In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Question number one is; who keeps ratting out the NSA?
#2; Proves Democrats are more afraid of Conservatives than they are of Sheet Heads trying to kill them.
#3; This is news? What do people think the NSA does all day?
#4; The constitution gives you the right to yammer on the phone all day...go at it. Someone might listen...OK, don't plot crimes and Mr G man will leave you alone...got it.
#5; Who keeps ratting out the NSA...better find this trator quick.
I use caps for emphasis, not in place of reason. But then, you dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% so what difference does it make.
As I said previously, I oppose "fishing expeditions" looking for evidence of wrongdoing. The other point I was trying to make is that it's easy to second guess and criticize, but the president, no matter who he is or what party he represents, has tough choices to make and no matter what he chooses somebody (is color better than caps?) will be unhappy.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
no matter what he chooses somebody (is color better than caps?) will be unhappy.
Isnt that what this is all about?
This is just another excuse to bash Bush. Clinton was doing the same thing with that Able Danger group and you dont see any of the liberal bureaucrats in the NSA ratting Billy boy out or any of the liberal media wringin their hands over the liberty we lost under the last Administration.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I use caps for emphasis, not in place of reason. But then, you dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% so what difference does it make.
No, I do not. But repeated iterations about "tough choices to make and no matter what he chooses blah, blah, blah" is evading the issue, and that issue is, has the Constitution and its attendant rights been given second (or third) berth to what one branch of government feels is necessary for purpose of security? This is not rocket science and does not require you to be a jurist to voice an opinion. But your repeated rock and a hard place rhetoric ain't gettin it.
quote:Question number one is; who keeps ratting out the NSA?
My opinion..a damn fine American.
quote:#2; Proves Democrats are more afraid of Conservatives than they are of Sheet Heads trying to kill them.
Well..A Democrat I sure as hell ain't...but then again...I don't call my self a Kool-Aid drinking Republican, either...
But the point you make IS a good point; I fear no rag-head..I am an American. I DO, however, fear an out-of-control Fascist Beast.
quote:#3; This is news? What do people think the NSA does all day?Forget Constitution, laws, and decency...there you go...
quote:#4; The constitution gives you the right to yammer on the phone all day...go at it. Someone might listen...OK, don't plot crimes and Mr G man will leave you alone...got it.Enjoy your Fascist little World view...
quote:#5; Who keeps ratting out the NSA...better find this trator quick.Ever occur to you...you are pointing the wrong way to point out a traitor ?
"...that issue is, has the Constitution and its attendant rights been given second (or third) berth to what one branch of government feels is necessary for purpose of security?"
In my opinion, yes.
But of course, some might argue that this is a good thing. I take it you would not agree with that position, but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war. The argument would be "what's the point of civil rights if you're dead from a terrorist attack?"
The other side of the coin would be "who wants to live without fundamental rights? If we lose those the terrorists win anyway."
Was that to the point enough?
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I dont see how the mere process of collecting the data infringes on anyones privacy. This is not random surveillance.
Do you agree with the below statement as well?
I dont see how the mere process of collecting the data from Form 4773 infringes on anyones privacy. This is not random surveillance.
If party A says, in a fully monitored call, "The day set for the explosion (or release or attack, plug in your own word) is tommorrow." and the CIA can quickly determine that party A called party B twenty times over that last six days, and party B also routinely calls a number in Iran, I'd say that's worth the effort. Then, if they decide to further exercise their resources, very common and used frequently by the police, to go directly to party B and ask him some questions, I can see nothing advantage for the good guys.
I think its important to understand that these measure are being taken for a national security issue and not for simple domestic crimes. i would be opposed to this measure, as well as the patriot act and NSA wiretapping for domestic crimes like theft, rape, embezzlement and so forth. however, on issues of national security, "civil rights" dont mean much if the enemy kills you.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my banking records.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
...but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war.
This conveniently begs the question, doesn't it? And where we part company is your (I think) generous characterization of indiscriminate governmental record collecting as "protecting the nation in time of war", and this on two accounts: (1) A state of declared war as voted by Congress does not exist, and (2) You fail to provide any nexus between "protecting the nation in time of war" and my grandmother's telephone bill. That you see no difference between cause and convenience, between suspicion and surveillance, exactly accounts for our coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You feel the Bush Administration is being only responsible and doing the best possible between two unsavory alternatives; I see him as being an irresponsibile megalomaniac who in his brief tenure has done more harm to the soul and respect of this country than all the IEDs and suicide bombers that ever were. So who is right? Both and neither; any characterization either of us makes is tainted by our own personal belief and serves our own purpose. So you sleep better for it and I'll just weep for the future of my daughter and my daughter's children. Agreed?
Terrorists would be stupid to place a call from the US to another country or vice versa. The cost is too much. Place an encrypted call over the net for free with many free programs like netmeeting.
Windows XP will let you link 2 computers globally..transfer encrypted information for free. They could be running those boot leg versions of XP that can not be traced via a wireless network at some cyber cafe,college, or library.
Why would terrorists fork out money to communicate with Bell or AT&T?
Fear is such an insidious thing. Fear allows Fascists/Communists the traction to subvert an entire country...with much of the populace ceeding their rights and freedom over to all-knowing 'Authorities'.
We live in pre-1935 Germany, here, today....How can people not understand what is taking place in America....Thank God I am old enough that I will not see the ultimate outcome of what Cowardice has brought us to.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
...but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war.
This conveniently begs the question, doesn't it? And where we part company is your (I think) generous characterization of indiscriminate governmental record collecting as "protecting the nation in time of war", and this on two accounts: (1) A state of declared war as voted by Congress does not exist, and (2)...
Three thousand dead is one fell swoop is declaration enough for me. I can't personally go find who did it, so I HAVE to trust our government to do if for me. I fervently believe that, given the chance, those who perpetrated the second strike (remember, they tried before!) will do it again. And it will be an escalation--nuclear or biological. I'm willing to give up a lot to prevent that. How much? I don't know yet.
There is A bit of reality that needs to be looked at by both sides on this. First off I ain't no terrorist, I have no connections to such so I really have nothing to fear by this. However, this is America, we have A constituion, we are supposed to be free from govermental control. Also were will this end up, what is the real purpose of this. Any fool should be able to tell the goverment will not get A lot of info from this, so why go through the trouble of doing it. It would seem as though the goverment likes us to get used to having our rights slowly eroded. They stick their noses in just A little here, then later on, just A little more, and so on. This is what this seems like to me.
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
I'm willing to give up a lot to prevent that.
The point is not what you are willing to give up but that what you are willing to give up is not the measure of Constitutionality. But if you feel safer removing your shoes and getting groped at airports and knowing your neighbors' telephone habits are known to the government, then as I told Saxon, sleep better for it.
quote:Originally posted by KYfatboy
There is A bit of reality that needs to be looked at by both sides on this. First off I ain't no terrorist, I have no connections to such so I really have nothing to fear by this. However, this is America, we have A constituion, we are supposed to be free from govermental control. Also were will this end up, what is the real purpose of this. Any fool should be able to tell the goverment will not get A lot of info from this, so why go through the trouble of doing it. It would seem as though the goverment likes us to get used to having our rights slowly eroded. They stick their noses in just A little here, then later on, just A little more, and so on. This is what this seems like to me.
quote:This conveniently begs the question, doesn't it? And where we part company is your (I think) generous characterization of indiscriminate governmental record collecting as "protecting the nation in time of war", and this on two accounts: (1) A state of declared war as voted by Congress does not exist, and (2) You fail to provide any nexus between "protecting the nation in time of war" and my grandmother's telephone bill. That you see no difference between cause and convenience, between suspicion and surveillance, exactly accounts for our coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You feel the Bush Administration is being only responsible and doing the best possible between two unsavory alternatives; I see him as being an irresponsibile megalomaniac who in his brief tenure has done more harm to the soul and respect of this country than all the IEDs and suicide bombers that ever were. So who is right? Both and neither; any characterization either of us makes is tainted by our own personal belief and serves our own purpose. So you sleep better for it and I'll just weep for the future of my daughter and my daughter's children. Agreed?
DWS this has to be the best explination I have ever seen!! Very nicely thought out and writen!! Do you mind if I use it as a reply to others? X-ring!!
DWS- First of all you assume that I favor the arguments I offered. I do not necessarily support those arguments, I offer them as examples of how some people might feel. I specifically agreed with you (more than once) that throwing a wide net in the interest of national security and subverting the privacy rights of large numbers of citizens is wrong.
Second of all, you are of the opinion that George Bush is a terrible president who has done more harm to the U.S. than have the terrorists. This is a popular view among people who don't like George Bush in particular and the federal government in general. But I once visited the remains of the Rohwer Relocation Camp where hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of them U.S. citizens, who were of Japanese descent were imprisoned during World War II. These families lost their homes, their businesses, their physical freedom. And FDR was absolutely convinced that he was doing the right thing at the time. Despite all the terrible things FDR did (and there were many) a majority of Americans remember him and celebrate him as a hero (I am in the minority, BTW).
I think we need to make a distinction about Bush's actions. We can disagree with his policies, but I think it unfair to accuse him of being power mad or out to get people. I don't see where he personally benefits from any of this. Like FDR, he is doing what he and his advisors think is the right thing to do. These decisions are subjective, of course, and you and I may strongly disagree with him about what's best to do, but I find the personal accusations made against Bush undeserved. I have disagreed with much of what was done by all presidents since 1968 (prior to this I was too young to be politically aware) but I generally managed to keep my complaints directed to the issues and not make personal attacks.
Well, it was hard with Carter because he struck me as a genuinely dumb man. He meant well, but he was such a bungler it was hard to resist personal comments about his lack of wisdom.
I believe we are at war. Not everyone agrees. We are holding people captured on the battlefield but some argue that they are criminal defendants deserving of legal representation and a day in court while others maintain that as POWs they can be held for the duration. As a nation we have not yet decided if we are or are not in a state of war.
There are 3,000 familes who probably say we are and as Whiteclouder stated, that's good enough for me.
During war things get screwed up. During WW II people were ordered off the streets at night and required to darken their lights. Free speech was curtailed and one could be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. People were investigated as possible spies. Hell, some men were forced into military service against their will. Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights, but perhaps in this age of technology his efforts seem worse because the technology allows faster and more sweeping violations. Or maybe due to the widespread dislike for Bush (about 40% of Americans detest him) his actions draw more vigorous criticism. He is also dealing with the political reality of the Democrats doing everything they can to undermine him, discredit him, and obstruct all he does (good and bad alike) in an effort to regain their own political power.
You say civil liberites must be preserved above all else. Many will agree with you. Others say protecting the nation means giving up some freedoms and rights and that's a price worth paying if it's what we must do to survive. We as a nation will never agree with one mind on the correct course of action. I for one hope that some workable compromises can be made that protects our rights while allowing us to defend ourselves against our enemies from without. Civil liberties won't mean much when we are lying dead in the street, casualties of a terror attack. On the other hand, if we surrender all the freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us, just exactly what is left for us to defend?
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Highball Posted
Bin Laden is not snooping in my banking records.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
X-RING Highball!!
Since everything in this country is ruled by money(the bottom line), I gotta wonder how much & from what slush fund is the gummint paying the phone people?
Could THIS be why the phone people even keep these records?
Valuable commodity?
Jeez! I'm starting to sound like a couple of the local rumormongers.
[?]barto[?]
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
DWS- First of all you assume that I favor the arguments I offered. I do not necessarily support those arguments, I offer them as examples of how some people might feel. I specifically agreed with you (more than once) that throwing a wide net in the interest of national security and subverting the privacy rights of large numbers of citizens is wrong.
Second of all, you are of the opinion that George Bush is a terrible president who has done more harm to the U.S. than have the terrorists. This is a popular view among people who don't like George Bush in particular and the federal government in general. But I once visited the remains of the Rohwer Relocation Camp where hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of them U.S. citizens, who were of Japanese descent were imprisoned during World War II. These families lost their homes, their businesses, their physical freedom. And FDR was absolutely convinced that he was doing the right thing at the time. Despite all the terrible things FDR did (and there were many) a majority of Americans remember him and celebrate him as a hero (I am in the minority, BTW).
I think we need to make a distinction about Bush's actions. We can disagree with his policies, but I think it unfair to accuse him of being power mad or out to get people. I don't see where he personally benefits from any of this. Like FDR, he is doing what he and his advisors think is the right thing to do. These decisions are subjective, of course, and you and I may strongly disagree with him about what's best to do, but I find the personal accusations made against Bush undeserved. I have disagreed with much of what was done by all presidents since 1968 (prior to this I was too young to be politically aware) but I generally managed to keep my complaints directed to the issues and not make personal attacks.
Well, it was hard with Carter because he struck me as a genuinely dumb man. He meant well, but he was such a bungler it was hard to resist personal comments about his lack of wisdom.
I believe we are at war. Not everyone agrees. We are holding people captured on the battlefield but some argue that they are criminal defendants deserving of legal representation and a day in court while others maintain that as POWs they can be held for the duration. As a nation we have not yet decided if we are or are not in a state of war.
There are 3,000 familes who probably say we are and as Whiteclouder stated, that's good enough for me.
During war things get screwed up. During WW II people were ordered off the streets at night and required to darken their lights. Free speech was curtailed and one could be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. People were investigated as possible spies. Hell, some men were forced into military service against their will. Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights, but perhaps in this age of technology his efforts seem worse because the technology allows faster and more sweeping violations. Or maybe due to the widespread dislike for Bush (about 40% of Americans detest him) his actions draw more vigorous criticism. He is also dealing with the political reality of the Democrats doing everything they can to undermine him, discredit him, and obstruct all he does (good and bad alike) in an effort to regain their own political power.
You say civil liberites must be preserved above all else. Many will agree with you. Others say protecting the nation means giving up some freedoms and rights and that's a price worth paying if it's what we must do to survive. We as a nation will never agree with one mind on the correct course of action. I for one hope that some workable compromises can be made that protects our rights while allowing us to defend ourselves against our enemies from without. Civil liberties won't mean much when we are lying dead in the street, casualties of a terror attack. On the other hand, if we surrender all the freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us, just exactly what is left for us to defend?
Abraham lincoln is supposed to be the greatest president we ever had. during the civil War he suspended constitutional rights, held people in jail without charges or trials etc.
George Washington sent FederalTroops to kill farmers during the Whiskey rebellion.
Folks who think George Bush is the devil are just planin fanatical and any argument they make is tainted by their irrational preconceptions.
The phone company ALWAYS HAS kept records of everybody's phone calls, to and from all phones. Just the numbers and length of time, but they keep that information. Whenever any law enforcement, local, state or federal, requests that info as part of a criminal investigation, they hand it over. It's always been that way.
The big stink is about "listening in" on conversations.
What you read in the media is a misrepresentation.
hughbetcha:
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
They are not listening to your calls, they are keeping records of who calls who and those records already existed and could have been accessed under provisions of the Patriot Act and before that, could have been accessed by court order.
Then they SHOULD have been accessed by court order.
Why bypass an important Constitutional check that has served us well for over 200 years? We have to adapt our tactics to combat the current terrorist threat, not render our freedoms and privacy protections moot.
It is incredible that those that rail against 'Legislating from the Bench' seem to prefer Legislating by fiat.
On a positive note, Mr. Bush has finally fulfilled a campaign pledge. He has united the country. MSNBC reported today that fully 69% believe he is leading us in the wrong direction.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Saxon/Hugh: Why is it always as regards Dubya that rather than simply address the issues before you, you and others resort to making historical comparsions as if precedence for stupidity and error is some kind of defense?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
hughbetcha:
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
They are not listening to your calls, they are keeping records of who calls who and those records already existed and could have been accessed under provisions of the Patriot Act and before that, could have been accessed by court order.
Then they SHOULD have been accessed by court order.
Why bypass an important Constitutional check that has served us well for over 200 years? We have to adapt our tactics to combat the current terrorist threat, not render our freedoms and privacy protections moot.
It is incredible that those that rail against 'Legislating from the Bench' seem to prefer Legislating by fiat.
On a positive note, Mr. Bush has finally fulfilled a campaign pledge. He has united the country. MSNBC reported today that fully 69% believe he is leading us in the wrong direction.
I would submit that an act of congress(the Patriot Act) would supercede the need for a court order. blame the Democrats that voted for the Patriot Act, not Bush. The president cannot make laws.
quote:Originally posted by MT357
quote:Highball Posted
Bin Laden is not snooping in my banking records.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
X-RING Highball!!
This is possibly the most short sighted, unrealistic viewpoint I've read on any forum. To believe that there are no bad people seeking to harm Americans in particular, and Westerners in general, is simply not facing reality. So OBL didn't personally punch you in the nose... so what threat is he? How childish and naive.
Good people stand on the wall to protect you, asking only for the tools to do it well, and you complain! You are not worthy to complain unless you have a better way to protect my family, my neighbors, and my way of life.
Unlike you, I do trust those leaders I helped elect, and on 9/11 was shouting "UNLEASH THE DOGS", "TAKE OFF THE GLOVES". What were you thinking that day?
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I would submit that an act of congress(the Patriot Act) would supercede the need for a court order. blame the Democrats that voted for the Patriot Act, not Bush. The president cannot make laws.
I would agree with you if the Patriot Act specifically allowed this type of surveillance. From my understanding, the Patriot Act did not even specifically supercede the protections built into the FISA Court. The recently exposed NSA data base is Domestic. I would submit that the president has made a law, or at least re-defined one.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I remember seeing some show that showed that the East German police had "odor samples" of everyone, so that they could hunt you down with dogs. And literally, they had a sample of EVERYONE. Are we headed in that direction?
"I fear that the events of 9/11 and the sum of acts of world terrorism since pale in comparison to the terror to the human spirit this administration has heaped on the citizens of this once proud land."
DWS- You brought up the issue of what "this administration" is doing and then you gripe about people discussing Bush. I thought the question was about whether what is now being done is wise, legal or desirable. How do we discuss the issue of our rights being trampled without mentioning the people accused of doing it?
I have already told you exactly how I feel. With or without "Dubya" I fear that federal efforts to gather info on terrorists may be going too far in regards to protecting our rights. I do not have a cut and dried answer to the question "How far is too far" or "how much is enough" but I think that sweeping investigations of phone records of people not under specific suspicion is going too far. Now, if they ID someone as a possible threat then I say check out their communications to see if they are up to something.
I really don't know how to be any more specific and direct than this. Sorry.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Saxon/Hugh: Why is it always as regards Dubya that rather than simply address the issues before you, you and others resort to making historical comparsions as if precedence for stupidity and error is some kind of defense?
Because it sometimes takes time to provide the persepctive to properly judge the actions of our leaders. Few people think Liconln's supension of habeus corpus was right, nor do they think Roosevelts detention of the Nissei was correct, however they realize that our leaders faced great challenges and made tough decisions, not all of them right, but in the end the greater needs of the country were served.
The war on terror is far from over. History will judge Bush on the long term effects of his policies not the short term hysteria generated by them.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights
Funniest thing I've read all day.
Forget about the UN-patriot act?
Arguable by some, as THE MOST DANGEROUS piece of legislation, to our constitutional rights, EVER passed.
Agreed, he can not pass a law all by himself, but....
This was Bush's baby.
Bush is the one that brought it before the legislators.
Bush is the one who labeled anyone who would not sign it as UN-patriotic.
Even when legislators WANTED TO but could NOT get a copy to read.
Bush is the one who pushed it, and made it happen.
I lay blame where deserved.
First, I would like to point out that the Govt. is not going to use this info just to find "terrorists," but for whatever purpose it wishes. Without the proper legal checks, like a warrent or court order, there is nothing to prevent them from doing whatever they want. I guess we will just have to trust them.
Has the government been effective securing our boarders to keep us safe? No, in fact, they suck. International jihad is a two bit operation. Equating this side show with the Civil War is like comparing shinola with that other stuff. Two different situations.
quote:Originally posted by Jgreen
I remember seeing some show that showed that the East German police had "odor samples" of everyone, so that they could hunt you down with dogs. And literally, they had a sample of EVERYONE. Are we headed in that direction?
quote:Originally posted by Jgreen
I remember seeing some show that showed that the East German police had "odor samples" of everyone, so that they could hunt you down with dogs. And literally, they had a sample of EVERYONE. Are we headed in that direction?
That only works on commies and French people cause they don't use deoderant.
pickenup- Show me what is in the Patriot Act that is worse than rounding up hundreds of thousands of people at random, whole familes of men, women and children, and forcing them into concentration camps against their will as FDR did.
Lincoln suspended the Constitution during the Civil War. He didn't just violate it, he suspended it. How is this less of a rights violation than anything in the PA?
Wilson ordered the Army to crush a demonstration by WW I vets across from the White House. Douglas MacArthur commanded tanks driven through the protest, killing at least one and injuring others. Those vets may disagree that Bush has done worse.
There are many people throwing lines around like "Bush is the worst president ever" and "What bush has done is the worst ever" but most of these statements do not stand up against history. I understand if you don't like Bush or don't like what he's doing, but be careful of the rhetoric.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
Unlike previous violations to the constitution and bill of rights, which were TEMPORARY.
The UN-patriot act is PERMANENT.
To CONTINUALLY be used AGAINST the citizens in whatever way FUTURE leaders see fit.
BIG difference, in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Unlike previous violations to the constitution and bill of rights, which were TEMPORARY.
The UN-patriot act is PERMANENT.
To CONTINUALLY be used AGAINST the citizens in whatever way FUTURE leaders see fit.
BIG difference, in my opinion.
BS! Nothing that can be voted on is permanent. If the patriot Act was permanent, why did they just vote to renew it? Why can't congress vote to suspend it anytime they want? Even amendments to the constitution can be overturned.
Comments
#2; Proves Democrats are more afraid of Conservatives than they are of Sheet Heads trying to kill them.
#3; This is news? What do people think the NSA does all day?
#4; The constitution gives you the right to yammer on the phone all day...go at it. Someone might listen...OK, don't plot crimes and Mr G man will leave you alone...got it.
#5; Who keeps ratting out the NSA...better find this trator quick.
As I said previously, I oppose "fishing expeditions" looking for evidence of wrongdoing. The other point I was trying to make is that it's easy to second guess and criticize, but the president, no matter who he is or what party he represents, has tough choices to make and no matter what he chooses somebody (is color better than caps?) will be unhappy.
Too old to live...too young to die...
no matter what he chooses somebody (is color better than caps?) will be unhappy.
Isnt that what this is all about?
This is just another excuse to bash Bush. Clinton was doing the same thing with that Able Danger group and you dont see any of the liberal bureaucrats in the NSA ratting Billy boy out or any of the liberal media wringin their hands over the liberty we lost under the last Administration.
I use caps for emphasis, not in place of reason. But then, you dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% so what difference does it make.
No, I do not. But repeated iterations about "tough choices to make and no matter what he chooses blah, blah, blah" is evading the issue, and that issue is, has the Constitution and its attendant rights been given second (or third) berth to what one branch of government feels is necessary for purpose of security? This is not rocket science and does not require you to be a jurist to voice an opinion. But your repeated rock and a hard place rhetoric ain't gettin it.
My opinion..a damn fine American.
quote:#2; Proves Democrats are more afraid of Conservatives than they are of Sheet Heads trying to kill them.
Well..A Democrat I sure as hell ain't...but then again...I don't call my self a Kool-Aid drinking Republican, either...
But the point you make IS a good point; I fear no rag-head..I am an American. I DO, however, fear an out-of-control Fascist Beast.
quote:#3; This is news? What do people think the NSA does all day?Forget Constitution, laws, and decency...there you go...
quote:#4; The constitution gives you the right to yammer on the phone all day...go at it. Someone might listen...OK, don't plot crimes and Mr G man will leave you alone...got it.Enjoy your Fascist little World view...
quote:#5; Who keeps ratting out the NSA...better find this trator quick.Ever occur to you...you are pointing the wrong way to point out a traitor ?
In my opinion, yes.
But of course, some might argue that this is a good thing. I take it you would not agree with that position, but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war. The argument would be "what's the point of civil rights if you're dead from a terrorist attack?"
The other side of the coin would be "who wants to live without fundamental rights? If we lose those the terrorists win anyway."
Was that to the point enough?
Too old to live...too young to die...
I dont see how the mere process of collecting the data infringes on anyones privacy. This is not random surveillance.
Do you agree with the below statement as well?
I dont see how the mere process of collecting the data from Form 4773 infringes on anyones privacy. This is not random surveillance.
Clouder..
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
...but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war.
This conveniently begs the question, doesn't it? And where we part company is your (I think) generous characterization of indiscriminate governmental record collecting as "protecting the nation in time of war", and this on two accounts: (1) A state of declared war as voted by Congress does not exist, and (2) You fail to provide any nexus between "protecting the nation in time of war" and my grandmother's telephone bill. That you see no difference between cause and convenience, between suspicion and surveillance, exactly accounts for our coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You feel the Bush Administration is being only responsible and doing the best possible between two unsavory alternatives; I see him as being an irresponsibile megalomaniac who in his brief tenure has done more harm to the soul and respect of this country than all the IEDs and suicide bombers that ever were. So who is right? Both and neither; any characterization either of us makes is tainted by our own personal belief and serves our own purpose. So you sleep better for it and I'll just weep for the future of my daughter and my daughter's children. Agreed?
Windows XP will let you link 2 computers globally..transfer encrypted information for free. They could be running those boot leg versions of XP that can not be traced via a wireless network at some cyber cafe,college, or library.
Why would terrorists fork out money to communicate with Bell or AT&T?
We live in pre-1935 Germany, here, today....How can people not understand what is taking place in America....Thank God I am old enough that I will not see the ultimate outcome of what Cowardice has brought us to.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
...but it is arguable that civil rights do not take precedence over protecting the nation in time of war.
This conveniently begs the question, doesn't it? And where we part company is your (I think) generous characterization of indiscriminate governmental record collecting as "protecting the nation in time of war", and this on two accounts: (1) A state of declared war as voted by Congress does not exist, and (2)...
Three thousand dead is one fell swoop is declaration enough for me. I can't personally go find who did it, so I HAVE to trust our government to do if for me. I fervently believe that, given the chance, those who perpetrated the second strike (remember, they tried before!) will do it again. And it will be an escalation--nuclear or biological. I'm willing to give up a lot to prevent that. How much? I don't know yet.
Clouder..
I'm willing to give up a lot to prevent that.
The point is not what you are willing to give up but that what you are willing to give up is not the measure of Constitutionality. But if you feel safer removing your shoes and getting groped at airports and knowing your neighbors' telephone habits are known to the government, then as I told Saxon, sleep better for it.
There is A bit of reality that needs to be looked at by both sides on this. First off I ain't no terrorist, I have no connections to such so I really have nothing to fear by this. However, this is America, we have A constituion, we are supposed to be free from govermental control. Also were will this end up, what is the real purpose of this. Any fool should be able to tell the goverment will not get A lot of info from this, so why go through the trouble of doing it. It would seem as though the goverment likes us to get used to having our rights slowly eroded. They stick their noses in just A little here, then later on, just A little more, and so on. This is what this seems like to me.
Bingo!!!
DWS this has to be the best explination I have ever seen!! Very nicely thought out and writen!! Do you mind if I use it as a reply to others? X-ring!!
Second of all, you are of the opinion that George Bush is a terrible president who has done more harm to the U.S. than have the terrorists. This is a popular view among people who don't like George Bush in particular and the federal government in general. But I once visited the remains of the Rohwer Relocation Camp where hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of them U.S. citizens, who were of Japanese descent were imprisoned during World War II. These families lost their homes, their businesses, their physical freedom. And FDR was absolutely convinced that he was doing the right thing at the time. Despite all the terrible things FDR did (and there were many) a majority of Americans remember him and celebrate him as a hero (I am in the minority, BTW).
I think we need to make a distinction about Bush's actions. We can disagree with his policies, but I think it unfair to accuse him of being power mad or out to get people. I don't see where he personally benefits from any of this. Like FDR, he is doing what he and his advisors think is the right thing to do. These decisions are subjective, of course, and you and I may strongly disagree with him about what's best to do, but I find the personal accusations made against Bush undeserved. I have disagreed with much of what was done by all presidents since 1968 (prior to this I was too young to be politically aware) but I generally managed to keep my complaints directed to the issues and not make personal attacks.
Well, it was hard with Carter because he struck me as a genuinely dumb man. He meant well, but he was such a bungler it was hard to resist personal comments about his lack of wisdom.
I believe we are at war. Not everyone agrees. We are holding people captured on the battlefield but some argue that they are criminal defendants deserving of legal representation and a day in court while others maintain that as POWs they can be held for the duration. As a nation we have not yet decided if we are or are not in a state of war.
There are 3,000 familes who probably say we are and as Whiteclouder stated, that's good enough for me.
During war things get screwed up. During WW II people were ordered off the streets at night and required to darken their lights. Free speech was curtailed and one could be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. People were investigated as possible spies. Hell, some men were forced into military service against their will. Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights, but perhaps in this age of technology his efforts seem worse because the technology allows faster and more sweeping violations. Or maybe due to the widespread dislike for Bush (about 40% of Americans detest him) his actions draw more vigorous criticism. He is also dealing with the political reality of the Democrats doing everything they can to undermine him, discredit him, and obstruct all he does (good and bad alike) in an effort to regain their own political power.
You say civil liberites must be preserved above all else. Many will agree with you. Others say protecting the nation means giving up some freedoms and rights and that's a price worth paying if it's what we must do to survive. We as a nation will never agree with one mind on the correct course of action. I for one hope that some workable compromises can be made that protects our rights while allowing us to defend ourselves against our enemies from without. Civil liberties won't mean much when we are lying dead in the street, casualties of a terror attack. On the other hand, if we surrender all the freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us, just exactly what is left for us to defend?
Too old to live...too young to die...
Bin Laden is not snooping in my banking records.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
X-RING Highball!!
Could THIS be why the phone people even keep these records?
Valuable commodity?
Jeez! I'm starting to sound like a couple of the local rumormongers.
[?]barto[?]
DWS- First of all you assume that I favor the arguments I offered. I do not necessarily support those arguments, I offer them as examples of how some people might feel. I specifically agreed with you (more than once) that throwing a wide net in the interest of national security and subverting the privacy rights of large numbers of citizens is wrong.
Second of all, you are of the opinion that George Bush is a terrible president who has done more harm to the U.S. than have the terrorists. This is a popular view among people who don't like George Bush in particular and the federal government in general. But I once visited the remains of the Rohwer Relocation Camp where hundreds of thousands of Americans, most of them U.S. citizens, who were of Japanese descent were imprisoned during World War II. These families lost their homes, their businesses, their physical freedom. And FDR was absolutely convinced that he was doing the right thing at the time. Despite all the terrible things FDR did (and there were many) a majority of Americans remember him and celebrate him as a hero (I am in the minority, BTW).
I think we need to make a distinction about Bush's actions. We can disagree with his policies, but I think it unfair to accuse him of being power mad or out to get people. I don't see where he personally benefits from any of this. Like FDR, he is doing what he and his advisors think is the right thing to do. These decisions are subjective, of course, and you and I may strongly disagree with him about what's best to do, but I find the personal accusations made against Bush undeserved. I have disagreed with much of what was done by all presidents since 1968 (prior to this I was too young to be politically aware) but I generally managed to keep my complaints directed to the issues and not make personal attacks.
Well, it was hard with Carter because he struck me as a genuinely dumb man. He meant well, but he was such a bungler it was hard to resist personal comments about his lack of wisdom.
I believe we are at war. Not everyone agrees. We are holding people captured on the battlefield but some argue that they are criminal defendants deserving of legal representation and a day in court while others maintain that as POWs they can be held for the duration. As a nation we have not yet decided if we are or are not in a state of war.
There are 3,000 familes who probably say we are and as Whiteclouder stated, that's good enough for me.
During war things get screwed up. During WW II people were ordered off the streets at night and required to darken their lights. Free speech was curtailed and one could be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. People were investigated as possible spies. Hell, some men were forced into military service against their will. Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights, but perhaps in this age of technology his efforts seem worse because the technology allows faster and more sweeping violations. Or maybe due to the widespread dislike for Bush (about 40% of Americans detest him) his actions draw more vigorous criticism. He is also dealing with the political reality of the Democrats doing everything they can to undermine him, discredit him, and obstruct all he does (good and bad alike) in an effort to regain their own political power.
You say civil liberites must be preserved above all else. Many will agree with you. Others say protecting the nation means giving up some freedoms and rights and that's a price worth paying if it's what we must do to survive. We as a nation will never agree with one mind on the correct course of action. I for one hope that some workable compromises can be made that protects our rights while allowing us to defend ourselves against our enemies from without. Civil liberties won't mean much when we are lying dead in the street, casualties of a terror attack. On the other hand, if we surrender all the freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us, just exactly what is left for us to defend?
Abraham lincoln is supposed to be the greatest president we ever had. during the civil War he suspended constitutional rights, held people in jail without charges or trials etc.
George Washington sent FederalTroops to kill farmers during the Whiskey rebellion.
Folks who think George Bush is the devil are just planin fanatical and any argument they make is tainted by their irrational preconceptions.
The phone company ALWAYS HAS kept records of everybody's phone calls, to and from all phones. Just the numbers and length of time, but they keep that information. Whenever any law enforcement, local, state or federal, requests that info as part of a criminal investigation, they hand it over. It's always been that way.
The big stink is about "listening in" on conversations.
What you read in the media is a misrepresentation.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
They are not listening to your calls, they are keeping records of who calls who and those records already existed and could have been accessed under provisions of the Patriot Act and before that, could have been accessed by court order.
Then they SHOULD have been accessed by court order.
Why bypass an important Constitutional check that has served us well for over 200 years? We have to adapt our tactics to combat the current terrorist threat, not render our freedoms and privacy protections moot.
It is incredible that those that rail against 'Legislating from the Bench' seem to prefer Legislating by fiat.
On a positive note, Mr. Bush has finally fulfilled a campaign pledge. He has united the country. MSNBC reported today that fully 69% believe he is leading us in the wrong direction.
Brad Steele
hughbetcha:
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
They are not listening to your calls, they are keeping records of who calls who and those records already existed and could have been accessed under provisions of the Patriot Act and before that, could have been accessed by court order.
Then they SHOULD have been accessed by court order.
Why bypass an important Constitutional check that has served us well for over 200 years? We have to adapt our tactics to combat the current terrorist threat, not render our freedoms and privacy protections moot.
It is incredible that those that rail against 'Legislating from the Bench' seem to prefer Legislating by fiat.
On a positive note, Mr. Bush has finally fulfilled a campaign pledge. He has united the country. MSNBC reported today that fully 69% believe he is leading us in the wrong direction.
I would submit that an act of congress(the Patriot Act) would supercede the need for a court order. blame the Democrats that voted for the Patriot Act, not Bush. The president cannot make laws.
quote:Highball Posted
Bin Laden is not snooping in my banking records.
Bin Laden is not snooping in my phone records.
Bin Laden is not searching me at the airport.
I will take my chances with the Bin Ladens of the world..if you get the Beast off my back and ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF...AND MY COMMUNITY...and I will do it without snooping in YOUR private lives...
X-RING Highball!!
This is possibly the most short sighted, unrealistic viewpoint I've read on any forum. To believe that there are no bad people seeking to harm Americans in particular, and Westerners in general, is simply not facing reality. So OBL didn't personally punch you in the nose... so what threat is he? How childish and naive.
Good people stand on the wall to protect you, asking only for the tools to do it well, and you complain! You are not worthy to complain unless you have a better way to protect my family, my neighbors, and my way of life.
Unlike you, I do trust those leaders I helped elect, and on 9/11 was shouting "UNLEASH THE DOGS", "TAKE OFF THE GLOVES". What were you thinking that day?
I would submit that an act of congress(the Patriot Act) would supercede the need for a court order. blame the Democrats that voted for the Patriot Act, not Bush. The president cannot make laws.
I would agree with you if the Patriot Act specifically allowed this type of surveillance. From my understanding, the Patriot Act did not even specifically supercede the protections built into the FISA Court. The recently exposed NSA data base is Domestic. I would submit that the president has made a law, or at least re-defined one.
Brad Steele
DWS- You brought up the issue of what "this administration" is doing and then you gripe about people discussing Bush. I thought the question was about whether what is now being done is wise, legal or desirable. How do we discuss the issue of our rights being trampled without mentioning the people accused of doing it?
I have already told you exactly how I feel. With or without "Dubya" I fear that federal efforts to gather info on terrorists may be going too far in regards to protecting our rights. I do not have a cut and dried answer to the question "How far is too far" or "how much is enough" but I think that sweeping investigations of phone records of people not under specific suspicion is going too far. Now, if they ID someone as a possible threat then I say check out their communications to see if they are up to something.
I really don't know how to be any more specific and direct than this. Sorry.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Saxon/Hugh: Why is it always as regards Dubya that rather than simply address the issues before you, you and others resort to making historical comparsions as if precedence for stupidity and error is some kind of defense?
Because it sometimes takes time to provide the persepctive to properly judge the actions of our leaders. Few people think Liconln's supension of habeus corpus was right, nor do they think Roosevelts detention of the Nissei was correct, however they realize that our leaders faced great challenges and made tough decisions, not all of them right, but in the end the greater needs of the country were served.
The war on terror is far from over. History will judge Bush on the long term effects of his policies not the short term hysteria generated by them.
Bush has not invented anything in regards to violating rights
Funniest thing I've read all day.
Forget about the UN-patriot act?
Arguable by some, as THE MOST DANGEROUS piece of legislation, to our constitutional rights, EVER passed.
Agreed, he can not pass a law all by himself, but....
This was Bush's baby.
Bush is the one that brought it before the legislators.
Bush is the one who labeled anyone who would not sign it as UN-patriotic.
Even when legislators WANTED TO but could NOT get a copy to read.
Bush is the one who pushed it, and made it happen.
I lay blame where deserved.
Has the government been effective securing our boarders to keep us safe? No, in fact, they suck. International jihad is a two bit operation. Equating this side show with the Civil War is like comparing shinola with that other stuff. Two different situations.
I remember seeing some show that showed that the East German police had "odor samples" of everyone, so that they could hunt you down with dogs. And literally, they had a sample of EVERYONE. Are we headed in that direction?
no
I remember seeing some show that showed that the East German police had "odor samples" of everyone, so that they could hunt you down with dogs. And literally, they had a sample of EVERYONE. Are we headed in that direction?
That only works on commies and French people cause they don't use deoderant.
Lincoln suspended the Constitution during the Civil War. He didn't just violate it, he suspended it. How is this less of a rights violation than anything in the PA?
Wilson ordered the Army to crush a demonstration by WW I vets across from the White House. Douglas MacArthur commanded tanks driven through the protest, killing at least one and injuring others. Those vets may disagree that Bush has done worse.
There are many people throwing lines around like "Bush is the worst president ever" and "What bush has done is the worst ever" but most of these statements do not stand up against history. I understand if you don't like Bush or don't like what he's doing, but be careful of the rhetoric.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Wilson ordered the Army to crush a demonstration by WW I vets...
Who is a volleyball to be giving orders to anyone, especially against our own veterans?
The UN-patriot act is PERMANENT.
To CONTINUALLY be used AGAINST the citizens in whatever way FUTURE leaders see fit.
BIG difference, in my opinion.
Unlike previous violations to the constitution and bill of rights, which were TEMPORARY.
The UN-patriot act is PERMANENT.
To CONTINUALLY be used AGAINST the citizens in whatever way FUTURE leaders see fit.
BIG difference, in my opinion.
BS! Nothing that can be voted on is permanent. If the patriot Act was permanent, why did they just vote to renew it? Why can't congress vote to suspend it anytime they want? Even amendments to the constitution can be overturned.