Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on August 17, 2006, 01:52:12 PM
-
US judge rules wiretaps illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm)
Does this ruling make you feel safer?
-
Originally posted by soda72
Does this ruling make you feel safer?
My feeling of personal safety does not come from the courts.
-
another liberal judge trying to get her name in the news ...
(http://www.micourthistory.org/images/women-and-law/pictures/taylor.gif)
this (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/08/meet_anna_diggs_taylor.html) gives me hope:
But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about."
-
Originally posted by soda72
Does this ruling make you feel safer?
It makes me feel more safe about an over-powering federal government listening in on the private conversations of Americans without probable cause or a search warrant.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
another liberal judge trying to get her name in the news ...
"Now, the 73-year-old matronly judge who has spent her career shunning the spotlight is back in the media glare...
Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s, people who know her say she will follow the law -- not her politics -- in deciding the case.
"She'll rule based on what the law requires, not on what people perceive her biases to be," Southfield lawyer Harold Pope III said last week. Pope is a former president of the National Bar Association, a prominent black lawyers' group.
"She's not going to let anything stand in the way of a proper analysis of the law and the facts," Pope said.
-
Ssssssssssh don't let facts get in the way of neocon ad hominem.
-
Originally posted by soda72
US judge rules wiretaps illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm)
Does this ruling make you feel safer?
Not with the US / Mexico border in need of nuclear tampon.
I do like that somebody can put our BS power hungry rights eating Fed Govt in check... 'the people' don't do it at the polls.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
It makes me feel more safe about an over-powering federal government listening in on the private conversations of Americans without probable cause or a search warrant.
How does this make you feel safer?
What exactly would make you feel unsafe if the ferdal government listened in on your private conversation?
I'm just trying to understand how you tie the act of someone listening to one of your phone conversations to your safety.
-
i dosn't bother me , when ever i pass secrets to the enemy i talk in code.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Donzo
How does this make you feel safer?
What exactly would make you feel unsafe if the ferdal government listened in on your private conversation?
I'm just trying to understand how you tie the act of someone listening to one of your phone conversations to your safety.
I thought americans valued their freedom above all else. I also thought that "freedom" in this context meant freedom from an oppressive government. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I'm just trying to understand how you tie the act of someone listening to one of your phone conversations to your safety.
Some of us just aren't willing to trust the government blindly... (Not saying you do, but personally I like the idea of having privacy). And in my opinion... a little oversight vis a vis the FISA court just provides me with a little reassurance.
To paraphrase Charlton Heston, you can take my priviacy after you pry it out of my cold dead hand. ;)
-
And when we get attacked again, people will scream we did not do enough to protect the country.
A sad day if you ask me.
I trust our government and want them to do all they can to protect citizens.
-
The 'listening' will go on, regardless of how the court's decide... trust me.
:noid
Do you think the listening of code words is really new? It has been going on for years, only now the won't be able to use whatever they hear in a courtroom, that is the only difference.
-
Hrmmm you trust a gov't that outed a CIA operative because they didn't like the fact that her husband discredited their claims that Iraq was trying to aquire yellow cake..or do you mean the same gov't that claimed Iraq had WMD's. I'd suggest maybe questioning them from time to time. Loyalty is honorable, but blind loyalty is dangerous.
-
Tapakeg...
Under standard FISA rules, the NSA/CIA could start a wiretap immediatly and had 72 hours to bring it to FISA to get the official ok. In addition to that... there is even a provision that allows the Federal Government to go up to 90 days with "good cause" before presenting to FISA why they are tapping a line, they would simply need to justify why it was necessary. Now if those tools aren't good enough, i don't know what is.
If after 3 days of listening and however months of investigating in the first place they can't get approval... or if they opt for the 90 day delay and then present and can't get it... well then maybe they shouldn't be listening.
A little oversight never hurt anybody.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Hrmmm you trust a gov't that outed a CIA operative because they didn't like the fact that her husband discredited their claims that Iraq was trying to aquire yellow cake..or do you mean the same gov't that claimed Iraq had WMD's. I'd suggest maybe questioning them from time to time. Loyalty is honorable, but blind loyalty is dangerous.
how many times do you have to be told, she had a desk job in CIA HQ, she was not a james bond.
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
I thought americans valued their freedom above all else. I also thought that "freedom" in this context meant freedom from an oppressive government. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought so too. The fact that anybody supports this policy amazes me.
Someday the government will mandate that we all live in plastic bubbles for our own protection, and then we will be perfectly safe and everything will be great.
-
Originally posted by john9001
how many times do you have to be told, she had a desk job in CIA HQ, she was not a james bond.
I don't care if she was cleaning lady, but I applaud your rationalization skills.
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
I thought americans valued their freedom above all else. I also thought that "freedom" in this context meant freedom from an oppressive government. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm still not seeing the link to ones safety.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
I'm still not seeing the link to ones safety.
It all depends on what you see as the danger. To me it's facism.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Hrmmm you trust a gov't that outed a CIA operative because they didn't like the fact that her husband discredited their claims that Iraq was trying to aquire yellow cake..or do you mean the same gov't that claimed Iraq had WMD's. I'd suggest maybe questioning them from time to time. Loyalty is honorable, but blind loyalty is dangerous.
blind loyalty is reserved only for the baby jesus.
amen.
will somebody please pass the mashed potatos?
-
If I thought the democrats would kill our big government, getting it away from interfering with our lives and taking so much of our money I'd vote for 'em. Too bad they have such a lousy record in these areas.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s, people who know her say she will follow the law -- not her politics -- in deciding the case.
You bolded the incorrect verbiage
-
Seems to me the system of government is working as it is designed to work as is evidenced in this ruling.
Let the process run its course.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Well I'm from this country and to me it's just wrong. Maybe you trust everything the government does but most people don't and that is a good thing. Let us know how that blind following goes for you!!!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Posting anonymously on an internet forum has absolutely no impact on this matter, so I fail to see how it counts as a "say".
What happens in the U.S. happens in Australia a few years later, so I am very interested in how this turns out.
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
It all depends on what you see as the danger. To me it's facism.
Totalitarian facism is the worst flavor or some would say the end result of socialism.
http://www.mises.org/story/1937
-
Originally posted by Gryffin
I thought americans valued their freedom above all else. I also thought that "freedom" in this context meant freedom from an oppressive government. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Some of us still do.
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry
the way I see it. In the last 230 years ALOT of damn good and brave men put their lives at risk.
ALOT of damn good and brave men paid the ultimate price for our freedoms and liberties.
To have them.
To keep them
To preserve them.
Many continue to this day to defend them.
All one need to do is look in our national cemetaries, And at the cemetaries around the world. In places like Normandy, Belgum, Cambridge England,Florence, Italy, North Africa. And a host of others to long to name individually. Loook at row after row after row after row of white crosses.
There lie the fathers who never got to know their sons and daughters. Never got to have a future. or enjoy the priviledge of growing old.
There lie the sons and husbands of greiving parents and widows. For some, Their only son.
Look at the veterans of today and years past. Mangled bodies and or minds forever wounded by their experiances.
ALL were willing to pay the price for our freedoms and liberties.
And I.... I would disgrace them, their memory, and their deeds by cowardly and willingly sacrificing my freedoms and liberties in the name of "Safty"just to save my own puny arse???
I dont think so.
You all want to play the coward and delude yourselves into thinking that giving up your liberties will make you safe. Go right ahead. but not I.
I would rather die with my liberties intact then live under a false sence of security. And it is a false sence of security.
Nothing NOTHING you give up is going to make you any safer then you were before.
If they want to attack us badly enough its gonna happen. And there is enough that can be done without taking away our liberties that we do not need to sacrifice any. Nor should we.
so I will paraphrase PatricK Henry
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-
We've lost many liberties since Patrick Henry ranted so eloquently. Don't be fooled by many of those crying out against this latest alleged violation. They would deny you the liberty of a choice in schools as well as to what charities you contribute. All politicians want more power and so do all governments.
-
That makes this transgression ok? Because the other bunch of morons would do it too?
-
The government isn't into voyeurism. They don't care if u cheat on your wife or whatever like that. I see it like this. Let them spy some so they can catch the terrorist. Or, tie them up with crys for civil freedom and and wait for real bad stuff to happen again like 911. The terrorist goal is to hurt our economy. Look what happened to the stock market after 911. If the terrorist cripple our economy, we wont be worried if somebody is taking our civil rights away. We will be worrying about our jobs and how to feed ourselves and our families and having a place to live. Whats more important:???? Total civil liberties to an extreme, or fighting terrorism so we can still have an America and the freedom it offers? Search me. Tap my phone, I don't care, I got nothing to hide. Just don't spy on me when I go pottie. :eek: Terrorism a nasty war. I call it world war III. As far as trusting the government goes, I don't really trust them, but they got all the big guns and all the power to get things done. Our government is the best game we got going now. I don't think a local militia can fight terrorism. Actually, we must be doing something right here, government and all, we got real cushy lives here in America for the most part. Dont think for a moment we don't
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
That makes this transgression ok? Because the other bunch of morons would do it too?
What's the alternative? Start over? Might be.
-
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
the man had a way with words, where is our patrick henry today?
-
Originally posted by john9001
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
the man had a way with words, where is our patrick henry today?
Bush has a way with words that no one will forget for a very long time. :D
-
The Pursuit of LIFE, liberty and Happiness! Note LIFE being first! There is no pursuit of liberty or happiness without the first!
Ya know it's funny how some people say that these necessary measures to battle terrorism, are taking away from our civil libertys....The United Kingdom has law that without question allows her to fight terrorism better then the United States...The UK has a little thing called, Probable suspicion, instead of probable cause...Meanings if Joe is associating with Tim, and Tim is a known extremist, that suspicion is grounds for warrant and investigation...Does this make the UK a "big brother" police state? I dont think so...I really dont think their quality of life is any different then ours... Maybe it is that the Brit's understand that evil cannot exist in the world, and are willing to bend for the best interest of their own lives, and the national security of their state....
It also really ticks me off when people accuse the NSA agent's of illegally listening into calls, or just intruding on your personal life...In my opinion it's no different then slapping a solder in the face...These NSA interceptors may not be a on the physical front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan, but there roll in the war on terrorism is as large as any other...Ya see, just like the military, for the most part you dont get people joining the NSA, or any government agency for that matter unless they want to be there...Unless they believe in the cause...And even more so then the military, you dont get to the NSA without being extremely qualified...Maybe to some of you libs, you may say I have too much faith in my government...But I believe that in a post 9/11 world, these NSA agents, are to professional, and care to much about their mission, to do anything but find anomoly's and correlation's between #'s that may be related to terrorism...Anything else is rubish...I'm sorry 68, and all you conspiracy theory loons...The Government doesnt care what you had for diner...
-
Back in the day we would have told you to "move to Russia" if you wanted a police state that badly.
-
The Pursuit of LIFE, liberty and Happiness! Note LIFE being first! There is no pursuit of liberty or happiness without the first!
yeah cav58d, what u said . Good stuff. I'm curious. What liberties does anybody think any of us day to day regular sort people will lose if the government wants to spy on a group of bad guys they think are plotting terrorism? Its just not a logical rationalization to think your phone will be tapped tomorrow or even the next day or ever. The government isn't looking to hurt American citizens or take their liberties away. its simply trying to stop terrorism. I figure if you aren't a terrorist, u probably wont have an issue with the government spys at all in anyway.
-
is working exactly the way it should?
Bush's policy was challenged in court, a decision was handed down.
That's how it is supposed to work. If the Administration feels it still has a case, it will appeal.
The Admin has appealed; this is the way it is supposed to work.
-
Thank you Clutz... I find it funny...TERRORISM...Conspirci ng to committ...drug dealing....There all illegal, yet some of us feel that if this illegal activity is done in the privacy of our homes, then its okay? :noid :rolleyes:
-
Always remember, when your head is stuck in the sand your backside is vulnerable.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Thank you Clutz... I find it funny...TERRORISM...Conspirci ng to committ...drug dealing....There all illegal, yet some of us feel that if this illegal activity is done in the privacy of our homes, then its okay? :noid :rolleyes:
i think a terrorist put extra spicy peppers into the salsa in my fridge
:noid :noid :noid :o :o :cry :cry :cry
-
Didn't think that was flaming at all.
Anyway, what I said that wasn't part of the "Flame" was that the judge apparently broke a lot of rules and ethics about picking up new cases, and the ethics on ruling on them. I think there might be a good chance she's kicked out and disbarred.
-
Originally posted by Clutz
The government isn't into voyeurism. They don't care if u cheat on your wife or whatever like that. I see it like this. Let them spy some so they can catch the terrorist. Or, tie them up with crys for civil freedom and and wait for real bad stuff to happen again like 911.
9/11
9/11 would never have happened in the first place had our government agencies simply ENFORCED the laws that were already on the books.
And they could have done so wiithout anyone giving up a single one of their liberties.
9/11 was the preventable attack ever
Over 1,000 lives lost because people didnt do their jobs.
Now your willing ot give up your liberties for what?
So they will fail to do their jobs correctly again?
And they will fail
Sure they can take your liberties. Cant stop hardly a damn person from sneaking across the boarder but they sure as hell can take your liberties.
-
Imagine that. A liberal judge who follows a strict construction of the constitution. None of this "unitary executive" and expansive presidential powers during times of national (in)security being reading into Article I. I'm sure the Federalist Society approves!!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
another liberal judge trying to get her name in the news ...
lmao i was about to say the samething. except i was going to say another liberal judge trying to take over america.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
9/11
9/11 would never have happened in the first place had our government agencies simply ENFORCED the laws that were already on the books.
And they could have done so wiithout anyone giving up a single one of their liberties.
9/11 was the preventable attack ever
Over 1,000 lives lost because people didnt do their jobs.
Now your willing ot give up your liberties for what?
So they will fail to do their jobs correctly again?
And they will fail
Sure they can take your liberties. Cant stop hardly a damn person from sneaking across the boarder but they sure as hell can take your liberties.
so like uhhhhh you tell us Mr. president how could they have prevented 9/11.
-
Question: the 'people of Middle Eastern extraction' that we keep finding buying masses of cell phones--- the obvious intent here is: use the phone...1-2 calls, throw it away. (They have bought over a THOUSAND that we KNOW about) Following current wiretap rules, I don't believe we will be able to legally eavesdrop on any terrorist cells using this method inside our country..., be they citizen of foreigner....does that bother anyone?
-
Originally posted by ujustdied
so like uhhhhh you tell us Mr. president how could they have prevented 9/11.
Dred is able to speak for himself, and quite eloquently I must say. But I took this to mean that the terrorists were all guilty of haven broken multiple laws, any one of which was grounds for their arrest, IF we ever decide to enforce laws already on the books. Enforcing existing laws would obviate the need for new laws in many instances.
-
As this ruling clearly points out, she clearly does not support the troops! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
the judge apparently broke a lot of rules and ethics about picking up new cases, and the ethics on ruling on them. I think there might be a good chance she's kicked out and disbarred.
Source?
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Dred is able to speak for himself, and quite eloquently I must say. But I took this to mean that the terrorists were all guilty of haven broken multiple laws, any one of which was grounds for their arrest, IF we ever decide to enforce laws already on the books. Enforcing existing laws would obviate the need for new laws in many instances.
Exactly
"Some of the vulnerabilities of the plotters become clear in retrospect. Moussaoui aroused suspicion for seeking fast-track training on how to pilot large jet airliners. He was arrested on August 16, 2001, for violations of immigration regulations. In late August, officials in the intelligence community realized that the terrorists spotted in Southeast Asia in January 2000 had arrived in the United States. "
"Nonetheless, there were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it. Operational failures-opportunities that were not or could not be exploited by the organizations and systems of that time-included
not watchlisting future hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar, not trailing them after they traveled to Bangkok, and not informing the FBI about one future hijacker's U.S. visa or his companion's travel to the United States;
not sharing information linking individuals in the Cole attack to Mihdhar;
not taking adequate steps in time to find Mihdhar or Hazmi in the United States;
not linking the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, described as interested in flight training for the purpose of using an airplane in a terrorist act, to the heightened indications of attack;
not discovering false statements on visa applications;
not recognizing passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
not expanding no-fly lists to include names from terrorist watchlists;
not searching airline passengers identified by the computer-based CAPPS screening system"
"Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities, and management"
"There were opportunities for intelligence and law enforcement to exploit al Qaeda's travel vulnerabilities. Considered collectively, the 9/11 hijackers
included known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted;
presented passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism;
made detectable false statements on visa applications;
made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States; and
violated immigration laws while in the United States"
Source- Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A Costly Lesson
One of most important lessons that the United States learned on 9/11 was that state and local law enforcement can be the difference between an unsuccessful terrorist plot and a devastating terrorist attack.
Five of the nineteen hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. Amazingly, four of the five had actually been stopped by local police for speeding. All four terrorists could have been arrested if the police officers had asked the right questions and realized that they were illegal aliens."
"The cases of two of the 9/11 hijackers show just how critical a role state and local police can play.
Lebanese terrorist Ziad Jarrah was at the flight controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when it crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Jarrah first entered the United States in June 2000 on a tourist visa. He immediately violated federal immigration law by taking classes at the Florida Flight Training Center in Venice, Florida—a violation because he never applied to change his immigration status from tourist to student. Jarrah was therefore detainable and removable from the United States almost from the moment he entered the country.Six months later, Jarrah committed his second immigration violation when he overstayed the period he was authorized to remain in the United States on his tourist visa"
Jarrah successfully avoided contact with state and local police for more than fourteen months. However, at 12:09 A.M. on September 9, 2001, just two days before the attack, he was clocked driving at 90 miles-per-hour in a 65-miles-per-hour zone on Highway 95 in Maryland, 12 miles south of the Delaware state line. He was traveling from Baltimore to Newark in order to rendezvous with the other members of his team.
The Maryland trooper did not know about Jarrah’s immigration violations. Had the officer asked a few questions or simply made a phone call to the federal government’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates around the clock from Williston, Vermont, he could have arrested Jarrah. Instead, the trooper issued Jarrah a $270 speeding ticket and let him go. The ticket would be found in the car’s glove compartment at Newark Airport two days later, left behind when Jarrah boarded Flight 93.
Saudi Arabian terrorist Nawaf al Hazmi was the second-in-command of the 9/11 attackers and a back-up pilot. He entered the United States on a tourist visa in January 2000 and rented an apartment, where he lived for more than a year, with fellow hijacker Khalid Almihdhar in San Diego. As with Jarrah, Hazmi’s period of authorized stay expired after six months—after July 14, 2000, Hazmi was in the United States illegally. In early 2001, Hazmi moved to Phoenix, Arizona, to join another 9/11 hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
On April 1, 2001, Hazmi was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma while traveling cross country with Hanjour. Had the officer asked Hazmi a few basic questions or asked to see Hazmi’s visa, he might have discovered that Hazmi was in violation of U.S. immigration law. Once again, the officer could have detained him but did not. The officer also had the authority to detain Hanjour, who had entered the country on a student visa but never showed up for classes.
All of the 9/11 hijackers’ encounters with local law enforcement were missed opportunities of tragic dimensions. If even one of the police officers had made an arrest, the terrorist plot might have been unraveled.
Source -The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1092.cfm)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If even one of the police officers had made an arrest, the terrorist plot might have been unraveled.
I just want to add that I think we should avoid placing the blame on "police officers", and I'm not suggesting that is what Dred was doing. The blame for our contriy's inability/unwillingness to enforce laws already on the books lies at the feet of DAs, Grand Juries, Legistlators, and Judges, not the officers themselves; unless you are talking about federal LEOs who seem to operate outside of the bill of rights with impunity on a regular basis.
ETA: I just saw a sound clip from our illustrious AG, Herr Gonzalez; he said they've already apealed the decision (duh) and received a stay on the matter. He also said they need these abilities to keep the American people safe. This is from the same AG who refuses to enforce hundreds of laws regarding immigration, the same AG's office who is allowing two Border patrol agents in Texas to serve 20 years hard time for violating the rights of an admitted illegal alien drug smuggler (admitted by the government lawyer who prosecuted said LEOs using the testimony of the smuggler who was given immunity) . He is the kind of guy (the AG) that I feel we need protection from.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I just want to add that I think we should avoid placing the blame on "police officers", and I'm not suggesting that is what Dred was doing. The blame for our contriy's inability/unwillingness to enforce laws already on the books lies at the feet of DAs, Grand Juries, Legistlators, and Judges, not the officers themselves; unless you are talking about federal LEOs who seem to operate outside of the bill of rights with impunity on a regular basis.
And Im not. It is our agiencies as a whole whom are to blame.
And I am not against wiretapping as a whole to help fight against terrorism.
What I am against is wiretapping without a Warrant
I can think of no excuse whatsoever. Why they shouldnt have to, or wouldnt be able to obtain a warrant.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
.
ETA: I just saw a sound clip from our illustrious AG, Herr Gonzalez; he said they've already apealed the decision (duh) and received a stay on the matter. He also said they need these abilities to keep the American people safe. This is from the same AG who refuses to enforce hundreds of laws regarding immigration, the same AG's office who is allowing two Border patrol agents in Texas to serve 20 years hard time for violating the rights of an admitted illegal alien drug smuggler (admitted by the government lawyer who prosecuted said LEOs using the testimony of the smuggler who was given immunity) . He is the kind of guy (the AG) that I feel we need protection from.
There may be hope though
"But Taylor's opinion was so sweeping that congressional approval of the program would not address her concerns, said Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law.
"The debate about this program has overwhelmingly been about whether Congress has to authorize it for it to be constitutional. But beyond holding that Congress does have to do so, this judge has suggested it would violate the Constitution even if Congress authorized it," Pildes said.
"Until Congress actually addresses these questions, I would expect most appellate courts to be extremely reluctant to address many of the questions this judge was willing to weigh in on."
-
I guess that bold statement didn't apply to their slaves of the time eh?
-
Yeager, Toad.
I wasn't aware that the US President trying to see how much power he could steal and how many Constitutional rights he could erode was how the US was supposed to work.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I guess that bold statement didn't apply to their slaves of the time eh?
No it didnt.
But your statement is irrelevent in the topic at hand
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeager, Toad.
I wasn't aware that the US President trying to see how much power he could steal and how many Constitutional rights he could erode was how the US was supposed to work.
From her ruling
"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution," Taylor wrote. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
I agree.
Now I voted for Bush. Given the alternative I probably would vote for him again (lessor of two evils)
But he needs to realise he is president, NOT king.
Should we grant him unchecked all the powers he seems to think he is entitled to.
We might as well have Saddam in the whitehouse and do away with the consitution and congress, and the judiciary altogether
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No it didnt.
But your statement is irrelevent in the topic at hand
sure it does, Patrick Henry was a hypocrite yet everyone quotes him like its his way or no way
it isn’t the 1700’s and his famous line was flawed when he stated it way back then
-
welll..... gawd forbid that I should be branded a neocon and ad homien guy but...
The lady is an admitted lefty liberal with democrat ties and she goes and comes up with a lefty decison against a standing republican pres... big deal... she is a lefty acting in a lefty manner.. sure... anyone can say that her political bent has nothing to do with it but that would be pretty naive now wouldn't it?
As for the decison... I agree with it. I think hiring thousands of more new government police to listen to phone calls is a terrible thing... I think giving the government even more power is a bad thing.
on the privacy issue?
I think anyone who talks on the phone and expects it to be private is pretty stupid. Most of the time you are sending it out like a radio signal for anyone to grab. It should be illegal but I don't expect it to stop.
I don't want the government to be involved in my bussines and I don't want them to have an excuse to get more powerful.
If the terrorists blow up a blue city because our government couldn't become more of a police state then it is still more than worth it.
If an airliner goes down because everyone wasn't strip searched by the state... it is still worth it.
lazs
-
Wow, I cant believe I actually agree with Laz on this, At least agreeing with the second half of his statement.
Living in a free country, we may have more risks from People them selves, then we would living in some police state, But we also get the freedoms that go with it.
-
Eagler, your distaste for the Founding Father's writings is irrelevant.You failed to explain how the issue of slavery applies to the ruling on wiretapping, which is the subject of this thread.
Originally posted by lazs2
If the terrorists blow up a blue city because our government couldn't become more of a police state then it is still more than worth it.
If an airliner goes down because everyone wasn't strip searched by the state... it is still worth it.
Those are just some of the costs of freedom, just like all the white crosses in all those cemetaries are.
-
Edbert
there are those that quote them as the way it should be today when in fact it was not even that way in their day so the entire basis of their outcry is baseless
and lazs is talking extremes once again - can't remember the last time I was strip searched at the airport nor do I think tapping overseas calls constitutes a police state
the police state will come right after the banks go belly up at the start of the next depression - then your wailing will have its teeth - not today, you are just paraniod
-
trell... that is fine but... I am simply consitent.
I think the problem that we most face in this country is that people here are allways willing to give the party of their choice police powers but fight like badgers to keep them from political parties they dislike..
The issue seldom seems to matter... it is only.... are these the good guys (my guys) or the bad guys (that other party)
What happens is of course... you give more power to the "good guys" and they use it to make a more powerful police state.... when the "bad guys" get in...
They use those police and laws against you and yours... the "bad guys" also then vote in even more police powers and the cycle continues.
It allways sounds like a good idea when it is your guys.... it never is.
There are no good taxes or no good laws that ban freedom.
No tax or ban or law should be taken lightly or in a panic or rush of anger or emotion.
Look at the gun laws... allways... here and in other countries... some nut shoots a bunch of people and bad laws taking away freedom are rushed into being on the wave of womanly emotion that ensues...
I am afraid that this whole terrorist thing is just an excuse to grow government and suck more life from us.
so trell.... when your guys are in power.... strive to not let them have any more than they allready have... strive to even roll back some of their power..
lazs
-
eagler... perhaps I am being extreme... you don't walk around in your stocking feet in the airport? People aren't strip searched and have their suitcases pawed through? You don't see people pulled asside and being searched with their hands up?
I recall a day when people were laughing and hugging and smiling in airports... today it is rare... most look like the pictures we used to see of soviet union crowds. I will avoid airports at all costs these days.
You don't see having your phones tapped as being a violation of your privacy? At what point do you?
lazs
-
yes, airports are a real pain now, I deal with it - I don't take a bus or a trian instead
If I get upset at anyone about running around in my socks at an ap, it isn't the security ppl doing their jobs or the ones directing them in an attempt to make my flight safer, it is those that caused it - you know the peace loving muslim folks
where does the concern come from with the phone taps? like you stated, if they want/need to tap ur phone they do it and you never know. the phone tapping never bothered me as I am on the phone maybe an hour total every month and I think the feds would die of boredom if they had to listen to my wife or sons babble on the thing.. I guess if I were doing something illegal it would bother me more but I lead a pretty simple/straight/boring life. I think the entire issue is just politcal fodder for one side to throw at the other.
-
eagler... about the airports.... I won't use em. I don't like the police state feel... you apparently don't care so there is nothing for us to discuss.
As for the wire tap thing... I allready explained.. the short version is that YES... I do think that expecting privacy on a radio phone is pretty silly BUT...
I do not want to give the government power to do it and the people and tax money and police and agencies and buildings and bades and judges and and and..... to do it.
You seem to feel that it is fine to grow the government and the secret police if the reason is "good enough"
I simply do not. If they want to spy on my phone calls then let em take their chances of being caught and.... let em waste some government cops days listening in to my boring phone calls.... if he gets caught then we can gleefully fire yet another alphabet soup secret policeman and.... maybe his boss.... in the meantime...
he will be wasting time listening to me and not bothering some other poor citizen.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
trell... that is fine but... I am simply consitent.
I think the problem that we most face in this country is that people here are allways willing to give the party of their choice police powers but fight like badgers to keep them from political parties they dislike..
The issue seldom seems to matter... it is only.... are these the good guys (my guys) or the bad guys (that other party)
What happens is of course... you give more power to the "good guys" and they use it to make a more powerful police state.... when the "bad guys" get in...
They use those police and laws against you and yours... the "bad guys" also then vote in even more police powers and the cycle continues.
It allways sounds like a good idea when it is your guys.... it never is.
There are no good taxes or no good laws that ban freedom.
No tax or ban or law should be taken lightly or in a panic or rush of anger or emotion.
Look at the gun laws... allways... here and in other countries... some nut shoots a bunch of people and bad laws taking away freedom are rushed into being on the wave of womanly emotion that ensues...
I am afraid that this whole terrorist thing is just an excuse to grow government and suck more life from us.
so trell.... when your guys are in power.... strive to not let them have any more than they allready have... strive to even roll back some of their power..
lazs
I was gonna post on this subject, but I can't do any better than this.
shamus
-
Lazs....is the UK a police state?
-
Before we traipse too far down the road of starry-eyed idealism it might be well to pause for a moment and remember that our so-called "fragile" system of civil rights has survived far more dangerous governmental intrusion than beefed up airport security.
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus across the entire nation during the Civil War and his administration made almost 13,000 arbitrary arrests of individuals opposed to the war or suspected of having Southern sympathies. Many were held without trial until the end of the war.
President Woodrow Wilson's administration encouraged Congress to pass the Espionage Act of 1917, which imposed sentences of up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 20 years for interfering with the operation of the draft and for disclosing information dealing with national defense. Hundreds of anti-war activists were arrested and imprisoned for being nothing more than anti-war activists.
Wilson also persuaded Congress to pass the Sedition Act of 1918 which expanded the Espionage Act. It permitted the Postmaster General to deny postal privileges to any newspaper or publication which printed articles
critical of the governmentor containing information detrimental to the war effort. Authors of newspaper articles could be imprisoned for criticism of the war effort. Even anti-war statements made in a private letter to a friend could see the author arrested and jailed.
The Espionage and Sedition Acts survived challenges in the Supreme Court...but were eventually repealed in the years after the end of World War I. Oddly enough, these measures enjoyed the support of the great majority of the nation's newspapers and publishing organizations.
In contrast, the increased airport security resulting from the Patriot Act is merely inconvenient. I've survived four intense searches of my luggage and two of my person while traveling in the Middle East...and I didn't get ticked off about any of them. Come to think of it, I don't remember anybody else getting bent out of shape about it over there either. It's only Americans who seem to be spoiled enough to complain.
If the searches were not being conducted...well, the criticism of government policy would have a great deal of merit...but not in this case. It's time for us to grow up and face reality. Our enemies are still trying to infiltrate our airports and hi-jack our airliners. That simply cannot be allowed...period.
As to the government's monitoring of phone calls between American citizens and contacts overseas...so what. If the program had not been outed by the press, most of you wouldn't even know it was going on. Hardly anyone was being arrested because of this surveillance. The same goes for the program to monitor the transfer of funds by terrorist organizations overseas. Our enemies are using both of these tools to further their murderous aims...yet some of us are more concerned by some chimerical "threat" to our "rights."
By all accounts, the government isn't actually "wire-tapping." It is monitoring the destination of calls overseas and looking for suspicious patterns. Unless you are making contact with an enemy of the U.S. the government will not even be listening to your conversation.
Requiring the government to obtain warrants to monitor the destinations of hundreds of thousands of calls a day to overseas destinations is simply unreasonable and lays unnecessary roadblocks in the path of our security agencies.
It's time to pull our lips in, stop the whining, put our paranoia back in the bottle, and develop some realistic attitudes about the government and its attempts to guarantee our security.
-
very good points.... I believe that you are making my point. We did not survive lincoln.... the issue of states rights was forever damaged.
We did not survive FDR or willson or carter or LBJ...
We are worse off. every time we lose rights we either never get them back or... get them back partialy while leaving the agencies formed in place.
As for england being a police state? Who am I to say? If I were there it most certainly would be for me since I would be arrested and imprisoned for a lot of the things I feel are my god given right to do.
england also does not have a bill of rights. That seems to work for them so far.... to an extent. the never had a second amendment so.....
england may get a lot worse. No bill of rights is ok so long as you have a whole country that is pretty much all the same and steeped in tradition but.. look at the rights being taken away at every panic? Will it get worse?
How do I know? I do know that there really is nothing to stop it tho. And... I don't want to live like that. They trust their government...
we do not. are we paranoid or are they stupid and naive? again... who knows but... Our government has been caught in enough really dirty stuff under every adminstration that it would appear that at least.... our paranoia is justified.
and shukins.... when is the war on terror or the war on drugs over? when do we get our rights restored?
lazs
-
First it's your phones, now it's just simply the way you're acting....does anyone really see this madness ending? Keep on giving the government what they want..they'll take all you have.
By ZEKE MINAYA and MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
A controversial method of screening airport passengers by observing their behavior and facial expressions will be coming to Houston, local authorities said Thursday.
Based on a federal program, local security personnel at George Bush Intercontinental and Hobby airports will be trained to look for a telltale sign in, for example, a traveler's scowl or when a passenger fidgets with luggage.
"A facial tic, the quickening of the pulse in the jugular vein, a change of complexion," are some of the kind of discrete indicators airport staff will be looking for, according to Mark Mancuso, the Houston Airport System's deputy director for public safety and technology.
But critics of the behavorial-based method of screening said it can all too easily become another form of profiling and could result in unconstitutional searches and detention of passengers.
"It will lead to more problems and not any more security," said Randall Kallinen, president of the Houston Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The screening method, pioneered in Israeli airports, is based on a federal program that may already be in place in Houston. The Transportation Security Administration, part of the Department of Homeland Security and the agency responsible for the screeners at airport security checkpoints, began experimenting with behavioral detection teams in December in about 12 airports.
Andrea McCauley, a TSA spokeswoman based in Dallas, declined to say whether either of the major airports in Houston was part of the program, called Screening Passengers by Observation Technique, or SPOT.
"We can't comment on specifics about the program," she said. "The program was developed to detect people who are a danger. We want to keep an element of unpredictably and randomness to where people may be detected."
But a federal official familiar with the program confirmed that at least one Houston airport was part of it.
In the places where it is being used, the program has resulted in 95 arrests, McCauley said.
Arrests were not for terrorism, but for drug smuggling, false immigration documents and other crimes.TSA officials point to them as proof of the program's value.
"We are able to tell the difference in someone who may be stressed simply because he doesn't like to fly, and someone who is contemplating a terrorist or criminal act," McCauley said. "It goes beyond just identifying facial clues. We are looking for involuntary physical and psychological reactions."
Signs of anxiety, fear
The screeners look for signs of anxiety, fear or deception, as revealed in facial tics and body language most people aren't trained to disguise.
McCauley said those characteristics are universal — and TSA does not focus on people of a certain race or ethnicity.
Mancuso would also not say whether the TSA's program was in place in Houston but he did confirm that members of his staff will be training in the same behavioral detection techniques.
If a passenger has attracted the attention of airport staff because of behavioral signals, security personnel engage the traveler in a casual chat, Mancuso said. The airport staffer would "ask a series of questions" about anything that would allow for further study of the person's reactions, Mancuso said. If further action is deemed necessary, a more formal interrogation follows.
"This is way too subjective and individual screener's prejudices can be used as a basis to stop anyone," said the ACLU's Kallinen.
The method potentially violates unreasonable search and seizure protections as described in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, he said.
Lawsuit in Boston
Kallinen also noted that behavorial-detections techniques as practiced by law enforcement officials in Boston led to a lawsuit after King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, was randomly picked from a crowd in Logan Airport by Massachusetts state police.
According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Downing against the Massachusetts Port Authority, behavioral profiling had been used as the basis for stopping passengers since 2002 when the port authority announced that state police troopers at Logan Airport were being trained by an outside security consultant.
According to court documents, Downing was approached by a state trooper on Oct. 16, 2003, and asked for identification while making a phone call. Downing refused to do so without first knowing why he had been singled out.
The incident escalated until Downing was surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. Downing agreed to produce his driver's license and no charges were filed.
Calls to Downing and his lawyer to find out the current status of the lawsuit were not returned.
"Throughout history, our fears have led us to diminish our civil liberties and our civil rights without gaining any safety," Kallinen said.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and shukins.... when is the war on terror or the war on drugs over? when do we get our rights restored?
Excuse me... I think I can field this question.
Never.
-
well gee sandy.... here I was feeling all warm and fuzzy thinking it was only a temporary thing and you go and...... rip my heart out.
lazs
-
Just glad I could be there for you in your moment of need. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Excuse me... I think I can field this question.
Never.
Never is a very long time ..
I'd bet you on this one but neither of us will be around to see the winner
so if your never is your life span, you are probably correct but if your never is never ever you are wrong
-
Excellent post Shuckins!
Only one part I have to take issue with...
Originally posted by Shuckins
...develop some realistic attitudes about the government and its attempts to guarantee our security.
I think this is the crux of the issue for some, it is for me. See, I do not see our government as a gurantor of my saftey. They can mandate a warning label on my screwdriver that says not to poke it into my eye, but that is no guarantee it wont happen. They can pass 20,000 firearm laws but again that does not guarantee I wont get shot by some crackhead who failed to read or ahdere to those statues.
I just don't see any guarantees of personal safety coming from the pen of a legistlator. All I see are restrictions on personal freedoms coming from those pens. Don't get me wrong, I recongnize that laws are necessary, but most of the time they get enforced after the fact, they guarantee nothing.
I do see where our government can supliment our collective safety. Take our military for example. A strong military (along with some obvious geographical advantages) has made the USA safe from military invasion since the Canadians tried it. But all the immigration laws they've passed have failed to prevent a very real invasion that has been ignored by the same folks who pass the thousands of laws.
Again, I just take issue that the government is willing much less able to guarantee any indivudual's safety. Now, guaranteeing an individuals' rights to personal freedom USED to be handled by the consitution, and I applaud this judge's ruling in that regard.
-
"I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live"
Sometimes old George actually makes sense.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/18/bush.ap/index.html
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Never is a very long time ..
I'd bet you on this one but neither of us will be around to see the winner
so if your never is your life span, you are probably correct but if your never is never ever you are wrong
Well... I'm betting it will last longer than the lifespan of my children's children.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Sometimes old George actually makes sense.
I think many who are happy with the decision, not necessarilly those posting here, are happy because it is not what Dubya wants. I am NOT one of them.
Personally I hope the NSA gets to listen in on any phone call that goes to or from overseas, as well as any phone call that goes to or from suspected terrorists. I just want them to get a warrant and not step all over the 4th amendment.
-
Echelon has been around for decades so this nothing really new. The latest NSA episode was supposedly based on developing social network patterns, which even the developers and experts of it say was a nice idea for a time and made for pretty diagrams, but none of them have any value. It's like reading tea leaves.
The terror industry is just like any new industry: create a market then fill that market need. Show up in Washington with any half-baked "anti-terror" idea and you'll likely get a contract.
The TSA itself has said that they're spending money as fast as they can (the true measure effective programs in Washington, which is going to have to be paid for by whom?), but security is no better now than it was 5 years ago.
Old-fashioned investigation of people with motive, people who acquire materials, people reported for suspicious behavior and investigators as smart, or smarter, as the people they investigate is, I think, more effective. Unless I get a contract for my new "terror anticipating ouiji board detector." That will be effective, I promise. I can advertise it on the "Terror Channel." 24 hours of global terror information, alerts, tips, terror business news and video footage of planes crashing into buildings over and over.
You can't stop determined and clever crazy people from doing something 100% of the time. Won't happen. But the odds of it happening are not higher now than 10 years ago. Meanwhile, watching the other drivers on the highway are still your best protection at saving your hide.
Nevertheless, someone has to watch the watchers and listeners because someone will always abuse authority and power.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
..........
Old-fashioned investigation of people with motive, people who acquire materials, people reported for suspicious behavior and investigators as smart, or smarter, as the people they investigate is, I think, more effective. Unless I get a contract for my new "terror anticipating ouiji board detector." That will be effective, I promise. I can advertise it on the "Terror Channel." 24 hours of global terror information, alerts, tips, terror business news and video footage of planes crashing into buildings over and over.
You can't stop determined and clever crazy people from doing something 100% of the time. Won't happen. But the odds of it happening are not higher now than 10 years ago. Meanwhile, watching the other drivers on the highway are still your best protection at saving your hide.
Nevertheless, someone has to watch the watchers and listeners because someone will always abuse authority and power.
So...as to my previous post which noone has addressed, WHAT if some VERY well-behaved Muslim youths (citizens, not citizens, whichever you prefer) are in our country, doing NOTHING outwardly suspicious (other than calling a number in Yemen once a month or so on a throw-away cell phone)....and they blow up several airplanes, maybe the Capitol building (one can hope)....are we going to blame Bush & company for not stopping them?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... I'm betting it will last longer than the lifespan of my children's children.
I should add... I don't believe that either or war on drugs or the war on terror will ever be won.
Eventually, they'll just end.
Both are futile.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?
I believe I heard it on Curtis and Cuby, two radio commentators from new york. Cuby is a liberal lawyer who brought it up. Curtis was the founder of the Guardian Angels. Very interesting combination which leads to many funny discussions. (I think it was them though, I'm not paying attention on the trip up to where I work).
Anyway, one of the things any case needs to have to proceed forth is that the plaintiff needs to have been wronged in some case. Or at least wronged in their point of view. So, say that someone had their conversations recorded without a warrant. They then sue the federal government, claiming that the wiretaps are unconstitutional, and the case proceeds from there.
The problem is that the plaintiffs in this case, were NOT wronged. They were just a group of people that *Might* have had their phones tapped without a warrant. I believe (I'd have to check) that they never brought up evidence (or proof) that they were tapped. So this means that the plaintiffs weren't even wronged in their point of view, they were suing for the sake of suing.
And since this judge took this case, it is a major break of law that she did, and thus she took the case with a judgement predertimined.
I did hear on another show that you can impeach Judges for such things. I might have heard that the president could impeach judges himself, but again with the "half paying attention" thing.
-
So...as to my previous post which noone has addressed, WHAT if some VERY well-behaved Muslim youths (citizens, not citizens, whichever you prefer) are in our country, doing NOTHING outwardly suspicious (other than calling a number in Yemen once a month or so on a throw-away cell phone)....and they blow up several airplanes, maybe the Capitol building (one can hope)....are we going to blame Bush & company for not stopping them?
So...that is the acceptable downside of this ruling? (Have seen/heard several legal types in print/tv saying the ruling is somewhat weak, likely won't stand)
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I think many who are happy with the decision, not necessarilly those posting here, are happy because it is not what Dubya wants. I am NOT one of them.
Personally I hope the NSA gets to listen in on any phone call that goes to or from overseas, as well as any phone call that goes to or from suspected terrorists. I just want them to get a warrant and not step all over the 4th amendment.
From what I understand, through the fisa court you can tap for up to 72 hours before getting the warrant. So why pass the fisa court? It was created for situations just like we are in now.
I feel like we do not have a president and congress anymore, I feel we live under a king who feels he does not have to answer to the people, and we rid ourselves of kings a long time ago.
And Yeager, that quote can be used for many things, i.e,
Judge rules that taking away citizens guns without cause is unconstitutional
"I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live"
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
From what I understand, through the fisa court you can tap for up to 72 hours before getting the warrant. So why pass the fisa court? It was created for situations just like we are in now.
I feel like we do not have a president and congress anymore, I feel we live under a king who feels he does not have to answer to the people, and we rid ourselves of kings a long time ago.
And Yeager, that quote can be used for many things, i.e,
Judge rules that taking away citizens guns without cause is unconstitutional
"I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live"
Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an “exception” to FISA’s warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA’s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA’s procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.
More worrisome still are the judge’s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments—errors that would earn our first-year law student an “F.” Here’s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.” She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is “reasonable.” Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a “domestic” program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government’s legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.
— Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?
I knew I'd heard about this:
Earlier, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw--and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action--and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed "the highly irregular" effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=110001857
(This was the famous affirmative action case at Michigan Law School....and it is safe to assume that Judge Diggs, an African-American female appointed by Carter, is PRO affirmative action)
-
"In 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits."
She's an ACLU hack from the beginning and a LIBERAL & loyal dem. Not to say she hasn't done good works in the past but show me where she has ever ruled against the ACLU..
-
have to agree with rolex on this.. it is the "war on (fill in the blank)" industry. It is a very thinly vieled plot to spend our money and grow our government with no result other than that we get more broke... the government gets bigger and we lose more freedoms.
I also agree with edbert in that I am not a Bush hater. I don't like the guy but he was and is the best choice I could have picked.... he has done some good things that were important in the extreme and his opponent would have been 100 times worse....
can you imagine getting 2 more liberal supreme court judges? Can you imaginge a country where firearms manufacturers can be sued out of existence because they are honest and make the best products in America? Can you imagine the simpering toady kerrie would have appointed to the UN? What kind of feelings would abandoning the kuait's and iraqi's have engendered?
But.... I don't want him to grow our government or take our freedoms. I don't like this judge. I don't care if my phone is tapped all that much but... the ruling is correct....
Let all these high paid army of alphabet soup lettered secret police that we have get off their fat butts and out of the office and do some real police work. Get rid of about 3/4 of em based on amount of work done for the money and roll all the domestic ones into one agency... federal marshals say..
let no policeman in the U.S. wear a black SS outfit and a mask ever again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
let no policeman in the U.S. wear a black SS outfit and a mask ever again.
lazs
again??when did our cops ever dress in SS drag??
:noid
-
Originally posted by bj229r
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=
Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?
Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).
Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. § 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under § 1806(f). § 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. § 1802(a)(4).
In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must "as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours" later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e).
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html
-
Originally posted by Eagler
again??when did our cops ever dress in SS drag??
I'm guessing he refers to folks dressed like this:
(http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/agent1.jpg)
Looking closely I wonder how this well-armed-and-equiped (at your expense) home-grown-Nazi-wanna-be can even see!
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I'm guessing he refers to folks dressed like this:
(http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/agent1.jpg)
Looking closely I wonder how this well-armed-and-equiped (at your expense) home-grown-Nazi-wanna-be can even see!
Hey, lets reduce the "at your expense" part.
This should be cheaper: :aok
(http://www.donzo.com/AH/barney_fife.jpg)
He's no nazi and I'm sure he'll do just as good or even better than the fellow above given the same situation. :rofl
-
Notice how the badge number is covered with tape? wonder why they do that?:)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Notice how the badge number is covered with tape? wonder why they do that?:)
shamus
The black band that covers many police badges is known as a mourning crepe, shows the world that the police person wearing it is in solidarity with their slain colleague.
-
Ah I knew there was a good reason:)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Notice how the badge number is covered with tape? wonder why they do that?:)
shamus
I'm sure it is for their own protection as they round up the jews and shove them into the ovens ..
wow - you guys are stretching here - comparing our swat teams to SS troops
maybe you should study the history of the nazi SS before you continue to look so foolish
-
Originally posted by cav58d
It also really ticks me off when people accuse the NSA agent's of illegally listening into calls, or just intruding on your personal life...In my opinion it's no different then slapping a solder in the face......
And in my opinion any one who allows this kind of erosion of our civil liberties is spitting on the graves of all those soldiers who died for them.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'm sure it is for their own protection as they round up the jews and shove them into the ovens ..
wow - you guys are stretching here - comparing our swat teams to SS troops
maybe you should study the history of the nazi SS before you continue to look so foolish
waco!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"In 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits."
Good!
-
Sandy, did you catch my reply?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Echelon has been around for decades so this nothing really new
From what I have read about echelon, in the past, the NSA was forbidden from using it domestically to eaves drop on Americans. A way around that little impediment was for the Brits to use echelon to keep tabs on the US and pass on anything relevant to the NSA.
It looks like the NSA may have cut out the middle man (the Brits) by plugging echelon directly into the American telcos.
-
eagler... I really don't see anything that different from black clad nazi ss troops breaking down the door in the middle of the night and dragging out the occupants and our black clad batfe or swat guys doing it except that ours wear masks and do more shooting and grenade throwing and pet killing..
even when they get the wrong house.
And why the ninja outfits? why the masks? why the covered up badges? are they afraid of retaliation from citizens? what citizens? when was the last time these storm troopers were hunted down and terrorized like they terrorize people.
I am ashamed that such federal police exist. I say that they make any situation worse.
We all got panicked into authorizing such units and now we have to live with em.
The BATF costs billions a year and what do they accomplish? They make things worse. Reagan tried to disband them but he couldn't because to do so he would have had to find them other work...
No other agency would have them.
No....I don't compare them to the SS.... The SS had the guts to show their faces... even in a country full of resistence fighters.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
"Now, the 73-year-old matronly judge who has spent her career shunning the spotlight is back in the media glare...
Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s, people who know her say she will follow the law -- not her politics -- in deciding the case.
"She'll rule based on what the law requires, not on what people perceive her biases to be," Southfield lawyer Harold Pope III said last week. Pope is a former president of the National Bar Association, a prominent black lawyers' group.
"She's not going to let anything stand in the way of a proper analysis of the law and the facts," Pope said.
Sure
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eagler... I really don't see anything that different from black clad nazi ss troops breaking down the door in the middle of the night and dragging out the occupants and our black clad batfe or swat guys doing it except that ours wear masks and do more shooting and grenade throwing and pet killing..
even when they get the wrong house.
And why the ninja outfits? why the masks? why the covered up badges? are they afraid of retaliation from citizens? what citizens? when was the last time these storm troopers were hunted down and terrorized like they terrorize people.
I am ashamed that such federal police exist. I say that they make any situation worse.
We all got panicked into authorizing such units and now we have to live with em.
The BATF costs billions a year and what do they accomplish? They make things worse. Reagan tried to disband them but he couldn't because to do so he would have had to find them other work...
No other agency would have them.
No....I don't compare them to the SS.... The SS had the guts to show their faces... even in a country full of resistence fighters.
lazs
You have really got to be kidding me...
-
are you saying that all these special police ninja squads are really needed?
Are you saying that the regular police would do such a worse job that we need the ninjas? Every single city?
How did they make things better at waco and ruby ridge? How would regular police not have been able to handle those situations?
lazs
-
Just for the record, thats not tape on the policeman's badge. The number has been blanked out digitally so no one could get his badge number from the picture. Rather like they dont let you put private phone numbers or social security numbers or credit card numbers in a public release photo.
*edit
Also, the SS never wore black uniforms. You are thinking of the Gestapo. SS uniforms are grey or olive drab (or camo).
-
Good pickup on the blanked out badge number. But I think it was to avoid embarassment, the guy's gangsta mask is covering his eyes!
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Also, the SS never wore black uniforms. You are thinking of the Gestapo. SS uniforms are grey or olive drab (or camo).
You're thinking of the Waffen-SS, the gestapo was the SS also, the police branch, and they wore all black uniforms. Just like the BATF did until it became a political thing, then they switched to dark blue.
-
So you'd go arrest the leaders of your local gang,mafia or drug lord without protecting your identity and not fear retribution on you or your family?
Some of you sound paranoid to the almost crazy level
and all this over someone listening in on oversea calls to known terror groups or its affiliates ... lol
-
who is paranoid? I am not the one dressing up in black and wearing a mask and taking 20 guys to take down one wino.
I could see it if there were roving gangs of drug lords and crime bosses taking out swat guys but... it don't happen.
No swat members have ever been hunted down and killed by "drug lords"
Hell... truth is... like most police... swat and these ninjas won't even go into bad neighborhoods as a rule.
My point is that if you let em wear masks and let em wear all black it is bount to affect their attitude....
In a VERY negative way.
lazs
-
Originally posted by cav58d
It also really ticks me off when people accuse the NSA agent's of illegally listening into calls, or just intruding on your personal life...In my opinion it's no different then slapping a solder in the face...
[/b]Silliest statement I've read in a while, congrats.
Ya see, just like the military, for the most part you dont get people joining the NSA, or any government agency for that matter unless they want to be there...Unless they believe in the cause...
[/b]That's what we're worried about!!! :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
So you'd go arrest the leaders of your local gang,mafia or drug lord without protecting your identity and not fear retribution on you or your family?
If you are afraid to do the job, then don't take the job
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
If you are afraid to do the job, then don't take the job
joke right ...? hard to tell with some of you
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
If you are afraid to do the job, then don't take the job
"The job" has nothing to do with arresting drug-lords or eliminating the mafia.
See? Drug lords and the mafia are good for business if your business is consuming vast quantities of tax dollars to carry out the "war on (insert evil du-jour here)" and building an empire of employees, submachineguns, and black SUVs. Why would you want to eliminate whatever thing you have a war on? If you did then your funding could be cut.
Now if you constantly do small raids on suburban households and burn them to the ground, or shoot teenagers in the back, and kill fido or little old ladies getting out of the shower (all documented antics of your BATF) then you can say that the errors were the fault of insufficient training and get your budget increased. On top of that the field commanders who ordered the hit, get to retire early with full pensions and get granted immunity from future prosecution. What a bargain!
Before you get me wrong, I fully support the LEOs out in the field. It is their political leadership and sponsors I object to. Much like the typical social-worker who sincerely cares about helping the poor, I object to their political leadership who gain power and wealth not by reducing the number of poor but from actually increasing the number of poor.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
"The job" has nothing to do with arresting drug-lords or eliminating the mafia.
See? Drug lords and the mafia are good for business if your business is consuming vast quantities of tax dollars to carry out the "war on (insert evil du-jour here)" and building an empire of employees, submachineguns, and black SUVs. Why would you want to eliminate whatever thing you have a war on? If you did then your funding could be cut.
Now if you constantly do small raids on suburban households and burn them to the ground, or shoot teenagers in the back, and kill fido or little old ladies getting out of the shower (all documented antics of your BATF) then you can say that the errors were the fault of insufficient training and get your budget increased. On top of that the field commanders who ordered the hit, get to retire early with full pensions and get granted immunity from future prosecution. What a bargain!
Before you get me wrong, I fully support the LEOs out in the field. It is their political leadership and sponsors I object to. Much like the typical social-worker who sincerely cares about helping the poor, I object to their political leadership who gain power and wealth not by reducing the number of poor but from actually increasing the number of poor.
What does that have to do with wearing a mask? Our state and locals do raids, they don't need masks
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What does that have to do with wearing a mask? Our state and locals do raids, they don't need masks
Don't ask me. I have no idea why federal cops don't behave rationally like local LEOs usually do.
For example the local county sheriff knocked on the door of the branch davidian "compound" and was let in a few days before the BATF pulled up, shot a caged dog, and opened fire through a closed door. The sheriff was wearing a uniform and was armed, but not with a ski-mask and an MP5.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Don't ask me. I have no idea why federal cops don't behave rationally like local LEOs usually do.
For example the local county sheriff knocked on the door of the branch davidian "compound" and was let in a few days before the BATF pulled up, shot a caged dog, and opened fire through a closed door. The sheriff was wearing a uniform and was armed, but not with a ski-mask and an MP5.
My response was to eagler, who justified the ski masks cause they are afraid of the bad guys hurting them
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who is paranoid? I am not the one dressing up in black and wearing a mask and taking 20 guys to take down one wino.
I could see it if there were roving gangs of drug lords and crime bosses taking out swat guys but... it don't happen.
No swat members have ever been hunted down and killed by "drug lords"
Hell... truth is... like most police... swat and these ninjas won't even go into bad neighborhoods as a rule.
My point is that if you let em wear masks and let em wear all black it is bount to affect their attitude....
In a VERY negative way.
lazs
Heres fascism for ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJxf6iLbsk&mode=related&search=
-
maniac... what is going on in that vid? is that U.S. soldiers raiding a party?
lazs
-
I only got the information you get from the comments of the vid. Some say US soldiers, some say National guard, some say SWAT.
They raided an outdoor rave party. With helicopters and all.
Edit : SWAT apparantly http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Dance_party_broken_up_by_police_in_Utah%2C_USA
-
they had masks on....
Were they afraid that if their identities were known that crazed rave attenders would hunt them and their families down like dogs?
Why the masks eagler? They allmost have to be police... we can't have U.S. military breaking up parties can we?
can we?
are we that far gone?
lazs
-
Americans are currently undecided whether or not to make exceptions to some of our civil liberties in order to detect and stop Islamists from attacking us. I think both sides of the argument have their points, and for now, it will be settled in the courts.
It is a slippery slope to allow the government extra powers, but on the other hand, there is no question that we are dealing with enemies that are not hampered, as we are, in having an open society, and no question that being able to tap suspect communications without warrants is an effective tool.
I predict that if the Islamists have another large success in the USA, the more people will expect the government to do anything it can to protect us. I further predict that the longer we are free from Islamist attacks in this country, the fewer citizens there will be who will be willing to give the government extraordinary powers.
To me, it is a teeter-toter affair, and the country is in an uncomfortable balancing act for the moment.
-
The solution is simple. Follow the law and get a warrant.
-
How many have died in total, from terrorist attacks on American soil?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
How many have died in total, from terrorist attacks on American soil?
I'm guessing 4,000 or so in the last few decades.
-
re: masks
You will always see secret informants and undercover officers in masks on raids. This is to conceal their identity from those on the scene so that they are not rendered ineffective, or "used up" in thier ability to make buys, or to surveil, or to infiltrate, etc later on.
Other uses for masks and sometimes helmets/faceshields by different agencies are to intimidate as well as protect.
In the Miami FTAA protest of 2003, illegal protesters who were in violation of their permit to assemble by entering an area they were not allowed in, and by lobbing tear gas at the police suddenly faced a paramilitary group of police, a field force - thousands of "soldiers" all dressed in full black body armor and gas masks, marching in unison, and banging thier batons on thier shields in rythm, chanting, "BACK...BACK...BACK...BACK.." They were so effective - magnificently trained - it was a beautiful thing to see. So ntimidation is properly used for crowd control and for raids. It can be argued that it saves lives by ending the resistance that much quicker.
.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm guessing 4,000 or so in the last few decades.
Yeah we have had one major attack from outside and one from withen, and thats enough for people to be willing to give the government even more power to "protect us".
They have not even closed the whoopee border. How is the BS patriot act(wouldnt the founding fathers love that name) going to stop some terrorist from comming in from mexico with an NBC weapon?
Laz is right Terror is a government run industry. Far more Americans die every year in trafic accidents then due to terror, even counting the American Soldiers dying in Iraq.
When is the war on Trafic accidents, 5 gallon buckets, stairs, Ice, floods hurricane and tornadoes going to come? Many of those have prollly killed more Americans then terror.
Terror does not scare me in the least, the thoughts of my rights, the rights that Americans died securing are being sold down the river over some bull**** threat scares me.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Far more Americans die every year in trafic accidents then due to terror, even counting the American Soldiers dying in Iraq.
traffic deaths do not affect the economy
heck, they don't have to kill anybody for the intended affect ... just have a couple of empty movie theaters and malls blow sky high and then have some towel head appear on Al Jazeera and mumble a couple of threatening statements and watch oil go up and the stock market go down..
absolute protection is impossible but something has to be done if nothing more than an after the fact cya from the top down
-
"...some bull**** threat..."
(http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc17.jpg)
(http://www.jerseycityonline.com/wtc/wtc_photos/impact13223.JPG)
(http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/EM/Images/wtc13.jpg)
(http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/EM/Images/wtc13.jpg)
Glad to see that you're keeping all this in the proper perspective.
(http://www.postroad.com/9-11/keefe.you.cant.get.there.gif)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeager, Toad.
I wasn't aware that the US President trying to see how much power he could steal and how many Constitutional rights he could erode was how the US was supposed to work.
You're dancing faster than the music.
The President may well have tried to stretch the power of the Executive Branch. There's no Constitutional ban against the Executive trying new things to meet new threats.
However, there IS a check and balance system.
It's working just the way it is supposed to work.
The Executive Branch was questioned on it's move in court, just the way it is supposed to work. It lost and the power reach has been curtailed.
The Executive Branch is now appealing that decision, again, just the way it is supposed to work.
I suppose we could go with tanks in the streets like a few other countries have done but I like our Founders' plan a bit better.
-
Did any of you guys see the video where federal police were going into occupied non-flooded homes in NO after Katrina and confiscating the weapons of the residents? No warrants, no due-process, no recourse, no choices. Just "a hand them over or go to jail free" card.
I'll wager I can find the video if needed. Being that I don't live in a blue metropolis I fear the federal alphabet soup guys far more than I fear the diaper-headed whackos. I fear them because they have the support of those soccer-moms and blue metropolis sheeple.
ETA: Since I knew it would be asked for sooner or later from those who say it didn't/can't/wont happen here...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=%22new+orleans%22+katrina+firearms&hl=en
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Did any of you guys see the video where federal police were going into occupied non-flooded homes in NO after Katrina and confiscating the weapons of the residents? No warrants, no due-process, no recourse, no choices. Just "a hand them over or go to jail free" card.
I heard about it. They were wrong.
-
Nice shots shuckins. How do those pictures of the tragic attack on our nation prove anything?
Did more die do to terror then died on roads in 2001?
When it is a bigger threat to me, then dying do to some ****** in a car not paying attention, I might worry about it.
I still won't want a bigger government to stop it. But maybe safety is more important then freedom to you.
I think I am keeping it in perspective, I am not crying for mommy(the government) to protect me from all evils at the cost of freedom.
-
Rule #3247
You cannot complain about deaths in Iraq but dismiss other deaths by terrorism through auto fatality comparisons.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I heard about it. They were wrong.
And they're still wrong.
Despite court orders to do so, they are not returning the firearms. The city was just rejected on an attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.
-
And when the judge rules to give them their firearms back, GW can give the generic quote:
"I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live"
-
I suspect that's something Ray "there ain't no 2nd Amendment in N.O." Nagin would say.
-
sandie does have the simple solution... get a friggin warrant.
I would have to say that the normal cop must be pretty dumb or brave or both then if he goes around bare faced for all of us to see.
He arrests the same drug dealers and thugs and crazed rave murderers as the ninjas do.
How many of the ninjas have been hunted down by crazed rave attenders and been murdered in their sleep? How many citizens have the ninjas murdered serving grenade greeting wee hour warrants?
I really think that there is little use for mask wearing secret police in the U.S. I think that federal marshalls could handle anything that came up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
I suspect that's something Ray "there ain't no 2nd Amendment in N.O." Nagin would say.
Did he actually say that ?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Question: the 'people of Middle Eastern extraction' that we keep finding buying masses of cell phones--- the obvious intent here is: use the phone...1-2 calls, throw it away. (They have bought over a THOUSAND that we KNOW about) Following current wiretap rules, I don't believe we will be able to legally eavesdrop on any terrorist cells using this method inside our country..., be they citizen of foreigner....does that bother anyone?
Those cheap-o phones are also used to remotely detonate IED's...
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Those cheap-o phones are also used to remotely detonate IED's...
Yes as well as sold to gas stations so they can make money...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Heres fascism for ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJxf6iLbsk&mode=related&search=
From those simple 4 words, you've proven that you do not know what fascism is.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Did he actually say that ?
That is not a quote, it's a misuse of quotation marks.