Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 2Slow on January 15, 2006, 11:41:44 AM
-
The NSA event concerns me. The Patriot Act worries me. The two items together, frighten me. I think the quotes I have included below illuminate my concerns.
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
"Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and will have none." Ben Franklin
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
I continue to hear “We are at War” and this justifies some abridgement of civil liberties. What war? Did I miss it? I have searched the Congressional records and reviewed the President’s addresses to the joint sessions of Congress. I cannot find a request for or a declaration of war.
Mind you, I do think there is a matter requiring a “War effort” to irradiate it. This matter is the elimination of the Radical Islamic Pirates (RIP). I think the war we are in is more akin to the struggle that defeated the pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy. Are the RIP’s pirates? I think so. They operate in much the same manner. They have extorted protection fees from several nations. Other nations have given them safe haven. The RIP’s have successfully hidden their true nature as pirates by cloaking themselves in religious zealotry.
We can only hope that this current campaign against piracy goes as well the one in the 17th century. I pray that our civil liberties survive it as well.
“As the end of the Seventeenth Century approached, peace came to most of Europe. Privateers found themselves without jobs, as did many naval seamen. This “golden age” saw the greatest upswing in piracy ever. Unlike their predecessors, the buccaneers, these pirates preyed on merchant ships rather than Spanish galleons laden with gold and silver. Most prowled the Caribbean and Atlantic coast of North America, but some plied their trade off the West Coast of Africa and in the Indian Ocean.
The height of plundering lasted about a decade from 1715-1725. Most pirates were English (35%), but other nationalities were also represented: colonials from America-25%, colonials from the West Indies-20%, Scots-10%, Welsh-8%, and Swedish/Dutch/French/Spanish-2%. “ The Golden Age of Piracy, By Cindy Vallar
-
Did Echelon and Carnivore concern you just as much, I mean you didnt have to be a arab terr for those programs to spy on you.
-
The U.S. government scares me, so i'm starting to build a fallout shelter and I have premade 20 aluminum foil hats "just in case".:noid
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Did Echelon and Carnivore concern you just as much, I mean you didnt have to be a arab terr for those programs to spy on you.
I was unaware of these.
The FBI planned to use Carnivore for specific reasons. Particularly, the agency would request a court order to use Carnivore when a person was suspected of:
Terrorism
Child pornography/exploitation
Espionage
Information warfare
Fraud
Echelon - This is a secret network rumored to be under development by the National Security Agency (NSA), supposedly designed to detect and capture packets crossing international borders that contain certain keywords, such as "bomb" or "assassination."
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore4.htm
I knew/suspected that the NSA monitored communications outside of the U.S. borders. Incomming or outgoing message/voice communications are fair game IMO.
Carnivore, with a search warrant, sounds reasonable to me. However, the unwarrented or carte blanc use of it is scary.
All of this "secret" stuff is subject to abuse.
-
what scares me more is when people sacrifice national security for political gain. That tells me they care more about being in power than they do anything else.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
what scares me more is when people sacrifice national security for political gain. That tells me they care more about being in power than they do anything else.
Would you trust a Dem using this type of surveillance, unchecked and w/o warrents, when they say that they aren't using it to spy on politcal opponents? Would you trust a possible President Hillary Clinton to tell the truth abouit who and why they are spying?
I don't trust Bush doing it and I doubt if you would trust a Dem President doing it, especially a Pres. Clinton.
The checks are there for a very good reason and shouldn't be abandoned.
-
You know when the 9/11 panel gave its conclusions, the government was scolded for not doing enough.
When they do, they are scolded yet again.
So precisely what would you prefer?
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Would you trust a Dem using this type of surveillance, unchecked and w/o warrents, when they say that they aren't using it to spy on politcal opponents? Would you trust a possible President Hillary Clinton to tell the truth abouit who and why they are spying?
I don't trust Bush doing it and I doubt if you would trust a Dem President doing it, especially a Pres. Clinton.
The checks are there for a very good reason and shouldn't be abandoned.
I would trust a Dem to use it appropriately (even though they just as bad about privacy as the rest of them SEE: Credit reports)
I just wouldnt trust a dem with national security period. Instead of debating the issue and working with the administration they would rather go public with a top secret program who's legality has yet to be proven thwarting national security efforts and alerting our enemys. It seems most democrats (not all) would rather sacrifice national security for the sake of political gain. I see a greater threat from terrorists here and abroad then my civil rights being violated.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
You know when the 9/11 panel gave its conclusions, the government was scolded for not doing enough.
When they do, they are scolded yet again.
So precisely what would you prefer?
good point.
-
Flatbar and gun, you guys are generalizing everyone. There are people on both sides of the fence I wouldn't trust with a pointed stick. Then again, there are people on both sides I would trust.
While I don't like it, I would only prefer it to be used in times of great crisis (I.E. War on Terrorism). I don't trust anyone to do it, but I know it will be done and I will not freak out about it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Flatbar and gun, you guys are generalizing everyone. There are people on both sides of the fence I wouldn't trust with a pointed stick. Then again, there are people on both sides I would trust.
While I don't like it, I would only prefer it to be used in times of great crisis (I.E. War on Terrorism). I don't trust anyone to do it, but I know it will be done and I will not freak out about it.
Yes I know I'm speaking in General. I wouldn't want this program or several provisions of the patriot act to go on for ever but LePaul makes a good point that the 9/11 panel made sudgestions and then the dems scream and cry when they are enacted for political gain.
When you have somone like Howard Dean Running the party and several members saying we are going to lose and it's inevitable I have come to the conclusion that I cannot trust my country's national deffense and security to the party of defeat (again a generality but one of merit considering who's leading them) Some of you that lean left of center can flame me for my opinions all you want but they are just that, my opinions. I'm not being harsh or bashing the Dems I'm just calling it like I see it.
-
US gov is a Childs Play compare to Peoples Republic of China when it comes to controlling the masses (err Orwellian "1984" style lol)
-
"times of great crisis"
Enh?
What a buncha self-serving lip flapping BS.. nothing personal intended; just an observation on the growing complacency with that and other terminology that equates to excuses for trampling into history the legacy of privacy and protection of personal liberty that being an American once entailed.
If it's REALLY a war, where's the fleets? The air armada? The long convoys? The Million Man Army? The industrial might and social purpose of a nation challenged by an impacable evil that stalks the free people of the world?
No; hell no.. there's no social commitment. No enraged populace bent on avenging the Pearl Harbor of our times. No military/industrial commitment. No war-footing. Just BS takling points and media flap.. and our kids picked off piecemeal, without a national commitment to REALLY fight a war.
Yer all being suckered... we're paying lip service to the polity of 'war on terror' with the commitment and attention span to the process of winning it of a 12 year old in a video game room.
"stick in another quarter.. yer up to level 4!"
When we were attacked in 1941 we had dick-all for an army, a shattered navy and an air force that was pitiful. JUST THREE YEARS LATER we'd become not only the Arsenal of Democracy, but the very embodiment of a 'Super Power'.
Three years after 9/11 we got WHAT?
Duped.
That's it.. just 'Duped'.
Suckers.
-
Just a reminder,
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
This is what I fear. The President compared the need and effort of the WOT (War on Terror) with the WOD (War on Drugs). I remember when President Johnson declared the WOD. In case you havn't noticed, we have not "won" it yet.
No amount of secret spying, usurption of civil liberties, can provide invulnerable safety and security. The advantage is always with the side on the offense.
What all the secret stuff and delution of civil liberties can provide is slow death to democracy and the birth of a Orwellian tryranny.
We now have "thought police" provisions. Denounce someone as a RIP and someone will be checking their library records.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Just a reminder,
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
This is what I fear. The President compared the need and effort of the WOT (War on Terror) with the WOD (War on Drugs). I remember when President Johnson declared the WOD. In case you havn't noticed, we have not "won" it yet.
No amount of secret spying, usurption of civil liberties, can provide invulnerable safety and security. The advantage is always with the side on the offense.
What all the secret stuff and delution of civil liberties can provide is slow death to democracy and the birth of a Orwellian tryranny.
We now have "thought police" provisions. Denounce someone as a RIP and someone will be checking their library records.
Just playing devils advocate here but do you think spying should be done publicly with our means and methods known by everyone to include our enemies?
Did you know that there were several reports of arab groups buying up disposable cell phones by the dozens after Dec. 15th in many states.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1499905
I don't know who said this but civil rights and our constitution are only good when applied to a moral and just people......
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't know who said this but civil rights and our constitution are only good when applied to a moral and just people......
I dont know who said that either, but whoever it was is brain dead.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I dont know who said that either, but whoever it was is brain dead.
shamus
Please don't read too much into this I'm not saying that civil rights ONLY apply....but just FYI you are calling John Adams brain dead, and just to be fair I misquoted him.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just playing devils advocate here but do you think spying should be done publicly with our means and methods known by everyone to include our enemies?
Did you know that there were several reports of arab groups buying up disposable cell phones by the dozens after Dec. 15th in many states.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1499905
I don't know who said this but civil rights and our constitution are only good when applied to a moral and just people......
I don't think our methods should be public and known to the enemy. I just don't want them usurping our, the sovereign citizens of this nation, liberties. I think whomever revealed the questionalbe activites may be acting out of a true sense of patriotism. I also think they probably broke a few laws.
I searched for information on your unattribited quote and found nothing. I could, however, see it being placed in a context of some radical speech that may be saying "Only we are the moral and just, they are not so we have a right to suppress them..."
Nice job of advocating :)
-
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.
Well this is better, more philosophical. I can see his point. I have not read much of Adams' stuff. I will have to check it out.
-
WASHINGTON - January 13 - The Baltimore Sun reports today: "The National Security Agency used law enforcement agencies, including the Baltimore Police Department, to track members of a city anti-war group as they prepared for protests outside the sprawling Fort Meade facility, internal NSA documents show.
Mark Goldstone, chair of the D.C. Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild Demonstration Support Committee, said: "This surveillance is completely unrelated to even an expansive definition of 'national security.' People should not be afraid to speak out, and unfortunately evidence of domestic spying tends to chill people's interest in speaking out -- thus chilling and limiting our precious First Amendment rights."
So if you don't share the zeal and love for war or just happen to disagree with the 'goverment' your a security threat? Sounds like a secuirty threat to thier power, not our country. Just like Nixon.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0113-10.htm
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168709
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.
Well this is better, more philosophical. I can see his point. I have not read much of Adams' stuff. I will have to check it out.
Actually I hadn't either, some of the things he says are contradictory but good.
As in:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”
and
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”
and this
“There is no such thing as human wisdom; all is the providence of God”
But here are some of my favorites:
“Fear is the foundation of most governments.”
“If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind, whom should we serve?”
“The happiness of society is the end of government.”
“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”
-
I will have to verify this Blukitty. If this is factual, then you have illustrated my point on contention brilliantly.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
So if you don't share the zeal and love for war or just happen to disagree with the 'goverment' your a security threat? Sounds like a secuirty threat to thier power, not our country. Just like Nixon.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0113-10.htm
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168709
Sounds like there's more to it than what's quoted. Might be the fact that many anti-war protests are organized by those who would be "enemy's of the state" (not becaues they are anit-war but advocate the downfall of the US) in any other country just like in Nixon's time.
-
Good one Gunslinger.
-
I thought you were allowed to oppose the state in the US..... guess you think that is a secuirty threat to the adminstrations power..... They have a LONG history of non-violence
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-09.htm
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
I though you were allowed to oppose the state in the US..... guess you think that is a secuirty threat to the adminstrations power..... They have a LONG history of non-violence
You have the right to peacably assemble, no one is denying them this. Even nazis can protest in Ohio. That doesn't mean the govt isn't going to keep tabs on them.
Organized crime members have meetings all the time, that doesnt mean the FBI isn't watching them.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
allowed to oppose the state in the US.....
In theory yes. In practice only if you stop short of sedition or revolution.
The second amendment was, in part and implied, written to ensure the citizens could be armed and able to revolt.
-
so then on the flip side ... phone records, like the ones pretaining to the Valirie Plame incident aren't subject to scruitiny? Seems lik they are all about privacy rights when it suits thier agenda.
Seems like they want it both ways.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.html
Why can Bush Ignore the FISA court, which was created in response to Nixon abuses- the rehtoric claiming these rights under Bush is much the same as Nixon used.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
so then on the flip side ... phone records, like the ones pretaining to the Valirie Plame incident aren't subject to scruitiny? Seems lik they are all about privacy rights when it suits thier agenda.
Seems like they want it both ways.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.html
Why can Bush Ignore the FISA court, which was created in response to Nixon abuses- the rehtoric claiming these rights under Bush is much the same as Nixon used.
In the same sense the Administration is arguing that FISA cannot limit his powers as commander in cheif any more than he can limit the role of the judicial FISA.
Intel gathering and Plame are apples and oranges. One is a criminal investigation (plame) the other is national security.
If phone converstions in reguards to the plame investigation where obtained without a court warrent then they would be inadmissable in court in the exact same way that any NSA phone taps would be inadmissable because they weren't warrented through FISA. But there's several other stipulations under FISA that some of the info obtained for national security could be admissable in a criminal hearing if it was gathered entirley out side CONUS and so on.
I'd be the first to disagree with the program if proof was shown that these wiretaps where being used in a criminal prosecution.
-
TANSTAAFL
"there aint no such thing as a free lunch."
And that, gents is a truth worth remembering. Go ahead, placidly hand the governement your rights and liberties in the cause of security.
What we'll get is a government that's more secure, while your private and personal security is history.
Does ANYBODY truly believe that they are personaly 'safer' now than they were on Sept 10th 2001?
What price is this 'security'? Just WHO do you think the governemnt is 'protecting'.. us?
Fools.. poor duped fools we are. Each and every one of us.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
[BThree years after 9/11 we got WHAT?[/B]
not another terror attack on US soil?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'd be the first to disagree with the program if proof was shown that these wiretaps where being used in a criminal prosecution.
Well when you have a place like Guantanamo Bay .. it certainly looks like Bush is bypassesing the judical branch.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
not another terror attack on US soil?
Wow.
That's deep.
I feel sooooo much safer now.
Thanks for pointing that out.
-
So if you don't share the zeal and love for war or just happen to disagree with the 'goverment' your a security threat? Sounds like a secuirty threat to thier power, not our country. Just like Nixon.
I have an NSA document that says Girls have Cooties. And because of this, can't be trusted.
Of course I won't ever show you this NSA document, I'll just make you assume I have it.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Echelon - This is a secret network rumored to be under development by the National Security Agency (NSA), supposedly designed to detect and capture packets crossing international borders that contain certain keywords, such as "bomb" or "assassination."
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore4.htm
Actually echelon is quite old. There are two echelon sites in NZ, probably the worst keep secrets in the US spy system. The monitor analog RF traffic, afaik theres never been an upgrade to monitor digital tech. They're in NZ due to some geographic thing with RF signals from China (I think) bouncing back down into our location.
-
We've already slipped very far down the slope... to have the Executive just ignore and bypass the rule of law without consequence in the name of 'security' is very telling indeed as to what kind of government we have.. and what kind of citizens we've become... no scratch that...
...what kind of 'subjects' we've become.
To allow this president (or any other) to do this we have indeed forfeit the right to the honorific term of 'citizens'. We're just 'subjects'.
Safe happy subjects, secure in our knowledge that the government will not use these 'extreme measures' in any way that could be used by contracting corporations or even other government agencies like the IRS against our fellow americans. Oh, no, no no.. these measures are reasonable and correct for the times and are only used to identify and detain our enemies abroad.. it is after all a very unsafe world.
...and, once the 'terrorist war' (aka Forever War) is concluded, the government will of course, cease spying on us and restore our rights to privacy.
Chumps. Have we become a freakin nation of cowards and gullible chumps.. so willing; as Franklin put it "to sacrafice liberty for security"?
-
My mom got picked for inspection at the airport recently. I asked the guy what this was for and how people are chosen, he said it can be completly random, but can also have something to do with names. Anyone here work in airport security or anything related who has some more clear info for me?
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Well when you have a place like Guantanamo Bay .. it certainly looks like Bush is bypassesing the judical branch.
Wrong, US Vrs Hamdi
Persons picked up as enemy combatents are held perfectly legal by the military.
That went to the SC and the SC ruled on it so I hardly think he's bypassing anything.
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
My mom got picked for inspection at the airport recently. I asked the guy what this was for and how people are chosen, he said it can be completly random, but can also have something to do with names. Anyone here work in airport security or anything related who has some more clear info for me?
Is your mom a milf?
-
Prior to 911 we had a executive department that was resposible for defense of the nation. The Department of Defense and the FBI.
Now we have a Department of Homeland Security. Does that send any chills down anyones necks. "Homeland", "Fatherland", "Motherland", where have we heard these terms before? USSR, NAZI Germany, Faciast Italy...? Get my point?
I have heard a rumor (probably in a friendly spam) that an internal passport is being worked on. Supposed to be used for interstate travel. Then probably intrastate travel. Then county. Next would be city/town. Then land sections. Perhaps down to quarter sections or acres.
I didn't try to confirm the spam rumor. I just didn't want to know!
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
My mom got picked for inspection at the airport recently. I asked the guy what this was for and how people are chosen, he said it can be completly random, but can also have something to do with names. Anyone here work in airport security or anything related who has some more clear info for me?
Some names stand out. I was picked randomly twice in the last few times I've flown. I was told certain tickets and boarding passes are marked for the small interview and more extensive search. One way tickets and tickets purchased only a few days before departure are more prone to selection. The last flight I took was one way and on standby, so it was almost a certainty I'd get the cavity search. I lubed before I left for the aiport. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Actually I hadn't either, some of the things he says are contradictory but good.
As in:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”
and
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”
and this
“There is no such thing as human wisdom; all is the providence of God”
I'm sorry to take you back to this point, but there is absolutely nothing contradictory here at all.
There absolutely can be no religion and yet a belief in God. There is also a God without the Christian religion. It may seem awkward, but I absolutely do believe in God but I subscribe to no religion. Faith is something you have in yourself and that you know.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
We've already slipped very far down the slope... to have the Executive just ignore and bypass the rule of law without consequence in the name of 'security' is very telling indeed as to what kind of government we have.. and what kind of citizens we've become... no scratch that...
...what kind of 'subjects' we've become.
To allow this president (or any other) to do this we have indeed forfeit the right to the honorific term of 'citizens'. We're just 'subjects'.
Safe happy subjects, secure in our knowledge that the government will not use these 'extreme measures' in any way that could be used by contracting corporations or even other government agencies like the IRS against our fellow americans. Oh, no, no no.. these measures are reasonable and correct for the times and are only used to identify and detain our enemies abroad.. it is after all a very unsafe world.
...and, once the 'terrorist war' (aka Forever War) is concluded, the government will of course, cease spying on us and restore our rights to privacy.
Chumps. Have we become a freakin nation of cowards and gullible chumps.. so willing; as Franklin put it "to sacrafice liberty for security"?
You dirty liberal democrat amerihater!
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I have heard a rumor (probably in a friendly spam) that an internal passport is being worked on. Supposed to be used for interstate travel. Then probably intrastate travel. Then county. Next would be city/town. Then land sections. Perhaps down to quarter sections or acres.
I didn't try to confirm the spam rumor. I just didn't want to know!
its just a rumor, are you on moveon.orgs mailing list, would explain it.
-
Some of you are awfully young to have lost the natural distrust of people who claim they have 'authority' over you.
"All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures."
- Julius Ceasar
Human nature hasn't changed much, even though over 2,000 years have passed since that statement. You defend your 2nd ammendment rights and rationalize away semantic twisting of your right to due process, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Your right to bear arms was a symbol to keep politicans and governments in fear of the people.
No government, or those who portend to govern, are trustworthy. You can count on every government program and organization having some corruption, abuse and devious intentions by those who relish power and control. Count on it.
And those who want to keep that power and control rely on the inverse relationship between vocal volume and wisdom to squash resistance with, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," and, "We have to do it for our security."
You're making your bed and your children are going to have to live with it. Best of luck to those of you who will be around to witness the next few generations.
-
well said Rolex.
this is exactly why they nailed that chap on a cross 2000 years ago.
if what he was trying to tell us was true, they wouldnt live the fat cat lives they could under government and control of the common man.
-
Originally posted by Pei
You dirty liberal democrat amerihater!
I shower daily, voted for bush (twice) and love Mom, apple pie, John Phillip Souza, cheerleaders and the 4th of July.
I am however, guilty; as is every other former citizen (now 'subject') of voting age still breathing of being 'asleep in the voting booth' while our elected judges, legislators and politicans successfully enacted the most signifcant erosions of the rights of Americans in history.
This sorry state of affairs happened on OUR watch, folks. It's our soiled baby, our steaming, stinking turdpile.
It's getting down to hard choices time again.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I shower daily, voted for bush (twice) and love Mom, apple pie, John Phillip Souza, cheerleaders and the 4th of July.
I am however, guilty; as is every other former citizen (now 'subject') of voting age still breathing of being 'asleep in the voting booth' while our elected judges, legislators and politicans successfully enacted the most signifcant erosions of the rights of Americans in history.
This sorry state of affairs happened on OUR watch, folks. It's our soiled baby, our steaming, stinking turdpile.
It's getting down to hard choices time again.
hang
I think you need to change your bong water...
All that resin is making you paranoid again .. LOL
-
I agree with both Hang and rolex on this one... I would rather the bad guys blow up a few blue cities than have our rights trampled.
Like hang says... it is too late for us sheep tho.... If you dont think so...
go to an airport and watch people walking around in their socks and being randomly searched...
How many years ago would you have all said that you wouldn't have put up with that kind of crap?
lazs
-
Those of you who are in favor of rewriting the constitution need to gtf out and let the men handle the 'terrorists'. Go to CUBA. They have these rules in place and they will keep you nice and safe.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Those of you who are in favor of rewriting the constitution need to gtf out and let the men handle the 'terrorists'. Go to CUBA. They have these rules in place and they will keep you nice and safe.
Like they did with the embassy and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ? How about the all the kidnappings by IJO in Beruit (to include the CIA Station Chief). How about the USAF Barracks in Saudia Arabia ? In all of the above cases we never even figured out who were responsible. We just let em get away with it, buried our collective heads in the sand, and hope they wouldn't do it again. You might want to read See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism -- by Robert Baer. Any one who thinks we're approaching this war on terror in the right manner is dead wrong.
-
Hangtime, Whitehawk, Lazs2, Rolex, and Gunslinger get it.
My whole intent of this thread was to spark some conversation and debate. Not on the specific ingredients that make up the current state of affairs, NSA, DHS, CIA, FBI, etc.
I see a trend. I also see a shadow falling upon the land.
Ever see the movie "Shadow on the Land" (SOTL) in 1968. It scared me when I saw it on TV many years after it was made. Nixon, Chicago, and all the other internal unrest was happening when it was made.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=128883
Shadow on the Land - 1968
PLOT DESCRIPTION
America is no longer the home of the free in this futuristic drama. Now the country is ruled by a powerful, tyrant and his henchmen. The story centers on two brave underground rebels who work to usurp the dictator and restore democracy to the beleaguered land. ~ Sandra Brennan, All Movie Guide
There was nothing futuristic about this movie. If one updated the movie now to current technology, weapons, and stuff I think it would make Syrania look tame.
-
Originally posted by CavPuke
Like they did with the embassy and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ? How about the all the kidnappings by IJO in Beruit (to include the CIA Station Chief). How about the USAF Barracks in Saudia Arabia ? In all of the above cases we never even figured out who were responsible. We just let em get away with it, buried our collective heads in the sand, and hope they wouldn't do it again. You might want to read See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism -- by Robert Baer. Any one who thinks we're approaching this war on terror in the right manner is dead wrong.
Lost yah. Disconnect.
I was (still am) for an 'Israeli-style' pay back for these kinds of attacks on our people or servicemen overseas. I'm at a loss however as to how this relates to the erosion of our civil rights at home.
Developing a database on americans, their contacts, relationships, business dealings, travel, personal data, purchases, etc by a government of it's citizens is invasion of privacy of the very worst sort and the death knell of a free society..
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
-
please list the "civil liberties" you have "lost" since 911 that has changed your day to day one bit...
I do think the a/p searches are a waste of time as they are conducted today, I am for a more Israeli approach to a/p security which my guess is would have some of you pop like a balloon :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Please don't read too much into this I'm not saying that civil rights ONLY apply....but just FYI you are calling John Adams brain dead, and just to be fair I misquoted him.
�Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.�
Yes I would call John Adams brain dead, he would fit right into present day America.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Yes I would call John Adams brain dead, he would fit right into present day America.
shamus
To each his own I guess. IMHO the point he's making is that unchecked liberties to a foul people will result in caos, not freedom.
With this whole subject I have to say that I realize there is a fine line that we walk here. In once stance, I don't want me or my family to end up in one of those "blue cities" laz is referring too when the next attack hits. In other, I can see hang's point about giving the govt, unchecked powers and what most govts usually do with them. A balance must be struck between liberty and security and that isn't allways easy to do, especially when America's enemys know the rules we play by and use every oppertunitiy to exploit them to their advantage.
-
guns... if losing a relative or friend or two in attacks on blue cities is the price I have to pay for smaller government then it is a horrible but worthwhile price.
What freedoms have we lost? I don't know but I know that I will never fly in a commercial aircraft again unless the absolutely is no other choice.
I used to be able to park a hundred feet from the entrance at sacramento airport and walk up to the gate to greet friends getting off the plane. When I flew I wasn't made to walk around in my socks and searched...
The fact that it doesn't bother anyone is enough to make my point about how dangerous the slow taking away of liberty is.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I am for a more Israeli approach to a/p security which my guess is would have some of you pop like a balloon :)
In other words, you don't want to fly anymore.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
please list the "civil liberties" you have "lost" since 911 that has changed your day to day one bit...
I do think the a/p searches are a waste of time as they are conducted today, I am for a more Israeli approach to a/p security which my guess is would have some of you pop like a balloon :)
Changed my day to day? I have noted nothing today. However, if our discussion here places any of us on a watch list...gets one the 3AM knock on the door...
In case you missed it: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
We cannot be short sighted and only look at today. One must look to the future. My daughter is 9. What "rights and civil liberties" will she and her children enjoy?
Assuming that a shadow is falling upon the land,
The list: All of them. If any law allows any one to say "In this matter and case, this person's rights are suspended (wink, grin) so that we may..." then your right is no longer a right. It is an allowence that may be defered.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
To each his own I guess. IMHO the point he's making is that unchecked liberties to a foul people will result in caos, not freedom.
Well you are correct, to each his own.
I have always been more of a Jeffersonian, Adams was a Hamiltonian and they were in favor of a strong central government.
shamus
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
..
Assuming that a shadow is falling upon the land,
...
you wanna see a shadow, let future terror attacks on US soil push this great nation into the status of a third world country practically overnight
what do you think would happen to this country say if/when 2 or 3 suitcase nukes go off NY, LA & Chicago? The implosion following the explosions would unravel the country in a heart beat. Oh yeah, say good bye to your real freedoms, not the ones you are imagining you are losing now..
I fear a massive depression, unemployment, bread lines, rioting, chaos more than someone putting me on a list somewhere, cameras on street corners or some tape capturing my wife jaw jackin with her mother on the telephone...
you guys mean well but have misplaced your concerns IMO
-
Evaluate the risk of social collapse following a 2 in 10 fatality rate for Bird Flu, vs the risk of social collapse following a 3 suitcase nuke strike on 3 big blue cities.
You think we're MORE at risk from a nuclear suitcase strike than we are from an influenza epidemic? And, just what is the government doing about it? Protecting itself.. or us?
You think our government is interested in protectiong ITSELF or the Citizens.. err subjects? WHAT are they doing; really? Protecting ME?
Homeland Security, my ass.
I'd rather see the government sweep up illegal ailens they KNOW are here, secure the borders and tighten immigration than spend 50 billion on illegal wiretaps of American Citizens.... err Subjects.
-
You can't stop nature. You can stop the ****wad Muslim nutjob though.
-
When the government contracts for enough vaccine to immunize itself and it's soldiers and health care workers but NOT the population, what's THAT saying about 'you can't stop nature'?
When the 'governement' trots out a 'terrorist threat' and disarms old ladies with dangerous knitting needles and STILL does not stop selling visas to Saudi immigrants whats THAT tell yah?
Just WHO do you think your government is trying to protect.. itself; or YOU?
Wake up, dammit.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I continue to hear “We are at War” and this justifies some abridgement of civil liberties. What war? Did I miss it? I have searched the Congressional records and reviewed the President’s addresses to the joint sessions of Congress. I cannot find a request for or a declaration of war.
I suggest you search for public law 107-40 then - here is a link:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
To quote:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) <> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
I particularly note the "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" language. Your elected representatives gave the President the authority to do what he's been doing on your behalf.
Given that the NSA program is directly credited with stopping 3 different terrorist plots in this country since 9/11, I'm more worried that it has been blown and will no longer be gathering intel for us. Can you seriously argue that we SHOULDN'T have tagged the cell numbers and email addresses we captured overseas for scrutiny? That it would have been OK for the NSA to listen in on a phone call from a tagged number in Pakistan to Vancouver BC, but not to Seattle, WA?
Wake up and smell what you are shovelin'
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Hey, that would be fine if the info garnered on non-involved and non related citizens.. err, 'subjects' was destroyed. It ain't. It remains in the hands of the government. And tell me, just how secure is THAT?
I've got in my hands excerpts of the files ILLEGALY obtained by the GOVERNMENT 32 years ago on my anti-war activist (at the time) wife.
How DID I get that info?
And, who else has it? Bear in mind, the info was illegaly obtained to begin with.. over 30 freakin years ago!
You want your personal details accessible by GM, GE, United Heathcare and the IRS at will?
Cause, THATs what we're letting 'em compile.. all under the guize of National Security.
WAKE THE HELL UP!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you wanna see a shadow, let future terror attacks on US soil push this great nation into the status of a third world country practically overnight
what do you think would happen to this country say if/when 2 or 3 suitcase nukes go off NY, LA & Chicago? The implosion following the explosions would unravel the country in a heart beat. Oh yeah, say good bye to your real freedoms, not the ones you are imagining you are losing now..
I fear a massive depression, unemployment, bread lines, rioting, chaos more than someone putting me on a list somewhere, cameras on street corners or some tape capturing my wife jaw jackin with her mother on the telephone...
you guys mean well but have misplaced your concerns IMO
Your IMO is respected. I would think one could multiply the Katrina results by a factor of...heck I don't know but it would be high.
We must defend the nation but, not at the cost of the nation. We cannot sacrifice our nation in order to save it.
Compare the RIPs to another bad faction, KKK. The KKK wanted to deny civil rights to a lot of people regardless of skin tone. You were with them or against them. We did not sacrifice our liberties in order to reign them in. We increased them for some and used lawful means to pursue them.
Now the RIP's could care less about our civil liberties. I do imagine they are grinning at the effect they are having on them. The RIPs want all of us DEAD.
So the 'Israeli-style' pay back is in order. Slaughter them where they live.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
I suggest you search for public law 107-40 then - here is a link:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
To quote:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) <> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
I particularly note the "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" language. Your elected representatives gave the President the authority to do what he's been doing on your behalf.
Given that the NSA program is directly credited with stopping 3 different terrorist plots in this country since 9/11, I'm more worried that it has been blown and will no longer be gathering intel for us. Can you seriously argue that we SHOULDN'T have tagged the cell numbers and email addresses we captured overseas for scrutiny? That it would have been OK for the NSA to listen in on a phone call from a tagged number in Pakistan to Vancouver BC, but not to Seattle, WA?
Wake up and smell what you are shovelin'
EagleDNY
$.02
Good find. Proves that I suck with the search engines.
I concur with your concern with the blown program. It is the nature of a successful conter-intelligence program requires it to be secret and the results/victories not be shared.
-
Speaking of lost civil liberties, I have lost an important one, and it bothers me a whole lot more than NSA listening in on phone calls -
I lost the right of free speech. Specificially, I lost the right to take out an ad in my local paper 59 days before the next election and tell the world exactly what I thought about my elected representatives. I lost the right to tell the people around me in as efficient and widespread a manner as I might choose, that I think it would be better if they voted for someone else.
I didn't lose this right as a result of 9/11, I lost it because Congress wrote a law under the guise of "reform", the President signed it, and the Supreme Court, to their everlasting shame, held 5-4 that the government's interest in making the people safe from the appearance of corruption in elections overrode my constitutional right of free speech.
So the next time you get worried about George Bush, remember that any president is gone in 4-8 years. Thanks to this so-called "reform", we can now have even more 20, 30, and 40-year careers in the Senate of the United States.
Worry about that and the effect it has on the future of your children.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060113.gif)
-
I'm admittedly liberal. However, I respect and like a lot of right wing conservatives and their ideals and count them among my friends. The current establishment is neither and respects neither.
The Bush administration has gone far past the right wing conservative label and gone right into right wing extremism. I've always felt the noblest of right wing ideals was the conservation of our constitutional rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under direct attack by our current adminstration.
To put this into perspective, if it had swung this far to the left, dope would be legal, guns would be illegal, and we'd all be driving zero emmisions vehicles. Yes I seriously belive that's how far right our government has swung.
It's really a shame that, as a whole, the US population doesn't even understand what's going on here. The US government has become an entity onto itself. The citizens are simply here to support it. It is a self perpetuating cycle. Government legislates corporate support, corporations support the government.
Anyone who thinks the government needs to spy on it's own citizens, for their own good, needs to think about that a little harder.
-
The Government has no right to be spying on American citizens, but if Mr Mohammed Jihad is calling from london then his crap needs to be under surveillence.
-
"far to the left, dope would be legal"
Off subject, but I think it should be. Kinda.
Here is my plan:
1. Declare victory in the War on Drugs (WOD).
2. Change chemical dependency from a criminal event to medical problem.
(which is how it was handled up until around the '30's)
3. Register all addicts in a data base (I know, getting a little spooky here)
4. Set a deadline for registration.
5. All registered addicts will get their drug of addiction over the counter at there favorite drug store. Paid for by the government. (wait for it, this will not increase taxes)
6. All drugs will be manufactured by legal pharmacutical companies.
7. Addiction or possesion by an unregistered person will be a capital offense.
8. Manufacture, importation, smuggleing of non-government sanctioned addictive drugs or sanctioned will be a capital offense.
9. DWI under the influence by a registered addict will be a capital offense.
10. Addicts may demand and will be allowed doseage increases to meet their addiction needs.
11. Moving sanctioned drugs to a black market will be a capital offense.
The hemp growers will be happy. The poppy growers will be happy. The coca growers will be happy. The U.S. Government will be their client.
The elimination of drug related crime will pay for the entire plan.
Just a thought. Feel free to move it to another thread.
-
Hangtime wrote:
Does ANYBODY truly believe that they are personaly 'safer' now than they were on Sept 10th 2001?
Nope. Nor do I feel any more threatened. Is this bad?
Just a question for you folks. And trust me , I'm not trolling or trying to minimize anything here , but does this REALLY have any effect on you what so ever?
I mean of ALL the things that have come since 9-11 I can't really think of 1 thing outside of airport security that effects me daily or even periodocally.
I have my morning Coffee and Cigs. I get ready for work the same. Live the same. Eat out with the wife quite often. My home doesn't feel any different. I still play golf as often as I can. My job is basically the same as it was pre 9-11.
I just see very little in MY personal life that has changed post 9-11.
The governement were robbin us blind in taxes before and are now. Gas was high and is higher. It is dipping into our civil liberties? I can still say what I want when I want. I go where I want when I want.
I do what I want when I want.
I'm just asking folks.....Does this really effect you or is it just another thing to worry about.
-
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0601.html#13
The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power
Last Thursday [15 December 2005], the "New York Times" exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity.
This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly.
In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It's a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world.
Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan.
Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader."
This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary.
More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters."
Even if Congress specifically says no.
The result is that the president's wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical "War on Terror": a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and -- most ominously -- no knowable "victory." Investigations, arrests, and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain "at war" for as long as he chooses.
This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law.
This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law.
This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.
Laws are what give us security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us from terrorism, we're all less safe as a result.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Hangtime wrote:
Nope. Nor do I feel any more threatened. Is this bad?
Just a question for you folks. And trust me , I'm not trolling or trying to minimize anything here , but does this REALLY have any effect on you what so ever?
I mean of ALL the things that have come since 9-11 I can't really think of 1 thing outside of airport security that effects me daily or even periodocally.
I have my morning Coffee and Cigs. I get ready for work the same. Live the same. Eat out with the wife quite often. My home doesn't feel any different. I still play golf as often as I can. My job is basically the same as it was pre 9-11.
I just see very little in MY personal life that has changed post 9-11.
The governement were robbin us blind in taxes before and are now. Gas was high and is higher. It is dipping into our civil liberties? I can still say what I want when I want. I go where I want when I want.
I do what I want when I want.
I'm just asking folks.....Does this really effect you or is it just another thing to worry about.
"but does this REALLY have any effect on you what so ever?"
This very moment? This very hour? This very day? Probably not. However, I am looking to the future. My 9 year old daughters future. My grandchildrens future. Refer to Adams and Franklin. It is something we should be concerned about.
One needs more than the "consumer" point of view. One needs the "citizen" point of view. The future of what has been intrusted to us by the efforts of citizens and patriots past.
-
since dope has now entered the thread...
how many of you who are worried about lost "civil liberties", twist up a lefty now and again?
I think your concern has to do with your lifestyle and its possible implications into your illegal habit(s)...as much if not more than anything else..
-
I never felt threatened when a couple of terrorists figured out how to use an airliner for a bomb and crash into some blue areas.
I do feel threatened when some government lacky tells me to take off my shoes and prepare to be searched because I want to go visit a relative by comercial flight.
on the other hand.... I do not feel threatened if my international calls are being listened to when I am speaking to foreigners.
lazs
-
Lazs is just a pothead that has something to hide. Give it up Lazs, that's obviously the only reason you won't succumb to the government's wants.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Eagler
since dope has now entered the thread...
how many of you who are worried about lost "civil liberties", twist up a lefty now and again?
I think your concern has to do with your lifestyle and its possible implications into your illegal habit(s)...as much if not more than anything else..
"twist up a lefty now and again?" Huh? I am not familiar with the slang.
Let me assure you, "illegal habit(s)" are not a concern of mine. Nor is it a motivator of my concerns about our liberties. Perhaps I should not have risen to the bait and responded to the "drug" item.
I have seen some very interesting discussion on both sides of the liberties issue.
-
wolfie... no.. I have holes in my socks and am ticklish.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wolfie... no.. I have holes in my socks and am ticklish.
lazs
not to mention ur embarrassing foot odor problem :)
-
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
"hey.. I'm not a criminal, I've got nothing to hide and don't need THOSE 'civil rights', so I could care less if they start watching 'illegaly' every thing I do."
Your choices are to stick yer head back in the sand and ignore this erosion of your constitional rights or speak out NOW, force the Executive to play by the LEGAL rules.
It's a big choice folks.. and it's up to us to choose.
-
And as a former criminal... the wire tap thing is not really a big deal to me... we allways assumed that every line was tapped.
A smart person would do that today.... no matter what the laws are or aren't.
lazs
-
LOL... my wife used to answer the phone in her college days with:
"**** HOOVER!... go ahead, this is Chris."
Still cracks me up... she grew up to be the President of an Insurance Company. She calls me a 'Bastard', I reply with "Sellout". Infuriates the hell outta her.
hehhehhehhehheee
-
Originally posted by Eagler
since dope has now entered the thread...
how many of you who are worried about lost "civil liberties", twist up a lefty now and again?
I think your concern has to do with your lifestyle and its possible implications into your illegal habit(s)...as much if not more than anything else..
Attacking the person and not the issue can make you look stupid. Try to stick to attacking the issue and not the people that are aginst your point of view.
Are you a fan of Rove?
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Attacking the person and not the issue can make you look stupid. Try to stick to attacking the issue and not the people that are aginst your point of view.
Are you a fan of Rove?
I am attacking no one ... if the shoe fits ..
.. they can't help it, it does make one paraniod :)
and as laz stated, any and all phone lines can be tapped at anytime (ie way b4 911), you'll only know about it if they want you to..
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
"hey.. I'm not a criminal, I've got nothing to hide and don't need THOSE 'civil rights', so I could care less if they start watching 'illegaly' every thing I do."
Your choices are to stick yer head back in the sand and ignore this erosion of your constitional rights or speak out NOW, force the Executive to play by the LEGAL rules.
It's a big choice folks.. and it's up to us to choose.
DITTO
-
Well, someone agrees. Lawsuits were filed today against both the Pres. and the NSA. In NY by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and in Denver by the ACLU.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/politics/main1215238.shtml
Not sure what good a court order to cease and desist will do if Bush really and truly is flouting the law to start with. I mean, I have to believe that he didnt actually think "Oh, this is illegal but I dont care, and I want to set myself up as a dictator." If I am to retain any faith in our system of govt. at all, then I have to believe Bush truly felt he was acting within his prescribed powers, and that he was doing what he was doing for the good of the country. Even if he was misled, or just plain stupid. Even then, if he is truly convinced what he is doing is in our best interests, will he stop if ordered to?
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Well, someone agrees. Lawsuits were filed today against both the Pres. and the NSA. In NY by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and in Denver by the ACLU.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/politics/main1215238.shtml
Not sure what good a court order to cease and desist will do if Bush really and truly is flouting the law to start with. I mean, I have to believe that he didnt actually think "Oh, this is illegal but I dont care, and I want to set myself up as a dictator." If I am to retain any faith in our system of govt. at all, then I have to believe Bush truly felt he was acting within his prescribed powers, and that he was doing what he was doing for the good of the country. Even if he was misled, or just plain stupid. Even then, if he is truly convinced what he is doing is in our best interests, will he stop if ordered to?
The last thing I want is to have the ACLU agree with me. I don't know if the law has been broken. There appears to be a lot of room for interpretation of what is authorized and allowed.
What has bothered me is the trend to encroach and infringe on the scope of our liberties.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
I suggest you search for public law 107-40 then - here is a link:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
Invoking the War Powers Act is not a declaration of war. The Act itself makes that distiction if you read it (specifically Section 5).
The President is allowed by FISA to conduct warrantless searches/wiretaps after declaration of war...for 15 calendar days. That's it. And the AUMF does not equal a declaration of war. Go find Congress' last declaration of war to see what one looks like...it was on December 11, 1941.
Part A of S.J. Res. 23 does not give the President authority to dismiss consitutionally guaranteed rights (see Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer) It gives authority to for the President to use all necessary military force (that is the title of the resolution) against those connected to 9/11. That is pretty limited in reality. If it were as broad as you are implying, it could have been used to justify the Iraq invasion...but it wasn't...a new resolution was created for that (H.J. Res 114).
-
BTW...the legalities of this issue were beaten to death in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167776&perpage=50&pagenumber=2
-
You might want to do a little search about "Signing Statements" issued by the president, SoA. He considers laws written by Congress to be advisory only, and he will interpret or ignore them as he sees fit.
If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you wanna see a shadow, let future terror attacks on US soil push this great nation into the status of a third world country practically overnight
what do you think would happen to this country say if/when 2 or 3 suitcase nukes go off NY, LA & Chicago? The implosion following the explosions would unravel the country in a heart beat. Oh yeah, say good bye to your real freedoms, not the ones you are imagining you are losing now...
^
Those are the squeaking noises made by little girls.
OMG! The horror!
Stop giving this kinda BS any power.
Refuse to be governed by cowards like this. Because these cowards will strip you of any liberty you happen to have left.
They are the frightened dorks in your elementry school field during recess that went running to Mrs. Hillborn over any infraction, real or imaginary.
They are the crybabys that never could take care of themselves. Couldn't dress themselves. Could never really figure out how to handle a bully.
Fools.
And they deign to rule? Ruling such that they do so by expecting everyone else to be comforted by the assuring hand of a King cloaked in a gawdamned safety blanket?
Folks....That aint America, and this should piss you off.
You are NOT a nation of gawdamned crybabys: fearing ... fearing... fearing...
That's not America, and these people don't represent you.
Don't let these crybabies dump on the Constitution and strip you of the rights afforded within, just because they happen to be scared.
For chrissakes don't let it happen.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
You know when the 9/11 panel gave its conclusions, the government was scolded for not doing enough.
When they do, they are scolded yet again.
So precisely what would you prefer?
Somewhere in the middle??? It doesn't have to be a choice of extremes, just rational thought.
-
Originally posted by Nash
^
Those are the squeaking noises made by little girls.
OMG! The horror!
Stop giving this kinda BS any power.
Refuse to be governed by cowards like this. Because these cowards will strip you of any liberty you happen to have left.
They are the frightened dorks in your elementry school field during recess that went running to Mrs. Hillborn over any infraction, real or imaginary.
They are the crybabys that never could take care of themselves. Couldn't dress themselves. Could never really figure out how to handle a bully.
Fools.
And they deign to rule? Ruling such that they do so by expecting everyone else to be comforted by the assuring hand of a King cloaked in a gawdamned safety blanket?
Folks....That aint America, and this should piss you off.
You are NOT a nation of gawdamned crybabys: fearing ... fearing... fearing...
That's not America, and these people don't represent you.
Don't let these crybabies dump on the Constitution and strip you of the rights afforded within, just because they happen to be scared.
For chrissakes don't let it happen.
why would it worry you?
Canada and Europe would benefit if we were knocked down a notch. Maybe you could catch up then...
All this over overseas phone tap & shoe searches at a/p's??
oh the humanity!!!
LOL
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
To each his own I guess. IMHO the point he's making is that unchecked liberties to a foul people will result in caos, not freedom.
With this whole subject I have to say that I realize there is a fine line that we walk here. In once stance, I don't want me or my family to end up in one of those "blue cities" laz is referring too when the next attack hits. In other, I can see hang's point about giving the govt, unchecked powers and what most govts usually do with them. A balance must be struck between liberty and security and that isn't allways easy to do, especially when America's enemys know the rules we play by and use every oppertunitiy to exploit them to their advantage.
In your last line especially, I agree. My feelings have always been, speaking in generalities, that if I change (forced or voluntarily for safety)beyond the recognition of what I am (and my nation is) and what I truly believe in, then I have lost, am lost, and the enemy has won. I will risk death of myself and family, to continue to live as an American should, fighting to defend, but never to bend or break from our liberties.
If my nation, my people and my freedoms deserve to survive then they will, by the very nature of that nation, its people and their freedoms, by NEVER changing in fear, by never refusing to pay the price of freedom, by never shunning the duties to protect and preserve the American creed that shall keep and secure us.
-
Originally posted by Sloehand
Somewhere in the middle??? It doesn't have to be a choice of extremes, just rational thought.
this is in the middle, way before the middle IMO...
wait until another attack on US soil, when you are required to be in your home by sunset, when searches take hours not minutes, when the stock market plummets below 1989 levels and America gets its overseas jobs back as our labor can then compete with India, etc ...
then your "middle" will shift
I recongize your concern but do not see it as the end of the country or my "civil liberties". I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more.
pick your battles wisely - there are some really bad ones on the horizon
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this is in the middle, way before the middle IMO...
wait until another attack on US soil, when you are required to be in your home by sunset, when searches take hours not minutes, when the stock market plummets below 1989 levels and America gets its overseas jobs back as our labor can then compete with India, etc ...
then your "middle" will shift
I recongize your concern but do not see it as the end of the country or my "civil liberties". I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more.
pick your battles wisely - there are some really bad ones on the horizon
"I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more."
Please do not classify me as an enemy of the current administration. I have shaken the Presidents hand and I am quite proud of it. My friends and family classify me as a "yellow dog Republican."
I only stirred this pot to see what the ingredients are. If we are near the abyss of tyranny, how near? Is it on the distant horizon? Perhaps closer? Are we standing on the edge, or struggling on the slippery slopes?
So far I see a fair mixture of ingredients. I don't like some of the ingredients. Such is the stew of democracy.
-
As Laz put it, a Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy insures the sheep won't be on the menu.
Any time an executive gathers up the constituionial guarantees and chuks 'em in the shredder, another batch of sheep get closer to getting on the menu.
This latest move of the president to ignore law and enable the nations security services to shift from protecting the sheep to hunting them...
bad, bad news.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
As Laz put it, a Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy insures the sheep won't be on the menu.
Any time an executive gathers up the constituionial guarantees and chuks 'em in the shredder, another batch of sheep get closer to getting on the menu.
This latest move of the president to ignore law and enable the nations security services to shift from protecting the sheep to hunting them...
bad, bad news.
Well Hang, as long as its the sheep on the left side of the herd its just fine.
shamus
-
bhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
-
Originally posted by CavPuke
Like they did with the embassy and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ? How about the all the kidnappings by IJO in Beruit (to include the CIA Station Chief). How about the USAF Barracks in Saudia Arabia ? In all of the above cases we never even figured out who were responsible. We just let em get away with it, buried our collective heads in the sand, and hope they wouldn't do it again. You might want to read See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism -- by Robert Baer. Any one who thinks we're approaching this war on terror in the right manner is dead wrong.
"and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ?" A classic case of people who had no clue. Concerned about sending a message, a signal, having a presence. They thought these concepts would prevail and win the day. They are clueless. This same ilk of clueless pukes gave us Blackhawk Down. They didn't want to send heavy armor to the theater. It would send the wrong message.
I know well of the pain and suffering these people can inflict. Now if they would only focus killing the enemy.
In memory of my step-brother.
Massman, Michael R. ....... USMC ... SGT .... 10/23/1983 .. MI .. Port Huron, MI
http://www.usembassy.gov.lb/embassy/TCIP.htm
http://www.remember.gov/TollOfTerrorism/BeirutBombings/BeirutTerroristBomings/tabid/127/Default.aspx
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/memory/index.html
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/
http://www.jerseymarines.com/Memorial.cfm?Memorial=1
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-F.html
-
After carefull review and consideration I no longer have issue with the "NSA event." I can neither deny or confirm any further knowledge of what led me to this conclusion.
The Patriot Act is still another matter IMHO.
-
I may have to change my position on this one, it has now been renamed "terrorist surveillance", that sounds much better don't you think?
shamus
-
The War on Terror is a 'Forever War'.
You wanna give up your civil rights forever?
-
Preach it brothers Hang, Rolex and Lazs.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Eagler
please list the "civil liberties" you have "lost" since 911 that has changed your day to day one bit...
This is the mantra of those who sit back while their leaders slowly but surely break the law and take away all our rights in a climate of fear.