EFF Fights Constitutionality Of Telecom Immunity Because suing the President, VP, and NSA wasn't keeping them busy... The Electronic Frontier Foundation this week challenged the constitutionality of the telcos' newfound immunity for their participation in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Aided by the network knowledge of 22-year former AT&T employee turned whistle-blower Mark Klein, the EFF sued AT&T in 2006 for delivering user phone and Internet data wholesale to the NSA without judicial oversight. But recently, both parties helped pass a law that let the telcos' off the hook, invalidating any lawsuits for privacy invasion -- provided they could simply show a letter from the President saying he approved. From the EFF: In a brief filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. Signed into law earlier this year, the FAA allows for the dismissal of the lawsuits over the telecoms' participation in the warrantless surveillance program if the government secretly certifies to the court that either the surveillance did not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president. According to the group, their constitutional challenge will be heard December 2. The EFF has been busy since the telecoms got immunity, filing suit against the President, Dick Cheney, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales -- and even the NSA itself.
|
 gator99
join:2008-03-27
Philadelphia, PA | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym "They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin | |
|  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by gator99:"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin The constitution is not a suicide pact."
In 1949, Justice Jackson finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Romney2012:said by gator99:"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin The constitution is not a suicide pact." In 1949, Justice Jackson finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." TK, do you actually feel that you are in immediate danger from an attack of any sort? | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by badtrip:said by Romney2012:said by gator99:"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin The constitution is not a suicide pact." In 1949, Justice Jackson finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." TK, do you actually feel that you are in immediate danger from an attack of any sort? Immediate danger ? NO!
But implied in your statement you are proposing doing NOTHING to protect the US from enemies just because they aren't going to attack next week or next month?
And we are in danger - how soon is up for discussion. But there is no doubt that enemies of the US will take advantage of any lessening of vigilance(something the EFF seems intent on providing).
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Romney2012:Immediate danger ? NO! But implied in your statement you are proposing doing NOTHING to protect the US from enemies just because they aren't going to attack next week or next month? And we are in danger - how soon is up for discussion. But there is no doubt that enemies of the US will take advantage of any lessening of vigilance(something the EFF seems intent on providing). I'm not sure how you can think that I implied that we should do nothing to defend ourselves by asking you how you feel. I was asking because I wanted a clearer insight to how your opinions are formed.
I certainly think that a strong DEFENSE is an integral part of the foundation of a free nation. However, I do not trust the Bush administration as they have given me no reason to trust them, actually quite the opposite. Further, I believe that the Bush Admin et al. may have crossed the line here. I'm not alone in thinking this. In situations such as these, we NEED organizations such as the EFF (like I said left, right or centrist).
Yes we need to watch for danger whether it be immediate or latent. However we need to watch our government as well as our government, in the wrong hands, can do just as much if not more damage to our country than any enemy of the state, foreign or domestic. Surely you can agree with that! | |
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym
said by badtrip:Yes we need to watch for danger whether it be immediate or latent. However we need to watch our government as well as our government, in the wrong hands, can do just as much if not more damage to our country than any enemy of the state, foreign or domestic. Surely you can agree with that! I have to disagree that watching our government is ALWAYS a good thing. Intelligence gathering is one area where TRANSPARENCY is not a good thing. In fact transparency is the best way to cripple intelligence gathering activities. That is where opaqueness is essential. Obviously the EFF doesn't believe that fact or just doesn't care. I think they just don't care and that the best interests of the US doesn't come in to their thinking at all.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Romney2012:I think they just don't care and that the best interests of the US doesn't come in to their thinking at all. I think they primarily care about inflaming their membership, and shaking them down for donations. Just like most advocacy groups.
I don't mind if a group like EFF believes the Executive branch has too much power, or has exercised it inappropriately. But, pressing that position at the expense of a highly regulated entity, recognized by law as subject to the Executive branch was as much an abuse of the system as they claim the President abused the system.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by Romney2012:I have to disagree that watching our government is ALWAYS a good thing. Intelligence gathering is one area where TRANSPARENCY is not a good thing. And I believe that as citizens of the United States of America, it is our duty to watch and question the government--in all matters that we disagree with. I do not believe that a government for "the people", by "the people" should ever be opaque to "the people". | |
| | | | | | | fldiverPremium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | I can see for the first time ever I find myself in a position to need to block a fellow DSL poster. TK, Why don't you move to China where you can have all of the sensorship you could ask for and then some. But then I see you are voting for a dottering old fool and his twit of a running mate, so I shouldn't really be surprised with most of your positions.
Activating block mode  Shields UP!
-Dan | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | 28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | said by Romney2012:]I have to disagree that watching our government is ALWAYS a good thing. Intelligence gathering is one area where TRANSPARENCY is not a good thing. In fact transparency is the best way to cripple intelligence gathering activities. That is where opaqueness is essential. Obviously the EFF doesn't believe that fact or just doesn't care. I think they just don't care and that the best interests of the US doesn't come in to their thinking at all. The difference you're failing to see is that of intelligence-derived knowledge vs. intelligence gathering tactics.
Obviously sensitive information gotten through various methods should be kept secret.
However, we the taxpaying citizens of this country have a right to know HOW that intelligence is being gathered so that we know our government isn't breaking the law or violating morals and ethics.
We know the government aided, abetted, pleaded and begged the telecoms to break the law. It's an undeniable fact, proven by the insistence of the Bush administration that the telcos be given immunity.
Why do you hate the law? Why do you hate your rights that brave Americans have fought and died for?
You're willing to throw it all away because you're scared of some terrorist boogeyman?
I'm more afraid of the US government than I am of Osama bin Laden or any of his cohorts. You should be too.
--
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by 28655376:Why do you hate your rights that brave Americans have fought and died for? That was rhetorical. Americans fought and died for the Constitution. (At one time, two different ideas of what the Constitution means. The right to withdraw, or the power to prevent it.).
The Constitution originated after 12 years of minimal government (which, logically, means expanded rights) under the Articles of Confederation. The founding generation ditched the Articles in favor of the larger, more powerful federal constitutional government because they found "less government" didn't work. They wanted more-effective government.
Therefore, those who fought and died for the Constitution, fought and died for a greater balance between government and individual rights. A greater emphasis on effective government through larger, more powerful government.
That's as much a part of the Constitution (understanding the framers experience and what the Constitution was a response to) as the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights was a response to this need for larger, more powerful government. You can't separate one from the other.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym But they always included checks and balances. I have no problem with wire taps, but I want to make sure that enough people with super-top secret clearence are privy to the process (with oversight) that it can't be abused to keep one party or group of people in power over others. That's the concern. I don't really care if the telco's get immunity, but I DO care if it sets precedent for future administrations to secretly break laws thinking they'll be able to fix it after they're caught.
Frankly, I'd rather the telco's get immunity, since I can't live without their service, and the cost of the lawsuits would just be born by their customers. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Ahrenl:I have no problem with wire taps, but I want to make sure that enough people with super-top secret clearence are privy to the process (with oversight) that it can't be abused to keep one party or group of people in power over others. I tend to agree with you. The problem is how to balance the powers of the Executive branch with the power of the other branches. Historically, the Executive branch has had a recognized power to conduct surveillance. Obviously that power can be abused.
But, that's just the nature of our constitutional, three branches of government. It's not perfect. But, it was felt it would be better than vesting all power in the Legislative branch. "Better" may have meant more agility in exercising power when necessary (instead of by committee).
said by Ahrenl:Frankly, I'd rather the telco's get immunity, since I can't live without their service, and the cost of the lawsuits would just be born by their customers. I agree. Telcos are governed by public law, including 2511 which recognizes the power of the Executive branch to conduct surveillance without warrants. It's wrong to blame the telcos for the existence of that Executive power (or the law recognizing it).
If we're not happy with 2511, we should amend it to regulate the Executive branch's power (and risk the Judiciary finding it unconstitutional).
Or, have a constitutional convention to eliminate the Executive branch (or make it subordinate to the Legislative, just a figurehead position).
Mark | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |  Ual
@bellsouth.net | said by Romney2012:Immediate danger ? NO! But implied in your statement you are proposing doing NOTHING to protect the US from enemies just because they aren't going to attack next week or next month? Well, don't forget this is about WARRANTLESS wiretapping. Government has had the right, and widely recognized as legal right, to wiretap and intercept data when there is some evidence of wrong doing. The EFF is fighting against warrantless wiretapping where one branch of the government just sidesteps another (the judicial) and says "We don't feel like getting judge's approval anymore". THAT is not been recognized as legal, or even moral, until very recent times and still only among a percentage of people. They aren't saying don't do any wiretaps - they're saying that AT&T should have stuck to legal wiretaps. Don't break the law, and you won't need immunity nor will you have somebody suing you over it. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Ual :
The EFF is fighting against warrantless wiretapping where one branch of the government just sidesteps another (the judicial) and says "We don't feel like getting judge's approval anymore".
But, the law recognizes the Executive branch's power to perform surveillance without a warrant. The so-called immunity deal simply cited that law and affirmed this power of the Executive.
See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) which says the Attorney General (among others) may certify that no warrant is necessary.
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by fatness:It's always followed by endless circular reasoning. What's circular about a law that says telcos are immune from suit if the AG certifies no warrant is necessary? And then Congress cites that same law as the basis for so-called "immunity?"
I can respect the fact that you may disagree with the law, or feel the President abused it. But, pretending the law doesn't say what it says, or that Congress didn't reaffirm their intent is a form of self-deception.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym How does that prove you're right?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | And you've posted this interpretation of the law again, but you again present ZERO judicial scholarship or case law to back it up.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by NetAdmin1:And you've posted this interpretation of the law again, but you again present ZERO judicial scholarship or case law to back it up. The wording of the law is clear. The way Congress affirmed it (as the basis of so-called "immunity") is clear.
If anyone should provide judicial scholarship, it would be those who claim the the law means something else.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by amigo_boy:The wording of the law is clear. Yeah, people have said that about other laws and been shown that the legal interpretation is not in agreement.
I'd be more inclined to believe you if you could actually provide something beyond your own lay opinion on that particular law.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by NetAdmin1:I'd be more inclined to believe you if you could actually provide something beyond your own lay opinion on that particular law. I was thinking the same thing about you.
Don't forget, Congress reaffirmed the clear wording of the law when it cited it as the basis of so-called immunity.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by amigo_boy:I was thinking the same thing about you. Actually, unlike you, I haven't presented a legal interpretation that I am not qualified to make. So your shot over the bow is resounding miss.
On the contrary, I have expressed only doubts about your interpretation and others interpretation of that law.
As well, I have repeatedly asked for you to provide support for your interpretation, which either can not or will not.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by NetAdmin1:I haven't presented a legal interpretation that I am not qualified to make. Sure you have. You've said it doesn't mean what it clearly says, or what Congress affirmed. If you want to make that argument, it's up to you to prove it.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by amigo_boy:said by NetAdmin1:I haven't presented a legal interpretation that I am not qualified to make. Sure you have. You've said it doesn't mean what it clearly says, or what Congress affirmed. If you want to make that argument, it's up to you to prove it. Holy revisionist history Batman. There is nothing like misrepresenting my position, so let me spell it out for you.
I have consistently argued that I doubted the intention of that law permitted carte blanche dismissal of warrant requirements. If you misconstrued that as a legal interpretation of the law, you are sorely mistaken as I don't make legal interpretations that I am not qualified to make.
Secondly, I have consistently asked for people, including you, to provide sources to that support that interpretation and continually you and others have not. In exchange for those requests, I have repeatedly been given arm chair interpretations by unqualified individuals who can't provide support for their arguments other than to say that "I read it that way, so that is the way it is."
Since you invoked the law and first made the interpretation, the duty of proving an argument lays squarely at your feet. I don't have to prove my doubts about your interpretation because they are founded on a lack support presented for your position; it is your duty to prove they are wrong by presenting evidence that supports your position.
It is like a believer asking the atheist to prove that a god doesn't exist; on the contrary, it is the duty of the person asserting that a god exists to prove their position.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by NetAdmin1:I have consistently argued that I doubted the intention of that law permitted carte blanche dismissal of warrant requirements. And, I've consistently argued that I doubted the intention of that law denied any dismissal of warrant requirements. Or, what Congress recently reaffirmed.
said by NetAdmin1:It is like a believer asking the atheist to prove that a god doesn't exist; on the contrary, it is the duty of the person asserting that a god exists to prove their position. Ditto.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Nobody is saying to do nothing about our enemies. There are plenty of ways to protect us that don't involve the wholesale sellout of our civil liberties. This isn't an either-or black-or-white thing.
The odd thing is is that the same people who were pushing for increased police powers and undermining civil liberties were doing it long before 9/11. These are the people who'll use any excuse, whether it be the War on Drugs, DUI, child porn, terrorism, anything to increase their power.
It's about time we recognize it for what it is: a war on the citizenry of this country by the political elites who think they know how to manage our lives better than we do.
Amazingly, the people who preach "limited government" are often the first in line selling out our freedoms for some dubious, government provided "security".
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Corydon:Nobody is saying to do nothing about our enemies. There are plenty of ways to protect us that don't involve the wholesale sellout of our civil liberties. I'm all ears - what are they?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by Romney2012:said by Corydon:Nobody is saying to do nothing about our enemies. There are plenty of ways to protect us that don't involve the wholesale sellout of our civil liberties. I'm all ears - what are they? C'mon, even if you disagree with his overall point, you're too smart not to be able to be able to list some of these yourself.
Since 9/11, we've implemented several -- such as physical security around key resources, improving intelligence collection and coordination between members of the public and federal/state/local responders, infiltration of enemy organizations ...
We could come to a conclusion with our illegal immigration problem, do a better job of watching our shipping ports, fix the lack of screening in mass shipping, get our major population centers away from rail and road shipping through-ways (so that dangerous cargo bypasses cities unless necessarily arriving and departing from them), and focus our resources on the wars we ought to fight rather than the old scores we want to settle.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | | | | | Yes, from our own government. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by gator99:"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Franklin's own choice of words implies that there are non-essential liberties, and/or that liberty can be exchanged for permanent safety.
Franklin's own generation demonstrated this is true when, after 12 years of a relatively libertarian form of government (the Articles of Confederation) they chose to ditch it in favor of a much larger, powerful and *efficient* federal government. That was 1789 when they proposed and ratified the Federal Constitution.
Mark | |
| | | | | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by amigo_boy:said by gator99:"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Franklin's own choice of words implies that there are non-essential liberties, and/or that liberty can be exchanged for permanent safety. Franklin's own generation demonstrated this is true when, after 12 years of a relatively libertarian form of government (the Articles of Confederation) they chose to ditch it in favor of a much larger, powerful and *efficient* federal government. That was 1789 when they proposed and ratified the Federal Constitution. Mark Jesus Fucking Christ! There are NO UNESSENTIAL LIBERTIES of the type Franklin referred to, or as later embodied in our Constitution!!
Although, I guess you could exchange your essential liberties for the permanent security of the grave, I would not, and I'd say anything less than such a permanence would be an insufficient guarantee to warrant their loss.
Choice: Liberty or Death? I choose liberty. Death, not so much. Can I buy a Kevlar vest please? Anyone? | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: EFF needs new words for their acronym said by ross:Choice: Liberty or Death? False dichotomy. The founding generation exchanged relative libertarianism (under the Articles of Confederation) for a relatively gigantic, powerful, and centralized federal government.
They exhibited some liberties can be exchanged for (relatively) permanent security.
Mark | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| don't understand I don't understand exactly what is unconstitutional about repealing or loosening existing laws. Who are the parties that the law is unequal to? It seems like everyone gets screwed over equally with it. Not my area of expertise, I hope they explain it better. | |
| |  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Re: don't understand said by axus:I don't understand exactly what is unconstitutional about repealing or loosening existing laws. Who are the parties that the law is unequal to? It seems like everyone gets screwed over equally with it. Not my area of expertise, I hope they explain it better. This particular law was non-existent until after Bush and his buddies got busted. | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: don't understand said by Cheese:This particular law was non-existent until after Bush and his buddies got busted. That's not true. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) already existed. It is the law which the so-called "immunity" deal cited as a prerequisite for "immunity" to apply. The deal simply fast-tracked judicial review. Instead of a lengthy *civil* suit, a federal judge would decide if 2511 applied.
I.e., whether the telco acted based upon certification by the executive branch that no warrant was necessary. If the executive branch abused the existing law, that's something which should be taken up by the legislative or judicial branch. It's not the telcos' responsibility to arbitrate that matter, or be responsible for it.
What's really bad for civil libertarians is that they may have had a plausible claim that Congress never intended for 2511 to be used as broadly as it was (when they enacted it). But, the so-called immunity deal essentially gave 2511 Congressional intent. After the deal, there's no way to misread the intent of Congress.
Big step backwards for civil libertarians. They have a much steeper mountain to climb, to demonstrate a different Congressional intent.
Mark | |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | EFF will get nowhere There is nothing in the Constitution stopping Congress from doing what they did. Congress didn't deny anyone due process...they simply changed the process. | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | rules and laws are bent, even changed over time. When the constitution was written , there were no al quaida, no nuclear weapons, no anthrax. You people supporting the EFF wont be happy until the island of Manhattan is turned into an island of smoldering ash.
Morons | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | if the safety of our nation is at stake, then I understand.. If its about keeping america safe, immunity to divulge info to the president should be justified but at the same time, it has to work both ways. The damage to anyone particular person or group of people where abusive and unjustified power were used should also warrant equivalent justified damages as well. This intense power has to be a last resort and a measure which shows that, if it wasn't done, it would put our country in harms way. | |
|  cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN
 ·CDE
| Government and such I could argue both sides of the wiretapping issue. I want to be safe in my life, but there has to be a balance. I do not want to live as a slave to the government, where I have to worry about what I say and so on. (Unfortunately technology has progressed to the point where we will all be just a number. (Revelation chapter 13 is a good read here.)
There will be a day where everyone has to 'register' with some government agency, to travel, open a bank account, hold a job, engage in commerce, (Revelation 13:16-18)(Real Id Act) and so on. 'We need to to register to keep you safe.' Bullshit! I own a gun and can do it myself thank you very much.
While this country isn't a police state, it seems as it is slowly moving closer towards it. (USA Patriot Act is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation I've actually sat down to read.) Just remember, police states, dictatorships, and communist governments have killed more people than any 'terrorists' could ever dream of doing.
When it comes to wiretapping, I think the idea of it is somewhat useless. If the terrorists have a brain, (some do, some don't) they would be using encryption on their phones, emails, internet communications and so on. From what I understand the 'true-crypt' program is very tough to break into. That being said, how hard would it be for out government to obey existing fisa law and get a warrant within the 3 day window (not totally in the know of that portion of fisa law) of listening in to a phone call. There is something a little unnerving about some desk jockey at the NSA, being able to flip a switch and listen to...well...damn near anything he wants to.
Now, I believe a little common sense could go along way in the 'war on terror'. Case in point: Instead of going through the TSA security line at the airport, and getting the 'illusion' of security, why not have a profiler that you meet before you get on the plane? EL AL Airlines have been doing this for years. Within 5 minutes of talking with a said profiler, they know if your getting on the plane or not. Furthermore, EL AL allows the entire aircrew on board to be armed. I don't recall ever hearing about an EL AL flight being hijacked in my lifetime, and I am 32. I have no problem with racial profiling, it works when done correctly. How hard could it be? Why do we hassle a person who is a 90 year old woman in a wheelchair, yet have no problem with allowing a person who has a 1 way ticket, has no luggage, smells like 7 kinds of ass, and is acting in a very suspicious manner. The latter description is of Richard Reid. Using the common sense method he wouldn't have even able to board the plane. | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Government and such said by cline3621:'We need to to register to keep you safe.' Bullshit! I own a gun and can do it myself thank you very much. If you were working in the twin towers, I can imagine you unloading a couple of magazines into one of the approaching passenger jets.
Images of Slim Pickens riding the bomb to the ground, screaming "Yee Haw!!!" (in Dr. Strangelove).
Yeah. That's mature.
Mark | |
| | | cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN Reviews:
·CDE
| Re: Government and such said by amigo_boy:If you were working in the twin towers, I can imagine you unloading a couple of magazines into one of the approaching passenger jets. Images of Slim Pickens riding the bomb to the ground, screaming "Yee Haw!!!" (in Dr. Strangelove). Yeah. That's mature. Mark | |
| | | cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN Reviews:
·CDE
| said by amigo_boy:said by cline3621:'We need to to register to keep you safe.' Bullshit! I own a gun and can do it myself thank you very much. If you were working in the twin towers, I can imagine you unloading a couple of magazines into one of the approaching passenger jets. Images of Slim Pickens riding the bomb to the ground, screaming "Yee Haw!!!" (in Dr. Strangelove). Yeah. That's mature. Mark Oops I messed up with the quote. Perhaps being on the 103rd floor of the WTC north tower wouldn't help.
However how, pray tell, do you think it would have played out if I were on flight 11, if our government had enough sense to either allow law abiding citizens or air crews to carry weapons on planes, like I mentioned EL AL does? The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and FBI, have both done background checks and given me the privilege to carry a weapon in public to defend my life or an innocent 3rd party. (I carry nearly everywhere, and have had to draw on one person in my life, but that is another story for another day.)
That being said, I would have no problem administering 2 body shots and 1 head shot of .357 caliber sig rounds to Mohamed Atta, and his acquaintances, at the instant they killed Mr. Daniel M. Lewin, but according to your logic a handgun couldn't keep me safe?
If you really think about it, in a perfect scenario, if all the aircrews were armed that day, were looking at the total death count number being less than 30, 19 of which would be the hijackers. Kudos to the brave people on flight 93, who didn't have a gun, but decided to at least try to take on the hijackers and sacrificed themselves, for the greater good. On a side note, on one of the doomed flights and I think it was flight 93, there was a government agent of some sort, who was allowed to carry weapons on flights, but decided not to bring it that day. There's some food for thought. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Government and such said by cline3621:how, do you think it would have played out if I were on flight 11, if our government had enough sense to either allow law abiding citizens or air crews to carry weapons on planes, The suicide hijackers were law-abiding citizens. How do you think that would have played out if they were on flight 11, with firearms?
said by cline3621:but according to your logic a handgun couldn't keep me safe? I didn't say that. (Although, I'd say "safer," not "safe.") Just that it's not mutually exclusive with the government keeping you safer (which is what you seemed to say in your original post).
Mark | |
|
 tmpchaosRequiescat in pacePremium,Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ | (topic offline) EFF needs new words for their acronym
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.
stated reason was: taking out the trash. | |
|
| |
|
|
