http://www.physorg.com/news108297856.html
Yet another attempt by bush to take away our individual liberties and rights....the man should never have been president.
Don"t let them fool you, this is more about a power hungry tyrant than it is about National Security.
In case you forgot, its CONGRESS that passes legislation.
The House of Representatives approved the Patriot act by a vote of 280-138.
The Senate approved it by a vote of 89-10.
So the legislation has broad BI-PARTISAN support.
This is one MINOR piece of that legislation that needs to be tweaked, and the tweak is simply that NSLs that come with the proviso that the company can't reveal to its customer that it was turning over records requires a court review or grand jury action.
Arthur
The House of Representatives approved the Patriot act by a vote of 280-138.
The Senate approved it by a vote of 89-10.
So the legislation has broad BI-PARTISAN support.
This is one MINOR piece of that legislation that needs to be tweaked, and the tweak is simply that NSLs that come with the proviso that the company can't reveal to its customer that it was turning over records requires a court review or grand jury action.
Arthur
it was passed when the republicans were the majority in congress and before they realized that they put a retard into power.
QUOTE (Guest_joe+Sep 7 2007, 10:53 AM)
it was passed when the republicans were the majority in congress and before they realized that they put a retard into power.
Only a retard would fail to notice that it was passed (and then renewed in March of 06) with such an overwhelming margin that it didn't matter which party had the majority.
Arthur
Only a retard would fail to notice that it was passed (and then renewed in March of 06) with such an overwhelming margin that it didn't matter which party had the majority.
Arthur
Any legislation that gives absolute unchecked powers to any single group is against the very fundamentals of the constitution, no matter how trustworthy or compitent the man is charge is. Jesus Christ himself could be president, and he still should not have the ability to do what the Patriot Act allows Bush to do.
The writers of the constitution knew that as time passed, things would change, ideals would change, agendas would change, and as such they included the ability to make changes and additions as needed. However, they also included that those changes much adhear to specific guidelines, to ensure that our country could never become the very thing this country fought to escape. No matter how badly or whatever EXCUSE (and yes, going to war is an excuse) the current administration conjures up to try and usurp all powers and rights should not be tollorated nor allowed. It is bad enough the people of this country have allowed this administration to have the sole power to say what is and is not terrorism or who is a terrorist without proof, but to take away our abilities to be free and safe in our own home FROM our own government, is not forgivable, and the appropriate people should be criminally charged. It is a crime to try and hijack the boat/crew on a military ship, and should be a crime to try and hijack a country as well.
The writers of the constitution knew that as time passed, things would change, ideals would change, agendas would change, and as such they included the ability to make changes and additions as needed. However, they also included that those changes much adhear to specific guidelines, to ensure that our country could never become the very thing this country fought to escape. No matter how badly or whatever EXCUSE (and yes, going to war is an excuse) the current administration conjures up to try and usurp all powers and rights should not be tollorated nor allowed. It is bad enough the people of this country have allowed this administration to have the sole power to say what is and is not terrorism or who is a terrorist without proof, but to take away our abilities to be free and safe in our own home FROM our own government, is not forgivable, and the appropriate people should be criminally charged. It is a crime to try and hijack the boat/crew on a military ship, and should be a crime to try and hijack a country as well.
QUOTE (BobOki+Sep 7 2007, 11:51 AM)
the appropriate people should be criminally charged. It is a crime to try and hijack the boat/crew on a military ship, and should be a crime to try and hijack a country as well.
The people you would CRIMINALLY CHARGE would be 280 of our Representatives and 89 of our Senators.
The POINT of the Constitution is for JUDICIAL REVIEW of the laws that the Congress Passes and the Executive branch enforces.
So according to you, EVERY TIME the Judicial branch finds a law that has UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS, the legislaters who voted for it should be charged with a CRIME.
Sorry, that's NOT how the system works.
Arthur
The people you would CRIMINALLY CHARGE would be 280 of our Representatives and 89 of our Senators.
The POINT of the Constitution is for JUDICIAL REVIEW of the laws that the Congress Passes and the Executive branch enforces.
So according to you, EVERY TIME the Judicial branch finds a law that has UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS, the legislaters who voted for it should be charged with a CRIME.
Sorry, that's NOT how the system works.
Arthur
Yes, it was passed by Congress. But in the US there is something called a Constitution. Its the duty of the Judiciary to ensure that Congress isn't conned by the Executive/Military/Intelligence Establishment into trampling over citizens rights and freedoms.
Three cheers for the Judge.
Three cheers for the Judge.
QUOTE (Guest_Pat+Sep 7 2007, 12:13 PM)
Yes, it was passed by Congress. But in the US there is something called a Constitution. Its the duty of the Judiciary to ensure that Congress isn't conned by the Executive/Military/Intelligence Establishment into trampling over citizens rights and freedoms.
Three cheers for the Judge.
Actually its more the responsibility of the PEOPLE.
If you notice the ruling was based on a SUIT brought by the ACLU.
If there is NO SUIT, then there is No Judicial Ruling.
Never forget that it has to start with the PEOPLE demanding that their rights are not abridged.
Its up to the COURTS to then decide if they have been or not.
Arthur
Three cheers for the Judge.
Actually its more the responsibility of the PEOPLE.
If you notice the ruling was based on a SUIT brought by the ACLU.
If there is NO SUIT, then there is No Judicial Ruling.
Never forget that it has to start with the PEOPLE demanding that their rights are not abridged.
Its up to the COURTS to then decide if they have been or not.
Arthur
Let's hope these court decisions are followed. If various unnamed leaders decide they can just write their own rules and ignore the constitution, courts and laws of the country, then there won't be any way to work within the system to resolve the problem.
Congress can pass laws but if those laws don't comply with the constitution, then they're similarly wrong and a jury or judge should simply dismiss the cases or judge the law unconstitional and police shouldn't try to enforce them either (nor should the President encourage their enforcement). Otherwise the three branches of our government can't be seen as independent and we might as well just call whoever's running the show a king (and then dethrone him/her ... we already had a King George III and that was the guy that incited the revolutionary war). It's better to err on the side of greater private control of issues than to keep assuming we'll get lucky and find some benevolent and intelligent leader to run things for us.
I love the way they claim some issues gain 'bi'-partisan support, as if this country could only follow the lesser of two evils on an issue. Why not 'tri' partisan, non-partisan or something even closer to unanimous? It was amazing that Congress supposedly pass this stuff with almost no disagreement yet at the time something like 70% of the population opposed it. In the constitution it also says we're suppose to have a representative form of government ... and I remember the Declaration of Independence had some things to say about the colonists lacking representation in many of the issues. We really need a large fix (preferably a lot less central government and a more diverse sprectrum of local laws. That woud resolve a lot of political problems right there and allow individuals a greater freedom to seek out others with common desires and not be ruled by a small group of people thousands of miles away, who appear, from the track record to be largely just interested in power games (there are still some good people working in politics trying to improve the situation, but I think the system is likely broken beyond repair at this point and sadly the people that would probably do the best job have the odds already stacked against them).
I agree with you, aduocette, that you can't lay the blame solely on a few people running the show ...
Congress can pass laws but if those laws don't comply with the constitution, then they're similarly wrong and a jury or judge should simply dismiss the cases or judge the law unconstitional and police shouldn't try to enforce them either (nor should the President encourage their enforcement). Otherwise the three branches of our government can't be seen as independent and we might as well just call whoever's running the show a king (and then dethrone him/her ... we already had a King George III and that was the guy that incited the revolutionary war). It's better to err on the side of greater private control of issues than to keep assuming we'll get lucky and find some benevolent and intelligent leader to run things for us.
I love the way they claim some issues gain 'bi'-partisan support, as if this country could only follow the lesser of two evils on an issue. Why not 'tri' partisan, non-partisan or something even closer to unanimous? It was amazing that Congress supposedly pass this stuff with almost no disagreement yet at the time something like 70% of the population opposed it. In the constitution it also says we're suppose to have a representative form of government ... and I remember the Declaration of Independence had some things to say about the colonists lacking representation in many of the issues. We really need a large fix (preferably a lot less central government and a more diverse sprectrum of local laws. That woud resolve a lot of political problems right there and allow individuals a greater freedom to seek out others with common desires and not be ruled by a small group of people thousands of miles away, who appear, from the track record to be largely just interested in power games (there are still some good people working in politics trying to improve the situation, but I think the system is likely broken beyond repair at this point and sadly the people that would probably do the best job have the odds already stacked against them).
I agree with you, aduocette, that you can't lay the blame solely on a few people running the show ...
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 7 2007, 04:25 PM)
Actually its more the responsibility of the PEOPLE.
If you notice the ruling was based on a SUIT brought by the ACLU.
If there is NO SUIT, then there is No Judicial Ruling.
Never forget that it has to start with the PEOPLE demanding that their rights are not abridged.
Its up to the COURTS to then decide if they have been or not.
The problem is when Bush decides that habeas corpus no longer applies. Then you don't get a suit and the judges never get to judge.
It's also the same problem when they shut down a case because of national security. The case gets thrown out, and there is no recourse.
We need a court similar to FISA to review all claims of national security in the courts. It's been abused repeatedly throughout the years.
As for suspending habeas corpus...that's when I bought a gun. For the simple reason, if imprisonment can no longer be challenged, then the only hope is to resist or die trying to resist arrest.
If you notice the ruling was based on a SUIT brought by the ACLU.
If there is NO SUIT, then there is No Judicial Ruling.
Never forget that it has to start with the PEOPLE demanding that their rights are not abridged.
Its up to the COURTS to then decide if they have been or not.
The problem is when Bush decides that habeas corpus no longer applies. Then you don't get a suit and the judges never get to judge.
It's also the same problem when they shut down a case because of national security. The case gets thrown out, and there is no recourse.
We need a court similar to FISA to review all claims of national security in the courts. It's been abused repeatedly throughout the years.
As for suspending habeas corpus...that's when I bought a gun. For the simple reason, if imprisonment can no longer be challenged, then the only hope is to resist or die trying to resist arrest.
When the legislature is full of lackeys for sale and stuffed to the gills with megalomaniac power brokers, when the echo chambers of "free speech" are controlled by PACs, think-tanks, and lobbyist associations, and the executive branch is run by a cabal of chicken hawks, what else should anyone expect? The biggest priority of modern "statesmen" is to cover their own fattened assets, while living up the good life.
We don't deserve the democracy we have, as we are all too willing to dismantle our ideals in order to save our hides. We've all collectively turned into a throng of yellow-bellied cowards; we welcome Big Brother with open arms at even a hint of a promise that he might try to make the Boogie Ban go away, at least for a while longer. We've grown complacent, lazy, detached, and possibly more credulous than we had ever been before; and Gore Vidal has it right when he calls it the United States of Amnesia.
This democracy is dysfunctional. A huge section of the population doesn't even participate, and even more of the population has completely tuned out and fails to keep informed. Still a larger fraction is gullible in the extreme, and gets repeatedly suckered by the same lies (of whichever party) every election season. The "free press" has degenerated now to a point where it is little more than a trivialized "dog bites man" infotainment medium and a corrupt cheer leading section for the elites in power, where talking heads have replaced journalists, and "balance" has superseded objectivity. Not that most people would care to stay informed in the first place; we don't have time for getting depressed by the news, we'd rather work ourselves to death and be mildly entertained in-between. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower dreaded, has finally arrived in full glory and is now running our foreign policy.
A sick perversion of a philosophy marrying greed-driven unprincipled capitalism and power politics with pious evangelical Christianity, has the majority of the population in a death grip. We value profits above lives, growth above peace, "us" above "them", the present above the future; we have convinced ourselves that trickle-down is a reality while highway robbery is a myth, and snake oil salesmen are doing a roaring trade from coast to coast.
So what else is new? Some new outrage from Washington, D.C.? YAWN.... Two weeks from now, some new girl will be abducted on some tropical island, and that's all anyone will care about.
We don't deserve the democracy we have, as we are all too willing to dismantle our ideals in order to save our hides. We've all collectively turned into a throng of yellow-bellied cowards; we welcome Big Brother with open arms at even a hint of a promise that he might try to make the Boogie Ban go away, at least for a while longer. We've grown complacent, lazy, detached, and possibly more credulous than we had ever been before; and Gore Vidal has it right when he calls it the United States of Amnesia.
This democracy is dysfunctional. A huge section of the population doesn't even participate, and even more of the population has completely tuned out and fails to keep informed. Still a larger fraction is gullible in the extreme, and gets repeatedly suckered by the same lies (of whichever party) every election season. The "free press" has degenerated now to a point where it is little more than a trivialized "dog bites man" infotainment medium and a corrupt cheer leading section for the elites in power, where talking heads have replaced journalists, and "balance" has superseded objectivity. Not that most people would care to stay informed in the first place; we don't have time for getting depressed by the news, we'd rather work ourselves to death and be mildly entertained in-between. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower dreaded, has finally arrived in full glory and is now running our foreign policy.
A sick perversion of a philosophy marrying greed-driven unprincipled capitalism and power politics with pious evangelical Christianity, has the majority of the population in a death grip. We value profits above lives, growth above peace, "us" above "them", the present above the future; we have convinced ourselves that trickle-down is a reality while highway robbery is a myth, and snake oil salesmen are doing a roaring trade from coast to coast.
So what else is new? Some new outrage from Washington, D.C.? YAWN.... Two weeks from now, some new girl will be abducted on some tropical island, and that's all anyone will care about.
And once more, another Pinko RANT.
ROTFLMAO.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO.
Arthur
QUOTE (Corvidae+Sep 7 2007, 03:37 PM)
As for suspending habeas corpus...that's when I bought a gun. For the simple reason, if imprisonment can no longer be challenged, then the only hope is to resist or die trying to resist arrest.
Except this is just a paranoid rant, Habeas Corpus hasn't been suspended.
Look, I'm all for VIGILANCE in assuring we retain our civil liberties, but lets deal with REALITY shall we.
Arthur
Except this is just a paranoid rant, Habeas Corpus hasn't been suspended.
Look, I'm all for VIGILANCE in assuring we retain our civil liberties, but lets deal with REALITY shall we.
Arthur
Pink Elephant has said it pretty well. I think he is dealing with reality.
You want some CHEESE with that WHINE?
Arthur
Arthur
Mark Twain was a bit of a whiner too. But I happen to like good ol' Sam Clemens....
I wonder what he'd say if he beheld the brave new world we're ushering in under the aegis of "War on Terror"....
I mean just think about it: who the F**K would call a loose conglomeration of laws, the "Patriot Act"?? Are we living in Nazi Germany? Are we living in Stalinist Russia? What is it with all this blatant propaganda and legislation by sloganeering, and packaging a whole bunch of crap overnight into a single all-or-none proposition, and not even giving legislators an opportunity to read through the 300+ page monstrosity before voting on it, and why am I the only one disgusted by any of it?
I wonder what he'd say if he beheld the brave new world we're ushering in under the aegis of "War on Terror"....
I mean just think about it: who the F**K would call a loose conglomeration of laws, the "Patriot Act"?? Are we living in Nazi Germany? Are we living in Stalinist Russia? What is it with all this blatant propaganda and legislation by sloganeering, and packaging a whole bunch of crap overnight into a single all-or-none proposition, and not even giving legislators an opportunity to read through the 300+ page monstrosity before voting on it, and why am I the only one disgusted by any of it?
Well Pink, your rant falls a little FLAT considering that they had YEARS of living with the original Patriot Act, seeing how it was ACTUALLY USED and then they took plenty of time to deliberate and debate the issues prior to passing the revised Patriot Act in March of 2006 by an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY in the Senate (89 - 10) and the House (280 - 138).
Arthur
Arthur
You're making a whole bunch of wholly unjustified assumptions there, Arthur.
First, you're assuming that the "Patriot Act" (ugh...) was the only bill passed like that. Whereas virtually every single bill is written by lobbyists, never read nor comprehended in its entirety by the congressmen (which, given the size of those bills, the obtuse language, and the rate at which they are spewed out, would be physically impossible), and passed in a similarly shady fashion (with all sorts of hidden "riders" snuck in at the 11th hour.)
Next, you're assuming that Congress actually got properly informed as to how that bill as "ACTUALLY USED". Given the typical closeted "national security" hermetics of the current administration (by some accounts, the most secretive one in U.S. history!!), and given the sheer amount of stonewalling they routinely throw at any inquiry (it's gotten to the point where they can't recall everything they couldn't recall so far), I'd say odds are excellent that "Mistakes Were Made" that nobody has even heard of just yet....
Then, even ASSUMING no egregious abuse has of yet occurred as a result of this bill, where is the GUARANTEE that its broad provisions and unchecked powers granted to the Executive, will not be abused IN THE FUTURE? This nation (as any nation) has a long and rich history of government abuses of power; what has changed all of a sudden, to make us immune from ourselves? Why are we suddenly so trusting toward our government; why have we forgotten Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin and the Bay of Pigs? Wasn't it just 10 short years ago when the entire "Conservative" establishment was seething and howling in a paroxysm of distrust toward the federal government? Whatever happened to the "survivalists" and the "Branch Davidians" of the "Conservative Revolution"?? Why is it, these days, that we'd sooner pan Hollywood for rubbing against the grain of American jingoism and new-found "patriotism" for the "Homeland", than cast a suspicious eye toward our Dear Leader and his shady cabinet of cronies and ideologues?
And finally, you're actually assuming (or are you?) that the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" was due to the soundness of the approach, rather than fear of getting "Swiftboated" in the next election as "Unpatriotic" for voting against the "Patriot Act". After all, in a "War on Terror", we must "Support our Bush" (oops, I meant "Troops" of course...) because "The Best Defense is a Good Offense" and therefore what sort of a "Strict Constructionist" would want to have checks or limits on the "Executive Privilege" of a "Unitary Executive" when in this day and age we clearly need "The Decider" to "Lead" us firmly down the path to the "Moral Majority" while assuring our "Unipolar Moment", exorcising the "Axis of Evil", "Spreading Democracy", and "Fighting for Our Freedom" in Iraq?
First, you're assuming that the "Patriot Act" (ugh...) was the only bill passed like that. Whereas virtually every single bill is written by lobbyists, never read nor comprehended in its entirety by the congressmen (which, given the size of those bills, the obtuse language, and the rate at which they are spewed out, would be physically impossible), and passed in a similarly shady fashion (with all sorts of hidden "riders" snuck in at the 11th hour.)
Next, you're assuming that Congress actually got properly informed as to how that bill as "ACTUALLY USED". Given the typical closeted "national security" hermetics of the current administration (by some accounts, the most secretive one in U.S. history!!), and given the sheer amount of stonewalling they routinely throw at any inquiry (it's gotten to the point where they can't recall everything they couldn't recall so far), I'd say odds are excellent that "Mistakes Were Made" that nobody has even heard of just yet....
Then, even ASSUMING no egregious abuse has of yet occurred as a result of this bill, where is the GUARANTEE that its broad provisions and unchecked powers granted to the Executive, will not be abused IN THE FUTURE? This nation (as any nation) has a long and rich history of government abuses of power; what has changed all of a sudden, to make us immune from ourselves? Why are we suddenly so trusting toward our government; why have we forgotten Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin and the Bay of Pigs? Wasn't it just 10 short years ago when the entire "Conservative" establishment was seething and howling in a paroxysm of distrust toward the federal government? Whatever happened to the "survivalists" and the "Branch Davidians" of the "Conservative Revolution"?? Why is it, these days, that we'd sooner pan Hollywood for rubbing against the grain of American jingoism and new-found "patriotism" for the "Homeland", than cast a suspicious eye toward our Dear Leader and his shady cabinet of cronies and ideologues?
And finally, you're actually assuming (or are you?) that the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" was due to the soundness of the approach, rather than fear of getting "Swiftboated" in the next election as "Unpatriotic" for voting against the "Patriot Act". After all, in a "War on Terror", we must "Support our Bush" (oops, I meant "Troops" of course...) because "The Best Defense is a Good Offense" and therefore what sort of a "Strict Constructionist" would want to have checks or limits on the "Executive Privilege" of a "Unitary Executive" when in this day and age we clearly need "The Decider" to "Lead" us firmly down the path to the "Moral Majority" while assuring our "Unipolar Moment", exorcising the "Axis of Evil", "Spreading Democracy", and "Fighting for Our Freedom" in Iraq?
Bush is a classic dictator... though he may not kill his own people and send his troops out to wage war on countries for their nationality, he is however a warmonger of false justification.
Now, i believe wholeheardedly that what happened on 9/11 was beyond discusting and evil, but President G. Bush believed in an eye for an eye... WHAT A CHRISTIAN... and don't forget, this is what he says he is... In fact, he bases everything he does on the cause of Christianity...
CAN ANYONE SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS???????????????
You dont involve religion with politics. They are a dangerous mix.
He sent his troops into Aftganistan and killed innocent people... Yes, perhaps he finally targeted his main goal in the end, but this is disproportionate next to all those innocent lives he killed... The children, the mothers and innocent men who had nothing to do with the Taliban.
There was another way he could have gone about it. He could have secretly snuck into that country with the best known troops available and killed the foreign president... There was absolutely no need to do what he did at all. It was superfluous and sick-minded.
Not only all of this, but he doesn;t seem to display the most intelligent ideas or thoughts either. I recently watched a documentary on some of the most stupid things he says, and they actually had me embarrased for him... More so than i would feel for Landon or Nick! And we all know that is saying something at least...
He should be taken out of power imediately. No hesitations. He is a dictator and malice ruler.
NeoNo.1
Now, i believe wholeheardedly that what happened on 9/11 was beyond discusting and evil, but President G. Bush believed in an eye for an eye... WHAT A CHRISTIAN... and don't forget, this is what he says he is... In fact, he bases everything he does on the cause of Christianity...
CAN ANYONE SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS???????????????
You dont involve religion with politics. They are a dangerous mix.
He sent his troops into Aftganistan and killed innocent people... Yes, perhaps he finally targeted his main goal in the end, but this is disproportionate next to all those innocent lives he killed... The children, the mothers and innocent men who had nothing to do with the Taliban.
There was another way he could have gone about it. He could have secretly snuck into that country with the best known troops available and killed the foreign president... There was absolutely no need to do what he did at all. It was superfluous and sick-minded.
Not only all of this, but he doesn;t seem to display the most intelligent ideas or thoughts either. I recently watched a documentary on some of the most stupid things he says, and they actually had me embarrased for him... More so than i would feel for Landon or Nick! And we all know that is saying something at least...
He should be taken out of power imediately. No hesitations. He is a dictator and malice ruler.
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Sep 7 2007, 10:37 PM)
You're making a whole bunch of wholly unjustified assumptions there, Arthur.
First, you're assuming that the "Patriot Act" (ugh...) was the only bill passed like that. Whereas virtually every single bill is written by lobbyists, never read nor comprehended in its entirety by the congressmen (which, given the size of those bills, the obtuse language, and the rate at which they are spewed out, would be physically impossible), and passed in a similarly shady fashion (with all sorts of hidden "riders" snuck in at the 11th hour.)
Next, you're assuming that Congress actually got properly informed as to how that bill as "ACTUALLY USED". Given the typical closeted "national security" hermetics of the current administration (by some accounts, the most secretive one in U.S. history!!), and given the sheer amount of stonewalling they routinely throw at any inquiry (it's gotten to the point where they can't recall everything they couldn't recall so far), I'd say odds are excellent that "Mistakes Were Made" that nobody has even heard of just yet....
Then, even ASSUMING no egregious abuse has of yet occurred as a result of this bill, where is the GUARANTEE that its broad provisions and unchecked powers granted to the Executive, will not be abused IN THE FUTURE? This nation (as any nation) has a long and rich history of government abuses of power; what has changed all of a sudden, to make us immune from ourselves? Why are we suddenly so trusting toward our government; why have we forgotten Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin and the Bay of Pigs? Wasn't it just 10 short years ago when the entire "Conservative" establishment was seething and howling in a paroxysm of distrust toward the federal government? Whatever happened to the "survivalists" and the "Branch Davidians" of the "Conservative Revolution"?? Why is it, these days, that we'd sooner pan Hollywood for rubbing against the grain of American jingoism and new-found "patriotism" for the "Homeland", than cast a suspicious eye toward our Dear Leader and his shady cabinet of cronies and ideologues?
And finally, you're actually assuming (or are you?) that the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" was due to the soundness of the approach, rather than fear of getting "Swiftboated" in the next election as "Unpatriotic" for voting against the "Patriot Act". After all, in a "War on Terror", we must "Support our Bush" (oops, I meant "Troops" of course...) because "The Best Defense is a Good Offense" and therefore what sort of a "Strict Constructionist" would want to have checks or limits on the "Executive Privilege" of a "Unitary Executive" when in this day and age we clearly need "The Decider" to "Lead" us firmly down the path to the "Moral Majority" while assuring our "Unipolar Moment", exorcising the "Axis of Evil", "Spreading Democracy", and "Fighting for Our Freedom" in Iraq?
No Pink, its YOU who make these UNWARRENTED assumptions about our Congressmen and Sentators.
No all bills aren't written by lobbyists, but still they are VALUABLE contributors to the PROCESS of making laws as they are EXPERT AVOCATES for the COMPLEX but often ARCANE world we live in.
Remember there are lobbyists from BOTH sides of most issues.
Do you think we could write GOOD environmental laws without LOBBYISTS from WWF and the Sierra Club to balance the lobbyists from the Oil and Mining industries?
Do you think we would write GOOD energy policy without LOBBYISTS from the Wind Power association to balance the Coal interests?
etc etc
As to the Patriot act.
I remember CLEARLY the long running debate about the various provisions of the act.
I remember CLEARLY how the act was changed as the House and Senate compromised on various aspects of the bill.
I remember CLEARLY how the House and Senate got to a bill that a VAST majority of the members could support.
We just read where a small portion of the bill was changed because of Judicial review.
All in All a GOOD example of how our system works as it was intended.
But CLEARLY you apparently don't care for our DEMOCRATIC system.
You seem to think it should only pass bills that YOU agree with.
As I asked you in a previous post: Why do you continue to live in a place you apparently HATE so much?
Arthur
First, you're assuming that the "Patriot Act" (ugh...) was the only bill passed like that. Whereas virtually every single bill is written by lobbyists, never read nor comprehended in its entirety by the congressmen (which, given the size of those bills, the obtuse language, and the rate at which they are spewed out, would be physically impossible), and passed in a similarly shady fashion (with all sorts of hidden "riders" snuck in at the 11th hour.)
Next, you're assuming that Congress actually got properly informed as to how that bill as "ACTUALLY USED". Given the typical closeted "national security" hermetics of the current administration (by some accounts, the most secretive one in U.S. history!!), and given the sheer amount of stonewalling they routinely throw at any inquiry (it's gotten to the point where they can't recall everything they couldn't recall so far), I'd say odds are excellent that "Mistakes Were Made" that nobody has even heard of just yet....
Then, even ASSUMING no egregious abuse has of yet occurred as a result of this bill, where is the GUARANTEE that its broad provisions and unchecked powers granted to the Executive, will not be abused IN THE FUTURE? This nation (as any nation) has a long and rich history of government abuses of power; what has changed all of a sudden, to make us immune from ourselves? Why are we suddenly so trusting toward our government; why have we forgotten Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin and the Bay of Pigs? Wasn't it just 10 short years ago when the entire "Conservative" establishment was seething and howling in a paroxysm of distrust toward the federal government? Whatever happened to the "survivalists" and the "Branch Davidians" of the "Conservative Revolution"?? Why is it, these days, that we'd sooner pan Hollywood for rubbing against the grain of American jingoism and new-found "patriotism" for the "Homeland", than cast a suspicious eye toward our Dear Leader and his shady cabinet of cronies and ideologues?
And finally, you're actually assuming (or are you?) that the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" was due to the soundness of the approach, rather than fear of getting "Swiftboated" in the next election as "Unpatriotic" for voting against the "Patriot Act". After all, in a "War on Terror", we must "Support our Bush" (oops, I meant "Troops" of course...) because "The Best Defense is a Good Offense" and therefore what sort of a "Strict Constructionist" would want to have checks or limits on the "Executive Privilege" of a "Unitary Executive" when in this day and age we clearly need "The Decider" to "Lead" us firmly down the path to the "Moral Majority" while assuring our "Unipolar Moment", exorcising the "Axis of Evil", "Spreading Democracy", and "Fighting for Our Freedom" in Iraq?
No Pink, its YOU who make these UNWARRENTED assumptions about our Congressmen and Sentators.
No all bills aren't written by lobbyists, but still they are VALUABLE contributors to the PROCESS of making laws as they are EXPERT AVOCATES for the COMPLEX but often ARCANE world we live in.
Remember there are lobbyists from BOTH sides of most issues.
Do you think we could write GOOD environmental laws without LOBBYISTS from WWF and the Sierra Club to balance the lobbyists from the Oil and Mining industries?
Do you think we would write GOOD energy policy without LOBBYISTS from the Wind Power association to balance the Coal interests?
etc etc
As to the Patriot act.
I remember CLEARLY the long running debate about the various provisions of the act.
I remember CLEARLY how the act was changed as the House and Senate compromised on various aspects of the bill.
I remember CLEARLY how the House and Senate got to a bill that a VAST majority of the members could support.
We just read where a small portion of the bill was changed because of Judicial review.
All in All a GOOD example of how our system works as it was intended.
But CLEARLY you apparently don't care for our DEMOCRATIC system.
You seem to think it should only pass bills that YOU agree with.
As I asked you in a previous post: Why do you continue to live in a place you apparently HATE so much?
Arthur
If all that the lobbyists ever did, was to offer "expert" advice, then I don't think anyone would have any problem with them. Unfortunately, their primary function is to BRIBE legislators, BUY votes, COERCE votes, and SNEAK provisions favorable to themselves into the middle of humongous bills that they know nobody will read. As far as I recall, the Constitution mentions nothing about K Street; the fact that unelected mercenaries are writing our laws, formulating key strategic national policy (e.g. the energy policy), and putting pressure on our elected so-called "representatives" is testimony to how corrupt our process of governance is today.
As to the "patriot" act, do you remember quite as "CLEARLY" how hard the administration pushed for it from the bully pulpit, and how all cable channels and newspaper editorials were abuzz with how crucial and vital this bill was supposed to be to our collective safety, and how we're all doomed to die without it? Do you remember how anyone who spoke up against that bill, got branded and vilified? I bet you don't remember, because the abuse wasn't directed at "your side" and therefore wasn't important to you.
You seem to think it should only pass bills that YOU agree with.
I do??
I do??
But CLEARLY you apparently don't care for our DEMOCRATIC system.
Clearly that explains why I expend all this effort to keep up with the facts, and write up these humongous posts. Obviously, it's because I don't care.
As I asked you in a previous post: Why do you continue to live in a place you apparently HATE so much?
Because I believe in the ideals behind the place. Even if the place is no longer living up to them, I still believe it COULD -- and it SHOULD....
So before you continue to cast aspersions at me, why don't you first take a look at the garbage you're defending:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact...reitstands.html
Now consider how the above material relates to the title of this thread.....
Let me ask you something... Have you ever watched the documentary, "Why we Fight"? Have you ever watched "The Corporation"? What about "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers", or "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"? Or "Bush's Brain", or "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", or "Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War", or "Bush Family Fortunes - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", "Orwell Rolls in His Grave", "Unconstitutional - The War On Our Civil Liberties".....
Yeah, these days one has to resort to documentaries because within the "mass media", investigative journalism is no longer viable in this country. And yeah, I know what your reaction will be: it's all leftist propaganda, and only manic-depressive America-haters would watch such stuff. Well.... go ahead, be deaf, blind, and mute: at least that's one freedom that nobody can ever take away from you...
As to the "patriot" act, do you remember quite as "CLEARLY" how hard the administration pushed for it from the bully pulpit, and how all cable channels and newspaper editorials were abuzz with how crucial and vital this bill was supposed to be to our collective safety, and how we're all doomed to die without it? Do you remember how anyone who spoke up against that bill, got branded and vilified? I bet you don't remember, because the abuse wasn't directed at "your side" and therefore wasn't important to you.
QUOTE
You seem to think it should only pass bills that YOU agree with.
I do??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You seem to think it should only pass bills that YOU agree with. |
I do??
But CLEARLY you apparently don't care for our DEMOCRATIC system.
Clearly that explains why I expend all this effort to keep up with the facts, and write up these humongous posts. Obviously, it's because I don't care.
QUOTE
As I asked you in a previous post: Why do you continue to live in a place you apparently HATE so much?
Because I believe in the ideals behind the place. Even if the place is no longer living up to them, I still believe it COULD -- and it SHOULD....
So before you continue to cast aspersions at me, why don't you first take a look at the garbage you're defending:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact...reitstands.html
Now consider how the above material relates to the title of this thread.....
Let me ask you something... Have you ever watched the documentary, "Why we Fight"? Have you ever watched "The Corporation"? What about "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers", or "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"? Or "Bush's Brain", or "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", or "Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War", or "Bush Family Fortunes - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", "Orwell Rolls in His Grave", "Unconstitutional - The War On Our Civil Liberties".....
Yeah, these days one has to resort to documentaries because within the "mass media", investigative journalism is no longer viable in this country. And yeah, I know what your reaction will be: it's all leftist propaganda, and only manic-depressive America-haters would watch such stuff. Well.... go ahead, be deaf, blind, and mute: at least that's one freedom that nobody can ever take away from you...
And now ... a spectacle: an avowed atheist is about to cheer some nuns!
A progressive group of U.S. nuns has called on Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney because of their roles in the war in Iraq.
“The National Coalition of American Nuns is impelled by conscience to call you to act promptly to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President *** Cheney for ... high crimes and misdemeanors,” the group wrote in a letter written on behalf of its board members.
The letter says that impeachment is warranted for their “deceiving the public under the false pretense that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction” and “destroying” the reputation of the United States and the good will of other nations.
“The time for impeachment is now — before the example of George W. Bush’s regime is set in stone,” they wrote. “Future generations will thank you for preserving the freedom of our nation and its relation to the entire human community.”
The coalition was founded in 1969 for individual nuns dedicated to issues of social justice and human rights.
The letter was approved during a mid-August meeting of the board, held in Chicago. During that same meeting, the board unanimously adopted statements opposing all war and affirming peacemaking efforts. “Rather than continuing support of a just-war theory, a more compassionate church would oppose all war and teach peacemaking skills for all levels of government and interpersonal conflict resolution,” the statement reads.
The board also adopted statements pledging to work to “moderate the impact we make on planet Earth,” and supporting nuclear disarmament and relief efforts for the poor in Africa.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellit...s=1037645509005
Hip Hip Hooray!!!!
edit: the forum system replaced VP's name in the quote with "***". Very appropriate, considering the obscenity of the reference...
QUOTE
A progressive group of U.S. nuns has called on Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney because of their roles in the war in Iraq.
“The National Coalition of American Nuns is impelled by conscience to call you to act promptly to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President *** Cheney for ... high crimes and misdemeanors,” the group wrote in a letter written on behalf of its board members.
The letter says that impeachment is warranted for their “deceiving the public under the false pretense that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction” and “destroying” the reputation of the United States and the good will of other nations.
“The time for impeachment is now — before the example of George W. Bush’s regime is set in stone,” they wrote. “Future generations will thank you for preserving the freedom of our nation and its relation to the entire human community.”
The coalition was founded in 1969 for individual nuns dedicated to issues of social justice and human rights.
The letter was approved during a mid-August meeting of the board, held in Chicago. During that same meeting, the board unanimously adopted statements opposing all war and affirming peacemaking efforts. “Rather than continuing support of a just-war theory, a more compassionate church would oppose all war and teach peacemaking skills for all levels of government and interpersonal conflict resolution,” the statement reads.
The board also adopted statements pledging to work to “moderate the impact we make on planet Earth,” and supporting nuclear disarmament and relief efforts for the poor in Africa.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellit...s=1037645509005
Hip Hip Hooray!!!!
edit: the forum system replaced VP's name in the quote with "***". Very appropriate, considering the obscenity of the reference...
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Sep 8 2007, 12:34 AM)
If all that the lobbyists ever did, was to offer "expert" advice, then I don't think anyone would have any problem with them. Unfortunately, their primary function is to BRIBE legislators, BUY votes, COERCE votes, and SNEAK provisions favorable to themselves into the middle of humongous bills that they know nobody will read. As far as I recall, the Constitution mentions nothing about K Street; the fact that unelected mercenaries are writing our laws, formulating key strategic national policy (e.g. the energy policy), and putting pressure on our elected so-called "representatives" is testimony to how corrupt our process of governance is today.
You look at lobbyists and ALL you can see is bad.
What you claim is their primary function is to
Clearly it isn't so.
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
ROTFLMAO
Oh, and though you might not believe it, I also SUPPORT the ACLU's efforts to modify the Patriot Act.
See : http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257988
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Oh, and about those documentaries, YES, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
And yes, I support the RIGHT of the authors to publish and promote them.
Each of them is LOBBYING for their VIEW of the world to be considered correct.
Just like the Bush admin was LOBBYING from its Bully Pulpit in support of the P Act.
And FINALLY, I'm NOT casting aspersions at you, it just amazes me, that given the HATRED you've shown for the US and with all the other options in this World you couldn't find a place you would be HAPPIER.
Your answer as to why you stay
What you claim is their primary function is to but this activity is CLEARLY ILLEGAL and the LOBBYISTS for the OTHER side would be QUICK to point out this illegal activity.
Except the LOBBYISTS make damn sure that our laws are and remain full of loopholes, enabling perfectly LEGAL bribing of the legislators. It is also thanks to the LOBBYISTS that campaign finance reform has been, and remains a joke; it's their doing that public financing of elections remains a pipe dream; it's their work to ensure that "freedom of speech" when it comes to politics is in effect the exclusive privilege of the wealthy in our society. It is also thanks to them, that any attempt to make legislators accountable to their actual constituents, rather than to K Street or Wall Street, is predictably shot down every time.
Clearly it isn't so.
You are naive and gullible beyond belief....
You are naive and gullible beyond belief....
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
Works? I'd say it's pretty damned broken by now, and the majority of America agrees with my assessment.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1600
When was the last time the majority of Americans was actually satisfied with Congress, other than during the post 9/11 hysteria or the general .com-era euphoria?
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
Only because you had yourself mentioned them. I don't suppose you actually read any of the pages I linked to... all about how wonderful a democratic achievement the Patriot Act has been.
And great as the ACLU may be (BTW I'm a card-carrying member), I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress. Our representatives are supposed to represent their constituents -- from their respective states and districts -- not some multinational industry association, or some nation-wide club.
I wish ACLU could confine themselves to lawsuits and voter education/agitation. Of course, given how corrupt DC is, they hardly have any choice but to get dirty -- or else risk becoming irrelevant.
Only because you had yourself mentioned them. I don't suppose you actually read any of the pages I linked to... all about how wonderful a democratic achievement the Patriot Act has been.
And great as the ACLU may be (BTW I'm a card-carrying member), I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress. Our representatives are supposed to represent their constituents -- from their respective states and districts -- not some multinational industry association, or some nation-wide club.
I wish ACLU could confine themselves to lawsuits and voter education/agitation. Of course, given how corrupt DC is, they hardly have any choice but to get dirty -- or else risk becoming irrelevant.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Do you even have any clue what's been going on over the last 10 years?! There has literally been an open conspiracy -- and a very successful one so far -- to appoint loyal operatives to the judicial branch, while usurping both the legislative and the executive, all under a unified single-party rule, political agenda and ideology.
This is how a system of checks and balances gets subverted, and a fascist state gets established.
If you don't believe me, just go ahead and ask Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, and other such modern luminaries of American politics...
Oh, and about those documentaries, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
How would you know? You've never seen them.
But I'm not at all surprised at your blithe dismissal; it was to be expected. You're a fossil, Arthur, because the country you thought you were living in no longer exists (if ever it had.)
You look at lobbyists and ALL you can see is bad.
What you claim is their primary function is to
QUOTE
BRIBE legislators, BUY votes,
but this activity is CLEARLY ILLEGAL and the LOBBYISTS for the OTHER side would be QUICK to point out this illegal activity.Clearly it isn't so.
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
ROTFLMAO
Oh, and though you might not believe it, I also SUPPORT the ACLU's efforts to modify the Patriot Act.
See : http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257988
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Oh, and about those documentaries, YES, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
And yes, I support the RIGHT of the authors to publish and promote them.
Each of them is LOBBYING for their VIEW of the world to be considered correct.
Just like the Bush admin was LOBBYING from its Bully Pulpit in support of the P Act.
And FINALLY, I'm NOT casting aspersions at you, it just amazes me, that given the HATRED you've shown for the US and with all the other options in this World you couldn't find a place you would be HAPPIER.
Your answer as to why you stay
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BRIBE legislators, BUY votes, |
but this activity is CLEARLY ILLEGAL and the LOBBYISTS for the OTHER side would be QUICK to point out this illegal activity.
Clearly it isn't so.
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
ROTFLMAO
Oh, and though you might not believe it, I also SUPPORT the ACLU's efforts to modify the Patriot Act.
See : http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257988
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Oh, and about those documentaries, YES, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
And yes, I support the RIGHT of the authors to publish and promote them.
Each of them is LOBBYING for their VIEW of the world to be considered correct.
Just like the Bush admin was LOBBYING from its Bully Pulpit in support of the P Act.
And FINALLY, I'm NOT casting aspersions at you, it just amazes me, that given the HATRED you've shown for the US and with all the other options in this World you couldn't find a place you would be HAPPIER.
Your answer as to why you stay Because I believe in the ideals behind the place. Even if the place is no longer living up to them
Clearly it isn't so.
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
ROTFLMAO
Oh, and though you might not believe it, I also SUPPORT the ACLU's efforts to modify the Patriot Act.
See : http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257988
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Oh, and about those documentaries, YES, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
And yes, I support the RIGHT of the authors to publish and promote them.
Each of them is LOBBYING for their VIEW of the world to be considered correct.
Just like the Bush admin was LOBBYING from its Bully Pulpit in support of the P Act.
And FINALLY, I'm NOT casting aspersions at you, it just amazes me, that given the HATRED you've shown for the US and with all the other options in this World you couldn't find a place you would be HAPPIER.
Your answer as to why you stay Because I believe in the ideals behind the place. Even if the place is no longer living up to them
seems a rather POOR reason for staying.
Surely you could find a place with essentially the same ideals that IS living up to them?
Or then again, maybe you can't.
Arthur
Surely you could find a place with essentially the same ideals that IS living up to them?
Or then again, maybe you can't.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 8 2007, 12:14 PM)
What you claim is their primary function is to but this activity is CLEARLY ILLEGAL and the LOBBYISTS for the OTHER side would be QUICK to point out this illegal activity.
Except the LOBBYISTS make damn sure that our laws are and remain full of loopholes, enabling perfectly LEGAL bribing of the legislators. It is also thanks to the LOBBYISTS that campaign finance reform has been, and remains a joke; it's their doing that public financing of elections remains a pipe dream; it's their work to ensure that "freedom of speech" when it comes to politics is in effect the exclusive privilege of the wealthy in our society. It is also thanks to them, that any attempt to make legislators accountable to their actual constituents, rather than to K Street or Wall Street, is predictably shot down every time.
QUOTE
Clearly it isn't so.
You are naive and gullible beyond belief....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Clearly it isn't so. |
You are naive and gullible beyond belief....
The fact is that Lobbyists are one of the key reasons why our system STILL works after 200 years.
Works? I'd say it's pretty damned broken by now, and the majority of America agrees with my assessment.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1600
When was the last time the majority of Americans was actually satisfied with Congress, other than during the post 9/11 hysteria or the general .com-era euphoria?
QUOTE
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU.
Which, IS a LOBBYIST group.
Only because you had yourself mentioned them. I don't suppose you actually read any of the pages I linked to... all about how wonderful a democratic achievement the Patriot Act has been.
And great as the ACLU may be (BTW I'm a card-carrying member), I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress. Our representatives are supposed to represent their constituents -- from their respective states and districts -- not some multinational industry association, or some nation-wide club.
I wish ACLU could confine themselves to lawsuits and voter education/agitation. Of course, given how corrupt DC is, they hardly have any choice but to get dirty -- or else risk becoming irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What is SO FUNNY, is then you end your rant with three links to the ACLU. Which, IS a LOBBYIST group. |
Only because you had yourself mentioned them. I don't suppose you actually read any of the pages I linked to... all about how wonderful a democratic achievement the Patriot Act has been.
And great as the ACLU may be (BTW I'm a card-carrying member), I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress. Our representatives are supposed to represent their constituents -- from their respective states and districts -- not some multinational industry association, or some nation-wide club.
I wish ACLU could confine themselves to lawsuits and voter education/agitation. Of course, given how corrupt DC is, they hardly have any choice but to get dirty -- or else risk becoming irrelevant.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
Do you even have any clue what's been going on over the last 10 years?! There has literally been an open conspiracy -- and a very successful one so far -- to appoint loyal operatives to the judicial branch, while usurping both the legislative and the executive, all under a unified single-party rule, political agenda and ideology.
This is how a system of checks and balances gets subverted, and a fascist state gets established.
If you don't believe me, just go ahead and ask Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, and other such modern luminaries of American politics...
QUOTE
Oh, and about those documentaries, they clealy ARE all propaganda.
How would you know? You've never seen them.
But I'm not at all surprised at your blithe dismissal; it was to be expected. You're a fossil, Arthur, because the country you thought you were living in no longer exists (if ever it had.)
Being dissatisfied with Congress is NOT the same as thinking our system is Broken.
As to your poll:
Note that on Sept 10th 2001 the approval rating was 42 percent.
On Oct 11th it was 84 percent.
But of course it was the SAME congress of just 1 month previous.
You think they got that much better at their job over that month?
But what do you expect from such an open question like:
The only people who believe in Polls are Polsters and the people who agree with the results.
As to the lobbyists,
The only people who believe in Polls are Polsters and the people who agree with the results.
As to the lobbyists,
I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress
And you call me naive.
As to the documentaries, the TITLEs (like "Bush's Brain" or "Bush Family Fortunes - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy") let you KNOW they are propaganda.
And YES, life is TOO SHORT to WASTE it watching obviously BIASED documentaries.
Finally, I'm QUITE HAPPY with the Country/State/County/City/Neighborhood that I'm living in.
Lots of great people (even if most of my neighbors are wealthy Democrats).
Arthur
Except the LOBBYISTS make damn sure that our laws are and remain full of loopholes, enabling perfectly LEGAL bribing of the legislators. It is also thanks to the LOBBYISTS that campaign finance reform has been, and remains a joke; it's their doing that public financing of elections remains a pipe dream; it's their work to ensure that "freedom of speech" when it comes to politics is in effect the exclusive privilege of the wealthy in our society. It is also thanks to them, that any attempt to make legislators accountable to their actual constituents, rather than to K Street or Wall Street, is predictably shot down every time.
So I take it you AGREE with this statement:
Arthur
As to your poll:
Note that on Sept 10th 2001 the approval rating was 42 percent.
On Oct 11th it was 84 percent.
But of course it was the SAME congress of just 1 month previous.
You think they got that much better at their job over that month?
But what do you expect from such an open question like:
QUOTE
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?
The only people who believe in Polls are Polsters and the people who agree with the results.
As to the lobbyists,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job? |
The only people who believe in Polls are Polsters and the people who agree with the results.
As to the lobbyists,
I'd rather neither they nor any other lobbyist organization had any access to the halls of Congress
And you call me naive.
As to the documentaries, the TITLEs (like "Bush's Brain" or "Bush Family Fortunes - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy") let you KNOW they are propaganda.
And YES, life is TOO SHORT to WASTE it watching obviously BIASED documentaries.
Finally, I'm QUITE HAPPY with the Country/State/County/City/Neighborhood that I'm living in.
Lots of great people (even if most of my neighbors are wealthy Democrats).
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Sep 8 2007, 08:48 AM)
Except the LOBBYISTS make damn sure that our laws are and remain full of loopholes, enabling perfectly LEGAL bribing of the legislators. It is also thanks to the LOBBYISTS that campaign finance reform has been, and remains a joke; it's their doing that public financing of elections remains a pipe dream; it's their work to ensure that "freedom of speech" when it comes to politics is in effect the exclusive privilege of the wealthy in our society. It is also thanks to them, that any attempt to make legislators accountable to their actual constituents, rather than to K Street or Wall Street, is predictably shot down every time.
So I take it you AGREE with this statement:
QUOTE
"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.
And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.
And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown- still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system."
If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy."
And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.
And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown- still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system."
If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect democracy."
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 7 2007, 10:09 PM)
Except this is just a paranoid rant, Habeas Corpus hasn't been suspended.
Look, I'm all for VIGILANCE in assuring we retain our civil liberties, but lets deal with REALITY shall we.
Arthur
MOST people here know that Congress actually PASSES the legislation Arthur....
Bush is at the forefront of the Patriot Act, essentially pushing to pass these laws. Kinda reminds me of the Reichstag Fire Decree, although not nearly to that extent.
The point that you seem to be missing is that civil liberties are usually not lost overnight. It is the minor laws that are passed, that give precedence for other laws to be passed, that whittle away our rights until one day we find that we have none.
What we have in this country right now is essentially a one party system. Oh, there are some minor differences, but on the whole we are just voting for Republicrats. I will never vote Democrat or Republican again.
As far as Pinkelephants post, on the whole I agree with what he says.
Oh and Habeas Corpus HAS been suspended several times, in the case of "enemy combatants".
If you don't remember your past you are doomed to repeat it.
Look, I'm all for VIGILANCE in assuring we retain our civil liberties, but lets deal with REALITY shall we.
Arthur
MOST people here know that Congress actually PASSES the legislation Arthur....
Bush is at the forefront of the Patriot Act, essentially pushing to pass these laws. Kinda reminds me of the Reichstag Fire Decree, although not nearly to that extent.
The point that you seem to be missing is that civil liberties are usually not lost overnight. It is the minor laws that are passed, that give precedence for other laws to be passed, that whittle away our rights until one day we find that we have none.
What we have in this country right now is essentially a one party system. Oh, there are some minor differences, but on the whole we are just voting for Republicrats. I will never vote Democrat or Republican again.
As far as Pinkelephants post, on the whole I agree with what he says.
Oh and Habeas Corpus HAS been suspended several times, in the case of "enemy combatants".
If you don't remember your past you are doomed to repeat it.
QUOTE (Paradox+Sep 8 2007, 02:05 PM)
MOST people here know that Congress actually PASSES the legislation Arthur....
Bush is at the forefront of the Patriot Act, essentially pushing to pass these laws. Kinda reminds me of the Reichstag Fire Decree, although not nearly to that extent.
The point that you seem to be missing is that civil liberties are usually not lost overnight. It is the minor laws that are passed, that give precedence for other laws to be passed, that whittle away our rights until one day we find that we have none.
What we have in this country right now is essentially a one party system. Oh, there are some minor differences, but on the whole we are just voting for Republicrats. I will never vote Democrat or Republican again.
As far as Pinkelephants post, on the whole I agree with what he says.
Oh and Habeas Corpus HAS been suspended several times, in the case of "enemy combatants".
Do you forget that the current version of the Patriot Act was approved in the Senate by a vote of 89 to 10 ?
I had NO IDEA that Bush had such POWER over the Democrats.
As to HC, the poster I replied to said he had bought a gun BECAUSE Habeas Corpus was suspended.
As in NOW
But it hasn't.
As far as the rest of your post,
Is BS as the Supreme Court DOES NOT judge the consitutionality of laws based on those grounds.
Don't work that way.
Arthur
Bush is at the forefront of the Patriot Act, essentially pushing to pass these laws. Kinda reminds me of the Reichstag Fire Decree, although not nearly to that extent.
The point that you seem to be missing is that civil liberties are usually not lost overnight. It is the minor laws that are passed, that give precedence for other laws to be passed, that whittle away our rights until one day we find that we have none.
What we have in this country right now is essentially a one party system. Oh, there are some minor differences, but on the whole we are just voting for Republicrats. I will never vote Democrat or Republican again.
As far as Pinkelephants post, on the whole I agree with what he says.
Oh and Habeas Corpus HAS been suspended several times, in the case of "enemy combatants".
Do you forget that the current version of the Patriot Act was approved in the Senate by a vote of 89 to 10 ?
I had NO IDEA that Bush had such POWER over the Democrats.
As to HC, the poster I replied to said he had bought a gun BECAUSE Habeas Corpus was suspended.
As in NOW
But it hasn't.
As far as the rest of your post,
QUOTE
The point that you seem to be missing is that civil liberties are usually not lost overnight. It is the minor laws that are passed, that give precedence for other laws to be passed, that whittle away our rights until one day we find that we have none.
Is BS as the Supreme Court DOES NOT judge the consitutionality of laws based on those grounds.
Don't work that way.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 8 2007, 06:52 PM)
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
As to HC, the poster I replied to said he had bought a gun BECAUSE Habeas Corpus was suspended.
As in NOW
But it hasn't.
I would bet that if you were one of those people who were imprisoned for a number of YEARS, without a trial, or even legal council, you wouldn't be trying to argue this point. Apparently you aren't quite old enough to know EXACTLY how the system works after all...
You also seem to not know the (ahem) "power" that the office of the president of the U.S can wield. The checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers can be manipulated ~ inadvertently at times~ to the point of where loopholes are created, enabling the misuse of power. You should look up "landmark decision" or "precedent" to see just how these loopholes can effect future events.
I imagine though that you would rather just argue on and on, until everyone gets bored with the topic.
Sigh....Yawn
As to HC, the poster I replied to said he had bought a gun BECAUSE Habeas Corpus was suspended.
As in NOW
But it hasn't.
I would bet that if you were one of those people who were imprisoned for a number of YEARS, without a trial, or even legal council, you wouldn't be trying to argue this point. Apparently you aren't quite old enough to know EXACTLY how the system works after all...
You also seem to not know the (ahem) "power" that the office of the president of the U.S can wield. The checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers can be manipulated ~ inadvertently at times~ to the point of where loopholes are created, enabling the misuse of power. You should look up "landmark decision" or "precedent" to see just how these loopholes can effect future events.
I imagine though that you would rather just argue on and on, until everyone gets bored with the topic.
Sigh....Yawn
Horse Pucky.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The fact that there was a "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" shows that Habeas Corpus WAS suspended. It should never have gotten that far in the first place. I am glad that there are still those in office that have the backbone to stand up for what they believe to be right, and that this bill passed.
You seem to have a lot of faith that the system works, and will always work toward a balance. Optimism is great, however I have to say that I do not share this optimism, which in my mind sets the stage for complacency. History shows that oligarchies generally turn into monarchies or dictatorships. The vigilance of the "Civil Liberties side" is pretty much the only thing keeping us on course, for now. All you need is enough corrupt politicians in the same place at the same time, and then so much for your civil liberties. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
You might want to read why the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dismissed the case brought by the ACLU against the NSA.
What is the basis for THIS assertion:
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
You might want to read why the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dismissed the case brought by the ACLU against the NSA.
What is the basis for THIS assertion:
Decisions and judgments about you will be made, using that information, and you will never know about them. Those decisions will be made by someone with a political goal in mind. Either for or against whatever political leaning you may have.
You really think there are MILLIONS of SPIES listening in to converstations and keeping a tally of wha your political leanings are??????
Then we get to my personal favorites:
I know you can't see REALITY from where you are, but just MAYBE you could try to find your way back.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The ONLY recent relevant cases that I'm aware of would be yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla.
Guess what, my Cliff Note's version above is EXACTLY what happened (actually, since I expect Padilla will appeal his conviction, it in fact STILL happening, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus...on_Act_of_2007)
Please note that in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld (2004) the US Supreme Court stated that HC applies to US Citizens EVEN if the govt declares one to be an Enemy Combatant and even if captured on foriegn soil in a war zone.
Four members of the court went even further and stated that Habeas Corpus should be available to even non-citizens that were alleged enemy combatants.
Arthur
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The ONLY recent relevant cases that I'm aware of would be yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla.
Guess what, my Cliff Note's version above is EXACTLY what happened (actually, since I expect Padilla will appeal his conviction, it in fact STILL happening, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus...on_Act_of_2007)
Please note that in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld (2004) the US Supreme Court stated that HC applies to US Citizens EVEN if the govt declares one to be an Enemy Combatant and even if captured on foriegn soil in a war zone.
Four members of the court went even further and stated that Habeas Corpus should be available to even non-citizens that were alleged enemy combatants.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 8 2007, 06:52 PM)
Is BS as the Supreme Court DOES NOT judge the consitutionality of laws based on those grounds.
Don't work that way.
Arthur
Actually it often does. The constitutionality of laws are based off of other laws that have been already established. So when laws are built upon each other it's completely required to stop ALL types of laws that bring any question to ones rights or liberties. Because if not then you WILL lose them as it turns into a matter of time not "could be's".
As for lobbyists all you really have to do is look at the example of Alaska and it's general history (pro & con) to see just why it's such a poor and clearly corrupted group. The key reason just why they exist is for people with money to tempt/bribe/coherse elected reps on to courses not deigned by their electorate and not for high ideals that some think that they inhabit.
Don't work that way.
Arthur
Actually it often does. The constitutionality of laws are based off of other laws that have been already established. So when laws are built upon each other it's completely required to stop ALL types of laws that bring any question to ones rights or liberties. Because if not then you WILL lose them as it turns into a matter of time not "could be's".
As for lobbyists all you really have to do is look at the example of Alaska and it's general history (pro & con) to see just why it's such a poor and clearly corrupted group. The key reason just why they exist is for people with money to tempt/bribe/coherse elected reps on to courses not deigned by their electorate and not for high ideals that some think that they inhabit.
QUOTE (chrono+Sep 9 2007, 05:33 PM)
The constitutionality of laws are based off of other laws that have been already established. So when laws are built upon each other it's completely required to stop ALL types of laws that bring any question to ones rights or liberties. Because if not then you WILL lose them as it turns into a matter of time not "could be's".
Show ONE case where the constitutionality of a law is based upon another law and not the constitution.
JUST ONE.
Arthur
Show ONE case where the constitutionality of a law is based upon another law and not the constitution.
JUST ONE.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 9 2007, 02:51 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The fact that there was a "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" shows that Habeas Corpus WAS suspended. It should never have gotten that far in the first place. I am glad that there are still those in office that have the backbone to stand up for what they believe to be right, and that this bill passed.
You seem to have a lot of faith that the system works, and will always work toward a balance. Optimism is great, however I have to say that I do not share this optimism, which in my mind sets the stage for complacency. History shows that oligarchies generally turn into monarchies or dictatorships. The vigilance of the "Civil Liberties side" is pretty much the only thing keeping us on course, for now. All you need is enough corrupt politicians in the same place at the same time, and then so much for your civil liberties. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
Nope,
This dealt with the Guantanamo prisoners, NONE of whom were CITIZENS of the US. So it CLEARLY was a special case applying this to these NON CITIZENS and does NOT indicate that the right of HC was rescinded.
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Arthur
This dealt with the Guantanamo prisoners, NONE of whom were CITIZENS of the US. So it CLEARLY was a special case applying this to these NON CITIZENS and does NOT indicate that the right of HC was rescinded.
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 14 2007, 03:26 AM)
Nope,
This dealt with the Guantanamo prisoners, NONE of whom were CITIZENS of the US. So it CLEARLY was a special case applying this to these NON CITIZENS and does NOT indicate that the right of HC was rescinded.
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Arthur
Horse puckey.
Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn, New York, and a us citizen, and was held for 5 years without a trial.
President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.
The right to a speedy trial, is supposedly guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
As I said H.C. was rescinded.
Oh and about one third of the population lives under some form of dictatorship. I wonder if these leaders have derived their "just powers" from the consent of the governed.
This dealt with the Guantanamo prisoners, NONE of whom were CITIZENS of the US. So it CLEARLY was a special case applying this to these NON CITIZENS and does NOT indicate that the right of HC was rescinded.
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Arthur
Horse puckey.
Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn, New York, and a us citizen, and was held for 5 years without a trial.
President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.
The right to a speedy trial, is supposedly guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
As I said H.C. was rescinded.
Oh and about one third of the population lives under some form of dictatorship. I wonder if these leaders have derived their "just powers" from the consent of the governed.
QUOTE (Paradox+Sep 14 2007, 02:25 PM)
Horse puckey.
Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn, New York, and a us citizen, and was held for 5 years without a trial.
President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.
The right to a speedy trial, is supposedly guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
As I said H.C. was rescinded.
Oh and about one third of the population lives under some form of dictatorship. I wonder if these leaders have derived their "just powers" from the consent of the governed.
Please try to keep up,
see: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=258639
This issue was resolved over 3 years ago.
Padilla was the case that resolved the issue as to if an American Citzen could be declared an Enemy Combatant, as the Executive branch claimed, and treated like any other Enemy Combatant.
The Admin lost.
But at no time was HC rescinded.
The "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" applies to NON-CITIZENS.
The fact that 1/3rd of the world has not yet ENFORCED upon their leaders the concept that the Govt works for the people and not the other way around has NO bearing on the ability of the government to REVERSE this concept in the USA.
Arthur
Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn, New York, and a us citizen, and was held for 5 years without a trial.
President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.
The right to a speedy trial, is supposedly guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
As I said H.C. was rescinded.
Oh and about one third of the population lives under some form of dictatorship. I wonder if these leaders have derived their "just powers" from the consent of the governed.
Please try to keep up,
see: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=258639
This issue was resolved over 3 years ago.
Padilla was the case that resolved the issue as to if an American Citzen could be declared an Enemy Combatant, as the Executive branch claimed, and treated like any other Enemy Combatant.
The Admin lost.
But at no time was HC rescinded.
The "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" applies to NON-CITIZENS.
The fact that 1/3rd of the world has not yet ENFORCED upon their leaders the concept that the Govt works for the people and not the other way around has NO bearing on the ability of the government to REVERSE this concept in the USA.
Arthur
One of the most remarkably wonderful things about the United States of America is its Constitution (except for Amendment 18, of course). I'm not American but I would trust the Supreme Court to keep a keen judicious eye of what's going on.
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 14 2007, 07:07 PM)
Please try to keep up,
see: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=258639
This issue was resolved over 3 years ago.
Padilla was the case that resolved the issue as to if an American Citzen could be declared an Enemy Combatant, as the Executive branch claimed, and treated like any other Enemy Combatant.
The Admin lost.
But at no time was HC rescinded.
The "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" applies to NON-CITIZENS.
The fact that 1/3rd of the world has not yet ENFORCED upon their leaders the concept that the Govt works for the people and not the other way around has NO bearing on the ability of the government to REVERSE this concept in the USA.
Arthur
Yawn, you're not proving your point very well Art. But I guess you have to believe in something. And LO! Here's some more of the same for you. What about those loopholes, huh?!?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5js647wd...Eq5uNoIlWeoeHcg
see: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=258639
This issue was resolved over 3 years ago.
Padilla was the case that resolved the issue as to if an American Citzen could be declared an Enemy Combatant, as the Executive branch claimed, and treated like any other Enemy Combatant.
The Admin lost.
But at no time was HC rescinded.
The "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" applies to NON-CITIZENS.
The fact that 1/3rd of the world has not yet ENFORCED upon their leaders the concept that the Govt works for the people and not the other way around has NO bearing on the ability of the government to REVERSE this concept in the USA.
Arthur
Yawn, you're not proving your point very well Art. But I guess you have to believe in something. And LO! Here's some more of the same for you. What about those loopholes, huh?!?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5js647wd...Eq5uNoIlWeoeHcg
Once again, my previous quote fits perfectly.
The CONSTITUTIONALITY of these laws will not be judged until someone has been convicted based on evidence gained by using a warrantless eavesdropping.
Arthur
QUOTE
I'm just old enough to KNOW that this is EXACTLY how our system works.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The "Law and Order" side will ALWAYS try to get more powers to put bad guys away.
The Civil Liberties side will ALWAYS complain that the laws could be used against innocent people.
The Congress and Judiciary, OVER TIME will find a CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE between the TWO OPPOSING but equally valid needs.
The CONSTITUTIONALITY of these laws will not be judged until someone has been convicted based on evidence gained by using a warrantless eavesdropping.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 20 2007, 01:50 AM)
The CONSTITUTIONALITY of these laws will not be judged until someone has been convicted based on evidence gained by using a warrantless eavesdropping.
The question is, how does that happen without habeus corpus and no way to press a case because of national security, since the warrantless wiretap was a top secret in the first place?
The question is, how does that happen without habeus corpus and no way to press a case because of national security, since the warrantless wiretap was a top secret in the first place?
Moot point for American Citizens since the Admin lost SC case where they tried to designate an American Citizen as an Enemy Combatant.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 21 2007, 08:49 PM)
Moot point for American Citizens since the Admin lost SC case where they tried to designate an American Citizen as an Enemy Combatant.
Actually, the point is this. You have been illegally spied upon. Yes, you personally. Yes in actuality, not as a hypothetical or theoretical statement.
Every single one of us has been wiretapped without a warrant, in clear violation of the constitution. None of us here will ever have any recourse against those who broke the law. You're not in jail so you can't challenge the findings. Decisions and judgments about you will be made, using that information, and you will never know about them. Those decisions will be made by someone with a political goal in mind. Either for or against whatever political leaning you may have.
Here's where it gets fun though. AT&T and the rest of the Telco's are accomplices in a crime that gives a few hundred million people legal standing to sue them. If the illegal wiretaps are found illegal, then the phone companies have to be fined for going along with it. Any fines would be based on a per occurrence or per person rate. If it's per occurrence...we end up with government own phone companies. If it's per person, we'll all end up with a one year tax cut and a serious rate hike on our long distance charges.
Of course this all goes back to someone being able to sue for damages and actually get a case to the supreme court. There is an islamic foundation or some such, that has managed to get close. BushCo is trying to get the case thrown out for national security reasons. After having accidentally sending a copy of their phone tap logs to the people they were tapping...
Our government and large corporations have been trying to avoid accountability since the day they were formed. This past decade it's gone from trying not to get caught, to showing off what they can get away with like it's a competition. BushCo has realized they're too incompetent to sneak away from a crime, so they're trying to make the crimes legal.
Actually, the point is this. You have been illegally spied upon. Yes, you personally. Yes in actuality, not as a hypothetical or theoretical statement.
Every single one of us has been wiretapped without a warrant, in clear violation of the constitution. None of us here will ever have any recourse against those who broke the law. You're not in jail so you can't challenge the findings. Decisions and judgments about you will be made, using that information, and you will never know about them. Those decisions will be made by someone with a political goal in mind. Either for or against whatever political leaning you may have.
Here's where it gets fun though. AT&T and the rest of the Telco's are accomplices in a crime that gives a few hundred million people legal standing to sue them. If the illegal wiretaps are found illegal, then the phone companies have to be fined for going along with it. Any fines would be based on a per occurrence or per person rate. If it's per occurrence...we end up with government own phone companies. If it's per person, we'll all end up with a one year tax cut and a serious rate hike on our long distance charges.
Of course this all goes back to someone being able to sue for damages and actually get a case to the supreme court. There is an islamic foundation or some such, that has managed to get close. BushCo is trying to get the case thrown out for national security reasons. After having accidentally sending a copy of their phone tap logs to the people they were tapping...
Our government and large corporations have been trying to avoid accountability since the day they were formed. This past decade it's gone from trying not to get caught, to showing off what they can get away with like it's a competition. BushCo has realized they're too incompetent to sneak away from a crime, so they're trying to make the crimes legal.
QUOTE
Every single one of us has been wiretapped without a warrant, in clear violation of the constitution
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
You might want to read why the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dismissed the case brought by the ACLU against the NSA.
What is the basis for THIS assertion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every single one of us has been wiretapped without a warrant, in clear violation of the constitution |
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
You might want to read why the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dismissed the case brought by the ACLU against the NSA.
What is the basis for THIS assertion:
Decisions and judgments about you will be made, using that information, and you will never know about them. Those decisions will be made by someone with a political goal in mind. Either for or against whatever political leaning you may have.
You really think there are MILLIONS of SPIES listening in to converstations and keeping a tally of wha your political leanings are??????
Then we get to my personal favorites:
QUOTE
Any fines would be based on a per occurrence or per person rate. If it's per occurrence...we end up with government own phone companies. If it's per person, we'll all end up with a one year tax cut and a serious rate hike on our long distance charges.
I know you can't see REALITY from where you are, but just MAYBE you could try to find your way back.
Arthur
Arthur, be nice. Everyone loves a good quotation, right?
Plurissima Leges, Corruptissima Republica. Pardon my spelling, my Latin is worse than W's English.
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
True, the emphasis on 'instituted'. The institution soon diverges from justice...
Plurissima Leges, Corruptissima Republica. Pardon my spelling, my Latin is worse than W's English.
QUOTE
I DO have a lot of faith in how the system works because I sincerely doubt that many of us have forgotten that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
True, the emphasis on 'instituted'. The institution soon diverges from justice...
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 24 2007, 02:25 PM)
I know you can't see REALITY from where you are, but just MAYBE you could try to find your way back.
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know about
That's Newsweeks headline, not mine.
They already know they're legally liable, they're trying to get the laws changed to cover their butts before Bush leaves office and they get hung out to dry. Bush put them in this corner, now they expect him to cover for them.
They already know they're legally liable, they're trying to get the laws changed to cover their butts before Bush leaves office and they get hung out to dry. Bush put them in this corner, now they expect him to cover for them.
You really think there are MILLIONS of SPIES listening in to converstations and keeping a tally of wha your political leanings are??????
Of course not. However I can guarantee that a good data mining setup could tell you what your preferred party is with 90-95% accuracy at least. It's not the individual calls that they're looking at, it's the mining of millions of calls and putting them into patterns.
Or are we to expect that mister caging list himself Karl Rove, hasn't been doing every damn thing he possibly can to compile an even bigger caging list for the entire nation?
Try making a long distance phone call without using an AT&T switch, it's not likely to happen. Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems, since they can't tell who a call is to or from until after they have already copied and logged it. They couldn't avoid tapping your call if they wanted to. The data port they are using doesn't give them control of the AT&T switch. So they have no way of telling it who they want to tap, when to start or when to stop. They've got a cable that's spitting out a copy of everything passing through that switch. They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone.
While it's easy to accuse Bush of not listening to anyone, somehow I'm thinking the NSA is a bit more interested in doing their jobs.
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know about
That's Newsweeks headline, not mine.
QUOTE
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell seemed to raise the stakes recently when he contended in an interview with the El Paso Times that the private lawsuits could “bankrupt these companies.”
They already know they're legally liable, they're trying to get the laws changed to cover their butts before Bush leaves office and they get hung out to dry. Bush put them in this corner, now they expect him to cover for them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell seemed to raise the stakes recently when he contended in an interview with the El Paso Times that the private lawsuits could “bankrupt these companies.” |
They already know they're legally liable, they're trying to get the laws changed to cover their butts before Bush leaves office and they get hung out to dry. Bush put them in this corner, now they expect him to cover for them.
You really think there are MILLIONS of SPIES listening in to converstations and keeping a tally of wha your political leanings are??????
Of course not. However I can guarantee that a good data mining setup could tell you what your preferred party is with 90-95% accuracy at least. It's not the individual calls that they're looking at, it's the mining of millions of calls and putting them into patterns.
Or are we to expect that mister caging list himself Karl Rove, hasn't been doing every damn thing he possibly can to compile an even bigger caging list for the entire nation?
QUOTE
Every single one of us has been wiretapped without a warrant, in clear violation of the constitution
...
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
...
Do you realize how SILLY that statement is?
Try making a long distance phone call without using an AT&T switch, it's not likely to happen. Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems, since they can't tell who a call is to or from until after they have already copied and logged it. They couldn't avoid tapping your call if they wanted to. The data port they are using doesn't give them control of the AT&T switch. So they have no way of telling it who they want to tap, when to start or when to stop. They've got a cable that's spitting out a copy of everything passing through that switch. They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone.
While it's easy to accuse Bush of not listening to anyone, somehow I'm thinking the NSA is a bit more interested in doing their jobs.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Sep 24 2007, 02:23 PM)
Try making a long distance phone call without using an AT&T switch, it's not likely to happen. Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems, since they can't tell who a call is to or from until after they have already copied and logged it. They couldn't avoid tapping your call if they wanted to. The data port they are using doesn't give them control of the AT&T switch. So they have no way of telling it who they want to tap, when to start or when to stop. They've got a cable that's spitting out a copy of everything passing through that switch. They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone.
Precisely. That's an IT job I turned down. Just from the description, requiring an FBI background check for a hardware guy, and just before all the sh1t hit the fan in the media.
Precisely. That's an IT job I turned down. Just from the description, requiring an FBI background check for a hardware guy, and just before all the sh1t hit the fan in the media.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Sep 24 2007, 03:23 PM)
Try making a long distance phone call without using an AT&T switch, it's not likely to happen. Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems, since they can't tell who a call is to or from until after they have already copied and logged it. They couldn't avoid tapping your call if they wanted to. The data port they are using doesn't give them control of the AT&T switch. So they have no way of telling it who they want to tap, when to start or when to stop. They've got a cable that's spitting out a copy of everything passing through that switch. They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone.
Horse Pucky
They had to go to the phone companies to just get logs of the domestic NUMBERS that were called.
They DIDN'T have, nor do they get the VOICE part of that data stream.
More Horse Pucky, you really think that NSA is involved in such triviality?
The mining they did do was looking at NUMBERS that were called by specific overseas contacts looking for common members from other contacts to see if they could identify potential cells so that they could THEN get wiretaps.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Note: This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Oh, and its pretty PATHETIC of you to make this a POLITICAL issue out of this by claiming this NSA data for Carl Rove.
You really need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
Horse Pucky
They had to go to the phone companies to just get logs of the domestic NUMBERS that were called.
They DIDN'T have, nor do they get the VOICE part of that data stream.
QUOTE
I can guarantee that a good data mining setup could tell you what your preferred party is with 90-95% accuracy at least. It's not the individual calls that they're looking at, it's the mining of millions of calls and putting them into patterns.
More Horse Pucky, you really think that NSA is involved in such triviality?
The mining they did do was looking at NUMBERS that were called by specific overseas contacts looking for common members from other contacts to see if they could identify potential cells so that they could THEN get wiretaps.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Note: This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Oh, and its pretty PATHETIC of you to make this a POLITICAL issue out of this by claiming this NSA data for Carl Rove.
You really need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
If it was just the overseas communication being monitored, I would feel better, but the job I wrote of was posted for an inland city. At least, I've never seen any transoceanic cables 250 miles from a coast...
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 24 2007, 08:06 PM)
They DIDN'T have, nor do they get the VOICE part of that data stream.
The don't need the voice stream, just the names and numbers. Correlate the one who call liberal/conservative organizations with their friends. It would also work if you were tracking the extent of a large terrorist group, but be pretty much useless for finding the few rarely contacted terrorists.
There is a legal requirement that when the phone company gives out it's call log, the phone numbers are randomized so they can't be tracked back to the actual people that own the numbers. Data mining is exactly why it's required.
EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program
They pretty much tipped their hand when they tried to have the case shut down for national security reasons.
EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program
They pretty much tipped their hand when they tried to have the case shut down for national security reasons.
Oh, and its pretty PATHETIC of you to make this a POLITICAL issue out of this by claiming this NSA data for Carl Rove.
Rove is simply the one that started ball rolling on Vote Caging. He started his career doing direct mail campaigns for Nixon in the CRNC back in 1970.
The original direct mail guy for the RNC takes over a position that gives him access to NSA data that can be used to create exactly the lists he needs to create the biggest direct mail and caging list all at once. Under the same cover they used in the 70s to break the same laws. It's even the same people! Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all recycled Nixon peons.
To be politically useful, they don't need or really even want the voice portion of your phone calls. To find the needle in the haystack terrorist, they would. To catch that guy, he has to call a known contact on a known line. Otherwise they have to have the voice to find keywords or phrases. So the question becomes, just what exactly did the NSA want with the data that they couldn't get by established means?
Given the type of data and it's limited uses, it's a big question that needs an answer. Given the history of Rove and the RNC caging lists, it's a question that demands a really good answer.
You think there are ENOUGH calls made to liberal/conservative orgs that mining the call lists would tell you someone's political affiliation????
You think there is some VALUE in that data if you COULD derive it?
Friggin AMAZING.
NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell.
Which was EXACTLY what they were doing.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
So why don't they?
Simple, there was NO INTENT to do anything but catch terrorists.
(its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment )
You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
You think there are ENOUGH calls made to liberal/conservative orgs that mining the call lists would tell you someone's political affiliation????
You think there is some VALUE in that data if you COULD derive it?
Friggin AMAZING.
NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell.
Which was EXACTLY what they were doing.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
So why don't they?
Simple, there was NO INTENT to do anything but catch terrorists.
(its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment )
You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems
You know, because that's what a WIRETAP is.
And its why you (and the EFF) present this as WIRETAPPING as if all our calls were being listened in on.
Now, when caught in your lie you say
Then you try to claim that NSA is working for Rove to produce MAILING LISTS.
What a joke.
MAILING LISTS
PRICELESS
As is that BS about 'caging'.
Are you saying what is reported in that article is ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY?
Arthur
The don't need the voice stream, just the names and numbers. Correlate the one who call liberal/conservative organizations with their friends. It would also work if you were tracking the extent of a large terrorist group, but be pretty much useless for finding the few rarely contacted terrorists.
There is a legal requirement that when the phone company gives out it's call log, the phone numbers are randomized so they can't be tracked back to the actual people that own the numbers. Data mining is exactly why it's required.
QUOTE
More Horse Pucky, you really think that NSA is involved in such triviality?
EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program
They pretty much tipped their hand when they tried to have the case shut down for national security reasons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More Horse Pucky, you really think that NSA is involved in such triviality? |
EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program
They pretty much tipped their hand when they tried to have the case shut down for national security reasons.
Oh, and its pretty PATHETIC of you to make this a POLITICAL issue out of this by claiming this NSA data for Carl Rove.
Rove is simply the one that started ball rolling on Vote Caging. He started his career doing direct mail campaigns for Nixon in the CRNC back in 1970.
QUOTE
On April 19, 2006, Rove "gave up his responsibilities as chief policy coordinator, a position he assumed" in February 2005[3] "that strengthened his influence over matters ranging from homeland security and domestic policy to the economy and national security," Terence Hunt reported for the Associated Press.
The original direct mail guy for the RNC takes over a position that gives him access to NSA data that can be used to create exactly the lists he needs to create the biggest direct mail and caging list all at once. Under the same cover they used in the 70s to break the same laws. It's even the same people! Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all recycled Nixon peons.
To be politically useful, they don't need or really even want the voice portion of your phone calls. To find the needle in the haystack terrorist, they would. To catch that guy, he has to call a known contact on a known line. Otherwise they have to have the voice to find keywords or phrases. So the question becomes, just what exactly did the NSA want with the data that they couldn't get by established means?
Given the type of data and it's limited uses, it's a big question that needs an answer. Given the history of Rove and the RNC caging lists, it's a question that demands a really good answer.
QUOTE
Correlate the one who call liberal/conservative organizations with their friends. It would also work if you were tracking the extent of a large terrorist group, but be pretty much useless for finding the few rarely contacted terrorists.
You think there are ENOUGH calls made to liberal/conservative orgs that mining the call lists would tell you someone's political affiliation????
You think there is some VALUE in that data if you COULD derive it?
Friggin AMAZING.
NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell.
Which was EXACTLY what they were doing.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
So why don't they?
Simple, there was NO INTENT to do anything but catch terrorists.
(its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment
)You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Correlate the one who call liberal/conservative organizations with their friends. It would also work if you were tracking the extent of a large terrorist group, but be pretty much useless for finding the few rarely contacted terrorists. |
You think there are ENOUGH calls made to liberal/conservative orgs that mining the call lists would tell you someone's political affiliation????
You think there is some VALUE in that data if you COULD derive it?
Friggin AMAZING.
NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell.
Which was EXACTLY what they were doing.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
So why don't they?
Simple, there was NO INTENT to do anything but catch terrorists.
(its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment
)You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
Every call through AT&T switches is being copied off to the NSA systems
You know, because that's what a WIRETAP is.
And its why you (and the EFF) present this as WIRETAPPING as if all our calls were being listened in on.
Now, when caught in your lie you say
QUOTE
The[y] don't need the voice stream
Then you try to claim that NSA is working for Rove to produce MAILING LISTS.
What a joke.
MAILING LISTS
PRICELESS
As is that BS about 'caging'.
Are you saying what is reported in that article is ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 24 2007, 11:51 PM)
You think there are ENOUGH calls made to liberal/conservative orgs that mining the call lists would tell you someone's political affiliation????
Actually, I know there are enough calls to political numbers to determine probable political affiliation. For one thing, the goal is also to filter out the majority of people with little or no political interest. Second, it's not just looking at the people who call those places, it's also connecting all of their friends while filtering out their work and the local pizza place. Data mining is a very large industry these days, usually used by spammers and marketers. Their goal isn't to get every target, it's to maximize the number of targets they hit with a large campaign.
And yes, there are companies that would pay some serious cash for the phone data the NSA picked up.
Again with this myth. First you assume they know what number the terrorist is using. They don't. If they know what number a terrorist is using, they can have AT&T copy them on every call heading to that number easily, with a warrant. No data mining, no call logs, no extra data to sort through looking for what they need.
Going after the call logs means they're clueless and trying to find people they know nothing about. They can get the call logs for any and every terrorist number they know of, without all the extra garbage from everyone else's calls in the way slowing them down.
They are not looking for terrorists, or they are using the absolute worst possible method for actually finding them. Regardless of privacy issues, without real world data to back up a search, the call logs are near useless. If you have the real world numbers, you don't need the call logs for everyone, and the extra data gets in the way.
So either the NSA is being completely incompetent or doing something they shouldn't.
Again with this myth. First you assume they know what number the terrorist is using. They don't. If they know what number a terrorist is using, they can have AT&T copy them on every call heading to that number easily, with a warrant. No data mining, no call logs, no extra data to sort through looking for what they need.
Going after the call logs means they're clueless and trying to find people they know nothing about. They can get the call logs for any and every terrorist number they know of, without all the extra garbage from everyone else's calls in the way slowing them down.
They are not looking for terrorists, or they are using the absolute worst possible method for actually finding them. Regardless of privacy issues, without real world data to back up a search, the call logs are near useless. If you have the real world numbers, you don't need the call logs for everyone, and the extra data gets in the way.
So either the NSA is being completely incompetent or doing something they shouldn't.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
Between not stopping Iraq and not impeaching Bush, they can't figure out why they have an 24% approval rating... At this point they'd have to be near beaten to death with a clue before they noticed.
More to the point, they could have started impeachment in the first day of the new session.
36% of the country is a bit more than a fringe group, it's more of the population than the republican or Democratic parties. (Both sitting at 32-33% last I checked)
Also 36% was back in May. By most estimates, it's increased greatly since then.
36% of the country is a bit more than a fringe group, it's more of the population than the republican or Democratic parties. (Both sitting at 32-33% last I checked)
Also 36% was back in May. By most estimates, it's increased greatly since then.
You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
Actually I said spied upon and wire tapped. I didn't say listening.
Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented
In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls.
In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned.
2004 - Court documents produced during limited discovery in a challenge to use of cagings list in Ohio, revealed clear intent to use caging lists to challenge voters.
They do the same damn thing every year. Originally it was a dirty trick that Rove started using while working for Nixon. (Can't say he actually invented the idea, he did start it's usage.) From Wiki - "The RNC is prohibited by Consent Decrees from involvement in ballot security measures such as caging, when the measures have racial bias."
Personally, I give up. If you want to believe the same people from the Nixon admin who were caught illegally wiretapping people. Have been caught repeatedly doing the same scams over and over for 30 years. Then really, there's no point. You may as well let Lucy hold the football for you one more time...
Actually, I know there are enough calls to political numbers to determine probable political affiliation. For one thing, the goal is also to filter out the majority of people with little or no political interest. Second, it's not just looking at the people who call those places, it's also connecting all of their friends while filtering out their work and the local pizza place. Data mining is a very large industry these days, usually used by spammers and marketers. Their goal isn't to get every target, it's to maximize the number of targets they hit with a large campaign.
And yes, there are companies that would pay some serious cash for the phone data the NSA picked up.
QUOTE
NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell.
Again with this myth. First you assume they know what number the terrorist is using. They don't. If they know what number a terrorist is using, they can have AT&T copy them on every call heading to that number easily, with a warrant. No data mining, no call logs, no extra data to sort through looking for what they need.
Going after the call logs means they're clueless and trying to find people they know nothing about. They can get the call logs for any and every terrorist number they know of, without all the extra garbage from everyone else's calls in the way slowing them down.
They are not looking for terrorists, or they are using the absolute worst possible method for actually finding them. Regardless of privacy issues, without real world data to back up a search, the call logs are near useless. If you have the real world numbers, you don't need the call logs for everyone, and the extra data gets in the way.
So either the NSA is being completely incompetent or doing something they shouldn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NO, tracking who the receiver of an overseas call from a suspected terrorist calls (and who they call) is EXACTLY how you would use call log data mining to find/identify members of a Terrorist Cell. |
Again with this myth. First you assume they know what number the terrorist is using. They don't. If they know what number a terrorist is using, they can have AT&T copy them on every call heading to that number easily, with a warrant. No data mining, no call logs, no extra data to sort through looking for what they need.
Going after the call logs means they're clueless and trying to find people they know nothing about. They can get the call logs for any and every terrorist number they know of, without all the extra garbage from everyone else's calls in the way slowing them down.
They are not looking for terrorists, or they are using the absolute worst possible method for actually finding them. Regardless of privacy issues, without real world data to back up a search, the call logs are near useless. If you have the real world numbers, you don't need the call logs for everyone, and the extra data gets in the way.
So either the NSA is being completely incompetent or doing something they shouldn't.
If the Dems had ANY indication that it was more than this they WOULD start impeachment proceedings.
Between not stopping Iraq and not impeaching Bush, they can't figure out why they have an 24% approval rating... At this point they'd have to be near beaten to death with a clue before they noticed.
More to the point, they could have started impeachment in the first day of the new session.
QUOTE
(its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment )
) 36% of the country is a bit more than a fringe group, it's more of the population than the republican or Democratic parties. (Both sitting at 32-33% last I checked)
Also 36% was back in May. By most estimates, it's increased greatly since then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (its pretty obvious you are part of the fringe group that thinks Bush should be impeached. All I can say is get used to dissappointment ) |
36% of the country is a bit more than a fringe group, it's more of the population than the republican or Democratic parties. (Both sitting at 32-33% last I checked)
Also 36% was back in May. By most estimates, it's increased greatly since then.
You claimed they were LISTENING to your conversations.
Actually I said spied upon and wire tapped. I didn't say listening.
Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented
In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls.
In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned.
2004 - Court documents produced during limited discovery in a challenge to use of cagings list in Ohio, revealed clear intent to use caging lists to challenge voters.
They do the same damn thing every year. Originally it was a dirty trick that Rove started using while working for Nixon. (Can't say he actually invented the idea, he did start it's usage.) From Wiki - "The RNC is prohibited by Consent Decrees from involvement in ballot security measures such as caging, when the measures have racial bias."
Personally, I give up. If you want to believe the same people from the Nixon admin who were caught illegally wiretapping people. Have been caught repeatedly doing the same scams over and over for 30 years. Then really, there's no point. You may as well let Lucy hold the football for you one more time...
No Corvidae, you LIED again.
YOU SAID:
And you KNOW that a Wiretap is NOT the same as a phone LOG.
Now you are BACK PEDDLING trying to find SOME arcane use that the call logs would have BESIDES looking for terrorists
BUT
You have NO EVIDENCE that the NSA was using the data for anything BUT hunting for terrorists.
quotes like
And you KNOW that a Wiretap is NOT the same as a phone LOG.
Now you are BACK PEDDLING trying to find SOME arcane use that the call logs would have BESIDES looking for terrorists
BUT
You have NO EVIDENCE that the NSA was using the data for anything BUT hunting for terrorists.
quotes like Actually, I know there are enough calls to political numbers to determine probable political affiliation. For one thing, the goal is also to filter out the majority of people with little or no political interest.
YOU SAID:
QUOTE
They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone.
And you KNOW that a Wiretap is NOT the same as a phone LOG.
Now you are BACK PEDDLING trying to find SOME arcane use that the call logs would have BESIDES looking for terrorists
BUT
You have NO EVIDENCE that the NSA was using the data for anything BUT hunting for terrorists.
quotes like
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They either listen to everyone and pull out what they need, or they don't listen to anyone. |
And you KNOW that a Wiretap is NOT the same as a phone LOG.
Now you are BACK PEDDLING trying to find SOME arcane use that the call logs would have BESIDES looking for terrorists
BUT
You have NO EVIDENCE that the NSA was using the data for anything BUT hunting for terrorists.
quotes like Actually, I know there are enough calls to political numbers to determine probable political affiliation. For one thing, the goal is also to filter out the majority of people with little or no political interest.
are just BS you are making up, further you have shown NO REASON why anyone would CARE.
And MAYBE companies would pay money, but absent any proof that the numbers were SOLD, you got NOTHING.
As to the terrorist "myth"
Yeah, Corvidae, you are smarter than the NSA.
Tell us MORE about why you know what WORKS and what DOESN'T
ROTFLMAO
You know its just Too bad for you.
Because
You can HUFF
And you can PUFF,
But all you got is HOT AIR.
Arthur
And MAYBE companies would pay money, but absent any proof that the numbers were SOLD, you got NOTHING.
As to the terrorist "myth"
Yeah, Corvidae, you are smarter than the NSA.
Tell us MORE about why you know what WORKS and what DOESN'T
ROTFLMAO
You know its just Too bad for you.
Because
You can HUFF
And you can PUFF,
But all you got is HOT AIR.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 25 2007, 09:14 PM)
But all you got is HOT AIR.
Not even that much. At least not that I'll bother looking up for you. It wouldn't matter if I did, you would fail to gain anything from any of it.
Not even that much. At least not that I'll bother looking up for you. It wouldn't matter if I did, you would fail to gain anything from any of it.
Here is an interesting read:
In mid-August 2007, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the surveillance program. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of civil suits against the government and telecommunications companies over N.S.A. surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit federal trial court, Vaughn R. Walker. One of the cases is a class action against AT&T, focusing on allegations that the company provided the N.S.A. with its customers’ phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. Plaintiffs in the second case are an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers. [7] [8]
On November 16, 2007, the three judges - M. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins and Harry Pregerson - issued a 27-page ruling[9] that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government's claim of state secrets, although the judges said that "In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."[10]
Now, if these guys are up to no good, then the system is doing what it should. However, I believe that if they are to be tried in court, then whatever evidence was found, should be made available to them. To just claim "State Secret" should never fly in an open court, regardless of the status of evidence collection.
Now, another interesting observation. If I am a well trained terrorist, and I know that the US is listening in, a couple of things would happen.
1. Bullshit info just to send them off into oblivion.
2. I would use the good old SNAIL mail system to buds in India, then off to Osama. Forget high tech BS.
Oh, and one more thing you might want to consider. A dual citizen, a canadian/syrian citizen spent a year in Syria being tortured only to have the US say oops, wrong guy, then slap him with a gag order. Now, imagine where your life would be if I grabbed you coming home from a vacation, flew you to another country, tortured you for a year, then said oops, and let you go.
The canadian citizen got about 10.5 million for it I think. Here is one of the interviews. (obviously he didnt pay a lot of attention to the gag order)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
Stops being funny when it starts being you.
In mid-August 2007, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the surveillance program. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of civil suits against the government and telecommunications companies over N.S.A. surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit federal trial court, Vaughn R. Walker. One of the cases is a class action against AT&T, focusing on allegations that the company provided the N.S.A. with its customers’ phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. Plaintiffs in the second case are an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers. [7] [8]
On November 16, 2007, the three judges - M. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins and Harry Pregerson - issued a 27-page ruling[9] that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government's claim of state secrets, although the judges said that "In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."[10]
Now, if these guys are up to no good, then the system is doing what it should. However, I believe that if they are to be tried in court, then whatever evidence was found, should be made available to them. To just claim "State Secret" should never fly in an open court, regardless of the status of evidence collection.
Now, another interesting observation. If I am a well trained terrorist, and I know that the US is listening in, a couple of things would happen.
1. Bullshit info just to send them off into oblivion.
2. I would use the good old SNAIL mail system to buds in India, then off to Osama. Forget high tech BS.
Oh, and one more thing you might want to consider. A dual citizen, a canadian/syrian citizen spent a year in Syria being tortured only to have the US say oops, wrong guy, then slap him with a gag order. Now, imagine where your life would be if I grabbed you coming home from a vacation, flew you to another country, tortured you for a year, then said oops, and let you go.
The canadian citizen got about 10.5 million for it I think. Here is one of the interviews. (obviously he didnt pay a lot of attention to the gag order)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
Stops being funny when it starts being you.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.