's not really about Obama's or Bush's or Clinton's or Democrat or Republican. It's about the rule of law. It must be re-established and we must hold them accountable and make them start living by it. | |
| | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Rank? Where did you serve? How did you get there?
Recently had some claiming to serve in an argument yet we found out he hadn't....he had been stating such because we had cornered him into an argument and that was his only way out...to claim he served and thus we should shut up....just because
Didn't really understand that one | |
| | | |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Transmaster:I was out defending My country in the United States Navy so you can post this sacastic whine, what my I ask did you do to protect and defend the United States of America. No I don't hide under my bed, I helped make these terrorists hide under theirs. So you mean the terroriests hiding in their countries or homelands that are how many thousands of miles away from the US? Maybe if the fact of protecting our country would include a little more of that protection thing then rants like yours wouldn't be dismissed so easily.
How about the people that are IN this country that are truely protecting it from the things that happen everyday HERE... are they not good enough for you because they didn't sail the seas?
Maybe if the governement wasn't handing out billions of dollars like candy OUTSIDE of the country the people that live and stay in this country wouldn't be so pissed off at some of these dumb wars. I know lots of people serving this country in this country and saving lives and getting injured doing it that can surely use some of this out of country wasted money and making good with it.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| not only were you defending our country, you were defending the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Given that part of your service was to defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION, doesn't it bother you that our elected officials are either actively aiding or standing silently by while parts of the CONSTITUTION are shredded?
although your original post seems to imply "no, you don't care", I find that hard to believe. If we are at the point where the citizens of the United States are too afraid (or pissed off or whatever) to want to protect their constitutional rights, the terrorists have already won. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Man, these documents must said by nasadude:Given that part of your service was to defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION, doesn't it bother you that our elected officials are either actively aiding or standing silently by while parts of the CONSTITUTION are shredded? I can understand people who prefer privacy and greater controls on surveillance. But, it doesn't promote rational discussion to overstate the problem.
The Constitution separates powers between three branches of government. The Legislative branch has the power to legislate how surveillance is conducted. The Executive has the power to conduct surveillance outside the Legislative's provisions in times of emergency, war, etc.
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a reflection of the Legislative branch's recognition of the Executive's power. The Legislative branch defined the circumstances under which telcos could be immune from civil suit, when the Executive branch certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. This law is entirely independent of FISA. The Congressional debates show legislators were concerned that their regulation of surveillance could be unconstitutional if it bound the Legislative branch. (See Attorney General Gonzalez's paper describing the legislative history. Particularly page 23.).
That law was the basis for so-called "immunity." (See the bill, Page 88, SEC. 802 (a)(2).). This effectively strengthened congressional intent, and how the law should be interpreted.
The only thing "immunity" did was fast-track the judicial determination that 2511 was complied with. That's not immunity. Just eliminating the time-consuming (punishment) of civil court (discovery, appeals, etc.) where litigants have a political motivation (to expose details about the program, punish corporations for cooperating with the opposing political party.).
It takes some kind of arrogance to suggest any military person defended "the shredding of our constitution." All of the above was conducted within the Constitution's framework. You have had constitutional avenues available to you, personally, to oppose 2511.
Yet, I bet you were remarkably silent about 2511 all the years it was on the books. How many letters did you write about the presence of 2511? How many groups did you organize to agitate specifically for its repeal?
Or, were you sitting at home enjoying your latest computer/video games? Goofing off? Expecting someone else to do it?
Mark | |
|
| VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I don't get it.
What is wrong with dragging them through the courts. That is now made out to be a bad thing. If we have enough proof, they will be found guilty.
If not, they are freed like we did to NUMEROUS PEOPLE AT GITMO WHICH NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT. | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Man, these documents must said by Van:What is wrong with dragging them through the courts. I consider myself a moderate. I support Obama (didn't like Bush).
However, I believe it's as much an abuse of the system to put telcos through a long and expensive civil trial just to accomplish what you can't politically.
- You couldn't get impeachment (which is what we expect to happen when a President "breaks the law.").
- You couldn't get Congressional hearings.
- You couldn't get 18 USC 2511 repealed. (Instead, the congressional intent behind that law was strengthened by it being the basis of so-called "immunity.").
- FISA was actually expanded (instead of contracted) to accommodate the President's claimed needs. (That's why so-called "immunity" only applied to the period between 9/11 and enactment of the Patriot Act.).
- In fact, laws concerning telco liability for releasing customer data were loosened by the Patriot Act. 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3)&(c) was amended from "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to "good faith" belief of ordinary "danger."
Civil suits were just a way to accomplish a political goal which couldn't be accomplished through normal political channels. On the telcos' dime.
Mark | |
| | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Man, these documents must Amigo, I was talking about Terrorists, not the companies | |
|
| |
|
