Warrantless Wiretapping Back on Table Reid to introduce bill that includes telco immunity On Monday, the issue of warrantless wiretapping is once again going to be a prominent issue as Majority Leader Harry Reid introduces FISA amendments to the Senate. The version that he is introducing is an older one approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in October. This is despite the fact that major political leaders have asked him to instead introduce the November amendments agreed upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unlike the November amendments, the ones being introduced by Reid include a provision for retroactive telco immunity for those companies which participated in Bush’s warrantless wiretapping after 9/11. Reid is hoping to send a bill to conference before the winter recess of Congress however the divisions among the Senate on this issue make such a rapid resolution unlikely.
|
  SeandhiSeeing From a New LevelPremium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
2 edits | Ron Paul for President Wake up America... You're being sold out one bill at a time.
Ron Paul 2008
Edit: Don't forget about the money bomb today - »www.ronpaul2008.com
![]()
![]()
--
You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that. | |
|  |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Ron Paul for President Amen! | |
|
| | My thoughts of opinion If you know... we're protected and stuff from like the threat of terrorism... I don't mind. | |
| | fcb
join:2000-11-20
Orange, CA | Re: My thoughts of opinion "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: My thoughts of opinion What's so hysterical about self-styled patriots quoting the founders to prove that they (self-styled patriots) are "pure" is that the founders abandoned a relatively non-existant government (Articles of Convention) after just eleven years, in favor of a form of government that was relatively gigantic.
In relative terms, no other generation has given up so little government for so much government. But, that doesn't stop the self-styled freedom fighter. They get their rocks off by putting everyone else down, using a standard nobody ever held (in reality).
Mark | |
| | | | | | Funny that 'lady' would go to such extreme lengths to disprove Ben Franklin's quote usage, rather than berate those who smear our Constitution with feces on a daily basis, isn't it? More funny than that? That you are doing it as well. 
The telcos should not be given immunity. The end. | |
| | | |
thumbs down from:
Romney2012 
| there's something about using a michelle malkin quote in support of anything the framers said that makes my stomach churn until my mouth is a swirling vomitorium.
and by the way, for the mouthbreathers, 11 or 12 of the first presidents of the usa were deists -- not christians. smoke that, malkin. | |
| | | | |  scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: My thoughts of opinion no they weren't.
»www.infidels.org/library/histori···s.html#1
»www.infidels.org/library/histori···s.html#3
Jefferson wanted the national symbol to be a graphic of the Jewish Exodus.
"These facts about Jefferson's religion are known. He was raised as an Anglican and always maintained some affiliation with the Anglican Church. He was also known to contribute financially, in fair proportion, to every denomination in his town. While a student at William and Mary College, he began to read the Scottish moral philosophers and other authors who had made themselves students of church history. These scholars opened the door for Jefferson's informed criticism of prevailing religious institutions and beliefs. But it was the world renowned English Unitarian minister and scientist, Joseph Priestley, who had the most profound impact on his thought. According to Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, published in 1782, and many other of his books, the teachings of Jesus and his human character were obscured and obfuscated in the early Christian centuries. As the Church Fathers adapted Christianity to Mediterranean-primarily Greek-forms of thought, they contrived doctrines altogether foreign to Biblical thought, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson assumed that a thoroughly reformed Christian faith, true to Jesus' teaching, would be purged of all Greek influence and doctrinal absurdity.
Jefferson never joined a Unitarian church. He did attend Unitarian services while visiting with Joseph Priestley after his immigration to Pennsylvania and spoke highly of those services. He corresponded on religious matters with numerous Unitarians, among them Jared Sparks (Unitarian minister, historian and president of Harvard), Thomas Cooper, Benjamin Waterhouse and John Adams. He was perhaps most open concerning his own beliefs in his long exchange of letters with John Adams during their late years, 1812-26. "
»www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles···son.html
Monroe was Anglican/Episcopalian
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe
Jackson was Presbyterian
»www.adherents.com/people/pj/Andr···son.html
The list goes on. The only one who was doubtful was Madison. While Jefferson did write a "bible" and talked badly about the church at times, what he hates was intolerances, not the church itself and did give money to his parish in VA.
Washington also spoke highly of tolerance and did mind Jews, Moslem's or Atheists as long as they were "good citizens".
As much as some people hate to admit, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and most of the founding fathers did believe in the Bible. I am not a religious person at all and believe the Bible has a lot of fairy tales in it, but it's erroneous to think this nation doesn't have a Christian background.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by scrummie02:As much as some people hate to admit, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and most of the founding fathers did believe in the Bible. I am not a religious person at all and believe the Bible has a lot of fairy tales in it, but it's erroneous to think this nation doesn't have a Christian background. Which is important to make people understand, because you know, our government needs religion. Or is it that our religion needs our government? Darn, I always get this confused. And then Mitt Romney added freedom into the mix, but then Charles Krauthammer challenged him on that. I don't know what to think. All I know is that neither our government nor our religion is strong enough to withstand the attacks against them unless we remain united on this!!! | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion Remained united on what? The fact the church wants to dictate how we should live our lives via the Republican Party? Or the fact that politicians have our best interest at "heart" and we should never question their judgment. Which is it we're united on. I'm a bit lost here. Trust the government fully, seeing the damn good Job the Bush administration and Some Democrats have done (sarcasm), or is it just shut up and trust everyone? Please explain, I'm lost on who to follow off that steep cliff. I'd seriously like to know before I encounter my impending death by following the leader. | |
| | | | | | | | | The bottom line is this. "RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T MIX". Period. They serve TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES. I'm in a place of PROOF that you can't have religion running government, because it leads to death.
Religion is for the 'morals' of society. Government is for the LAWS of society, and never the twain shall meet.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by karlmarx:The bottom line is this. "RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T MIX". Period. They serve TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES. I'm in a place of PROOF that you can't have religion running government, because it leads to death. Religion is for the 'morals' of society. Government is for the LAWS of society, and never the twain shall meet.
BR?Nicely said. Hear Hear! | |
| | | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Religion is actually empty form and ritual. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | i forgot meh:
»nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)
In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.
Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete. For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that "God" can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:
"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."
Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this presentation, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned) | |
| | | | | | | scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: My thoughts of opinion The point of my posting wasn't to state the church should run the country, it's funny how people can't get that. I can scour the web all day and find "quotes" the founders made either for or against religion, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is they're not Deists as the person I replied to had mentioned with the exception of possible Madison..which is still in question because no one really knew.
The evidence of Christianity in this nation can be seen on the legal tender, the inscription from Leviticus on the Liberty Bell...etc..etc.
"The fact the church wants to dictate how we should live our lives via the Republican Party?" Don't know how partisan politics came into this...but okay. No where did I post you should follow the church. Follow whoever the hell you want, me, George Bush, the government and a majority of other people really don't care. I am fully aware the founders didn't want any part of religion to run the country. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | |  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
1 edit | Does misquoting him change the value of the quote? No, it doesn't. In the end, if we keep giving up our liberty for "security", we'll end up with neither.
Frankly, Franklin would be ashamed at what we've allowed our government to do. He would be the first one to tell all of our politicians to go fly a kit, they are an embarrassment to our political system. | |
| | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by Rob:Frankly, Franklin would be ashamed at what we've allowed our government to do. He would be the first one to tell all of our politicians to go fly a kit, they are an embarrassment to our political system. Well, if you are going to point out what he believed, Franklin would also be ashamed we have let blacks own property and earn a wage, or that we've let women vote.
But otherwise I agree with you.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by Camelot One:said by Rob:Frankly, Franklin would be ashamed at what we've allowed our government to do. He would be the first one to tell all of our politicians to go fly a kit, they are an embarrassment to our political system. Well, if you are going to point out what he believed, Franklin would also be ashamed we have let blacks own property and earn a wage, or that we've let women vote. But otherwise I agree with you. Actually Franklin was an abolitionist, he freed his slaves so he would be proud of us, and ashamed it took so long.
He also was very fond of women and would understand the voting issue | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by Rob:He also was very found of women and would understand the voting issue Yeah, but I bet he couldn't figure them out either!  | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Rob:Does misquoting him change the value of the quote? Sure it does. It shows that he was willing to trade safety for liberty. It's just a question of what is "a little" safety and "essential" liberty.
You wouldn't get that from the way self-styled freedom fighters misquote Franklin. And, if it doesn't change the equation, does that mean we can look forward to you guys quoting him accurately?
This thing with Franklin is a lot like how self-styled freedom fighters quote Jefferson's "What signify a few lives lost? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Jefferson wrote this in response to growing calls for a stronger federal government (which itself was in response to Shay's rebellion, and what Jefferson was addressing).
Jefferson's position *lost* as the Founders adopted a massive increase in government in response to what appeared to be growing ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation. The largest act of expediency and pragmatism of any American generation. But, you'd never get that from the way the "I feel all goose-bumply" crowd quotes the Founders.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | From the picture/article:
quote:
"...or monitors the internationally routed e-mails and phone calls of known and suspected al Qaeda operatives"
So...if they are known or suspected, then you would have had probable cause to take to a FISA judge that would have issued the warrant to conduct the monitoring. If that were the case then no one would be complaining as everything was done with checks and balance.
Obviously this was not the case. Instead you have the companies handing over all their data without a warrant, compromising any semblance of their customer's right to privacy and as such they should not be granted any immunity. They claim they did nothing wrong, but if that truly is the case then they should have nothing to worry about. Oh wait, they did something wrong and they do have something to worry about.
If it was only a small number (of teleco customers) that were eavesdropped on, people would not be crying foul because the act was done so with a warrant (see probable cause above). No, indeed we have enough people, that one person (I don't have the link handy) stated that the potential number of lawsuits that could come from such warrantless wiretapping could bankrupt these phone companies.
Man, that has to be a LOT of people they were handing over the information on. And if we go back to the "known and suspected al Qaeda operatives", we must have a LOT of terrorists working for al Qaeda in the United States. By golly, I think I'm getting scared now!! 
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
| | | | | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | Re: My thoughts of opinion Yes, because everyone knows that if you are lucky enough to catch some correspondence with suspected or known al Qaeda members, we should just hope they stay on the line until we can fetch a warrant.
Here is an idea. Don't make international calls to known or suspected terrorists and you have nothing to worry about. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion So wait. We should supersede the right of the courts to issue warrants on the hope that the person we pick is the right caller? How exactly do you acquire such knowledge. O yea, data mining EVERY OTHER INNOCENT person via ATT call centers. I got you, so trample on the rights of 299,999,999 Americans to catch the one asshole who wishes to talk to a suspected terrorist group. On your logic, if we have a mass murderer at large in a crowd of people, we should shoot everyone. Then, we justify that as catching the bad guy? Holy hell, you sure got some logic going there. Did you contrive it while typing, or sell it to yourself first, then spew it out? Seriously, maybe if you wish to catch the bad guy, whomever it might be, you use the courts. They are there and it doesn't take but a mere call to grab the warrant. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'd rather have a justice system that respects the rights of the people, than one that thinks following the law is too time consuming. I guess the next time you get arrested, the cop shouldn't read you your rights, or ask if you want a lawyer. It's too much of a hassle when he can simply lock you up, and go about his day. | |
| | | | | |
approval from:
TheHelpful1
| said by mglunt:Yes, because everyone knows that if you are lucky enough to catch some correspondence with suspected or known al Qaeda members, we should just hope they stay on the line until we can fetch a warrant. You know, what you just said was either incredibly stupid or touchingly naïve: I can't decide which.
FISA has an "emergency procedures" section (1805) that allows surveillance to be carried out for a 72-hour period before a warrant is needed. IOW: there are existing provisions that allow the Feds to spy on people without a warrant for a limited time (three days). Before the end of that time, they need to approach the secret FISA court (a court that meets to approve/deny applications for search warrants) and make a case for the surveillance to continue.
All the "we need to break the law to protect the American people" crap is just, well, crap. The law already allowed law enforcement agencies to collect domestic intelligence before 9/11: all they needed to do was convince the FISA court that there was enough justification to spy on people.
And considering that the FISA court rejected a total of five applications between 1979 and 2006, (the first rejection occurred in 2003) it can hardly be said that process of getting a warrant approved is a particularly difficult one:
»epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/f···ats.html
Getting approval from the FISA court is little more than a rubber-stamp process. The fact is that the Bush administration and its cronies were just Too Damn Lazy to follow the easy-to-follow existing rules. It is far easier instead to do whatever you feel like and then, when you get caught, start screaming that the matter at hand is one of "national security" and one that the plebs could never hope to understand.
The plebs should, instead, simply be grateful that the government cares so much about them that they are always thinking up new ways to protect them. Or give them a bad time. One of those.
said by mglunt:Here is an idea. Don't make international calls to known or suspected terrorists and you have nothing to worry about. Ah, yes: it's the old "don't do anything wrong and you've nothing to worry about" justification. So I guess that affair you're having/football pool you're "illegally" betting on/or those funny-looking cigarettes you smoke to help you relax are also things you don't mind other people learning about, eh?
Because we are all doing something deemed "illegal" at one time or another. To say nothing of your getting on the wrong side of a politician and him/her having you thrown into prison on trumped-up (or outright fabricated) charges.
I'm afraid that it's taking less and less to become a "suspected terrorist." But don't let that bother you. I'm sure you'll never be thrown into prison for no actual reason and with no evidence presented against you in a public court (unless "they" happen to feel like it, of course!).
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with our government becoming a totalitarian one, so long as they are open and honest regarding what they do, and the reasons why they do it. What I can't stand is all this "we're breaking the law, time and again, in order to save you" rubbish which doesn't withstand even the most casual inspection by anyone over the age of eight. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion said by The professianal :
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with our government becoming a totalitarian one, so long as they are open and honest regarding what they do, and the reasons why they do it. What I can't stand is all this "we're breaking the law, time and again, in order to save you" rubbish which doesn't withstand even the most casual inspection by anyone over the age of eight.
Thanks for adding that bit about the FISA specifics. It is refreshing to have insightful commentary in the sea of regurgitated rhetoric.
Also, I can see your viewpoint and agree to an extent. I'd much rather have you say flat out that you are about to rip me a new anus over having you wine and dine me just to slip a roofie in my drink and wake up the next morning with an inside-out rectum. - Sorry too graphic?
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| | | | | | | said by mglunt:...if you are lucky enough to catch some correspondence with suspected or known al Qaeda members, we should just hope they stay on the line until we can fetch a warrant. ...Don't make international calls to known or suspected terrorists and you have nothing to worry about. As The Professianal pointed out, there were already things in place to allow then to listen in on people prior to getting a warrant (although limited to 72 hours). So your first argument just got shot to hell. You listen, you hear chatter, you get warrant, you continue to listen, you gather intel, you spirit them away in the middle of the night to an undisclosed location until they give you KFC's secret recipe.
Your second argument doesn't even make it out the starting gate. If the people being called are known or suspected terrorists then, and let me emphasis this for you, they already have probable cause for the warrant. And if you know they are a terrorist and you are calling them internationally, odds are you are one too. What ATT/Verizon did is basically akin to what the RIAA/MPAA do with encryption and rootkits - treat everyone like terrorists/pirates and we are guaranteed to catch a few.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| | | | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | 3000 Americans had just been slaughtered, and you want to hold companies responsible for trying to help out the US government who was trying to gather information as quickly as possible? Would there be more attacks, etc?
Come back to reality. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: My thoughts of opinion Yep, considering they were paid to sell our information, and given lucrative contracts in return. Yet, QWEST said no, so the others could have as well. It's just that big fat money tree seemed too sweet to turn down. Why have laws and regulations? They serve no good if they only apply to certain parties. Attacks or no attacks (regardless), they don't give blanket immunity and supersede 200 years of legislation. Should we have systematically rounded up all Christians and right ring groups when Timothy Mcveigh struck? After all, right ring hate groups have caused havok throughout the last 150 years. Should we have tortured them all too? Sounds great, I'm sure we could yield some interesting tidbits as well. You say know? I'm wondering why? You seem to want to disregard the rule of law. Therefore, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Next time we have a crime, let's just play everyone's guilty and use any methods necessarily. Why bother with that document called the constitution. It only stands in the way of solving cases and a totalitarian government. | |
| | | | | | | | said by mglunt:3000 Americans had just been slaughtered... Come back to reality. No, I think I'm already in reality, aka corporate America. Like Quest, whose former CEO declined to help only to have a big-money contract be denied to his company. Oh wait, that decision was reneged when he was replaced by a more complicit CEO.
Oh, wasn't this whole spying internal surveillance program already up and running pre 9/11? Oh right, I guess you are one of the 9/11 trumpets who will cite that date as their sole reason for surrendering all their civil liberties so they can sleep in blissful ignorance at night.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| | | | | I hate "lawyers" like you. The trade-offs. (snicker)
Analysts of KEY phrases. | |
|
| |
2 edits | So does this protection give us safety against Christians? You do realize Christianity has a bloody and barbaric present and past. Will this so called security protect us against Timothy Mcveigh? He blew up Oklahoma city in the worst attack on American soil pre 9/11. Will this so called security protect us from school shooters or work place massacres? After all, it seems these happen 10x more than terrorism. Better yet, will this so called security extend globally. What should we tell the 200,000 Ethnic Muslims killed by the Christian serbs from 1995-1999 in the Bosnian War via genocide? Just wondering. So where exactly does all this trading of freedoms get us. I know, a whole lot of paranoia and a heavy handed society. However, it surely doesn't buy us any more freedom considering the world is a messed up place, and people of all races seem to not want to co-exist. Hence, we're better off being free and hating one another, than enslaved and hating one another. As much as your fantasy land would have it, violence is always going to happen. Go ask how those 20-22,000 murders a year in the U.S. compare to the 4,000 dead due to terrorism in the last 20? Humm 22,000 x 20 = 444,000 compared to 4000. Gee.. go figure. What freedoms should we trade to prevent murder? How about no one can be outside after dark. We all must wear tracking devices. To leave our house we must notify the police... etc etc. Ridiculous? Yep, so is your post above. | |
|
| mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA |
Funny thing is that not one single person complaining about this has been effected in any way. No person is coming forward saying that they were hurt by this.
But everyone thinks it was the worst thing that has ever happened to them. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: My thoughts of opinion The absence of proof is not the absence of a crime. Merely, none of us can prove we have been directly victimized. Still, assuming the millions of people who had their data mined by ATT and Bush's illegal program, I'm sure some of us our in that boat. Hence, it's safer to assume any of us could be party to the incident, than none of us. Once again, you don't have to prove someone was directly hurt to get damages. You just have to prove someone was hurt as a result of said actions. Good example. If a building collapses and people are killed and injured. The people don't have to prove they were in the building. Just near or around it. Furthermore, the people could sue the building inspector and the architectural company who made it. In this case a corporation. Long story short, you go after the whole, to punish the masses for their shotty work. IE, you hold the government and ATT liable. You don't have to prove you were directly hurt, just that you could have been in some way as a result of their actions. | |
| | | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC | said by mglunt:Funny thing is that not one single person complaining about this has been effected in any way. No person is coming forward saying that they were hurt by this. But everyone thinks it was the worst thing that has ever happened to them. I'm with you. If I can't smell, touch or taste it, then it's none of my business I say. I just keep a low profile and nobody will bother me. Those people who want to make this their business, well they're just being uppity. What's worse are those ivory tower types thinking we have a government of the people by the people - it's time for them to get real. | |
|
| | WHOA Harry Reid? The House Majority Leader, A DEMOCRAT, is introducing this bill?
This will send all the anti-Bush people into a hissy fit.  | |
| |
See 28 replies to this post | |
 xhepera
join:2000-11-18
Jefferson City, MO | Sold out Wake up America. Between the spineless Congress and that madman in the White House and his cronies, we are indeed being set up for a mighty fall. When did "We the people" become "We the sheeple?"
--
The crystal wind is the storm, and the storm is data, and the data is life --- Daniel Keyes Moran | |
| |  Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | Re: Sold out Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
We, the Big Corporations, make the law by lobbying and lawyers.
We hope you enjoy your stay in America, the Corporation.
Edit:
Do you really think any form of Governement really passes a law? NOOOO, not without lobbiests buying a law.
It is the BIG CORPERATONS that run the country, not Goverment.
Our Governemt is just a tool for the Big Corps.
--
“Do or do not... there is no try.” (Yoda) | |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmmm.... No matter what we do, the terrorist keep winning. How many more rights do we have left to give up for so called security? it is not a question of how, it is a question of when. How do you protect your self from terrorism? The best is that you learn to cope/live with it. Do we believe a president that says he is keeping us safe, if it can't be shown that there was a legitimate attack thwarted, and you hide behind a cloak of secrecy for "our own good". I thought that a "majority" of the voters that actually voted, want a change in what is going on. I think both parties are on crack. I just can't understand what is going on in their heads. This president is at the lowest rating of any president, yet congress gives him everything he asks for, hell they don't even put up a token fight. The repubs on the other hand have taken thwarting the dems to new levels of sillyness. I'm an old geezer, and I think it is time to clean both parties of the "older guard" and get some fresh insight in congress and the senate so we can actually get some real legislation done, that helps all the people. We need to scrap our system for a parliamentary one, so we don't have to wait years to remove morons. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world, if we are not already. I have a long memory, and will remember what my congress critters are doing, and will vote accordingly. When someone misquotes Franklin, I think that most semi literate people get the point. When you make comments that they don't know the quote, instead of bringing that up, try and dispel their logic,be hind the quote, if you can. It is too easy to fault them for the quote then the reasoning behind it. End of rant.
--
BlooMe | |
| | | Harry Reid is a disgrace and I don't care what party he's in. | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Grass Roots In the next election, get the most senior Democrat and Republican seats of the House and Senate firmly in the hands of INDEPENDENT candidates. Viva la independent revolution!
- Doesn't have to stop with Ron Paul.. if Ross Perot would have continued the trend of successfully putting independent candidates in office, you wouldn't be smelling the other end of the horse poop from the Democratic Party rubber stamping republican policies so quickly. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are so against the idea (losing grips on power) that THEY WILL DO ANYTHING to stop this from happening.. but YOU CAN DO IT, TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY. | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Grass Roots said by tmc8080:In the next election, get the most senior Democrat and Republican seats of the House and Senate firmly in the hands of INDEPENDENT candidates. That will never happen under the current process which lets every party advance from the Primary to the General election. Without a runoff or tier-ranked ballots, or proportional representation, the fear of "throwing away your vote" will always work against third parties.
Tier-ranked ballots are interesting. Basically it would let you express your 1st through nth choices. You could vote for an underdog as your first choice, a Dem as your second, etc. without "throwing away your vote." Votes would be tabulated in such a way that if your first choice didn't get enough votes, then your second choice would take effect, and so on.
The benefit of this system is that it would eliminate the expense of run-off elections. The downside is that, if voters can't cope with punch cards (re, hanging chad), their heads would explode over this idea.
Proportional representation is an interesting idea. If 5% of the population votes Green (for example) why should they be denied representation? The only way they can get representation is to move to one Congressional district. That's not right.
Anyway, you'll never get a choice of candidates without a run off. The "throwing your vote away" argument is too powerful. It's a sad statement that the best we can do is vote based on fear.
Mark | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Grass Roots and that so called fear of "throwing away" our vote is why America is on the path that it is. Voters seriously need to wake up and look beyond this imagined fear that the two party system instilled in us to keep their power in the halls of Congress. | |
|
 MrWhippitYou Big Dummy Gimmie Back My BandwithPremium
join:2002-04-04
Marlton, NJ | I guess. They're buying a pig in a poke after all.
Its a disgrace.
--
"Its all BALL-BEARINGS these days!"
-Irwin F. Fletcher | |
| | | | | Re: RON PAUL He sounded good until it came out he voted WITH the Republican Party 75 percent of the time. Sheesh, he sounds like the same load of crap, just a little less smell. | |
| | |  INT0CABLEBANNEDPremium
join:2007-10-22
Bronx, NY | Re: RON PAUL said by jc100:He sounded good until it came out he voted WITH the Republican Party 75 percent of the time. Sheesh, he sounds like the same load of crap, just a little less smell. he votes for the constitution 100% of the time
--
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
RON PAUL REVOLUTION join the tea paty at »www.teaparty07.com | |
|
| |
|
|
