Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saxman on February 23, 2008, 12:22:06 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Dubya has attacked Congress for their refusal to back a bill that would give telecommunications companies immunity for assisting with the Warrantless Federal wiretapping plan. The current bill, which the President has already announced he would veto, would allow citizens to file lawsuits against telecommunications companies that comply with the wiretapping and challenging it as a violation of privacy. Bush charges the bill would empower trial lawyers.
I say: Bull****.
Warrantless wiretapping is ALREADY on the fringe of violating the Constitution, and past legal precedent ALREADY established that the President DOES NOT HAVE THIS AUTHORITY. Yet, Dubya ALREADY exceeded his Constitutional authority in ORDERING it in the first place.
This law would not empower the Bar Association as Bush charges, but would protect one of THE largest businesses in the United States. Telecommunications companies are HUGE, and current regulations enacted by the FCC offers them virtual monopolies in their regions of operation.
Should a telecommunications company comply with Federal wiretapping without a warrant they are EVERY bit as responsible for violations of civil liberties and should very RIGHTLY be held just as accountable.
Whether Democrat or Republican wins this year's election, it's time that the Executive Branch is RESTRAINED, because we're steadily on our way to a Police State.
-
Maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy.
Because thats the real problem isn't it? A-hab, the A-rab, can come into this country on a visa, or even illegally, comm all he wants on cell phones, and LawEnforcement is hindered by the stringent legal requirements that have to be met before his cell phone can be tapped.
As it stands now nobody is secretly listening in on your phone calls tho its true the NSA has been collecting data on millions of calls to try and ID patterns. And its also true that they have been listening in on phone calls made to outside the USA by persons of interest. But one end of the call has to reach outside our borders. And anyone who leaves a cell phone on leaves a record of where they were at and when. The NSA has nothing to do with that.
I myself dont want A-hab making calls to his buddies in Afghanistan or Pakistan and to do so under protection of US law. Thats the kind of stupidity that got us blowed up in the first place. By the same token, should they find A-hab, I dont much care if they dunk him under water to get him to tell us where his buddies are.
The ACLU never protected one American from a terrorist attack and they aren't about to now. Right now we need to be smart about terrorism because the terrorists have already taken a lot of our rights away.
But just to be safe, if you are a drug dealer or pulling armed robberies?? Probably best to not use the cell phone.
George Bush can go to bed at night knowing he's done his duty in protecting his country. There hasn't been one more successful attack on US soil since 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy.
I would rather risk that than live in a police state.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
I would rather risk that than live in a police state.
true dat.
-
There hasn't been one more successful attack on US soil since 9/11.
Nor had there been for 60 + years prior. And if the people hired to protect us had just done their jobs there wouldn't have been one then.
-
only people that need to fear this , are people doing baaaaad things.
a Law abiding citizen, has nothing to fear, and their rights arent
infringed on.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy.
Because thats the real problem isn't it? A-hab, the A-rab, can come into this country on a visa, or even illegally, comm all he wants on cell phones, and LawEnforcement is hindered by the stringent legal requirements that have to be met before his cell phone can be tapped.
As it stands now nobody is secretly listening in on your phone calls tho its true the NSA has been collecting data on millions of calls to try and ID patterns. And its also true that they have been listening in on phone calls made to outside the USA by persons of interest. But one end of the call has to reach outside our borders. And anyone who leaves a cell phone on leaves a record of where they were at and when. The NSA has nothing to do with that.
I myself dont want A-hab making calls to his buddies in Afghanistan or Pakistan and to do so under protection of US law. Thats the kind of stupidity that got us blowed up in the first place. By the same token, should they find A-hab, I dont much care if they dunk him under water to get him to tell us where his buddies are.
The ACLU never protected one American from a terrorist attack and they aren't about to now. Right now we need to be smart about terrorism because the terrorists have already taken a lot of our rights away.
But just to be safe, if you are a drug dealer or pulling armed robberies?? Probably best to not use the cell phone.
George Bush can go to bed at night knowing he's done his duty in protecting his country. There hasn't been one more successful attack on US soil since 9/11.
Hmm seems simple enough. Monitor call traffic. then when you find a person on interest aqquire a warrant to tap in and listen to the phone calls.
Seems fair and consitutional to me.
What I dont want is them able and allowed to tap anyones phones on a whim without a warrant under the guise its for my "protection"
If allowed. Its only a matter of time before such warrantless wire taps are allowed for more then just Terrorists and drug trafficers
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Nor had there been for 60 + years prior. And if the people hired to protect us had just done their jobs there wouldn't have been one then.
And under already existing laws at that
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
I would rather risk that than live in a police state.
Most people would say that now. I'll bet most people in those buildings felt that way before those planes hit, "tho no doubt they had a change of heart when they had to jump from the 90'th floor". Thing is for the NSA to listen one end of the call has to go overseas and they have to have reason to listen. The info they get from phone companies is just consumer information.
I spent 18 mos in a Police state ruled by a Military Junta. That's why I always laugh when I hear Americans compare this country to that.
America is not becoming a Police State. Were just trying to not be as stupid.
-
Originally posted by whels
only people that need to fear this , are people doing baaaaad things.
a Law abiding citizen, has nothing to fear, and their rights arent
infringed on.
Yanno I bet those very same words were uttered by Reinhard Heydrich,Heinrich Müller, Joseph Goebbels, Stalin,Lavrenti Beria, And Joe Mcarthy in their time too.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Most people would say that now. I'll bet most people in those buildings felt that way before those planes hit, "tho no doubt they had a change of heart when they had to jump from the 90'th floor". Thing is for the NSA to listen one end of the call has to go overseas and they have to have reason to listen. The info they get from phone companies is just consumer information.
I spent 18 mos in a Police state ruled by a Military Junta. That's why I always laugh when I hear Americans compare this country to that.
America is not becoming a Police State. Were just trying to not be as stupid.
Yea, and I know a guy who spent 20 years in one.
He would dissagree with you.
-
"Those who desire security at the expense of liberty deserve NEITHER."
Not the exact wording, but more or less. This comes from a very smart man, maybe some of you have heard of him:
Benjamin Franklin
-
So what are you saying? That you are against allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on overseas calls, by persons of interest, while under the guidance of a secret court that supervises over it, and, writes the warrants for it?
Or are you against the blanket immunity given to phone companies who turn over basic subscriber info to the NSA who then enters it into computers looking for terrorist patterns? Or do you even know what this is exactly about? Did you know about it before reading the one Google news clipping?
If your against the second then prepare for all the lawsuits against the phone companies by all the lawyers. Because that's who the ACLU is protecting. Themselves! And their cash flow.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yanno I bet those very same words were uttered by Reinhard Heydrich,Heinrich Müller, Joseph Goebbels, Stalin,Lavrenti Beria, And Joe Mcarthy in their time too.
Weren't you the one that said History was littered with Democracies that turned into Fascist states? Im still waiting for you to tell me which ones did.
And your above statement shows a total and complete ignorance of actual history. But, I guess it sounds good. Very compelling. As is your mystery friend.
Its funny but most people here distrust Government cause its trying to take their guns away. But the ones backing this terrorism bill are also the ones mostly blocking anti-gun legislation.
BTW Congress is going to end up backing this legislation. Or most of it.
-
Im against secret courts of ANY kind
Im against forcing Tele companies to turn over pohoen records on the masses as opposed ti specific individuals.
somehow I think our SS units can monitor traffic going overseas without forcing the Tele companies to give them all their info
-
"Bush charges the bill would empower trial lawyers". Is he saying Lawyers are terrorists now..
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Isn't that the same line he uses for terrorism.. "would empower the terrorists".
I'm in the middle here, while I do agree with Congress 100% on this. I have to agree laywers are terrorists and I think we should start bombing them.
:lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Its funny but most people here distrust Government cause its trying to take their guns away. But the ones backing this terrorism bill are also the ones mostly blocking anti-gun legislation.
and thats the problem with the right.
just like the left they protect parts of the consitution and at the same time erode or try to outright ignore other parts.
Why I said there is no lessor of two Evils.
They are ALL evil
And by the same token. those that are in support of the second ammendment are all for bills like this so the government can protect them
Bottom line. these things arent needed.
Had the government simply done their job using laws already in place.
there would not have been any buildings comming down on 9/11.
Let alone a "next time"
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy.
(http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/pics/1984/1984-signet1981.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Its funny but most people here distrust Government cause its trying to take their guns away. But the ones backing this terrorism bill are also the ones mostly blocking anti-gun legislation.
Yet on the flip side..
The ones whom support their gun rights from the evil commie liberals.. are the ones whom are most willing to give alway all their other rights and inch us to a police state one step at a time.
-
i have to agree with Rich46yo on this, the terriorsts use our freedoms to attack us.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i have to agree with Rich46yo on this, the terriorsts use our freedoms to attack us.
So the simple fix is to take away our freedoms then they wont attack us?
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by crockett
So the simple fix is to take away our freedoms then they wont attack us?
Duh? Here's to secret police random house searches!
:rofl
-
I am still having a hard time understanding why the government finds it so oppressive to be required to file an affidavit before a judge and obtain a warrant.
I know it can be a pain in the butt, but it is suppose to be.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
See Rule #4
Yup thats me.
Im just the "fool on the hill"
I almost forgot. Your "Superman"
Your the one thats going to "protect me" from the bad guys
:rolleyes:
I al2ways find it amusing that the security types are always for taking rights and power away from the people and are all for more and more power for themselves to protect us.
C'mon. Admit it. what you really want is absolute power to protect us from ourselves and whateverboth real and perceived boogyman you can come up with.
And if we have "secret courts"
What makes you beleive we dont have a secret police force?
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I am still having a hard time understanding why the government finds it so oppressive to be required to file an affidavit before a judge and obtain a warrant.
I know it can be a pain in the butt, but it is suppose to be.
shamus
The best part is they already have a legal system in place that would allow them to get speedy wire taps in case of an emergancy. It's just too bothersom for the Bush admin..
Everything they need is already there, they just can't be bothered to do it.
-
it's just politics, the dems trying to tie bushs hands ... the ones that don't want it are the same group crying we didn't do enough to stop 9/11
don't worry, the bro or the ho will fix it all after Nov
LOL
-
Why would anyone want protection from terrorists? That's like saying to the terrorists that we're afraid of them and that they've won. Some people haven't though this through.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Why would anyone want protection from terrorists? That's like saying to the terrorists that we're afraid of them and that they've won. Some people haven't though this through.
yes, like you
-
How so?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it's just politics, the dems trying to tie bushs hands ... the ones that don't want it are the same group crying we didn't do enough to stop 9/11
We didnt doo enough to stop 9/11
We didnt enforce law that were already in place.
there wasnt any need for any new ones.
All we had to do was actually inforce existing laws
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it's just politics, the dems trying to tie bushs hands ... the ones that don't want it are the same group crying we didn't do enough to stop 9/11
don't worry, the bro or the ho will fix it all after Nov
LOL
Nahhh cause the republicans will be doing the same thing to whatever democrat gets into office
-
Originally posted by crockett
The best part is they already have a legal system in place that would allow them to get speedy wire taps in case of an emergancy. It's just too bothersom for the Bush admin..
Everything they need is already there, they just can't be bothered to do it.
Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.
I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.
I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.
shamus
Yeah, Shamus, but it's that way for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Weren't you the one that said History was littered with Democracies that turned into Fascist states? Im still waiting for you to tell me which ones did.
Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caeser
Wiemar Republic became the Third Reich.
Just a couple that come to mind w/o any research
-
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think this pretty much covers it.
-
Lol, someone posted "maybe next time you'll be in the building the terrorists destroy".
I'm not the least bit afraid of terrorists. Some things that do slightly unnerve me are : High taxes, a foundering economy, gargantuan amounts of Mexicans running across the border, polluted oceans, over-fishing, running out of oil, being overtaken economically by China, providing kids with a substandard education, rampant obeseity, losing my rights, not having privacy, and not developing bio-fuel.
-
Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to include as an "agent of a foreign power" under FISA a person who is reasonably expected to possess, control, transmit, or receive foreign intelligence information while in the United States, provided that the official making the certification deems such information significant.
An agent of a foreign power...
if the Attorney General (AG) certifies that: (1) the surveillance is directed at the acquisition of either communications of foreign powers or an agent thereof or technical intelligence from property or premises under the control of a foreign power;
Under the control of a foreign power...
There is some wiggle room, hence the controversy. If it was cut and dried, the controversy would not exist.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caesar
funny thing about him, he only ruled 5 years and had such an impact on the history of the world.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ya I know...but they still have to be able to justify it within 3 days, and there is a perjury penalty for misrepresentations on an affidavit as well as a paper trail.
I really do understand why some feel more comfortable without it.
shamus
No.. I believe they have to justify it to "continue" the wire tap after 3 days. Under that existing provision.
The perjury part just keeps them from lying to get the warrant.. What is so bad about that? It doesn't mean if they find the guy is innocent that they face perjury for asking for the wiretap.
The only real difference is there is a record kept and they are held accountable. Bush and co don't like the being held accountable part nor the records.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
funny thing about him, he only ruled 5 years and had such an impact on the history of the world.
Pretty sure the next 300+ years were ruled by dictators....
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think this pretty much covers it.
Yup it sure does.
I mean, if we're so afraid from terrorists that we have to taken away basic rights given to us by the founding fathers...doesn't that mean the terrorists have won?
-
Funny, all this blabbering over another of Bush's smokescreen anti-terrorism tactics. Meanwhile this administration and congress (all of them) leave our southern border effectively wide open to all comers. But, who are we to question our elected officials? Who cares about the constitution? It's just a worthless piece of old scrap paper anymore when selected parts are found to be inconvenient by left or right.
-
Originally posted by crockett
No.. I believe they have to justify it to "continue" the wire tap after 3 days. Under that existing provision.
The perjury part just keeps them from lying to get the warrant.. What is so bad about that? It doesn't mean if they find the guy is innocent that they face perjury for asking for the wiretap.
The only real difference is there is a record kept and they are held accountable. Bush and co don't like the being held accountable part nor the records.
The old FISA law requires them to produce an affidavit and obtain a warrant.
I will claim ignorance tho, but I would really be surprised if they get a "free 3 days" under that law, (oops nevermind we found nothing) .
You have to keep in mind that the entire purpose for requiring a warrant is based on common law, IE: being able to face your accuser..(the affidavit), and reinforced by statutory law, the 4th.
I don't want to see a perjury charge of someone lying on a warrant affidavit based on a conviction of the target, they can perjure themselves even if the defendant is found guilty.
I think that anyone who perjures himself on an affidavit for a warrant should receive the same sentence as is possible for the target of the warrant.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Saxman
"Those who desire security at the expense of liberty deserve NEITHER."
Not the exact wording, but more or less. This comes from a very smart man, maybe some of you have heard of him:
Benjamin Franklin
Exactly not the exact wording.....in fact that's not close to what Franklin said. This is one of the most miss-quoted lines of the last decade.
The quote is
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
the workds little....and temporary make a big difference in context....
-
Franklin never said or wrote any of that. Richard Jackson wrote that in his book. However, the phrase is partly based on Franklin's proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power", which he wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738.
-
Franklin did however say this in his speech to the Constitutional Convention in 1787:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
-
Bush wants immunity for the telcoms so they won't have to testify in court as to exactly what the bushies had them do. If this bill was so all fired important for american lives, bush could have 1) agreed to an extension so Congress could find out exactly why the telcoms needed immunity or 2) signed the bill into law without the telcom immunity. By threatening to veto either one, Bush has put the telcom's interests over americans. Oh, the telcoms fear of suits ends if they acted pursuant to a lawful request by the Bushies. Oops, what are they afraid of again? By the way, when the FBI didn't pay up for the telcoms info gathering, they stopped doing it. We didn't hear how dangerous THAT was to American lives did we?
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Bush wants immunity for the telcoms so they won't have to testify in court as to exactly what the bushies had them do. If this bill was so all fired important for american lives, bush could have 1) agreed to an extension so Congress could find out exactly why the telcoms needed immunity or 2) signed the bill into law without the telcom immunity. By threatening to veto either one, Bush has put the telcom's interests over americans. Oh, the telcoms fear of suits ends if they acted pursuant to a lawful request by the Bushies. Oops, what are they afraid of again? By the way, when the FBI didn't pay up for the telcoms info gathering, they stopped doing it. We didn't hear how dangerous THAT was to American lives did we?
I'd agree with the first part of your statement but this congress has shown time and time again that they care less about national security and more with trying to impress fringe voters in frying Bush himself.
Frankly I wouldn't trust them either with national secrets.
-
I don't know why people are so willing to give up America to save America.
We celebrate the greatest generation because they were willing to die for freedom.... now we are willing to give up freedom so we don't die.
sissies.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'd agree with the first part of your statement but this congress has shown time and time again that they care less about national security and more with trying to impress fringe voters in frying Bush himself.
Frankly I wouldn't trust them either with national secrets.
Then how about leaving the final say up to what could be construed as Bush's courts?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caeser
Wiemar Republic became the Third Reich.
Just a couple that come to mind w/o any research
The Roman Republic a Democracy?? :lol Yeah right.
I already mentioned The Wiemar Republic in another thread. First off when it was established Germany had not been defeated in battle so the old Power structures were still in place. That of Monarchy, Industry, and Army, and of course later "communism". Secondly by the Allies placing such crushing economic demands of reparations on Germany the fledgling Democracy was setup for failure from the git-go.
But yeah, I guess TWR was the one example. But Rome??:rofl
And the reason those are the only two you can recall is because those are the only two that can be named. Actually theres only one. To compare the Roman Empire to modern Democracy is laughable.
However I can name dozens of Fascist and Totalitarian states that have embraced Democracy. So nice try. These themes like, "This is how Democracy fails, its to the sound of applause", might sound good and look good but it has happened close to "zero" times in the actual world. To think the worlds premier Democracy would come crashing down is so far fetched that the saying of which is right up there with the fear mongers on the side you say your against.
But do keep researching.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I don't know why people are so willing to give up America to save America.
We celebrate the greatest generation because they were willing to die for freedom.... now we are willing to give up freedom so we don't die.
sissies.
:aok :aok
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
"Historical republics, however, have never conformed to a theoretical model, and in the 20th century the term republic is freely used by dictatorships, one-party states"
"Some scholars regard the ancient confederation of Hebrew tribes that endured in Palestine from the 15th century bc until a monarchy was established about 1020 bc as an embryonic republic"
"For nearly 500 years Rome itself was a republic in which virtually all free males were eventually franchised."
"A new chapter in the history of republicanism began with the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent transformation of the Russian Empire into the USSR. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state demonstrated once more that republic and democracy are not synonymous, a fact that became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were fashioned in a similar mold as one-party “people's republics” under the tutelage of the Soviet Union."
"Of the dozens of new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have, in fact, displayed a definite trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships. "
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554383/Republic_(government).html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554383/Republic_(government).html)
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rule #5
-
If you cannot post without making some type of derogatory reference to another member of the community, I suggest you stop posting.
I am getting really very tired of warning people about this.
-
See Rule #2
-
Ok, One of the Mods I kinda get.
But the other Im scratching my head over.
How does stating that there is no single reason why blacks fought and then providing reasons why blacks might have fought during WWII consitute reason for moderation?
Oh well, so be it
My arms are too short to box with god LOL
I'll rephrase the second then
rich,
Rather the just post opinion
I came up with sources easily through using a quick and simple google search.
But I did come up with a source to back my statement
I challange you to do the same.
-
See Rule #2
-
anyone who thinks their phone calls are all private is pretty dumb. Anyone who says things on a phone that would get em imprisoned is even dumber.
lazs
-
I think that's sort of the point of why allowing warrantless wiretapping is a BAD thing, and why it's WRONG for telecommunications companies to be immune to accountability for capitulating with the government on something that is a BLATANT violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Maybe it starts as a way to monitor suspected terrorists and foreign agents, but that's just one step closer to honest citizens being arrested for speaking their beliefs. This system, if left unchecked, could EASILY evolve into a method for the government to quash dissent.
Yeah, maybe using a phone to talk about planning a bank heist or murder is one thing, but how EASY would it be for this same system to put an end to discussions like THIS, the open criticism and debate of the current administration's policies? That's EXACTLY where we're heading if our government isn't put back on its leash and not held accountable for disregard of the core liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably...The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we’re all damaged."
-
I think that warrentless wire tapping is wrong but see no reason a company that co operated with the government should be held accountable. If....
If it can be proven that the government told them it was legal.
lazs
-
Anyone who thinks the current debate in Congress is about rights is being delusional-- summation of topic at hand:
MCCONNELL:....Foreigners communicating in a foreign country — more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. Therefore, the court said if it touches a wire, consistent with the law, you have to have a warrant.
Now, a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time- consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it — improve our situation. That act has now expired.
link (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/17/video-dni-michael-mcconnell-takes-on-the-fisa-expiration)
The biggest thing going on now isn't about right and wrong, or people's privacy---it's about effing money--24 of the 29 Dem senators who voted against the FISA renewal took chitloads money from trial lawyers, who look upon suing Verizon, et al, as the latest incarnation of the tobacco settlement of the '90's. . The ONLY point of debate is about immunity from lawsuits, something far less grandiose than the rights of someone in Yemen being able to call someone in Jordan
The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime.
The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security.
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average,[/i] and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security.
its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.
The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,[/i] Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1791.cfm
-
Originally posted by Saxman
"Those who desire security at the expense of liberty deserve NEITHER."
Not the exact wording, but more or less. This comes from a very smart man, maybe some of you have heard of him:
Benjamin Franklin
I agree 1000000000%
-
The onus was on you. It was you who first made statements about "all the Democracies that turned into fascist states. It was you who called American Policeman the "SS".
And it was I who said the instances of Democracy destroying itself was so rare in history the point is moot and irrelevant. However the list of countries formerly ruled by fascist type governments, and now turning towards Democracy and human rights is growing and growing. I dont need to type all of them out because they are littered across all the continents and the point is obvious.
Anyone who thinks this bill being passed is going to destroy our Democracy just hasn't thought it out properly. There's just no reason to think this way. We have to be able to protect ourselves. I myself have been scared of all this since my Cold War days when I wore a full chem suit at my side everyday.
I have a huge rail juncture that I patrol. Man you dont even want to know whats rolling along on those trains or on the highways. The truth is I could think of dozens of ways these terrorists can murder us and hamstring Police. And If I can think it then so can they.
We have to be able to monitor their phone calls and to do so in a secret manner. We cant be going to average Judges and have to deal with all the paperwork and PC needed for domestic wire surveillance. Im sorry but the world changed on 9/11 and of all the bad options this one is the best. There is still oversight by Federal judges and still accountability. This program has been managed responsibly and we need it to continue.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok, One of the Mods I kinda get.
But the other Im scratching my head over.
How does stating that there is no single reason why blacks fought and then providing reasons why blacks might have fought during WWII consitute reason for moderation?
Oh well, so be it
My arms are too short to box with god LOL
I'll rephrase the second then
rich,
Rather the just post opinion
I came up with sources easily through using a quick and simple google search.
But I did come up with a source to back my statement
I challange you to do the same.
-
I am definitely wary of congress. They will get us killed with their idiocy.
-
Just remember the main point---the libs in Congress (both sides of aisle) aren't arguing the bill for anyone's RIGHTS---they are trying to make it possible for the telecom companies to get sued for cooperating with the gov't
-
Companies should fear doing something illegal, They should fear people suing them. If they are not afraid of the government or the people then they will do anything they want.
We see that over and over again, If you limit damages or protect companies from people , All that it leads to is the companies taking advantage of everything.
Companies would rather pay fines then follow the law. Or they will offer to settle claims against them for much lower than they should because laws have been written to protect them.
Tort reform is just a way for companies to remove anything citizens can do to them.
If they quit protecting companies from people I Believe that All the laws that the demarcates pass to “help” people would be unnessarry.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The onus was on you. It was you who first made statements about "all the Democracies that turned into fascist states. It was you who called American Policeman the "SS".
It was??
I DID??
LOL I suggest you scroll back
On point 1
Though you for some reason seem to think I did.
I never said anything of the sort. Let alone "first made those statements."
And I defy you to show where I did in any thread.
On point 2 I never called the police SS units
Since when does the police monitor phone traffic outside the USA?
I was talking of a secret police force that probably exists.
Why not?
If we have "secret courts. What makes us beleive we dont have a secret police force?
Probably part of the Dept of Homeland Security.
Course we the general public wouldnt know about that because its secret.
Kinda ruins the whole point of having something secret if everyone knows about it.
The points I did make were that such laws tend to be expended to include.
In this case it could very well at some point be expanded to include the gerneral polulace,. For any nuymber of reasons.
What I did say is that security types tend to be all for gettign more power and control for themselves. While taking away or infringing on the rights of the people.
And what I will say now is the more power given to a security force. the more they tend to be corrupted by it and abuse it.
And as the saying goes. Absolute power currupts absolutely.
There are better ways of doig it then with "secret" Courts.
Who oversee's these secret courts and secret forces besides other equally secret entities?
And isnt this the job of the CIA anyway?
Set aside a non secret court made up of publically known people to whom warrants can be petitioned for on short notice.
Have that court monitored by other judges and members of congress all the names of which should all be publically known.
I agree smoe things must be done in secrecy.
but nothing should be so secret that nobody knows who is responcable for what,when and where except for other secret people that nobody knows about.
And I am not for giving these forces all the power they want.
Bcause life experience has taught me that be it a little rinky dink security firm guarding a business or the (yes) police, Or the government.
the more they tend to want to take.
And it becomes a never ending hunger for power and control
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Im sorry but the world changed on 9/11 and of all the bad options this one is the best.
Bullchit.
As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it. The failure was in the people MANAGING that system. There was bunch of stupid mistakes made at all levels that allowed this to slip through. It happened before with Oklahoma City, but where was the big outcry then?
The Arab world hated us before 9/11. They STILL hate us.
The United States was being criticized for interventionist policies before 9/11, and are STILL being criticized.
The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now. We just weren't so psychotically paranoid about it that we're seeing WMDs everywhere we look.
The only changes in the world after 9/11 were ones that we MANUFACTURED through the bungling and mismanagement by the Bush administration. And before the entrenched holier-than-thou Conservatives start sniping away to blame the Left, remember that all this began under a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress where strict Party Line voting allowed Bush to pretty much do whatever the hell he wanted.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Bullchit.
As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it. The failure was in the people MANAGING that system. There was bunch of stupid mistakes made at all levels that allowed this to slip through. It happened before with Oklahoma City, but where was the big outcry then?
The Arab world hated us before 9/11. They STILL hate us.
The United States was being criticized for interventionist policies before 9/11, and are STILL being criticized.
The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now. We just weren't so psychotically paranoid about it that we're seeing WMDs everywhere we look.
And what has been repeatedly pointed out was that if ORIGINALLY EXISTING LAWS already in place before 9/11 had simply been enforced.
9/11 would not have happened.
Even after 9/11
We didnt need new laws. Or new oganisations. or secret courts.
All we needed to do was emphasize enforcement of the old laws already in place.
-
yup, imo the only thing that 9/11 changed was American's willingness to allow fear run their lives. What used to be the "land of the free, home of the brave" is now the "land of the frightful, home of the compliant."
-
And how does any of this affect whether or not we listen in on a phone call made between Yemen and Jordan?
-
It doesn't. However what's being listed to are calls that were placed from INSIDE the United States by legal residents. But that's just where it starts. Then they'll be tapping the communications of foreign-born naturalized citizens because, well, they were born outside the US so OBVIOUSLY if they're in communication with their country of origin there MUST be something suspicious going on.
From there, it's only a matter of time before the same is done with native-born citizens.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
It doesn't. However what's being listed to are calls that were placed from INSIDE the United States by legal residents. But that's just where it starts. Then they'll be tapping the communications of foreign-born naturalized citizens because, well, they were born outside the US so OBVIOUSLY if they're in communication with their country of origin there MUST be something suspicious going on.
From there, it's only a matter of time before the same is done with native-born citizens.
Not much to be done about that, I spose, just don't have hearings about why we 'couldn't connect the dots' the next time something happens.
(Does it bother anyone that the House doesn't share your views, merely that the telecom companies are able to be sued?)
-
me::" I'd like to order a peperoni pizza"
govt wiretap agent:: "that must be a secret code" :noid
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Maybe it starts as a way to monitor suspected terrorists and foreign agents, but that's just one step closer to honest citizens being arrested for speaking their beliefs. This system, if left unchecked, could EASILY evolve into a method for the government to quash dissent. (edit)
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably...The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we’re all damaged."
By my recollection:
Foreign and domestic electrical survellance is the domain of the NSA to include wiretapping and radio communications. Also Foreign intelligence gathering and assimulation (spying) is the domain of the CIA.
Domestic criminal investigation of Federal crimes (i.e. bombings, conspiracies, and terrorism,) is the domain of the FBI.
If these groups weren't communicating and sharing information, one of the revealed causes that lead to 9/11, additional legislation only adds to the mix.
Also, during his administration, Thomas Jefferson met with the dominate Muslim leader at the time and asked why American shipping was being attacked and American sailors were being imprisioned and sold into slavery. His response was that Allah allowed Muslims to wage war on ANY person or country that was "Infadel" whether any state of war had been declared or not.
-
Yeah I know. I was living under terror alerts when I was 18yo.
No the security wasnt sufficient. Need I explain that?
Who cares if they hate us? Or did you want us to make policy according to their wishes?
Imagine that? Totalitarian states criticizing us? Boy, time to change our policies.
I always thought the bungling started with Klinton and company. Even long before. Or did you think terrorism started when George took the oath?
Boy, after that all encompassing post Saxman I think I'll bow out of this argument. I just cant compete on the intellectual level here.
Originally posted by Saxman
Bullchit.
As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it. The failure was in the people MANAGING that system. There was bunch of stupid mistakes made at all levels that allowed this to slip through. It happened before with Oklahoma City, but where was the big outcry then?
The Arab world hated us before 9/11. They STILL hate us.
The United States was being criticized for interventionist policies before 9/11, and are STILL being criticized.
The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now. We just weren't so psychotically paranoid about it that we're seeing WMDs everywhere we look.
The only changes in the world after 9/11 were ones that we MANUFACTURED through the bungling and mismanagement by the Bush administration. And before the entrenched holier-than-thou Conservatives start sniping away to blame the Left, remember that all this began under a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress where strict Party Line voting allowed Bush to pretty much do whatever the hell he wanted.
-
What has happened to the conservatives and liberals over time?
Conservatives once believed in small government, and individual right
Liberals supported bigger government and more regulation.
-
What, and you think terrorism began under CLINTON? You bowed out of the conversation a long time ago when you started replacing supporting evidence with snide remarks.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
What, and you think terrorism began under CLINTON? You bowed out of the conversation a long time ago when you started replacing supporting evidence with snide remarks.
It's been accelerating since 1979, and pretty much nothing effective has ever been done about it, save egging Afghanistan further back into the stone age
-
That's because terrorism works and there are no really good ways to fight it. The only way to fight it is to refuse to change our lives because of it. Unfortunately this is a truth lost on most Americans.
In the grand scheme of things terrorism is a negligible risk to your lives, but the fear factor is blown far out of proportion for political reasons. More people die from eating unhealthy food, yet we don't see a "war" on fast food.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
...yet we don't see a "war" on fast food.
:noid
-
*Knocks on wood
-
once a few hundred thousand die in a very short period of time in say, London, Madrid, New York, Brisbane........due to a bio/chem/nuclear attack pulled off by a whackjob muslim gang of suiciders peoples attitudes will change and we will look back on self defeating discussions like this one with resentment and trepidation.
Big changes are coming. Its only a matter of time far as I can see it.
-
As far as you can see it.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The Roman Republic a Democracy?? :lol Yeah right.
The first use of paper ballots to conduct an election appears to have been in Rome in 139 BC.
They maybe were voting for the best new singer?
-
As far as you can see it.
====
pretty much.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it...The failure was in the people MANAGING that system...The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now.
First statement--Wrong. WTC was attacked once before. Furthermore, if you go way back, there are many instances of terrorist activity looking to impact American interests around the globe. A lack of potential terrorist activity over the 60 years previously mentioned does not constitute a situation where "existing laws" prevented terrorist activity inside the U.S. If the terrorists don't attempt action inside the U.S., that's not the same as saying they were thwarted in their previous attempts to conduct such as a result of legacy national security law.
Second statement--Wrong, this time IMO. Failure to take decisive action after the U.S. embassy was overrun in Pakistan back in the early '70's was the beginning of the emboldenment. This exacerbated the situation in Iran some years later, as the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran would not have been attempted had we demonstrated the willingness to respond violently and decisively after the Pakistani incident. Following that was our flaccid response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit. Following that was our flaccid response after the Blackhawk Down incident. Following that was our flaccid response after the string of Khobar Towers/WTC Part 1/USS Cole incidents. Our lack of decisive action after each of these incidents, which spanned 5 presidencies (by both parties) encouraged and emboldened those terrorists. The last 3 and possibly 4 incidents listed were committed by the same people. Furthermore, and someone with the specifics can either confirm or correct me here--There were pre-Patriot Act laws that precluded the CIA from supplying information to the FBI as a result of legalism regarding intelligence agencies interfering with law-enforcement functions. If the General Counsel of the CIA tells the Director that it could be construed as illegal to supply the FBI with certain types of intelligence, the Director may not do it. That's a problem with the system, pre-attack.
Last statement--Wrong. Certainly in the immediate time period before the 9/11 attack, special weapon threat was possibly equivalent (or greater) than it is now. However, going back to the 70's again, the capabilities of terrorist organizations up until the 90's was limited strictly to conventional types of attacks, and even then, merely small arms/explosives type stuff. Small bombs, hijackings, and shootings were the norm with respect to perceived and actual capability. Only after certain states saw value in adding the potential of special weapons as a terrorist capability did the special weapon threat begin to be considered credible. You could argue that this was a fairly narrow time span, starting with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, with a mature threat of special weapons evolving sometime in the mid-90's.
This is a much more interesting discussion when the political lines are omitted, as this is a very complex issue that has evolved over the course of both parties' and several presidents' tenure in the White House.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
What has happened to the conservatives and liberals over time?
Conservatives once believed in small government, and individual right
Liberals supported bigger government and more regulation.
they still do
problem is the right has moved more towards center while the left has moved out to its extreme
-
I'm afraid yeager is right.. once they vaporize some blue city the left will fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady and the right will have the power to turn every place into the same kind of place airports are now "papers please".
I don't want either party to have more power. I want smaller government. Less intrusive government. I don't care if a few cities get vaporized. It is a small price to pay to not live in a totalitarian state.. left or right wing.
lazs
-
See Rule #4
-
I think the fix is simple.... profiling. Be it racial, age, or whatever. To find the terrorists you have to look for terrorist types. No harm in asking questions of folks who fit a specific description. Police have done this for years.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm afraid yeager is right.. once they vaporize some blue city the left will fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady and the right will have the power to turn every place into the same kind of place airports are now "papers please".
I don't want either party to have more power. I want smaller government. Less intrusive government. I don't care if a few cities get vaporized. It is a small price to pay to not live in a totalitarian state.. left or right wing.
lazs
God i actually Agree with Laz.... with the second part.
But it seems to be the right that is big becoming the intrusives government in the name of fight terrorists
-
trell.. the left scares me more because it permeates more of my life on a day to day basis.. there is plenty of my behavior that they want to change.. plenty of my hobbies that they think are not good for me and they are willing to take everything I own to save me.. if I resist.. they will kill me to save me.
the right is almost as bad... look what they did to airports.. I won't even go there any more.. it depresses me.
Still... tell me what I can eat for my own good or take my guns for my own good... that is much worse than listen to my phone conversation... I never figured that a phone conversation was private in the first damn place.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yet on the flip side..
The ones whom support their gun rights from the evil commie liberals.. are the ones whom are most willing to give alway all their other rights and inch us to a police state one step at a time.
That is about the most ignorant blanket statement I have ever heard.
-
All this is extrapolated from eavesdropping on a confab between someone from Yemen and someone from Jordan---whose phone /internet traffic passes through the US---again--neither the Dems or the Gop are against afore-mentioned eavesdropping, the Dems just want the trial lawyers to be able to sue Verizon for allowing it