how-to block ads
|reply to amigo_boy |
Re: AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks
said by amigo_boy:The system did NOT work as intended. The government along with corporate interests BROKE the law repeatedly. In the same spirit of TK's do things first then take care of the paperwork, I would suggest to: said by Skippy25:
I bet you can recite that quote forward and backwards WHILE under the influence.
Since you skirted my question the last time (Here)
lets ask it again and this time WITHOUT you asking me a question as a response.
said by Skippy25:
So by your train of thought what was the FISA court setup for?
Sounds like everything was in place and there was no need for this court and yet it was setup for........... ?
1. We know FISA didn't strip the executive of all power to operate outside of FISA (if unforeseen circumstances arose). 18 USC 2511 is proof of that. As was Congress's use of that law as the basis of so-called "immunity."
2. We know events of 9/11 were unforeseen circumstances which FISA didn't accommodate. That's evidenced by Congress expanding FISA with the Patriot Act to better accommodate the Executive's actions (which Congress validated as covered by 18 USC 2511).
It seems like you want me to prove that FISA as it existed prior to 2006 wasn't sufficient. I can't prove that. All I can say is that the President and Congress felt it wasn't sufficient.
I believe it's your responsibility to prove FISA was sufficient, and that the President and Congress was wrong.
Knock yourself out. But, it doesn't change the fact that the system of balanced powers worked mostly as it's intended.
1. Arrest all involved, including their supporters, since they are a danger to US constitutional principles (I have a "good belief" of that)
2. Transport them to a secret location and torture them (ahem, "robust interviewing") since waterboarding is not really torture, right ?
3. Summarily judge them in front of a military tribunal, in secret, using evidence obtained using torture and hearsay evidence, too, while we are at it
4. Execute them and fake a suicide or heart attack
5. Write a letter of apology about an unfortunate misunderstanding in case anyone finds evidence towards their post mortem exoneration
6. Blame a corporation for the misunderstanding. Since a corporation is a fictive entity, no one can be really punished, right ?
How do you like it when it applies potentially to YOU ?
There seems to be an unspoken belief that we can protect ourselves from every threat and that if a law gets in the way then it's okay to ignore that law. This is a very flawed belief.
If someone wants to hijack a plane, blow up a building, take a hostage, etc... they will eventually succeed. We can not stop every attack. Why? Because humans are fallible beings. Despite our best efforts to protect ourselves we will, at some point, make an error. Something will be overlooked or not communicated or not understood. This is human nature. The idiot with the bomb in his underwear proves this point. This wasn't some unknown person who slipped into this country anonymously. We had serious, credible intelligence on this man. We knew who he was, what he looked like and what his intentions were and plenty of time to stop anything he had planned. We had his own father come to us with repeated warnings of the threat he may pose. And what stopped this man? Not our intelligence community, not our law enforcement agencies, not our technology. It was his insufficient bomb-making skills.
We will never be totally safe, and that fact make's statements like TK's so frightening. There comes a point where more effort stops translating to more safety. Following our government's recent tendency to ignore or change laws they find inconvenient or obtrusive, how long is it before the government becomes harmful to everyday citizens? Sure, it may be a good idea to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. But what if we take it one step further to include all calls to and from known terrorist havens (like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan)? How long will it be before we expand that to include all Islamic nations? Or maybe all international calls? Eventually we cast such a wide net that innocent people start getting caught in it.
There has to be a point at which protecting our safety is not enough to trump the law, where irregardless of the assumed threat we must follow certain steps because not doing so would be as harmful as the threat itself.
There is a quote that occasionally pops up on this site: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
However, what is REALLY frightenig is the opposing supposition (yours) that because failure is inevitable, we should not even try to protect ourselves (that we should just be meek lambs to the slaughter).
If we were sheep, the American Revolution (let alone the War of 1812) would not have happened; instead, we would have let the British walk all over us.
The law is meant to HELP protect our safety; however, there are also times where the threat is high enough the law as written isn't sufficient.
If the threat declines in severity, then Congress is certainly free to change the law back. (THat is, after all the job of Congress.)
Still, given the spread and increasing sophistication the enemy has shown, tha may never hapopen until the threat is exterminated.
However, if you have your way, THAT may not hapopen either (amd likely won't, ever, as several laws and executive orders may have to change to permit such to happen).
You sound way too much like Albus Dumbledore to be realistic; are you sure you are either human or American?
America, our constitution, and our lives in this country are founded on "The Rule of Law"
This does not mean, only when it is convenient, only when we don't feel threatened, only when the executive feels it applicable.
Laws protect ALL of us from unscrupulous, intrusive, and abusive government and individuals.
9/11 did exactly what the terrorists intended. Scared Americans so deeply that we began undermining the very foundation of our country in the name of "Expedience" and "Safety".
Just because I believe you are building a bomb in your basement, does NOT give me the right to break into your home, listen to your phone calls, or tap into your computer. Nor does it give Local law enforcement that right either. They have to go to a judge, present their evidence, and convince them that they be given permission to do these things, if they don't they cant submit any evidence they uncovered. This is called checks and balances.
Why should the FBI, AT&T or our executive branch be ANY different?
The FBI, and AT&T based on the article above, no matter how good the intentions, or how pressing the need, broke the law of the land, and if true should be held accountable for those actions.
I believe Ben Franklin one of our founding fathers had this covered...
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"