dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
15

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: False narrative

Well, you're absolutely right, it's for civil cases... but that effectively is total immunity. I've made this point before....

... The only tool a citizen or groups like the EFF or ACLU have *are* civil lawsuits. Why?

... because for a criminal complaint, it's up to the *Government* to begin the legal procedure, filing charges, and bringing a case against the defendant. A citizen cannot create a criminal prosecution, all they can do if file a complaint and *hope* the Government acts on their complaint with a investigation and then bringing charges and arrests and a trial....
.... and here's the rub. When the CRIME is on the behest of the Government, with their full backing and support, you honestly think that they will turn around and charge their partners in crime, and thereby curtail their own operation. NO. Not a chance....

So by granting immunity from civil suits, that ends any method any citizen has for rule of law or justice. There is no valid legal recourse now to curtail the behavior.

The only option that citizens would have at this point is to vote out the entire Government and replace it with individuals who WOULD go after the criminals..... which brings us to the two party system where both parties are in bed with the criminals.

Great. So, what's left? When there are no legal means of recourse left, all that's left to correct injustice is the illegal methods.... you know.... insurrection, rioting, violence, popular uprisings and revolution.... you know... all that stuff that would get a citizen declared a .... terrorist. (and summarily executed, these days.)

... which brings us back to the reason they need to make sure they monitor the citizens 24/7.... to make sure they stop said terrorists.

Great, eh?

No good will come of this.
29393955 (banned)
Always the green wire
join:2011-09-11
Mount Juliet, TN

29393955 (banned)

Member

KrK, I don't always agree with your views, but I had to take the time to say That's The Most Brilliant Summary Of This Whole Issue - and The America We Live In Today - That I Have Ever Read!

Thank you for stating so eloquently what SHOULD be front page news and shouted from every mountaintop, so just maybe Americans would wake up and see reality! (But of course that won't happen, because the media has made 'pop culture' the news of the day, and important issues are "swept away")
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to KrK

Premium Member

to KrK
so you've pre-decided that the government doing counterterrorism activities against clear threats (cf. the multiple successful in-country terror attacks including and since 9/11) is already illegal? Even though such activities have been done throughout the history of the USA when there was a domestic threat? Why? Because it's now the magical Internet rather than phone calls, telegrams, etc.?

in the face of exactly zero successful lawsuits? And the backing of the duly elected Congress and President across multiple seatings of Congress and multiple elected Presidents? And the obvious non-support of the general public for your issues?

Not to mention the fact that there is no demonstrable harm. Even the ACLU/EFF can't find a plaintiff who can show they were harmed, so they are left with vague Constitutional complaints all of which have been rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court (see today's news). They are left with only "death by 1000 lawyers".

So you really think that the Government establishing an alternate system (the FISA court) with real judges and a real process, albeit in secret, for adjudicating warrants for counterterrorism purposes is worth violent revolution?

I just can't reconcile your position with reality.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Not to mention the fact that there is no demonstrable harm. Even the ACLU/EFF can't find a plaintiff who can show they were harmed, so they are left with vague Constitutional complaints all of which have been rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court (see today's news).

So as long as I don't cause you any actual "harm", you would be perfectly fine with me reading all of your email and listening to all your phone calls? How about your conversations with your wife/girlfirend/husband/boyfriend? Can I listen to those as well? How about putting cameras in your home so that I can watch you 24/7, would that be OK? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal, there's no harm to you, right?

So, what's your address, and what's the best time for me to come over and install the surveillance gear?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

You are not a government approved counterterrorism effort, approved by a FISA court. Invalid analogy.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas
I'm sorry but monitoring all the phone conversations and data traffic in the USA is not "Activities against clear threats."

Wiretaps on suspects, linked to terrorism? Understandable.

Mass monitoring every person in the USA? No way... and it was illegal! That's why they had to grant the immunity!
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

no response to my logical analysis of what is "illegal", just simple repeating the assertion "It is illegal!"

Not possible to discuss something with someone who won't even acknowledge the other person's points, but just continues to assert their POV with no substantiation.

also no response to my pointing out that the immunity section of the law specifically does NOT grant immunity for illegal actions.

Reminds me of the scene in "Spinal Tap" where the band member dismisses the reasoned logical argument of the documentary maker about the loudness setting on his amps by simply saying:

"These go to 11!"

I guess we just cut to the next scene and leave it there. Denial is one way to deal with cognitive dissonance, I guess.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

You should read your own words. It was illegal.... why do you think they needed the immunity? Immunity from lawsuits over breaking the law.... and you keep insisting it wasn't illegal. Fine, make your case.... or as you said, it's impossible to argue with someone who won't acknowledge the facts.... such as... it was illegal.

You are the one dismissing logic. As you say, Denial is one way to deal with cognitive dissonance, I guess. Nice trolling.... False narrative, indeed.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

You are making even less sense than before, and also resorting to name calling. Either show me something or admit you can't.

First, there is no such thing as "lawsuits over breaking the law". Your even saying that demonstrates you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal actions.

And, once again, "the facts such as it was illegal" has nothing to back it up except your opinion, and flies in the face of the actual facts, that those actions have been found legal by all 3 branches of the government, each executing its Constitutional role.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

I have to correct what I said above. There apparently ARE "lawsuits over the government breaking the law", and Jewel v AT&T is exactly that. I guess this just proves the adage that you can sue anyone for anything anytime.

This lawsuit, I think, will die a rightful death on Nov 2 (see thread called "big stink about nothing". Yes, there will be appeals, but they will not succeed, IMO.

So maybe I should say "you can sue the government for breaking the law, but you won't succeed."

For more see here.