House Passes Warantless Wiretap Law Approves e-mail and phone montioring with conditions The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions, reports the Associated Press. The bill is one of several that aims to retroactively legalize the administration's surveillance program; portions of which have swept up the nation's incumbent phone providers in controversy. "The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191. "To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said. The voting breakdown is here.
|
  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | OH BOY, here we go again! Can we just skip right to the Friday open mic thread, please???? | |
|  |  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: OH BOY, here we go again! said by N3OGH:Can we just skip right to the Friday open mic thread, please???? LMAO!!!
LOLZ
--
I have an imaginary friend, and his name is God. | |
| | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | I guess this is the soon to be official Bush/republican bashing thread for Friday. Hey, at least it is early so we might get some other worthy news.
Flame on people. Get it out of your system before the weekend.
--
A shotgun blast to the head will clear that right up. | |
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: OH BOY, here we go again! said by caco:I guess this is the soon to be official Bush/republican bashing thread for Friday. Hey, at least it is early so we might get some other worthy news. They tried, they TRIED to get this thread in earlier, but they failed... but at least they TRIED 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | If it's so very annoying. Don't read. Don't post. It is an important news story. | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution...
Warantless wiretap law = a big crap on the constitution.
good job, House of Reps! | |
| | N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by morbo:Warantless wiretap law = a big crap on the constitution. good job, House of Reps! Look at it this way..
If the law is a big, steamy crap on the Constitution (I haven't read it, so I'm not making judgements either way), if/when it becomes law (still has to pass the senate) it will be challenged in the Courts.
Now, a little caveat before I continue, since these threads almost invariable turn into a Red Vs. Blue shouting match, that's not the point of my comment. That said..
If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal.
Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by N3OGH:If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at.
As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence."
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by bmn:As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before?
Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did 
Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | | | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by guitarzan:As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc.
said by guitarzan:Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change.
And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | |
| | | | | | | | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by bmn:said by guitarzan:As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc. I agree BMN. It will be used to combat any "war", they decide to declare "war" on. This is what gets my ire. The same Democrats wanting the Bush Admin.to take full heat for this, will be the same ones applauding and praising their fellow Democrats for having the foresight and wisdom to vote in favor of this legislation, once their guy is in office or holds the majority in either house. said by guitarzan:Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change. And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it? I believed the move to ban guns, was not supported when Clinton and the Democrats decided to ban guns, yet it passed.
There is/was no support for this current legislation... Yet it passed.
Lets look at in your opinion, the "party of the lessor of two evils"
Do you think for one second, the Democrats will repeal these legislative acts.? I say no and would offer to bet a hefty wager that I'm correct.
If a Democrat gets elected to the Executive branch of office. Do you think for one second, there will be one big kissey smooch honeymoon and the political ills, will be healed.?
I don't not, for one second, if anything this current political division. Will result in a widening of the political gulf. All this hatred shown to the Bush Administration, will certainly be remembered and will result in vile hatred of any Democratic Administration, it will be especially evident when the Democrats f&*k up the very first time.
This is open for debate of course, IMO the Democratic politics ARE the sole cause as to why this Country is so divided today. It's only going to get worse. Humpty Dumpty could not be put back together again. IMO politics can't put the result of employed politics of our country back together again either.
Its funny when the word revolt or revolution gets mentioned, because that means all of America is on the same page. We're far from it. IMO when one utters revolt or revolution. What I think they really mean is civil war, not a war against the government. That's just my $0.02 cents worth anyway.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... I hate both of the major political parties, hence why I registered myself as an independent voter. When I say "this country needs a revolution," I mean it needs a revolution. Out with all of the old and in with something completely new... or at least start over again with nothing but the Constitution. That way all the ways it's been screwed up over the past two hundred plus years will just disappear. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... I see the point your making, because one can't trust politicians of either party. Sure politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. IMO looking at the bigger picture.
Who is ultimately responsible for these politicians? The people who voted them into office, that's who.
Years ago it was the North VS the South, today its coming to the blue VS the red and not a revolution against the government. I love my Country and form of government. That's not the problem. It's the people electing azzhats into office, is where the problem is found.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
| | | macaholicPremium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY | said by bmn:said by N3OGH:If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at. As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence." The Russians call it "Secret Police".... thats what Bush has in reality implemented...world wide.
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
|
| | | So is our governement officially socialist now? | |
| | |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... It's getting awfully close to it, and beyond that, fascism.
The past two days have been HELL on the Constitution. | |
| | | |
| | | Name ONE of YOUR rights that have been violated? Just ONE!
If Britain wasn't allowed to spy, a lot of planes would have blown up not long ago.
The NSA has said it monitors calling trends for keywords terrorists use and if you happen to be one talking, I say off to Gitmo.
If anything, Bush should get bashed for not securing the border with Mexico. Canada should get a kick in the rear for allowing anyone in their country. Build the wall on the Mexican border--with a mout full of crocs.
Illegals from Mexico drain resources OUR citizens should be getting like free medical care. Illegals with criminal records kill and rape. Send them back.
Why is that Mexican illegals in the USA send more $$$ back to Mexico than Mexico makes except for a corrupt few? One would think if Mexico cared at all about its people they would share all their oil wealth. No, they don't. | |
| | | liquid0h
join:2003-02-03
Hurlburt Field, FL | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... Woot! Hell yeah!
If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be here =) | |
| | | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Yes, in fact he should. It's far worse than not just "securing" the border, it's going in the totally opposite direction... why do you think they've been so quiet about it...
"if Mexico cared at all about its people they would" ...not be so wishful of (legally or illigally coming to) our land...
PLEASE take the time to read this story and others that are related...
»southwestfarmpress.com/news/0921···orridor/
Just 1 little story about the agricultural impact of the NAFTA superhighway... or, have you not heard about that???
As for your question about what right(s) have been, or would be violated... read this and see if it make any sense to you:
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held the program unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Title III)
BTW, what good will this do for our rights??? Name one positive thing that this does to secure them.
Thus, if we trample our own freedoms we've fought and defended, what good does it do? I fail to see how so many people cannot see that line of reasoning and at least debate it in a rational manner.
Of course, I see the point that we should darn well keep tabs on suspected terrorists, and take action where need be to avoid an attack.
I just don't see how giving up our freedoms, liberties, paid for with blood sweat and tears, is the answer. | |
| | | | | If Britain wasn't allowed to spy, a lot of planes would have blown up not long ago.
The British got help from the CIA, WHO GOT WARRANTS. | |
| | | |  FLea973Premium
join:2001-02-27
Morristown, NJ | Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by Spudge_Boy:The British got help from the CIA, WHO GOT WARRANTS. CIA got warrants?
1) According to their FAQ, they don't need warrants to "investigate" Americans for terrorist/espionage just "senior approval" or in some cases a nod from either the Dir. of Nat. Intelligence or the Attorney General.
2) Aside from certain specific reasons it is a Federal crime for them to "investigate" Americans
3) Why would the CIA or ANY American intelligence agency need a warrant to spy on foreigners outside the USA?
4) By your statement quoted above, do you mean the only reason that the Brits cracked the case is because the CIA got warrants, spied on Americans who knew/funded/directed that operation?
5) Based on #5, What worries you more?
.....a) there are Americans (or folks in America) complicit in that planned terrorist attack, that could have directly impacted you or someone you know? or
.....b) that IF there were, the reason nothing has been said about them, they are still on the loose and the reason no one has stopped them from thinking up a new scheme, is because they are Americans not overtly doing ANYTHING to draw suspicion and thus indicate a warrant needs to be taken against them
As far as them gaining the evidence THEN getting the warrant - there is always the old "Poison Fruit" case law that usually tosses all LEGITIMATELY gained evidence used in US trials if the reason the legitimacy was gained was obtained illegally (e.g. illegal wiretap evidence used to get a warrant for a wiretap/confession/etc)
Of course you can always encrypt your email and what not, and send it anywhere in the world... but the second it hits a foreign router (even if not encrypted), it is perfectly legal (under US law) for the US government to take a look.
: puts on tin-foil hat :
For the conspiracy folks out there... If the US government REALLY wants to spy on US citizens in detail or en masse LEGALLY, they could always outsource the job to another nation like say Canada, the UK or Israel - hell, not only would it be easier, but it'd probably be cheaper
: takes off tin-foil hat :
What really chaps my hide about the big stink over the NSA "wire taps" and before that, under a different admin, the Carnivore program (do you REALLY think it was shut down????) is that 1) How many folks have stopped to think of the amount of storage space needed to retain that info? 3) Computers are doing 99.999...% of the work 2) It is most likely set up kinda like a router - mundane crap ignored - possibly interesting stuff is forwarded to another bank of processors that apply more detail algorithms that toss out even more then pass the remaining to decrypt if needed 3) then take the really questionable clear and the decrypted through another system that tosses out even more (probably 99.999...% of the decrypted stuff) 4) deposits the remaining data in the inbox of some overworked underpaid junior analysts who have to determine if it needs escalation. -- If the govt actually retained all of this WHY would they want ISPs to maintain comprehensive logs of everything?
Either the government IS as incompetent at appears to be when faced with challenges (Katrina, border security, leaks, etc.) or it is so capable that it can anything without our knowing while believably appearing incompetent - if the last part is true, then we already are boned... Maddox has an interesting point along these lines...
--
To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man... greetings | |
|
| | | | What kills me is what would happen to one of us if we were to sneak into Mexico illegally (like anybody would really want to, but that's a separate point). Anybody know what would happen? Off to prison with you, most likely never to be heard from again. I can't imagine the Democratic backlash if Bush wanted to implement that same kind of law in this country -- but we all know that would never happen. Bush has been a wetback-lover ever since he was the governor of Texas. | |
|
| |  Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. | |
| | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill said by Wills:The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Dueling platitudes:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consti···ide_pact
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a rhetorical phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must give way to urgent practical needs. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill It's my belief that you can protect America from terrorist, and follow the constitution at the same time. The tactics that Bush & Co. want to use are unnecessary for effectively fighting terrorist. It is currently being argued that his strategies are in effect creating more terrorism than it is stopping.
There will always be threats out there. In extreme situations, such as a civil war, a little leniency is understandable. A long term strategy, that is currently failing, that permanently removes basic rights that our nation is founded upon, using logic that has been outdated by hundreds of years, is not a very good plan.
It astounds me that the leader of a party whose primary basis is small government, wants to increase the size of government exponentially. If Democrats want to make our country a repressive communist state, Bush wants to make this country a repressive dictatorship.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | | | | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill So what would you do differently? I'd really like to know. Everybody who "hates" Bush and talks about how badly he's screwing up simply states this over and over again yet never actually offers any suggestions for how things could be done differently. You obviously seem to have some kind of idea otherwise you would not state otherwise... so what is it? | |
| | | | | | MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill said by matrix3D:So what would you do differently? I'd really like to know. Everybody who "hates" Bush and talks about how badly he's screwing up simply states this over and over again yet never actually offers any suggestions for how things could be done differently. You obviously seem to have some kind of idea otherwise you would not state otherwise... so what is it? Seeings how we are not the president, and we don't have the same amount of time and resources to devote to such things, how can we come up with a real strategy? Bushes strategy is screw everything up and then blame those who are mad at him for messing up for not "staying the course" and not "doing what it takes to win the war on terror." The ironic thing is that despite all efforts, HE is the one who isn't doing what it takes to win the war on terror. We have the best military, the best, minds, and the biggest might, yet we can't seem to make any headway.
If I was president I would start by listening to the veteran army commanders, not ignoring them. I would start by listening to the Iraqi people. I would start by showing a compassionate heart, not a stone heart. Bush has been a screw up all his life. He is not presidential material. We need someone with intelligence, compassion, and with open ears. Even if you support the war in Iraq, and believe that going there was a good idea, you should still be mad at Bush for screwing it all up, for lying, for refusing to admit mistakes. You should be mad at him for what should have been a success story and for constantly making bad decisions and making this a black spot for American ability.
What if we were in a situation where we had to confront North Korea or Iran? Our military is completely drained. How would we confront these issues? Would we have any reason to believe that under Bushes leadership we would have any success? Would he simply ask everyone who knows what they are talking about to step down in favor of those who tell him what he wants to hear?
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
|
| | | vernalexPremium
join:2000-10-19
Manchester, CT | said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Wills:The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Dueling platitudes: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consti···ide_pact"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a rhetorical phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must give way to urgent practical needs. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Well, I personally believe President Lincoln waged an illegal war and compounded the problem by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
I would agree that practical need should override the Constitution, but one attack where a few thousand people died does not give the government a blank checkbook. I do not trust our government, nor any government, and the Constitution is there to protect us from them as well as from THE TERRORISTS. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill Yes, because granting terrorists the same rights under our Constitution is the best way for defeating them. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| I have to admit that I'm gravely afraid of somebody coming over from Iraq to bomb me and my apartment out of existence. I have no choice other than to vote for Republicans, because they're the only ones that can protect me and my way of life!! Those insightful folks in the Bush admin are keeping me safe, while I accept at the same time that I need to be aware and constantly concerned about what could happen if I voted for a Democrat. (The most obvious conclusion is that I will likely die in a terrorist attack the day a Congress controlled by Democrats starts a session.)
In addition we need to give Bush the entire toolkit to keep me safe. What good is privacy if I'm dead after a terrorist blows me up? I would love it if the NSA would set up some auditing system software that I could install on my PC. I know that they really need to have access to see that I'm doing nothing wrong. This will allow them to focus on the terrorists who are planning to kill me. In addition I'll send them all of my banking transactions in CSV format so they can see I'm just spending the money on groceries and credit card interest. While I might end up living in a police state, it would be so much better than being dead from a terrorist attack. Police states aren't all that bad anyway if you're not doing anything wrong.
 | |
| | | | | | | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill This is the funniest bit of sarcasm I have read in years!!
true comic genius.. | |
|
| tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Thanks TJ. | |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | Unless they are running unopposed. | |
| |  EnzonE
join:2000-03-23
Indiana, PA | hmm I don't know when the link stopped working... the link in the news post also doesn't work for Firfox and IE | |
| | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Link to who voted how on this bill said by EnzonE:hmm I don't know when the link stopped working... the link in the news post also doesn't work for Firfox and IE The current legislative session ended today so that the politicos can go home and campaign for the November elections. The U.S. House web site may be taking advantage and be temporarily down for maintenance.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | I Heart Safety! Solution: Keep every American unconscious in a solid 4x4 cell with no openings and fed us through tubes.
Who needs freedom when you can have complete safety from the terrorists? | |
| | | | Re: I Heart Safety! That will be after 2008 | |
| |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:2 | said by atlantaanon :
Solution: Keep every American unconscious in a solid 4x4 cell with no openings and fed us through tubes.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix
--
A is A | |
| | | N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I Heart Safety! Aww, you beat me to it!.
Weren't those pods, though???
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
| | | said by atlantaanon :
Solution: Keep every American unconscious in a solid 4x4 cell with no openings and fed us through tubes.
Who needs freedom when you can have complete safety from the terrorists? Yep, it's to a point where this government has become more of a threat to my rights and so-called freedom than the terrorists.
In this instance, the overbearingly obvious fact that the government is suppressing, and trying to suppress further, constitutional rights (speech, petition, search/seizure, right to fair trial, etc.) of U.S. citizens without an actual invasion or rebellion taking place should have been just cause for impeachment of nearly the entire executive branch.
You can't shoot a person, then legalize it afterwards. So, let's see. President lies about spy program, President then confesses to program but says it's within the restrictions of the law (which it isn't), then, in all but an admission to everything people accused him of (and court found him doing illegal), he tries to get Congress to legalize everything he's done, bypassing all measures that are supposed to protect people's rights.
Smart government, or stupid people. It would be too easy to say both, but if people weren't so stupid, gullible, and scared, I think this government would've be out on it's ass long ago. | |
|
| | Is it just me? or do I see this comment back firing and being torn to shreads on the daily show and so forth?
"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said. Seriously does anyone else see something wrong with this blindly over simplified, and wholefully wrong IMO, statment? | |
| | | | Re: Is it just me? said by Mr Anon :or do I see this comment back firing and being torn to shreads on the daily show and so forth? "To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said. Seriously does anyone else see something wrong with this blindly over simplified, and wholefully wrong IMO, statment? Sure. First, it came from the small, small mind of Boehner.
Simple answers for Simple Questions. | |
| | | | | Re: Is it just me? I was just shocked when I frist read it. Definitly something I'm going to file away under "and you do what for a living?" | |
|
| tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | This is an excellent sign that the incumbents no longer understand their place.
Vote the bums out. | |
|
| | This says it all quote:
"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes
Yes, yes it does speak volumes. If the vote were for every person in the USA to be muzzled, drugged, and kept alive with a feeding tube indefinitely, would everyone just vote "yes" because this person says so?
I think not.
The term "obstructionist" only applies when reasonable legislation is being blocked-and "reasonable" is in the eye and the conscience of the voter-NOT in the piss poor worldview we're being spoonfed here. There are other alteratives. | |
| | | | Re: This says it all I agree. I don't think that anyone should have blind faith, or acceptance in anything. Hell I'm glad for anyone that can just always say "sure thing" Why even have someone supposedly in place to look out for public best intrest if they are just going to say yes to anything. | |
|
| | ..... Sounds just like a differnce in the NSA program with new restrictions.
Sounds like the goverment is trying to pull the wood over our eyes again if you ask me.
just my .02 in this | |
| | | | Re: ..... lets just end individual rights like what happened in Nazi Germany .... should we all start saying "Hail Bush" | |
| | | N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: ..... said by Crypto_Bug:lets just end individual rights like what happened in Nazi Germany .... should we all start saying "Hail Bush" Oh goodie, the Bush is a Nazi comparison, all over again!
See the reason I post stuff like this???
»OH BOY, here we go again!
Thank you for once again confirming Godwin's law.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_comparison
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | | tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: ..... Ignoring what is happening won't make it go away. | |
| | | | | N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: ..... said by tsu9:Ignoring what is happening won't make it go away. No ones saying ignore it, but perhaps we can discuss it without resorting to calling Bush a Nazi.
Regardless of what you think of him (Bush), he hasn't killed 6 million people and laid waste to an entire continent and part of Africa.
I'm all for an intelligent, informed discussion of the issues. A lot of us have varying views of current events, and if we didn't what would be the point of discussion. I just wish people could debate the issues without name calling and personal attacks.
Guess I'm just suffering from a little political burn out.
I think what I'm trying to say is, if we can ALL try and keep is a bit more rational, and a bit more civil, maybe we can get our point across a bit better.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | | | | tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: ..... Oh, I definately agree. However, the unfortunate heading the USA is taking is rather... dire, and directly contrary to what we're based upon.
It's very disturbing.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | What's that I hear? dum-dum-de-dom
dum-de-dom
dum-de-dom
I'm just waiting for Yoda to show up and start dueling lightsabers with Emperor Bush. Then again, maybe Cheney shot Yoda with his shotgun before he could get there. | |
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: What's that I hear? said by jhboricua:Then again, maybe Cheney shot Yoda with his shotgun before he could get there. "Pellets with mind, I deflected," says Yoda...
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | |
| | | | Cheney Shotgun refference, 2pts
lol | |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Basically a party line vote, with cross over canceled out... Shows what happens when one party gathers too much power... What's really needed this fall is for the Congress to find itself evenly devided so that BS legislation like this takes longer to pass and gets more debate and floor time. This is basically just another rubber stamp proposal for executive power, giving the president unlimited power. Problem is that if it were anyone else in the White House, especially a Democrat, they wouldn't be so supportive of giving the president unlimited powers. And by proxy, giving such boosts in power to the president gives a even greater boost in power to the federal governmental and that's interesting too because this is counter to the agenda of the party of the supposedly smaller federal government...
Definitely a great deal of hypocricy on the part of the parties in Washington... No doubt at all...
(Interesting to see Ron Paul voting against this too... Yet another reason to like the guy - he believes in limits to power.)
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| let me get this right... "The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people"
...first, I'm not going to go red or blue on this one. Irrational??? I think not. What seems irrational to me is the attitude that there can be no other point of view than what some of these people think is right. That there can be no other points to consider regarding the big picutre boggles my mind.
Guess we might as well all duct-tape our mouths shut, saying anything "wrong" anymore will soon be a crime.
Selected quotes from the book "1984" by George Orwell
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death." --pg 27
...
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face... was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime" --pg 54 | |
| |  RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: let me get this right... How about we live our lives exactly according to the Constitution! How about we live our lives with ZERO laws, ZERO check and balances! Hell let's just open up our prisons, and just let them go free. While we're at it, how about we send evil Hitler Bush and everyone who tramples on our new found freedom to antartica?
--
"Take your worst nightmares, and put my face to them." Tommy Lynn Sells | |
| | | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | Re: let me get this right... I'm not sure I get your post entirely... hard to tell if/where there is sarcasm... | |
|
 richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | What happened to the dam constitution??? And contacting our representatives & senators does nothing [I called & emailed mine].
We can only hope it doesn't pass the senate. | |
| | | ooh focus on more than just that It's not the warantless wiretaps in that bill that made me cringe. It was the proactive pardoning of himself from war crimes. Along with the part of the bill that gave the President ultimate power to capture and detain any "enemy combatants" a label which he can put on anyone, even US Citizens, even if they have never left the country. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | due process? meh, who needs it Legislative suspension of due process? When did RIAA take over daily operations of NSA?
If passed, a test case will eventually come before SCOTUS on Due Process grounds. | |
| wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | If it wasn't legal before..... How does legalizing it now make it ok in the past. They were violating the law previously. Just because it is legal now should not affect when it happened.
puritan | |
| | | WELLLLLLLLL...
I TOLD YOU SO, didn't I? Judicial review my foot. this is a reaction to the federal courts telling them that this is the way out. If it's specifically legal by federal ststute there isn't squat the courts can do about it.
You have no claim to privacy in the constitution, other than your papers and effects in your private home. Telecom privacy was given to you by the supreme court as a interpretation. A statute by congress overrides that. Now we start down the slippery slope of incrementalism, pilgrim.
I TOLD you it would be found to be legal and they would cover their asses. | |
| |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: WELLLLLLLLL... You need a lesson in civics - a Supreme Court interpertation of a constitutional principle is not reversible by statute, only constitutional amendment. Otherwise abortion (that was a SCOTUS interpertation) could (and would) have been reversed by congress.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court interpertation of STATUTORY LAW is reversible by updating the statute or overruling it with a new one.
The courts, in the wiretapping case until now, have never said the president was violating the constitution, they said he was violating statutory law (FISA Act). This is the first step to changing that law to bring the president in complaince, but there could still be constitutional challenges. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: WELLLLLLLLL... It wasn't given to us as a constitutional interpretation. It was a interpretation of old telecom laws used to give the american public the privacy (read: check and ballances) they desired from government/law enforcement/corporate spying.
Perhaps it's you who needs a lesson in civics? Especially since you essentially agree with what I said, but seemed compelled to draw a needless distinction to assert I was wrong somehow?
And what "constitutional" challenge is there to the executive (the PROPER term to use, instead of "the president") branches actions in this case? There is NO basis for a constitutional challenge here. Otherwise it would have been brought by now.
The "right" to privacy, such as it is, is only what the government has given the public in statutes, because the public demanded them. There is no "right" to privacy in the constitution, except for ones person, papers, and home. | |
|
| | I don't get it ? By taking away our overall sense of privacy and American way are we or are we not helping the "terrorists" accomplish their very goal ? | |
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| To which I respond... quote:
"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.
The Republicans irrational concept that somehow our nation becomes so much more secure when a warantless wiretaps are permissible. This will do nothing to fight terror. Secure encryption exists that makes it essentially impossible to crack, at least in a reasonable amount of time even with the near limitless hardware that the government may or may not have.
quote:
"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.
This is by far the absolute worst thing that I have ever read about a congress critter. "To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes'" is a very sad commentary on our political leaders. It should never be that a law should be rubber stamped "Approved" just because you can't think of a good reason not to vote for it. If anything a law should be rubber stamped "Disapproved" until you can think of a good reason(s) to vote for it.
And the Republicans wonder why they might be losing the election in a little over a month.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
| | | | Re: To which I respond... Well they already have the Diebold Vote changing program, (google ohio testify diebold), you can also find a video of the testimony to ohio assembly. So they may have already won! | |
|
 DavidI have a son- d3Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:68 | Well Least the IL people I saw on there were all nays, least I can say I am a bit happier for IL, probably not much but a bit happier. | |
| | | | hmmmm doesnt the nsa already record every telephone call made | |
| |
1 edit | Re: hmmmm "doesnt the nsa already record every telephone call made"
Of course not. The sheer daily volume of calls, of which most are meaningless blather, or, entirely legal business makes that impossible.
They look for key words in international calls and then monitor them.
And, as far as "secure encryption" goes, I'm sure all these orgainizatons mambers cart around "secure" computers and allways have access to broadband, etc. Mostly, like everyone else, they use a cellphone. Get real.
Besides, a cellphone is secure inherently from casual interseption, since what is transmitted is in the form of data packets, which is the same as encryption unless one has the proper software. Use prepaid phones and you achieve the same basic thing. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Link to who voted how on this bill
