Bush/Republicans...losing their beloved Patriot Act...

[nocturnix]

Republicans are losing their strangle-hold on our civil liberties...finally...

First this...

Bush reportedly OK'd NSA spying on Americans...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/


Then this...

Senate Rejects Authorization of the Patriot Act..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/

Dare I say their looks to be a pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel?

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by nocturnix]

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by nocturnix]

[Back]

Also... ban on torture passes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees;_ylt=AjMR7e1mbJyYipiSPgWtJCGs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-). White House reverses stance.

[Skirmisher]

My goodness...sanity may be reasserting itself.

[Jorddyn]

Funny, I feel safer now.

:shrug:

Jorddyn

[nocturnix]

Lets not get TOO excited :)

And I must say McCain fucking ROCKS! I'm so proud of my state's Senator!!

McCain for president!! Oh wait, he already tried that and god smooshed by republicans.

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by nocturnix]

[Ebondale]

I'll just say this: What does it take to get the man impeached?

Clinton got impeached for getting a damn blowjob and lying about it (naturally). Bush has killed thousands of foreigners, allowed Americans to lose their liberties, subverted the Constitution, lied to bring nations to war, and dragged this country's reputation through the mud.

When does it stop?

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ebondale
When does it stop?


2008. :(

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ebondale
What does it take to get the man impeached? Apparently more than mud-slinging.

[4a6c1]

Whiners...

You dont *really* want Bush gone. Wtf are you all going to bitch about without a republican oil war?

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ebondale
What does it take to get the man impeached? Apparently more than mud-slinging.

53% of Americans agree with this statement, with 42% disagreeing:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

According to a new ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the nation in making the case for war.

Comparable polls in August and September 1998 found only 36% supported hearings to consider impeaching Clinton, and only 26% supported actually impeaching Clinton and removing him from office.

[Ebondale]

Look, our forefathers overthrew the British for less than this crap. Its un-fucking-believable how much bullshit is spoon-fed to Americans from their top government "elected" officials.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Look, our forefathers overthrew the British for less than this crap. Its un-fucking-believable how much bullshit is spoon-fed to Americans from their top government "elected" officials.

My thoughts exactly. I love how people just listen to the Democratic talking points of "ZOMG, BUSH R LYER TO US THERE WERE KNOW WMDS IN IRAQ, HE R ONLY IN IT 4 OIL!" instead of actually looking at the historical facts leading up to the conflict in Iraq.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - Bill Clinton 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - Bill Clinton, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy "The Burglar" Berger 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madaline "Not So" Albright 1999


WEIRD! All those quotes were before Bush was the President.. before he fabricated all the lies himself JUST to go to war in Iraq and get oil for his friends and to avenge his Daddy.

Fucking weird.. the only explanation that is plausable is that George W Bush somehow built a time machine, went back in time, and planted all this false intelligence so he could still get blamed for making it all up himself.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
WEIRD! All those quotes were before Bush was the President.. before he fabricated all the lies himself JUST to go to war in Iraq and get oil for his friends and to avenge his Daddy.


Who ordered the invasion of Iraq? Who repeatedly linked Iraq to 9/11 without any evidence? Which president's Sec. of Defense began pushing for an invasion of Iraq on 9/12? Which administration rushed into a war without UN approval? Which adiminstration adopts arbitrary criteria for imminent threat?

Fuck off.



Originally posted by Parkbandit
Fucking weird.. the only explanation that is plausable is that George W Bush somehow built a time machine, went back in time, and planted all this false intelligence so he could still get blamed for making it all up himself.

Right, or Bush Sr. showed Clinton the receipts. I wonder.

Unique.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Funny, I feel safer now.

Right. Best statement in this thread.

-M

[TheEschaton]

Park, the Clinton policy was one of containment, as those policies clearly indicate. The "use of force" under Clinton was rarely ever considered to mean more than airstrikes, in fact, if you stop spinning, I'm sure you could find equally many quotes from the same officials who would say a ground invasion of Iraq is fucking stupid. In fact, I have video of Schwartzkopf saying it in 92 or 93, if you want a preview.

Lastly, all those quotes (except maybe the last one) came before Scott Ritter, head of UNSCOM (the Iraqi inspection team), Marine, and lifelong Republican issued his report that Saddam's capabilities were utterly destroyed, and he felt 99.99999% of Saddam's WMD were destroyed. IN a speech, when asked why he didn't say 100%, Ritter said that only a fool would say he's 100% sure about anything, but for practical purposes, in 1999, when UNSCOM was kicked out, Saddam had no WMD.

-TheE-

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by TheEschaton]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Whiners...

You dont *really* want Bush gone.

No, with Bush gone, we'd have Cheney. If Cheney was also involved, then we'd have Dennis Hastert, Last American Virgin. Bush has done well to assert his presidency by being the most common denominator; it seems like they could wait until his Presidency is over, however to take legal action against him. I have no idea about the statutes in that kind of case though or loopholes etc.


-M

[Ilvane]

Heh, oddly enough..blow jobs and lying about whether you got them are more controversial than going to war on false intelligence, spying on citizens, and god knows what else..:-P

-A

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ebondale
What does it take to get the man impeached? Apparently more than mud-slinging.

53% of Americans agree with this statement, with 42% disagreeing:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

According to a new ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the nation in making the case for war.

Comparable polls in August and September 1998 found only 36% supported hearings to consider impeaching Clinton, and only 26% supported actually impeaching Clinton and removing him from office.

Do you have the source for that poll Backlash?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Heh, oddly enough..blow jobs and lying about whether you got them are more controversial than going to war on false intelligence, spying on citizens, and god knows what else..:-P

-A

Bush sits in the Oval Office and spies on you talking to your friends.

[Edaarin]

It's not like our reputation has ever been sterling internationally.

Between slavery, the National Origins System, and the PATRIOT Act, it really seems like we do a better job coming up with acronyms than practicing equality and equal protection under the law.

[Gan]

On the subject of polls about Iraq:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 2-6, 2005. N=1,155 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

Question:
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Results:
Did the right thing: 48%
Should have stayed out: 48%
Unsure: 4%
_______________________________
Same source as above:

Question:
"Before the war with Iraq, when talking about what he knew about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do you think George W. Bush was telling the entire truth, was mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or was he mostly lying?" Form A (N=554)

Results:
Entire truth: 25%
Hiding something: 45%
Mostly lying: 25%
Unsure: 7%
________________________
Same source as above:

Question:
"In making its case for the war with Iraq, do you think members of the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public or not?"


Results:
All adults:
Intentionally misled: 52%
Did not: 44%
Unsure: 4%

Republicans:
Intentionally misled: 18%
Did not: 78%
Unsure: 4%

Democrats:
Intentionally misled: 76%
Did not: 19%
Unsure: 5%

Independants:
Intentionally misled: 57%
Did not: 39%
Unsure: 4%
_________________________

Its been amusing to see the same people here once again gnashing their teeth and yelling for impeachment of the "great deceiver". I suppose once the allegations actually have sustainable and provable merit then we'll see actual movements to impeach. Yes I know you're going to say he lied, he's killed, he's deceived, blah blah blah. The light some of the posts here have painted Bush sound more like they're talking about Hitler, ad nausem.

Perhaps we might see something akin to movements towards impeachment votes and possibly hearings after 2006 if the Democrats regain control of the House or the Senate, or both if you give credibility to some of the polls I've seen. Yet as the Democrats have learned painfully in the past 2 presidential elections, putting 'faith' in opinion polls can be disasterous.

My own opinion is that the general opinion of Bush will improve greatly in the future when the results of his efforts can be seen more clearly.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Bush sits in the Oval Office and spies on you talking to your friends.

Not an unexpected kind of post Hulk.

This kind of uber sarcastic post comes when you either have nothing to really dispute the points brought up by the previous poster, or are just being too lazy to do so.

Both excuses are pretty tired.

The sad truth is that yes, Bush and co. COULD have listened in on ANY one of our conversations with no warrant. Anytime, anywhere.

The sum effect of such wiretapping along with the roving wiretaps that his AG loves so much is the extinction of any right to privacy at all.

I'm not ready to accept that as the best that America can do.

[Gan]

I suppose I would be riled up against the 'spying' allegations if I were doing things that could be considered illegal.

I dont so I guess I'm not.

:shrug:

[StrayRogue]

I'd guess you'd be in the minority then Ganalon. I personally don't like being spied on REGARDLESS of what I am doing.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I suppose I would be riled up against the 'spying' allegations if I were doing things that could be considered illegal.

I dont so I guess I'm not.

:shrug:

It's not 'spying'.

It's just plain spying.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
According to a new ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the nation in making the case for war.77% of Americans believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

I definitely did not expect to see a Descartes reference in this thread.

[Ravenstorm]

Lets not forget that had they chosen to, they could have got a warrant for the wire taps. Everyone remembers what a warrant is, right? It's when a judge says 'Yes, there is enough probable cause to do this'. Are we suddenly lacking in conservative judges to rubber stamp the government's warrants? Or was there no chance of even getting the most paranoid, uber-conservative judge to try to pretend there was enough evidence to warrant a warrant? I'll remind people this is the same law that keeps cops from pulling your car over because of some nebulous 'cause'.

And in a similar vein, lets not overlook the Pentagon collecting information on peaceful anti-war protests and anti-recruiting groups as part of its 'war on terror' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/dailyUpdate.html). After all, we know how dangerous those Quakers and 79 year old women are:


The group consists of about 20 people, including five Quakers and a 79-year old grandmother. Their original meeting, held in 2004 at the local Quaker meeting house, was one of 1,500 "suspicious" incidents in the database.

Raven

[Back]

"Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Ben Franklin

[Ravenstorm]

Talk like that just helps the terrorists, Backlash. Benjamin Franklin was obviously a liberal subversive.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Park, the Clinton policy was one of containment, as those policies clearly indicate. The "use of force" under Clinton was rarely ever considered to mean more than airstrikes, in fact, if you stop spinning, I'm sure you could find equally many quotes from the same officials who would say a ground invasion of Iraq is fucking stupid. In fact, I have video of Schwartzkopf saying it in 92 or 93, if you want a preview.

Lastly, all those quotes (except maybe the last one) came before Scott Ritter, head of UNSCOM (the Iraqi inspection team), Marine, and lifelong Republican issued his report that Saddam's capabilities were utterly destroyed, and he felt 99.99999% of Saddam's WMD were destroyed. IN a speech, when asked why he didn't say 100%, Ritter said that only a fool would say he's 100% sure about anything, but for practical purposes, in 1999, when UNSCOM was kicked out, Saddam had no WMD.

-TheE-


Who the fuck is talking about the Clinton policy? I'm talking about the numerous retards on this forum that still claim that Bush somehow lied to the public to start a war. Clearly, this is not the case, as the intelligence at the time BEFORE Bush was President showed the same opinion during the time Bush was President.

If you want to talk about Clinton policy.. let's talk about him doing absolutely nothing about World Trade Center #1, the USS Cole, etc... and giving the terrorists the balls to do 9-11.

[Warriorbird]

Or you being a fucking liar. I'd say Clinton's bombings were actually excessive force. Especially the Sudanese ones. They riled up a bunch of terrorist assholes.

Then again, better let Osama go than never fucking touched him (or let his whole family go...talk about a waste).

I'm glad the Republicans and the apologists (Hi Latrin!) are happy about McCarthyism.

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Or you being a fucking liar. I'd say Clinton's bombings were actually excessive force. Especially the Sudanese ones. They riled up a bunch of terrorist assholes.

Then again, better let Osama go than never fucking touched him (or let his whole family go...talk about a waste).

I'm glad the Republicans and the apologists (Hi Latrin!) are happy about McCarthyism.


Thanks for the classic example.. since you disagree with my opinion.. I must be a fucking liar.

I bet you could somehow equate my stance as somehow lying to the entire PC forum population to try to get them to not like you if you tried.

[Warriorbird]

If you want to talk about Clinton policy.. let's talk about him doing absolutely nothing about World Trade Center #1, the USS Cole, etc...

He did something. It was entirely the wrong something in my opinion, but it was something. Therefore you weren't telling the truth. I'm sorry.

Now, go back to cheering on the destruction of civil liberties and attempting to dodge the fact that we still don't have Bin Laden and your hero's done his best to make us forget it.

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Artha]

Bin Who?

[Warriorbird]

Precisely the problem with the war on unspecific enemies.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

If you want to talk about Clinton policy.. let's talk about him doing absolutely nothing about World Trade Center #1, the USS Cole, etc...

He did something. It was entirely the wrong something in my opinion, but it was something. Therefore you weren't telling the truth. I'm sorry.

Now, go back to cheering on the destruction of civil liberties and attempting to dodge the fact that we still don't have Bin Laden and your hero's done his best to make us forget it.

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

BUSH R DESTROYING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You sometimes make Backlash seem less paranoid.. and that's a damn hard thing to do.

Grats.. I think.

PS - I have yet to have a single person on this forum show me a specific example of how their civil liberties have been taken away.

Not one.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
*bullshit that translates to 'if it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't matter'*


Originally posted by Warriorbird
He did something. It was entirely the wrong something in my opinion, but it was something. Therefore you weren't telling the truth. I'm sorry.

Has PB actually contributed to a thread in the last year or so? Or are all his posts just sarcasm or insults and ignoring legitimate issues when he's proven wrong? No rebuttal to WB pointing out how totally and utterly wrong you were?

Or is 'It didn't happen to me so I don't care' the limit of your political contributions?

Raven

[Hulkein]

Forget 'if it doesn't happen to me,' has there been a documented case of it negatively affecting anyone?

There hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. That's something I would've bet against four years ago.

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Hulkein]

[Back]

The atmosphere now is one of fear. We all know full well that there are certain things that people can say that will get them a visit from the FBI. Its documented.

A kid got a visit from the FBI after a photomat called them because he took a picture of a project he did with a picture of George Bush stuck to the wall with a red thumb tack in his forehead.

What’s at stake here is what this is leading to. Today a kid get a visit for a class project, a group of peace activists gets an undercover agent spying on them, or some people’s phone calls get monitored. If we agree to these practices whats next?

You are going to pull the sky is falling schtick with me for this. But we should all be seriously freaked out about the erosion of our freedoms set up by our founding fathers. You really have to be a dumb fuck to NOT see it.

So people will say go ahead, tap my phone, hack my computer, I have nothing to hide. If people weren’t out there doing bad things we wouldn’t have to keep tabs on them. No one is saying to NOT keep tabs on people who are out there to hurt other people. Those people need to have tabs kept on them. But when our government starts keeping tabs on an ever widening segment of the population it is implicitly stating that those people are enemies. Even a kid who takes a picture of George Bush and puts a red thumb tack in his forehead.

[Hulkein]

Atmosphere of fear? I don't know one person who lives in fear because of the Patriot Act.

Less drama and sensationalism, please.

<< A kid got a visit from the FBI after a photomat called them because he took a picture of a project he did with a picture of George Bush stuck to the wall with a red thumb tack in his forehead. >>

What does that have to do with the Patriot Act? The guy at the photomat called them.....

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Hulkein]

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Atmosphere of fear? I don't know one person who lives in fear because of the Patriot Act.

Less drama and sensationalism, please.

<< A kid got a visit from the FBI after a photomat called them because he took a picture of a project he did with a picture of George Bush stuck to the wall with a red thumb tack in his forehead. >>

What does that have to do with the Patriot Act? The guy at the photomat called them.....

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Hulkein]

Its called the bigger picture. Mainly my response was about PBs statement of not knowing anyone whose civil liberties were taken away. I should have mentioned that.

On a side note, we are only talking about Americans here. Has anyone read stories about how foreigners are treated in our airports? Airports are not technically the United States.

[Gan]

Its funny how this 'thumbtack' incident has been blown out of proportion on many of the liberal sites... and yet its awfully hard to pull down a rendition from an actual newspaper.

Jonathan Scherry, spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said, “We ertainly respect artistic freedom, but we also have the responsibility to look into incidents when necessary. In this case, it was brought to our attention from a private citizen, a photo lab employee.”

SOURCE (http://schoolsmatter.blogspot.com/2005/10/wal-marts-war-on-dissent.html)

More places where the story can be googled...

http://www.alternet.org/walmart/26503/

http://www.ncdp.org/node/683

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100405

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3266

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/06/1316231

http://www.progressiveu.org/154659-student-turned-in-to-secret-service-by-wal-mart-photo-lab

Does anyone have any actual news sites that carried this story? Or was it so ridiculous that they refused to give it coverage?

And like sheep they were led to slaughter... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

All for requesting a book.

As for the thumbtack story I did exactly what you did going so far as tracking down the local paper of that county and only found the story on those sources you cited. As far as it only being on what you call liberal sites I don’t imagine it would be carried on any conservative sites. Why it did not get more coverage may be due to Katrina.

[Warriorbird]

PS - I have yet to have a single person on this forum show me a specific example of how their civil liberties have been taken away.

The Supreme Court upheld right to privacy was grotesquely attacked by those orders to the NSA.

Those damn evil Quakers (we had a Quaker Republican President, fancy that) are clearly a grievous threat!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Now go babble elsewhere. I know y'all love McCarthyism (TERRORISTS! EVERYWHERE!) already, I don't need reminding. Your bullshit justifications make me wonder if you don't feel guilty.



[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Chicken Little meets George Orwell.

I love it.


:lol:

[TheEschaton]

Who the fuck is talking about the Clinton policy? I'm talking about the numerous retards on this forum that still claim that Bush somehow lied to the public to start a war. Clearly, this is not the case, as the intelligence at the time BEFORE Bush was President showed the same opinion during the time Bush was President.

The intelligence before UNSCOM published their report said this, and only this: Iraq has WMD, we know this because we gave it to them. We also know they have used these WMD to develop their own WMD programs.

Therefore, Clinton officials, when they say, "Saddam w/ WMD is a big problem", they're working on their knowledge of the intelligence.

Then, UNSCOM publishes a report saying, that for all intensive purposes, all of Iraq's WMD and WMD programs have been destroyed/dismantled.

From then, intelligence has not had any solid evidence of new WMD or WMD programs.

Thus, Bush et al saying the same thing as Clinton is deliberately misleading because he knows A) as late as 1999, Iraq was functionally unable to have WMD/WMD programs, and B) no hard evidence has surfaced since then to suggest Iraq has rebuilt these WMD or their programs.

Unless, of course, you believe our survellience intelligence wasn't good enough, in which case, we shouldn't of trusted it in the first place as our only evidence.

It's simple logic, PB. Use you're fucking head.

Edited to add:


Atmosphere of fear?

I'm brown, and travel as a single male. I'm afraid to say jack shit in an airport these days. That's an atmosphere of fear. I had a friend who was Turkish (TURKISH, of all things) and in the U.S. on a student visa, who, after the Patriot Act was questioned for two days about his activities, and held, even though he insisted he did nothing wrong, because they kept on waving the fact that he was involved in progressive organizations on campus. You can't tell me that targetting immigrants of solely immigrant countries, some with no history of terrorism against the U.S., but ALL predominantly Muslim, are not violating the civil rights of Muslim Americans.

Oh, but they don't count, do they?

Of course, now you can claim that that's only anecdotal evidence, and therefore not valid, even though anecdotal evidence is what was requested.

-TheE-

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by TheEschaton]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
...that for all intensive purposes...

Intents and purposes. For all intents and purposes. 'For all intensive purposes' makes no sense whatsoever.

/pet peeve

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
*bullshit that translates to 'if it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't matter'*


Originally posted by Warriorbird
He did something. It was entirely the wrong something in my opinion, but it was something. Therefore you weren't telling the truth. I'm sorry.

Has PB actually contributed to a thread in the last year or so? Or are all his posts just sarcasm or insults and ignoring legitimate issues when he's proven wrong? No rebuttal to WB pointing out how totally and utterly wrong you were?

Or is 'It didn't happen to me so I don't care' the limit of your political contributions?

Raven

Glass house.. stone.. anyone?

Why don't you at least quote some liberal bullshit and call that contributing.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
[quote]

Now go babble elsewhere. I know y'all love McCarthyism (TERRORISTS! EVERYWHERE!) already, I don't need reminding. Your bullshit justifications make me wonder if you don't feel guilty.


And your "THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET ME, I MUST SAVE MYSELF AND HIDE IN MY BUNKER" views are amusing. You actually remind me of my Father in Law.. who actually is a member of the NRA and a Republican, but still has that same view of the government trying to take away his civil liberties.

I laugh at you both.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by TheEschaton
...that for all intensive purposes...

Intents and purposes. For all intents and purposes. 'For all intensive purposes' makes no sense whatsoever.

/pet peeve

Raven

WOW!!! NOW THIS IS CONTRIBUTION!

THANKS A TON RAVEN, BECAUSE THIS THREAD WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONTINUE WITHOUT YOU POINTING THIS OUT!!!

[TheEschaton]

I always do that, it's one phrase that I constantly fuck up.

I also say irregardless a great deal, which bugs the fuck out of my mother.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Who the fuck is talking about the Clinton policy? I'm talking about the numerous retards on this forum that still claim that Bush somehow lied to the public to start a war. Clearly, this is not the case, as the intelligence at the time BEFORE Bush was President showed the same opinion during the time Bush was President.

The intelligence before UNSCOM published their report said this, and only this: Iraq has WMD, we know this because we gave it to them. We also know they have used these WMD to develop their own WMD programs.

Therefore, Clinton officials, when they say, "Saddam w/ WMD is a big problem", they're working on their knowledge of the intelligence.

Then, UNSCOM publishes a report saying, that for all intensive purposes, all of Iraq's WMD and WMD programs have been destroyed/dismantled.

From then, intelligence has not had any solid evidence of new WMD or WMD programs.

Thus, Bush et al saying the same thing as Clinton is deliberately misleading because he knows A) as late as 1999, Iraq was functionally unable to have WMD/WMD programs, and B) no hard evidence has surfaced since then to suggest Iraq has rebuilt these WMD or their programs.

Unless, of course, you believe our survellience intelligence wasn't good enough, in which case, we shouldn't of trusted it in the first place as our only evidence.

It's simple logic, PB. Use you're fucking head.


Logic? It's nothing more than spin my friend. To blame it all on Bush and conveniently hold blamelesss everyone else on the other side of the isle, including the Democratic Demigod essentially saying the same thing, is nothing more than the typical political whitewashing. Karl Rove has nothing on the liberal side when it comes to bullshitting the American public.

[TheEschaton]

How is it spinning if what I said is fact?


1. Clinton said one thing.

2. A report came out saying that it was no longer a valid thing to say.

3. Clinton and his people stop saying said thing.

4. Bush starts saying this same thing despite no evidence to resume saying it, directly contradicting what the established reports say.

The above seems to say to me that Bush is using statements which are, at best, outdated, to push us into a war which was unnecessary, by playing the fear of WMD card.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/18/5724/7930

I wouldn't trust Hillary with these powers either.

[ElanthianSiren]

Not just Hillary, not anyone, honestly.

-M

[Necromancer]

Let's also not forget that Bush showed us, during his State of the Union Address, pictures of what he claimed were WMD facilities in Iraq. It later turned out that there was no evidence at all that they were used as such.

He also used the "evidence" regarding the purchase of illegal components for WMDs from Nigeria. That evidence, incidently, had been declared completely fabricated by the UN months prior. The reasoning being that not only did the signature on the official documents not match the actual official that would have had to sign the documents, but they got the name of that official completely wrong (t was clearly from long outdated information). Some of the worst "evidence" possible. Bush had been told not to use that evidence, that it was clearly incorrect. He used it in his speech anyway.

Then you move beyond the war, and a whole new can of worms opens up. We come to find out that Bush has authorized wiretaps on US citizens without warrants (which is allowable in some instances as long as those people are notified within 72 hours), and then looks us all straight in the face and tell us he broke no laws. A flat out lie of course; as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act clearly states that warrants must be obtained first unless in exceptional circumstances, and then the 72 hour notification kicks in. As far as we know, the NSA never actually gave notification to anyone.

Bush also told us that there were, in fact, no secret CIA prisons for years. It is only in the most recent exposure of those prisons (if people aren't aware, groups like Human Rights Watch have been reporting on these prisons for two or three years now, no one listened until now) that has brought any acknowledgement of these sites, and the administration STILL refuses to openly say they exist. This is a lie to the American public that has been going on for years.

The administration claims that no torture is ever ordered for use on people in US custody. Then they fought long and hard to try to stop a torture ban. They first fought all of it, then they tried to exempt CIA officials and to grant legal immunity to any individual who can claim they were ordered to torture. Our Attorney General told us all with a straight face that no one is ever tortured, and then we find out that we use a method of torture designed to make detainees believe they are being drown (this involves hours of being submerged into water almost until the point of passing out), freezing people, slapping people and shaking them, and putting them through sleep deprivation (which, incidently, is legally a form of torture). We know at least one person had died from these techniques. The administration lied to us yet again.

The administration, Bush in particular, has claimed that they have acted only in accordance with the law. But we found out that they've been holding US citizens for years without bringing charges against them; which is a clear violation of Due Process rights. The administration lied.

President Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and he did. He lied. He was impeached.

President Bush is illegally detaining people, authorizing torture, using misleading "evidence" that he knows to be incorrect, and lying to us about the existence of secret, and illegal, CIA prison sites. When people call him a liar, half of the country gets defensive.

What's wrong with this picture? And why aren't you scared yet?

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Necromancer]

[Gan]

1. WMD's in Iraq. No conclusive evidence that the were not there, and now there are reports of WMD's being moved to Syria prior to our invasion. Result: Inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

2. Wiretaps: Investigation being called for by Democrats as of today. Legality of said taps has not been determined as illegal. Result: inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

3. Cia prisons. No conclusive evidence to support that Bush said no prisons exist, much less where. Result: inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

4. Some of us arent scared yet because we live with both feet firmly attached to the ground and can tell the difference between spin, politik, and reality.

5. Clinton stated on live TV that in fact he did not have sexual relations with Monica, and yet later admitted to having oral sex. Pretty cut and dried when you look at it that way. Perhaps Clinton was just not as smart.


The above may or may not be absolutely correct but close enough not to induce wide spread paranoya among those who do not suffer from delusions of persecution. (insert chicken little and george orwell comment here)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Bush had been told not to use that evidence, that it was clearly incorrect. He used it in his speech anyway. Bush had also been told that the case for WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk". A slam dunk.

Not a midcourt jumper.

A slam dunk.

People probably get defensive because there's never any proof, always just speculation. It's like going into Shea Stadium and shouting "Jose Reyes is a rapist!!" over and over. People are going to get pissed at you.

[Warriorbird]

And once again... you claim to be liberal...why?

[Necromancer]

Do you remember the Downing Street Memo that was released from the British government that plainly stated that the US seemed to be fashioning its intelligence around the foregone conclusion of war in Iraq as a way to justify it? That document was CC'd and approved by two top US officials, including Colin Powell. The US knew that WMD was a slam dunk rhetoric policy, not that it was actually true.

To go a bit further in the lies we were told, in the August before the war, Dick Chaney said in a speech, ""simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,"

One month prior, the Downing Street memo (it was drafted in July) stated: "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss [the timing of the war] with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo, written in July, also reported the following: "the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections"

A few months later, President Bush pushed the UN to draft an ultimatum to Saddam: let the weapons inspectors back in or else. On live television, President Bush assured us that this policy was to prevent war.

However, just three weeks after the Downing Street Memo, British Foreign Secretary Straw met with Powell in the US to discuss the possibility of the UN ultimatum, stating clearly, ""If you are really thinking about war and you want us Brits to be a player, we cannot be unless you go to the United Nations." This was after the Downing Street meeting made it clear that the only way they could go to war was to get the UN to approve it. And the only way they could see the UN doing that would be if they pushed through an ultimatum and Saddam rejected it.

Of course, Iraq told the world that they had no WMD, and that there was no reason to let the inspectors in. David Kay, US weapons inspector, later confirmed that this was, in fact, true. However, the British and the US were smart. They knew that Saddam was paranoid, and that he would view the inspectors as potential spies or agents sent to attack his regime from the inside, particularly since there was already documentation (brought up in this thread) showing that Iraq had in fact destroyed all of its weapons programs. The bet paid off. Saddam rejected the inspectors, and the US and Brittain got their provisional UN approval.

And we went to war. This example demonstrates that we were, in fact, lied to on television when we were told that Bush was trying to avoid war at all costs and that the UN ultimatum was there to help us prevent war. In fact, the US and Brittain were using it to give a legal justification for war.

But he didn't lie about sleeping with someone, so I suppose impeachment is out of the question.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Bush had also been told that the case for WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk". A slam dunk.

Not a midcourt jumper.

A slam dunk.

People probably get defensive because there's never any proof, always just speculation. It's like going into Shea Stadium and shouting "Jose Reyes is a rapist!!" over and over. People are going to get pissed at you.

Sticking your head in the sand so you do not see what is plain does not make it less true.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Do you remember the Downing Street Memo Yes, and I'm surprised you even brought it up. This was the memo that was destroyed before it could be shown to anyone beyond the first reporter, remember? I'd go into the specifics of my impervious assault of it, but the search function appears to be broken, so maybe another time.

In short, hearsay is not proof.

[Gan]

It is for Democrats while Bush is in office.

[Necromancer]

1. WMD's in Iraq. No conclusive evidence that the were not there, and now there are reports of WMD's being moved to Syria prior to our invasion. Result: Inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

First off, as I posted in my last post, the administration told us that Iraq DID WITHOUT A DOUBT have WMDs. We were told flat out that Iraq had them and was planning on using them against us. In fact, we had no such intelligence. You have completely skewed the question. It is not an issue of whether we could be 100% right about whether or not Iraq had WMD (that would be impossible), the question is whether or not we were 100% sure that Iraq had them and was planning on using them; which is what Bush told us. It was a lie. He should be impeached for it.

The reports on Syria have been made off and on for a while, but there has never been any evidence supporting it at all. In fact, the only reasoning it has is that it would've been a decent idea, NOT that we have seen anything indicating that it actually happened. That doesn't give these reports any credibility.





2. Wiretaps: Investigation being called for by Democrats as of today. Legality of said taps has not been determined as illegal. Result: inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

Just because the administration is saying "This was totally legal" does not change the fact that it directly conflicted with Congress-passed law that requires warrants for wiretaps on citizens. The President is lying when he says it is legal, and we have documentation to prove it. (The Surveillance Act) The only reason why it hasn't been determined as illegal is because they've only had a few days to look through it. Now, it is possible that every single person wiretapped received notice within 72 hours of the wiretapping, AND that there was sufficient justification, as laid out in the Act, for each wiretap that allowed for circumventing the requirement for a warrant. However, we have zero evidence thus far that this is the case. I will reserve final judgement on this until we know for certain, but it is also well established that warrants are required for proper Due Process rights (this is why the Surveillance Act was written, to make it clear that wiretapes constituted search and seizure). This president created an order that circumvented Due Process rights (which is not in his power to do). If it is the case that even one of these wiretaps was performed without 72 hours notice and justification for emergency and undercover surveillance, then the President lied on live television to the country. He should be impeached for that lie. He should also be impeached for secretly passing a law that exceeded his powers as delineated by the constitution, making it immune to a checks and balances system by keeping it secret.


3. Cia prisons. No conclusive evidence to support that Bush said no prisons exist, much less where. Result: inconclusive evidence to support an impeachment.

Bush's administration has denied the prisons in the past, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and be fair: this last accusation, the administration refused to admit or deny the existence of such prisons. So we'll focus on that instead. All Bush said was "We do not torture people". And yet, an ex-FBI official who helped out with a New Yorker investigation into the Administration's linking of Iraq and al-Qaeda, was commenting on the one piece of evidence we had, a prisoner who confessed that Iraq was training al-Qaeda. His statement: “Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him.”

The country of Italy has indicted 13 CIA operatives in the kidnapping of a Muslim Cleric, the operatives allegedly flew him to Egypt and tortured him. There was ample evidence to start the case, even in a country that has allied itself with the Bush administration.

A Lebanese-born German citizen has filed a claim against the US for being mistakenly arrested and turned over to the CIA, who prompted flew him to Afghanistan where he was tortured for three years. The US has admitted that it did indeed arrest the man. As part of the case, the ACLU has demanded that the government release three documents all signed by President Bush: two of them outline appropriate CIA interrogation techniques and one of them is the order that created the secret detention centers. The government has refused to allow these documents to be released. If the US does not torture, then why are these documents not being released?

And if the US does not torture, why did the administration fight so hard to stop a law that would ban torture? By all means, give me an answer to this that does not include the phase "Because they don't want to have to stop torturing people".



4. Some of us arent scared yet because we live with both feet firmly attached to the ground and can tell the difference between spin, politik, and reality.

No you really don't. You have documents from the Brittish government outlining that the President was fashioning intelligence in a way to justify going to war while simultaneously he was telling us he didn't want to go to war. You have a government that refuses to outlaw torture, and not coincidentally, numerous people around the world have been coming forward and saying that they have been tortured by the CIA. You have a government that has been detaining its own citizens without charges or access to Courts. Our justice system has been predicated on the idea that you have rights and that the government can't just lock you up because it wants to, and yet it's happening. You have a government that is flying people out to countries that torture people for the express purpose of having those people tortured and still being able to claim that the US doesn't torture people. A government that is spying on its own people without warrants, which are REQUIRED for Due Process, which is a constitutionally protected right.

If you're not scared, it's because you're too busy covering your eyes and ears and saying "Lalalalalalalalala" over and over again. The rest of us are terrified.

[Necromancer]

As far as the Downing Street memo goes.

Below is an interview with the journalist who first wrote about the Downing Street Memo. He explains the process through which the "originals" (which were actually just copies of the originals, as the insider source who leaked them couldn't send the actual memos) were copied and then destroyed and then how those copies were again copied and destroyed as a way to prevent the original person who leaked the information from being found out.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that the British Secret Police shut down a website that posted the memos and began trying to prosecute people for distributing classified information. Clearly these memos were accurate. The British government has also refused to come out and say that any part of those memos was inaccurate. Of course, they can't. Because they ARE accurate, and if they say they're not, they're opening themselves up to a world of legal trouble.

The interview:

Interview with Michael Smith
Michael Smith is the UK reporter many are likening to Woodward and Bernstein for his work in uncovering the Downing Street Memo and other leaked UK government documents. DowningStreetMemo.com recently interviewed Smith via email to ask him about how he came into those documents, what they mean, and what he would ask George W. Bush if he had the chance.

Q: There is some confusion as to what exactly was destroyed. RawStory reports that you burned YOUR copies of the original government documents. Other sites, such as Newsmax, are reporting that you burned the ORIGINAL government documents. See story here. Can you clarify? If you destroyed the copies, do you know if the originals you returned to the source are still in existence?

A: I was given the first six documents in September 2004. I have referred to these documents as the originals because they were the first documents that I was given. But these were of course not the "originals" of the actual documents. They were photocopies of the original documents.

Such documents have to be registered and the source could not have walked off with them without being found out. Quite apart from that there were a number of different copies of the documents in circulation within government. There was always more than one copy of each of the original documents held by the government. For instance, the Straw letter to Blair was marked strictly personal. But there would still have to have been at least two copies of it, one held by Blair's office and one by Straw's.

So the source made photocopies which he gave to me. I was told by the lawyers on the Daily Telegraph where I then worked that I had to copy them all and send the photocopies I had been given back to the source. This was because the photocopy paper used for the copies I was given by the source were made on a government photocopier. The paper they were printed on therefore in law belonged to the government and we could have been accused of theft and had the documents taken off us.

So having sent back those copies, we now have several photocopies of each document which are on paper that belongs to us. I worked from one of these. The editor has another, and the third goes to the lawyers, who have a secretary type the text up using a manual typewriter. This is not done in the same format as the original document. It is just a record of what the document actually says which we can keep without putting the source in danger. I did not at any time work from the typed up texts. I always worked from the photocopies.

There are any number of ways that the authorities could have tracked down the source using the photocopies of the documents. Photocopiers have their own signature, so the photocopier that was used could have been tracked down. A crease or mark of some sort on the original document the source copied could appear on the photocopy. Highly classified documents are often typed up again rather than photocopied, with deliberate mistypes inserted so that documents can be tracked down to a particular person. It was essential we destroyed any evidence.

At 6pm on the evening before the paper appeared, having finished off the two articles I was writing, I shredded the photocopies which I had made, leaving me with only the typed up versions. I then passed that typed up text version to two political parties, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists). Plaid Cymru gave them to an academic who put them on his own website. That website was taken down immediately by the British Police Special Branch, who also began investigating me for a potential breach of the official secrets act.

Under British law, anyone who passes on material which they know to be classified to someone else is guilty of breaching the official secrets act, whether or not they have signed it, and in fact I have signed it anyway while in the army. The typed up texts had also been passed by the academics Plaid Cymru were dealing with to the Cryptome website, which could not be taken down by the British police because it is not based in the UK. That is how they came to be passed into circulation a couple of weeks ago. I had nothing to do with the process whereby they have recently come into the public domain, although I am happy that happened.

When I received the latest batch of documents I followed a very similar procedure, typing up the text and shredding the copies I had. At no point was I ever in possession of an original document, only photocopies of those original documents. Everything I did was designed solely to protect the source. That is a responsibility that every journalist has.

Long answer but it is a complex issue and simplifying it only led to unscrupulous people deliberately, and rather desperately, misconstruing my motives for destroying leaked documents that could have led the authorities to my source.

One thing we did do was to scan in the front pages of three of the documents, clean any identification marks off them and then reproduce them in the paper. Two of these can still be seen on the Telegraph website alongside my original story. Although this does not authenticate the text, it does show that the documents actually existed.

[Hulkein]

Holy shit, maybe five people will read all that.

Unless you're Bill O'Reilly, you need to stop bloviating, that's his job.

[Gan]

LOL @ Hulkein. Those last 2 posts made my eyes bleed. I cant believe he actually thinks his opinion is important enough to suffer through all of that.

Congrats Necro on being a first class ticket holder on the Democrat left wing express. Perhaps if half of what you said was on target then those with more knowledge, ability, and power would have already started impeachment hearings. The fact that they have not says a lot.

Perhaps that will change in 2006 or possibly 2008 when its time to put up or shut up.

[TheEschaton]

I love you guys. You're like "OMFG YOU LIBERAL BASS TURDS DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSE, LOL, WE PWNED U!!!!!!!!!!!!111"

and then when someone DOES respond, you say "That's waaaaaaaaaaay too fucking long to read, so we're just not gonna count it, and instead, insult the person who would post such an insultingly long response."

That's pretty jackass-ish.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I never said anything about liberals not having any response.

PS. I could probably could edit that down a fair amount of words and not lose any of the substance of what she/he posted.

PPS. Just read the second post. I didn't realize it was mainly an interview. Harder to trim that.

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Hulkein]

[Gan]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
That's pretty jackass-ish.

-TheE-

Welcome to the PC.

:rolleyes:

[Necromancer]

yup, second one was just an interview I pasted for people too lazy to link. Apparently people are too lazy to read the first paragraph of a post, but they're not too lazy to criticize that very post.

First one, 1/4 of it was pasted chunks from a previous poster. I was responding to them, not to anyone else in particular. So I only needed one person to read it. But nice of you to drop in and give your opinion anyway (even if you couldn't be bothered to read it)

As for the person who has stated that impeachment would have happened by now if half of that were true, is that REALLY the best response you have to that? THAT'S your logic for it being incorrect?

How about this: impeachment requires a vote in Congress by members of the President's own party, a party that would like to be able to run another candidate in the 2008 elections with some chance of success. This is precisely why Washington warned us against political parties. It circumvents a lot of our checks and balances.

Yeah, things are as bad as they seem. And no amount of circumventing the evidence will change that. Though, I don't blame you for being in denial, it's hard enough for me to face on a daily basis, and I have no investment in keeping that bastard around.

[Gan]

You wont have to worry about him being around again after 2008. The 22nd amendment ensures that.

And things are not as bad as you're making them out to be. You're just in delusion.

[Necromancer]

I'm worried about finding someone who'll undo 8 years of damage. And about keeping another republican out of office.

Things aren't that bad for you, you don't have civil rights being taken away from you, no one is nominating judges that will erode the fragile political protections you need to get by on a day-to-day basis, no one is wiretapping your phones illegally, and if you're arrested you'll probably be given actual charges and given access to a court system to determine if you're innocent or not.

Everyone else, on the other hand, is in some trouble. Also those who care enough about other people to hurt over the pain this man and his followers have caused them.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. At the very least you get to marry who you want to, Ganalon, he doesn't.

[Necromancer]

I'm anti gay marriage ;)

I'm anti marriage in general though; it's a system that's in desparate need of scrapping.

Though at least your hate crimes count as actual hate crimes in every locality. At least your employers can't fire you for sleeping with women. At least you can adopt in any state and won't lose a custody battle over your sexual orientation.

And heck, queers don't have it as bad as a lot of other people these days. The laundry list gets worse.

God bless Amurrca! Boasting better civil rights than the worst despotism since 1776*

*excluding the first 3/4 of the 1800s, World War One, the 1950's, World War Two, and 2001-present

[Gan]

Gloom, despair, and agony on me.

You're right, I dont have to worry about illegal wiretaps or fabricated evidence or fake charges... since I'm a law abiding citizen. :rolleyes:

The judges nominated will keep us on the path of the rule of law, not on their personal agenda. And at the same time stay true to America and what it stands for.

Yea, I'm quite happy with where we're going. And with the candidates that the Democrats have as a selection of for 2008... I'm really glad I'm at least somewhat a Republican.

Next time you see Hillary at one of her rallies, tell her the Republicans wish her well and all the luck in the 2008 primaries. :lol:

[Gan]

For example:

GDP grew at an annualized rate of 4.3% in the third quarter, up from a forecasted 3.8%. Even despite the ravages of Hurricane's Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Dept. of Labor reported third quarter productivity grew by 4.7%. And November jobs added on 215,000 after no increases in Sept. and Oct.

Overall since the recession in 2003 the US has added more than 4.5m jobs. And unemployment hovers around a normal 5%.

Yea, we're sucking wind right now. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you might find more gullable listeners if you stood on a street corner in sackcloth and ashes with a cardboard sign that reads "The end is near!"

[Necromancer]

Might I remind you of the German citizen who spent three years in torture and illegal captivity...mistakenly. He was a law abiding person, but there was no system in place to protect him from the US government.

And I love when people quote things like GDP growth. Latest stats show the poor still getting poorer and the rich still getting richer with a shrinking middle class. Brazil, a country often decried for its wealth distribution (or lack thereof) is only slightly worse on the larence curve (which measures income distribution in a country) than the US.

More and more people are going uninsured, which means we have more people dying of curable disease and illness than any other country of comprarable wealth.

Did I mention literacy rates and graduation rates are down? Hate crimes are up. Civil liberties are down. Urban school funding is down, community college funding is down, student loan interest rates are up...

but hey, no one illegally invaded us and is forcing us to fight a war we never asked for. So that's a good thing.

Sorry, I don't share your low standards for doing alright. I expect more, if not for myself, at least for other people. But I guess that's what separates me from the conservatives: a commitment to the ending of human suffering.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Necromancer
But I guess that's what separates me from the conservatives: a commitment to the ending of human suffering.

hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaahahahahahahaaahahahahahaha haahahaha.

My god thanks for the chuckle- Ghandi jr. I think I might add that to my signature.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Necromancer]

Please do. The morality that generally concerns conservatives is based around restriction of lifestyles and judgement of alternative forms of living and believing. The morality of a progressive is based on alleviating human suffering and creating a society where diversity is respected and supported.

i.e. We hear happy holidays and are glad for the inclusion, and they hear happy holidays and believe the world has gone to hell in a hand basket because people other than Christians are being accomodated.

One example of many.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Necromancer
I'm worried about finding someone who'll undo 8 years of damage. And about keeping another republican out of office.

Things aren't that bad for you, you don't have civil rights being taken away from you, no one is nominating judges that will erode the fragile political protections you need to get by on a day-to-day basis, no one is wiretapping your phones illegally, and if you're arrested you'll probably be given actual charges and given access to a court system to determine if you're innocent or not.

Everyone else, on the other hand, is in some trouble. Also those who care enough about other people to hurt over the pain this man and his followers have caused them.

Dear Backlash.. stop posting under different names. There is no way someone is as paranoid as you are.

ZOMG! SOME1 R TAKING AWAY MY CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!! I SWEAR!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Necromancer
But I guess that's what separates me from the conservatives: a commitment to the ending of human suffering. [/quote]
Yes... because the main platform for conservative republicans is to make people suffer.

Congrats on being stupid.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
ZOMG! SOME1 R TAKING AWAY MY CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!! I SWEAR!

Only you and Hulkien post like that.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
ZOMG! SOME1 R TAKING AWAY MY CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!! I SWEAR!

Only you and Hulkien post like that.

And Jihnaspirit but that doesn't really help their case either.

[Parkbandit]

I'm still waiting on someone here to tell me exactly what civil rights were taking away from them.

I think I've been asking for said example for over 2 years now.

[TheEschaton]

I think I'm still waiting for PB to give a (serious) response to my post.

Within which I told you a story of my friend who was held for two days because he was a Muslim student from TURKEY. But yanno, anecdotal evidence. ;-)


-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I think I've been asking for said example for over 2 years now.
-Parkbandit

Because you're fucking deaf to any of the countless litany of examples given. Must have something to do with advanced age.

I've done some quote fixing for you.


Yes... because the main platform for conservative republicans is to make people afraid.

Congrats on being almost correct.

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

I'd rather be a little afraid and well prepared than blissfully ignorant and winde up dead. Which is the mantra of the Democrat party - "we're all safe, nothing will ever happen to us..."

:rolleyes:

If you had your way we'd have nothing but the national guard left to defend us when someone strikes. Oh yea, we'll talk them down peacefully!!!oneone1

fucking pacifists...

Why dont you apply that Darwin theory that you're so fond of to world politics and you'll understand the need for having a well stacked military and a foothold on those who would call us an enemy and enact designs to destroy us.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Uh...that's clearly not indicative of my views, but thanks. I mainly tend to think we're fighting the wrong war by the wrong name.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I'd rather be a little afraid and well prepared than blissfully ignorant and winde up dead. Which is the mantra of the Democrat party - "we're all safe, nothing will ever happen to us..."

:rolleyes:

If you had your way we'd have nothing but the national guard left to defend us when someone strikes. Oh yea, we'll talk them down peacefully!!!oneone1

fucking pacifists...

Why dont you apply that Darwin theory that you're so fond of to world politics and you'll understand the need for having a well stacked military and a foothold on those who would call us an enemy and enact designs to destroy us.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Spoken like the true illegitimate adopted son of a Pat Robertson and Bill O’Riely gay marriage.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Spoken like the true illegitimate adopted son of a Pat Robertson and Bill O’Riely gay marriage.

I would bring your parentage into this, but they actually went to school in Texas so we'll just all agree that you're a product of fetal alcohol syndrome and call it even.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
ZOMG! SOME1 R TAKING AWAY MY CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!! I SWEAR!

Only you and Hulkien post like that.

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/xmas_orly.gif

I R TEH POST LYKE DAT 2!!1one

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I would bring your parentage into this, but they actually went to school in Texas so we'll just all agree that you're a product of fetal alcohol syndrome and call it even.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Oh shit, that was an indirect crack on your president’s, and most of this administrations, personal lives. Shameful you claim to be a Texan.

[Gan]

I'm ashamed that you have even the slightest connection to the grand state of Texas.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I'm ashamed that you have even the slightest connection to the grand state of Texas.

And I’m ashamed the Cowboys lost yesterday. Second game against the Skins in a row. It only took Gibbs, what, a year? Damn, slaughter.

Anyway, back on topic.

2005 is not over yet. Who knows what other things will be revealed in the coming two weeks.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
I'm ashamed that you have even the slightest connection to the grand state of Texas.

And I’m ashamed the Cowboys lost yesterday. Second game against the Skins in a row. It only took Gibbs, what, a year? Damn, slaughter.

Anyway, back on topic.

2005 is not over yet. Who knows what other things will be revealed in the coming two weeks.

Back off topic a moment, D.C. native here:

Haha pwnt Dallas! :D

[Back]

2005 being the first time in YEARS! But the Skins did play very fucking well. Gibbs is on to Parcell’s tricks. Flea-flicker in the first quarter? Yeah, the student may have overtaken the master this time...

I have no doubt Parcell is in his bunker plotting his comeback this season. Cowboys are still in it Wild Card. And if anyone can do it, its Parcell and the Cowboys.

-------------------------

Back to politik.

[Necromancer]

>Dear Backlash.. stop posting under different names. There is no way someone is as paranoid as you are.

You may want to look in the mirror, you've got a little crazy on your face.

And to the person who assumed that since Republicans weren't looking to alleviate human suffering, they must be looking to create it...go take a logic course, please. Then maybe you'll have grounds to call someone else stupid (not really, no one does).

fyi, torturing people, taking away their Due Process Rights, and killing your own citizens does not make a country safer. That's the horrifying thing about the 41% of people who approve of what Bush is doing. They see a government doing all of these harmful and illegal things to people, and then they go home and somehow feel more secure.

[Necromancer]

You're waiting to see what rights were taken away from people?

No offense, but are you headless?

You can be wiretapped without a court order, which violates your right to Due Process. (which is specifically why a Court was created through the Foreign Surveillance Act)

We have US citizens (and non US citizens) who have been held without charges for over 3 years. Also a violation of Due Process rights.

We have a government that hands people off to other countries to be tortured.

We have an FBI operative who let us know that people were being beaten until they confessed what the US wanted to hear (check out the info we were given about the "source" who told us Iraq was training Al-Qaeda people by one of the people in charge of the "interrogation")

We have a President who tried to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would have prohibited gay marriage. Not only is marriage a local issue and not a Federal one, but the freedom to marry is covered under the Freedom of Association rights. That one was almost lost.

We have a President and Congress who have been widdling away at the right to an abortion, which is an elaboration of your right to privacy.

We have a country that is killing its own citizens, which is a violation of a ban on cruel and inhumane punishment as well as a violation of the inherent human right to life and liberty.

If you don't think you're losing civil rights, then I can only conclude that you didn't know what your rights were to begin with.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Necromancer]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Necromancer
You can be wiretapped without a court order, which violates your right to Due Process. (which is specifically why a Court was created through the Foreign Surveillance Act)
Well, unless you're getting directions to make a dirty bomb or molitov cocktails to throw onto the lawn of the local federal building from your mom its really not a huge concern from my perspective. They can wiretap my phones all day long and not find anything illegal. Not to mention that those who are doing things illegal are probably using other methods of communication more effective and private than traceable phones.


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have US citizens (and non US citizens) who have been held without charges for over 3 years. Also a violation of Due Process rights.
Who are the US citizens? Non citizens are not afforded our rights because they are NON citizens. Thats not difficult to understand... well, for most of us anyways.


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have a government that hands people off to other countries to be tortured.
Do these people belong to the countries they're handing them off to? Not a problem there. Are they ours? That could be an issue, can you give specific examples or sources?


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have an FBI operative who let us know that people were being beaten until they confessed what the US wanted to hear (check out the info we were given about the "source" who told us Iraq was training Al-Qaeda people by one of the people in charge of the "interrogation")
Do you have the source for this? Either its too vague a reference or I did not read this news story.


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have a President who tried to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would have prohibited gay marriage. Not only is marriage a local issue and not a Federal one, but the freedom to marry is covered under the Freedom of Association rights. That one was almost lost.
Actually it becomes a Federal matter when it involves federal dollars and funding that can be accessed by said marriagees. Even though I dont agree with the religious persecution of gays in the US and support the idea that if they want to marry then god speed.


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have a President and Congress who have been widdling away at the right to an abortion, which is an elaboration of your right to privacy.
The sky is not falling chicken little jr. He's not widdeling away at Roe v. Wade. And its not going to be overturned. Get a grip and quit smoking those things that make you paranoid.


Originally posted by Necromancer
We have a country that is killing its own citizens, which is a violation of a ban on cruel and inhumane punishment as well as a violation of the inherent human right to life and liberty.
This is actually a state matter, not a federal matter. And while I support the death penalty I only support it when there is absolute proof of the crime requiring it. Too many mistakes can be made and 10 years of appeals process sometimes is not enough to find out the truth in some cases. Furthermore, criminals have forfeited their 'natural' rights when they took away someone elses. If you ask me, convicts have it too easy as it is. There's no detriment to crime with punishment the way it is. And dont get me laughing on the thought of rehab. Thats a 1 in 10 shot as it is.


Originally posted by Necromancer
If you don't think you're losing civil rights, then I can only conclude that you didn't know what your rights were to begin with.

No, we're just not as paranoid as you might or might not be.

[TheEschaton]

Well, unless you're getting directions to make a dirty bomb or molitov cocktails to throw onto the lawn of the local federal building from your mom its really not a huge concern from my perspective. They can wiretap my phones all day long and not find anything illegal. Not to mention that those who are doing things illegal are probably using other methods of communication more effective and private than traceable phones.

So, even if you were doing nothing wrong, you wouldn't mind random raids on your house (don't worry, we'll pay you for the broken door), or traffic stops for no reason? Because it's the same sort of thing - the warrant ensures that the wiretapping has probable cause. Without it, probable cause goes out the window, and let's call the whole thing off. This wiretapping is a serious breach of privacy in that they could use (since they don't require a warrant) rather arbitrary guidelines to wiretap people.

For example, next fall, I will be a single, male student who immigrated from a country with 90 million Muslims, living alone in either D.C. or NYC (still waiting on those grad school apps!) About the only thing I have going for me is that I have U.S. citizenship. I know people who've been detained for less.

Forget DWB (Driving While Black), try RWM (Residing While Muslim).

-TheE-

[Gan]

I dont see this as any glaring as any other country in the world today. Its amazing how people hold the US to higher standards with regards to civil liberties than other countries and are the first to bash when the same shit happens here that happens elsewhere. The US is like the world's loophole for criminal activity because of all of the laws and protection thats granted its inhabitants.

As for wiretaps, its not specifying the searching of domiciles its for wiretaps. If your saying that searching of houses is the next logical conclusion (step) then yes I would have an issue with the inconvienence but I'll reiterate that I am not doing anything illegal so search away, just make sure you put everything back the way you got it.

I think folks are jumping to too many conclusions and then paranoia and George Orwell'ian fantasies take over.

[Wezas]

Off topic but on topic for a few posts ago.

I have bronchitis and had most of my dad's family over Sunday. I got some shitty gifts and my kid kept me up all night Sat night.

But watching that Redskins/Dallas game made it all worth it. If only they didn't score that touchdown it would have been a shutout. Oh well, I'll take a win.

[TheEschaton]

Its amazing how people hold the US to higher standards with regards to civil liberties than other countries and are the first to bash when the same shit happens here that happens elsewhere.


But no other country in the world claims to be the bastion of freedom, so much so that we have the right to impose it on other sovereign countries. America is always boasting that we are the most free country in the world, so when people point out that America is doing the same shit other countries are, it's not because they're ignoring the faults of those other countries, it's because America is being hypocritcal between what they say and what they do.

Furthermore, while wiretaps may not physically hamper you like a random house search, the legal principle behind the two are the same. If wiretaps without warrants are allowed, in theory, so should searches. Wiretaps without warrants lead to spying without warrants, in fact, Bush has already defended spying on American citizens in general, not just wiretaps. So, wiretaps without warrants lead to surveillance without warrants which lead to asking your librarian why the hell you take out books like Catcher in the Rye. It's a Brave New World, indeed.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

I'd rather see criminals walk than innocent people imprisoned. Also, I think our country is better than torture, wrongful search and seizure, wrongful detention, and invasion of privacy; I'm sorry if you don't.

Further, I think people are raising a few eyebrows as Republicans typically run on a platform of LESS federal involvement, thus less federal money spent. Suddenly expanding the role of the NSA like this must have cost a penny or two. Then, the question of for what, when the majority of people do not feel safer and we are not safer (according to the 911 commission).

-M

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Further, I think people are raising a few eyebrows as Republicans typically run on a platform of LESS federal involvement, thus less federal money spent. Suddenly expanding the role of the NSA like this must have cost a penny or two.

Don't worry about that. They saved money by ignoring the law and not going to the courts to show probably cause for those pesky warrants.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

They saved money by ignoring the law and not going to the courts to show probably cause for those pesky warrants.
-Ravenstorm

Of which like, 3, were ever rejected since September 11th.



No, we're just not as paranoid as you might or might not be.
-Ganalon

If Hillary were President and this were going on, the Republicans would be drawing up articles of impeachment. Janet Reno did similar stuff to this (and it was wrong then) and Republicans certainly complained.

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

I would probably only complain because it was Hillary.

That still doesnt change my stance on it though.

[Necromancer]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

For some more fun-filled information on our civil liberties being abridged.

Oh yeah, that conference at Stanford? I was one of the co-organizers. So I've been under review by the FBI because I dared to disagree with US policy.

Those of you who aren't angry or afraid need to get your heads out of your damn asses.

Notice that religious right organizations weren't under surveillance.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Necromancer
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

For some more fun-filled information on our civil liberties being abridged.

Oh yeah, that conference at Stanford? I was one of the co-organizers. So I've been under review by the FBI because I dared to disagree with US policy.

Those of you who aren't angry or afraid need to get your heads out of your damn asses.

Notice that religious right organizations weren't under surveillance.

My god you must have smoked a really bad batch of weed to be this paranoid.

The two paragraphs that make total sense in that whole ACLU article are as follows:


Originally posted by ACLU
The ACLU said that some of the documents suggest infiltration by undercover “sources” at animal rights meetings and conferences. One highly redacted “Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit” document suggests that the FBI is using PETA’s interns for surveillance, while others describe attempts to locate and interview “several former disgruntled PETA employees.” Similarly, one cryptic e-mail kept in a Greenpeace file describes a source who “offers a unique opportunity to gain intelligence on activists who show a clear predisposition to violate the law.”

At times, the documents show aggressive attempts by the FBI to link PETA, Greenpeace and other mainstream organizations to activists associated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or Earth Liberation Front (ELF), said the ACLU. PETA, in particular, is repeatedly and falsely singled out as a “front” for militant organizations although in at least one document released today the FBI appears to acknowledge that it has no evidence to back up such assertions.

They were investigated, big fucking deal. They were not detained, they were not questioned, they were not infringed upon.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Necromancer]

You should have followed the link a bit deeper.

First off, any groups being investigated based on simply for having an opinion that is contrary to government policy is a frightening situation. They were being investigated as potential terrorist groups for this reason alone. In the instance of the intern, it was clear that the FBI was planting people into these groups to "infiltrate" them. I thought it was your conservatives who were always decrying Big Brother.

Secondly, if you had read deeper into the links, you would've seen some of the documents uncovered. PETA was clearly labeled as an ecoterrorist group, for example. While Catholic Workers was labeled as communist (which, incidently, shouldn't be an illegal or suspect thing in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech)

We're talking investigation based on speech alone, which in and of itself is viewpoint discrimination in this instance, which has been ruled as unconstitutional. The fact that one branch of the government seems to think it's alright to acts in ways that another branch has already declared illegal is precisely the breakdown of checks and balances that is endemic under this administration.

I will also point out that the fact majority of documents requested by the ACLU were refused by the FBI, and we only got a small percentage of the documents (which major parts of them blocked out). So we've hit the tip of the iceburg.

But heck, who cares about right to privacy and speech? We're a whole lot safer now that we're being illegally watched, right?

[Back]

About this whole wiretap thing...

Bush has contradicted himself (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051220/afp/051220194444top.html). Or, in reality, lied about this in the past.


WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush, caught up in a domestic spying controversy, for the past two years has assured Americans worried about expanded government anti-terrorism powers that court orders were needed to tap telephones.

Bush has drawn fire over a 2002 order enabling the National Security Agency to monitor, without a judge's go-ahead, the telephone and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of Al-Qaeda ties when they are in touch with someone abroad.

Critics have charged that the unprecedented move is an abuse of power and a violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires court approval of wiretaps and electronic surveillance.

The White House has fired back that Bush's move is legal under the US Constitution and a congressional resolution, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that authorized the use of force in Afghanistan.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

But under Bush's super-secret order, first revealed Friday by the New York Times and details of which have been confirmed by Bush and other top US officials, the National Security Agency does not need that court's approval.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property," he said in June.

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.

Asked whether Bush had misled the US public, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush "was talking about (the issue) in the context of the Patriot Act."

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by Backlash]

[Necromancer]

But he won't be impeached. He didn't have an affair.

[Back]

I move that this thread title should change from...

“Bush/Republicans...losing their beloved Patriot Act... ”

to

“Bush/Republicans...losing their beloved Power...”

Appeals Court Rejects U.S. Bid to Transfer Terror Suspect (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21cnd-padilla.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=0a21e63950d51917& ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login)

Registration required (http://www.bugmenot.com).


WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - A federal appeals court delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration today, refusing to allow the transfer of Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities to face terrorism charges in criminal court.

In denying the administration's request, the three-judge panel also said in a strongly worded opinion that the Justice Department's attempt to transfer Mr. Padilla gave the appearance that the government was trying to manipulate the court system to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case. The judges warned that the administration might be jeopardizing its credibility before the courts in terrorism cases.

-----------------------------------------

It’s not even close to the end of the year yet.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I would probably only complain because it was Hillary.

That still doesnt change my stance on it though.

It doesn't change your stance because you're white and appear to have money.

So long as it doesn't have an impact on you ... why give a shit right?

Typical, very typical.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't know if you can make that assumption (race/status card). I'm white, don't want to discuss my monetary situation, but anyway, I care that my civil liberties could be invaded if Bush gets a nasty hair up his ass. Some people think we have 'too many freedoms in this country' (bush is one of them; that's a near direct quote). Fortunately, I, and much of America, disagree with them.

You can call me paranoid if you'd like to, but IMO due process is too important of a defining feature of our democracy to trust in the hands of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and so on. The outrage is that Bush jr. has circumvented checks and balances, a principle pillar of our governmental system, not that most people think they're personally the subject of a government probe.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

One more caveat for my post in regard to this issue: If you'd like to believe that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War was unbiased and the best of our ability, then this country obviously DOES have immense intelligence-gathering issues that need examination before we start circumventing the Constitution and due process for anyone.

-M
edited because caveat is one of those other words that I always misspell. It is not caveate.

[Edited on Thu, December nd, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Ganalon
I would probably only complain because it was Hillary.

That still doesnt change my stance on it though.

It doesn't change your stance because you're white and appear to have money.

So long as it doesn't have an impact on you ... why give a shit right?

Typical, very typical.

What poor people are getting their privacy invaded?

I guess I just don't buy into this paranoia. So far this issue doesn't bother me. Maybe you may think that the government has enough money and manpower to actually give a shit what Joe Bob is doing this weekend at the bar, but they don't. If he's smuggling bombs into Kentucky, then maybe he SHOULD be looked into.

We're always being watched or listened in on in one way or another. As long as it doesn't impede your freedoms, I don't see the huge brouhaha.

[Back]

It’s not American to just bend over and take it.

[CrystalTears]

Take what? If you feel that sacrificing some privacy for the sake of freedom means that you're getting screwed, then that's your right. I'm just saying I don't believe it's as conspiracy theory as people make it out to be. :shrug:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Ganalon
I would probably only complain because it was Hillary.

That still doesnt change my stance on it though.

It doesn't change your stance because you're white and appear to have money.

So long as it doesn't have an impact on you ... why give a shit right?

Typical, very typical.

Actually I do give a shit, contrary to your assumption that being white and having money means that I dont care about civil liberties. Typical? Perhaps where you live, not where I live.

I could say, as an assumption, that where I live marajuana use/abuse is lower thus leading to less instances of mass paranoia. Typical? You decide.

Sure I have money, I work hard for it. I also have debt, I work hard for that too. I work hard at being successful by legal means ergo I have nothing to hide if someone wants to take a peek at my international communiques. In fact, I would welcome a call from the government if they found out one of my international business partners had ties with a terrorist organization. And because I act in good faith and with reasonable prudence following normal and legal business practices I have nothing to fear from our government.

I support the international based taps because of the greater liklihood that through those means an actual terrorist act could be thwarted and lives saved, American lives. Too many international residents living in the US that are here to commit terrorist acts are enjoying the umbrella of protection from the civil liberties designed to benefit US citizens. In essence, they are exploiting our freedoms in order to strike against us.

Perhaps instead of bitching and whining so much you could offer up an alternative solution. Or do you just prefer to enjoy your comfy seat on the bandwagon?

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Take what? If you feel that sacrificing some privacy for the sake of freedom means that you're getting screwed, then that's your right. I'm just saying I don't believe it's as conspiracy theory as people make it out to be. :shrug:

I’m willing to give up some of my freedom VOLUNTARILY for security.

I will happily place my baggage on an x-ray machine and take off my shoes. But I would be rather upset to be strip searched and have all my bags rummaged through.

I will always cooperate with authorities when asked. But it would disturb me greatly if they decided to track my internet, credit card, library and cell use without asking me.

Thats just me though. And no its not some big crazy conspiracy. Bush admitted to tapping Americans.

------------------------------------------

Here is another example of surveillance.

New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?ei=5094&en=c298d636b33c8c10&hp=&ex=1 135227600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=l ogin&oref=login)

Registration required (http://www.bugmenot.com).


Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

Until Sept. 11, the secret monitoring of events where people expressed their opinions was among the most tightly limited of police powers.

---------------------------------------------------

So, we have our own government snooping on its own people saying that its to keep us safe from terrorists then we have under cover agents spying on people based on their social/political beliefs.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Backlash]

[Warriorbird]

Actually I do give a shit, contrary to your assumption that being white and having money means that I dont care about civil liberties.

Funny. Seems like giving up your civil liberties for the illusion of security means you don't give a fuck.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

<In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004. >

How does the video-tape know that the disguised officers are in fact officers if they are disguised?

[CrystalTears]

You're not losing any freedom with any of this. Privacy does not equal freedom.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Actually I do give a shit, contrary to your assumption that being white and having money means that I dont care about civil liberties.

Funny. Seems like giving up your civil liberties for the illusion of security means you don't give a fuck.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

Well, when you decide to look at perspectives that are not strictly black and white, then you'll understand where I'm coming from. If I have to explain further I'm going to bill you for tuition.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry. I guess you never quite grasped the Supreme Court backed right to privacy, CT. I guess you never quite rationalized discrimination against minorities, or people with different sexualities (Oh wait, you think Angelina Jolie is hot...)

But, but, it will make us safe!

Liberty isn't about safety. Without bold decisive action we'd still be a British colony.

Russ Feingold quoting Patrick Henry was brilliant.

If we have to torture and violate civil rights to stop terrorists, have we not become them?

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Warriorbird]

Well, when you decide to look at perspectives that are not strictly black and white, then you'll understand where I'm coming from. If I have to explain further I'm going to bill you for tuition.

Funny. You've never once questioned that I can see. You love the hype. "Our president admitted he broke the law. Okay! Gorsh, I loves him!"

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm sorry. I guess you never quite grasped the Supreme Court backed right to privacy. I guess you never quite rationalized discrimination against minorities, or people with different sexualities (Oh wait, you think Angelina Jolie is hot...)

But, but, it will make us safe!

Liberty isn't about safety. Without bold decisive action we'd still be a British colony.

Russ Feingold quoting Patrick Henry was brilliant.

If we have to torture and violate civil rights to stop terrorists, have we not become them?

See CT's quote. It sums it up nicely.


Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're not losing any freedom with any of this. Privacy does not equal freedom.

DING DING DING. We have a winner.

Thank you CT.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Well, when you decide to look at perspectives that are not strictly black and white, then you'll understand where I'm coming from. If I have to explain further I'm going to bill you for tuition.

Funny. You've never once questioned that I can see. You love the hype. "Our president admitted he broke the law. Okay! Gorsh, I loves him!"

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

I've never said that either. I've only said I support him. Sounds like you're the hype-monster in this thread. Eh?

[Warriorbird]

Nah. You have someone else who's all about giving up their rights and forgetting what America is about.

Torture! Okay!

Violating America's laws! Okay! (But not if Democrats do it!)

Being a minority on multiple levels, yet being completely down with minorities getting shafted. Okay!

I'm sorry, she's sure as heck not speaking any language I can understand.

[Warriorbird]

I've never said that either. I've only said I support him. Sounds like you're the hype-monster in this thread. Eh?

Funny. About the only thing you've ever done anything but be his spokesman over was religious. You don't even accept that he could be wrong. Your stance on breaking the law (RE: Clinton and perjury) makes the whole Bush breaking the law bit even more ridiculous.

[Gan]

Whats funny is we're talking about wire taps and civil liberties and now you're throwing torture, minority persecution, and other inflammatory non-wire tap issues into this just to justify your paranoia and to hopefully catch more 'victim's' into the wide net you're trying to cast.

Actually its not funny, its predictably sad.

[Warriorbird]

Okay. There was a law. The president broke it. You seem to think this is somehow okay. Yet, mysteriously, regarding another President who broke a law (regarding a personal matter that should have never had 50 million wasted investigating) you think it wasn't okay.

We'll be real simplistic.

Four of these wiretaps have been turned down in roughly 25 years.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I've never said that either. I've only said I support him. Sounds like you're the hype-monster in this thread. Eh?

Funny. About the only thing you've ever done anything but be his spokesman over was religious. You don't even accept that he could be wrong. Your stance on breaking the law (RE: Clinton and perjury) makes the whole Bush breaking the law bit even more ridiculous.

Only because he did break the law. Hopefully Bush was smart enough to follow the letter of the law in ordering the wire taps. If he did not then he clearly deserves to go through impeachment hearings and to face the consequences the same as any other US citizen.

Again, you're assumptions have led you astray.

[Warriorbird]

No. Again you're a hypocrite.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Okay. There was a law. The president broke it. You seem to think this is somehow okay. Yet, mysteriously, regarding another President who broke a law (regarding a personal matter that should have never had 50 million wasted investigating) you think it wasn't okay.

We'll be real simplistic.

Four of these wiretaps have been turned down in roughly 25 years.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

I did not know you were an actual judge. Or anyone with judicial authority to determine that indeed a law was broken. Take your seat back on the bandwagon, its starting to get cold and there seems to be others eyeing it hungrily.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
No. Again you're a hypocrite.

And you're a bandwagoning left whinged fanatic who will stop at nothing to slander Bush.

Sticks and stones.

[Warriorbird]

I did not know you were an actual judge. Or anyone with judicial authority to determine that indeed a law was broken.

Funny. The actual Federal judge who knew the best resigned in protest. Judge Posner (who we both respect, and you know it...and is a moderate Republican) is where I'm getting my information and view from, if there's a bandwagon at all.

[Gan]

Oh god, another conspiracy.

:banghead:


Please wait until all the facts are in before you start looking for rope. I know it will be hard for you to NOT jump to conclusions or anything.

[Warriorbird]

Uhm. How is the court's judge resigning a conspiracy? Federal judges aren't exactly high on the conspiracy theory list.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

I know the word conspiracy probably distracted you like pavlov's bell. But please read the 2nd half of my earlier post for the answer to your question above.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're not losing any freedom with any of this. Privacy does not equal freedom.

DING DING DING. We have a winner.

Thank you CT.

Uh, you two actually believe this? Seriously?

[Warriorbird]

Funny. Anything ever goes wrong and you jump to Bush's defense, Ganalon.

:shrugs: I called Rove not being indicted pretty early.

If you believe that a Federal judge resigning in protest (a lifetime appointment) is indicative of "jumping to conclusions", maybe you need to do a little learning about the world you claim to understand so much.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're not losing any freedom with any of this. Privacy does not equal freedom.

DING DING DING. We have a winner.

Thank you CT.

Uh, you two actually believe this? Seriously?

No I just say things to piss you off. :rolleyes:

To answer your question, yes. Listening on conversations, being watched with surveillance cameras has not stopped me from doing whatever the hell I want to do. When it does, then we'll talk.

[Warriorbird]

Takes a truly mindboggling worldview to love the world of 1984.

[CrystalTears]

You're being watched NOW. All the time. People look at your credit statements and probably pass judgements. Surveillance cameras in many, many places. People eavesdrop on conversations. Has ANY of it affected your freedoms?

Constitution doesn't give you the right to privacy nor protect you from being offended. :P

[Warriorbird]

Actually...the Supreme Court recognizes that Americans have a right to privacy.

There's also a law on the books to allow secret wiretaps with the proper oversight. Four have been rejected in nearly 25 years...yet the President choose to bypass that existing system.

Not a far step to what Nixon did. Yet, in this "Anything Republicans do is okay for security!" world, you love giving up your rights.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny. Anything ever goes wrong and you jump to Bush's defense, Ganalon.

:shrugs: I called Rove not being indicted pretty early.

If you believe that a Federal judge resigning in protest (a lifetime appointment) is indicative of "jumping to conclusions", maybe you need to do a little learning about the world you claim to understand so much.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]


To wit... (after 12 pages of posts in the Karl Rove thread).


Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think Rove is the target. I'm not saying he isn't involved somewhere, but if there's one thing I know about Karl Rove and Karl Rove style political operators, is that they have someone else do their dirty work. If someone else did it, Rove isn't going to be charged with anything.


Other earlier quotes in the same thread.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
"It is political. It's obvious that the democrats have a hardon with nailing Rove for whatever they can because he is the guy that keeps beating them. "

I should bring this up whenever you talk about a Clinton. Ever.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm curious as to who the real target of the investigation is.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
On a further note. conservatives have been "convicting" Democrats before investigations are over for a long time, Latrin. You may claim superiority, but I don't buy it. If not you, others. Democrats are the exact same way.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Warriorbird]


Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think if Fitzgerald was going after Rove, he'd have him now.


Congratulations, you're great at taking credit for things that you clearly did not do.

:clap:

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
To answer your question, yes. Listening on conversations, being watched with surveillance cameras has not stopped me from doing whatever the hell I want to do. When it does, then we'll talk.

So you are saying surveillance is fine as long as it doesn't affect you personally. Thats a very different statement than privacy not equalling freedom.


Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're being watched NOW. All the time. People look at your credit statements and probably pass judgements. Surveillance cameras in many, many places. People eavesdrop on conversations. Has ANY of it affected your freedoms?

Constitution doesn't give you the right to privacy nor protect you from being offended. :P

Ok now you HAVE to be saying things just to be facetious because I doubt even you could be that stupid to believe that. It goes beyond stupid into a scary backward world.

I’m no scholar or expert on the Constitution but even my pea brain can grasp that freedom and privacy are inexorably intertwined. One cannot exist without the other.

[Warriorbird]

Funny, Ganalon. How long did that thread last?

Show me you disagreeing with Bush on more than one thing and maybe you have a point.

Till then?

:)

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by CrystalTears
To answer your question, yes. Listening on conversations, being watched with surveillance cameras has not stopped me from doing whatever the hell I want to do. When it does, then we'll talk.

So you are saying surveillance is fine as long as it doesn't affect you personally. Thats a very different statement than privacy not equalling freedom.

As long as it doesn't affect the freedoms I or any other law-abiding citizen has. So far, it does not.



Originally posted by CrystalTears
You're being watched NOW. All the time. People look at your credit statements and probably pass judgements. Surveillance cameras in many, many places. People eavesdrop on conversations. Has ANY of it affected your freedoms?

Constitution doesn't give you the right to privacy nor protect you from being offended. :P

Ok now you HAVE to be saying things just to be facetious because I doubt even you could be that stupid to believe that. It goes beyond stupid into a scary backward world.

I’m no scholar or expert on the Constitution but even my pea brain can grasp that freedom and privacy are inexorably intertwined. One cannot exist without the other.

Yes they can. Your privacy is invaded constantly, by several different types of companies, however you have yet to lose any freedoms.

The problem with this situation is because it's the government doing the spying. And no, I wouldn't care what president or political party did this. It doesn't affect me. I don't see why something not affecting me is bothering you. I'm not even telling you to believe what I do. I'm saying that I personally don't see the problem.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny, Ganalon. How long did that thread last?

Show me you disagreeing with Bush on more than one thing and maybe you have a point.

Till then?

:)

I disagree with all of Bush's religious agenda, and thats because I'm not a fan of organized religion.

Everything else Bush has done I have agree with ergo I have supported. Unless you count his stance on abortion as seperate from his religious views. I do not support his stance on abortion, nor do I support the ban on gay marriage.

If Bush breaks the law then I support the consequences for his actions. Thats not a difficult stance to take since I'm a law abiding citizen.

That is supposed to discredit me or my arguments how?

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Ganalon]

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Bush freely admitted to breaking the law.

You suggested that I didn't take the position that Rove wouldn't be impeached early...yet the thread chronologically stretched a very long time indeed.


Unless you count his stance on abortion as seperate from his religious views. I do not support his stance on abortion, nor do I support the ban on gay marriage.

All right. There's more than one thing there, then. Ironically, those are my biggest dealbreakers against the President.

I disagree with much of the so-called "War on Terror" but I consider that more an issue of direction than an issue of "disliking war." Minus a few proposals I'm even pretty much fine with the Patriot Act. It looks like the Senate is working on hashing out a version of that that I can live with.

I'm not about to support surveillance with no oversight, though. The abuses of FBI authority in the past and the actions of Hoover and Nixon make that just beyond the pale for me. There also was a highly secure system in place to theoretically make secret wiretaps work just fine. Stepping beyond that system seems extremely dubious to me. Especially when we hear about things like the government spying on a bunch of damn Quakers. Real bastion of violent protest, Quakers.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Actually the fact that you were non comittal [until 12 pages into the thread when enough time had elapsed to show that Rove was not the primary target] in that (Rove) thread greatly contradicts the fact that you said in this thread that you called for Rove's indictment early on is hypocracy at its best.

Again, congratulations

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Once again, you might notice that I was waiting for more information. Not, y'know, jumping to conclusions. Chronologically, that thread is STILL continuing.

At the start of this thread you were declaring Bush guilty of no wrongdoing...


I suppose I would be riled up against the 'spying' allegations if I were doing things that could be considered illegal.

I dont so I guess I'm not.

Then later it's all "if he broke the law, he broke the law."

You can counter with "other Presidents did it too, Democrats included!"(doing your research for you) That still doesn't make it right.

Me, I'm mainly annoyed at the cuts in college loans, if you want to know my honest feelings about recent events. There's no way Bush could be impeached with the current Congress, just like you pointed out, and any attempt is ridiculous.

I'd love to keep discussing this but I have to "LEAVE THE PC" so I can pack for a trip to Virginia then Michigan with my wife.



[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Once again, you might notice that I was waiting for more information. Not, y'know, jumping to conclusions. Chronologically, that thread is STILL continuing.

At the start of this thread you were declaring Bush guilty of no wrongdoing...


I suppose I would be riled up against the 'spying' allegations if I were doing things that could be considered illegal.

I dont so I guess I'm not.

Then later it's all "if he broke the law, he broke the law."


[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

WTF does that quote in the above have anything to do with me supposedly changing stances?

I stated early on I did not think he broke the law, and it clearly remains to be seen if he has (much to the chagrin of the bandwagoners here on the PC). At no point did I say he should not be prosecuted if he did. Its a simple IF THEN statement. IF he broke the law THEN he deserves to be prosecuted.

Hell I even took that stance on Rove. And in the same breadth berated those who went on a head hunting rampage early on when it first hit the press for jumping to conclusions. Ironic that it took you 12 pages and no telling how many days to even take a stance on the issue much less post something worthwhile. Even though in this thread you claim to have stated as him not the target early on.

I still do not think the wiretaps were illegal based on what I've read. Thats my unprofessional opinion because I'm not a lawyer nor a judge. As a citizen I still have expectations of no one being above the law (that damn magna charta thing) so yes, IF he did break the law, he deserves the punishment for it.

Hypocracy? No. Logical? Yes.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
The problem with this situation is because it's the government doing the spying. And no, I wouldn't care what president or political party did this. It doesn't affect me. I don't see why something not affecting me is bothering you. I'm not even telling you to believe what I do. I'm saying that I personally don't see the problem.

I guess what is freaking me out is that we agree, but you reserve judgement until it happens to you and I see it happening to other people and think we need to nip it in the bud BEFORE it really does get out of hand and affect people like you and me adversely.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by CrystalTears
The problem with this situation is because it's the government doing the spying. And no, I wouldn't care what president or political party did this. It doesn't affect me. I don't see why something not affecting me is bothering you. I'm not even telling you to believe what I do. I'm saying that I personally don't see the problem.

I guess what is freaking me out is that we agree, but you reserve judgement until it happens to you and I see it happening to other people and think we need to nip it in the bud BEFORE it really does get out of hand and affect people like you and me adversely.

When I say it hasn't affected me, I also mean that I haven't seen or heard of it affecting innocent, law-abiding citizens such as myself.

If I was speaking internationally with terrorists about wrong-doing to the US and they brought me in for questioning, wouldn't the suspicions be validated? Why would I be opposed to that?

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
When I say it hasn't affected me, I also mean that I haven't seen or heard of it affecting innocent, law-abiding citizens such as myself.

If I was speaking internationally with terrorists about wrong-doing to the US and they brought me in for questioning, wouldn't the suspicions be validated? Why would I be opposed to that?

There are stories in this thread and on the internets about some of the collateral damage of domestic surveillance since 9/11.

No one is opposing getting the bad guys. I’m just opposed to an unchecked government deciding it can spy on people for what ever reason it comes up with as an excuse.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah my bad. I pulled a Chadj and started in on a thread I hadn't read the whole thing of. I'm sorry. :(

[nocturnix]

Well I got to page four and realized I dont have time to finish reading today...but so far...

Necromancer - Amen brother, nice to see an informed and educated person posting.

Ugh, its so hard for me to bite my tongue and not stoop to posters like Ganalon's level. But alas, I will refrain for now.

I invite you all to check out the Political Attrocities List (http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=19408&page=1#pid477265) I started.

[Gan]

Originally posted by nocturnix

Ugh, its so hard for me to bite my tongue and not stoop to posters like Ganalon's level. But alas, I will refrain for now.



:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
I’m willing to give up some of my freedom VOLUNTARILY for security.If it was voluntary, why would the terrorist-to-be consent to it?
One cannot exist without the other.If I had complete privacy, law-based freedoms would be entirely superfluous. Similarly, if I had complete freedom under the law, I wouldn't require any privacy. Think of the mob boss guy in Batman Begins.

The argument that we can't have freedom without privacy is deeply flawed. The argument that these particular invasions of privacy are illegal is the way to go.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The argument that we can't have freedom without privacy is deeply flawed.

Now that is a topic worth debating. We had similar discussions in my political theory class.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The argument that we can't have freedom without privacy is deeply flawed.

Now that is a topic worth debating. We had similar discussions in my political theory class.

/Agree that is a tough one. Something I havent yet formed a stance on.

[Necromancer]

Freedom can exist without 100% privacy. However, it cannot exist where privacy does not exist.

Due Process rights and the Freedom to Privacy are both constitutional freedoms that trigger strict scrutiny when they are abridged, and this is with good reason.

That is not to say that the constitution prohibits limits on these freedoms, because it does not. However, this administration has inhibited these rights, restricting their reach, in unconstitutional ways that bypass the requirements set out in strict scrutiny situations.

Also, the right to privacy is a benchstone in many other constitutional rights, including the right to an abortion and the right to have consentual sodomy. To encroach on it is to put very fundamental and very necessary rights at an unnecessary risk.

And if one more person says there is no constitutional right to privacy, I'm going to stap them down and make them read a Con Law class. It is established that you DO have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy. If the government infringes on that, they are required to prove that they have a great reason and that there was no better way to meet their outcome with less infringement. So far, they have declined to even try to make that argument in some crucial situations.

[Gan]

Interesting clip from Cornell Law.

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti ), 4th Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv ), and 5th Amendments (http://www.law.cornelledu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv) also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.

More on the page...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Ganalon]

[Necromancer]

Please read about Con Law before you start quoting things like that.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Privacy, as with a few other rights, is an implicit right in the constitution. What that means is that it is not explicitly stated, but it IS a constitutional right that triggers strict scrutiny in most cases.

Much like viewpoint discrimination, which is an elaboration of the right to free speech, this right is not found in the actual text of the Constitution, but, rather, between the lines.

The right to privacy has equal legal standing to the rest of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

[Andreal]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051223-121228-6750r.htm

Congress agreed last night to extend the USA Patriot Act for five weeks, guaranteeing that the nasty fight over civil liberties protections will resume soon after the new year.
The reauthorization, good through Feb. 3, came after a week of acrimonious debate and eight days before key provisions of the anti-terrorism law were set to expire Dec. 31.

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Andreal]

[TheEschaton]

While Catholic Workers was labeled as communist (which, incidently, shouldn't be an illegal or suspect thing in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech)

Damn, I'm apparently a communist.

(Oh wait: Jesus was a communist.)

I would make a joke about how we should go all Fight Club, and drop off the grid, but I don't think people take jokes as jokes any more. To me, that represents the biggest kick in the pants: we can't fucking joke around any more. When I was flying from Baltimore to Buffalo yesterday, there was a sign posted in BWI that said "Joking while around a security checkpoint is grounds for civil and/or criminal litigation".

I stared at that sign for a good minute or so; I fear every smartass who sees the sign has to physically restrain her/himself when they see it. But is this what the country is coming to? I'm not allowed to make a fucking joke, no matter how poor in taste it may fucking be?

My friend is a member of the Critical Mass movement in NYC (the one I posted about in the Union thread, about having the degree from NYU but working in a coffee shop), and I saw him for the first time last night in a few years, and he told me about the police infiltration of their bike group. Crazy.

Furthermore, to try and argue the whole "everyone's watching you already" case as reason to let people keep watching you - that's absurd. Just because they're already doing it doesn't mean they're right. You say it doesn't affect you? IT doesn't affect you as long as you choose to be apolitical, or vote for the guy who's winning. If you happen to disagree, it HAS affected you. Everyone in the progressive movement has been affected. I've been investigated for being at an anti-capitalization protest in D.C., against the World Bank and IMF. Why? I don't know - I don't have a criminal record, I'm 24, I'm not overly radical, and my politics are more overly Gandhi than Malcolm X. But they saw me holding a sign which I got for free from the International Socialist's Party, and fuck, now I've got an FBI file.

Privacy is intrinsic to freedom, in that monitoring is a hinder on who we are. It's the whole post-modernist "Guard in the Watchtower" theory; if we know the watchtower is there, but don't know necessarily the status of whether the guard is around or not, we're not going to try and break out.

Honestly, what does it take for people to sit up and notice? The President has ADMITTED TO SPYING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. Fucking amazing.

But it doesn't fucking affect you. Jesus Christ, as an American it sure as hell does affect you - we are all one community. But then again, I guess that's what's made the political machine so good at what it's done: they've convinced the American people that if everything's OK within the borders of their X by X lot, as long as no one fucks with my life, I'm ok. It's the sickness of capitalism and individualism, and it's killing us slowly.

Lastly, on the whole privacy: you say we shouldn't need to be private, the President is obviously saying the same thing....

....yet the sacredness of privacy is what Cheney claims in keeping his Energy Committee hearings private. Fucking hypocrites.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Please read about Con Law before you start quoting things like that.
Wow, just because I've not taken a Constitutional Law class I cant debate with those who have? Fuck you, I have a constitutional right that is explicit saying I can.


Originally posted by Necromancer
The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Privacy, as with a few other rights, is an implicit right in the constitution.
Implied rights are subject to the interpretation of the supreme court, and thus likely to shift as the period of thought evolves over time. They are vastly different than explicit rights outlined in black in white in the Bill of Rights.


Originally posted by Necromancer
What that means is that it is not explicitly stated, but it IS a constitutional right that triggers strict scrutiny in most cases. See my point above.


Originally posted by Necromancer
Much like viewpoint discrimination, which is an elaboration of the right to free speech, this right is not found in the actual text of the Constitution, but, rather, between the lines.
Thats groovy, but we're not talking about viewpoint discrimination. We're talking about the right to privacy. Thanks for sharing though.


Originally posted by Necromancer
The right to privacy has equal legal standing to the rest of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.
Wrong, it has a greater chance of being subjected to the compelling interest of the state.

And quit throwing out the "take a con law class" excuse. If you can not participate in a debate with others without trying to impose an air of superiority with alleged expertese (to which 1 class does not make you an expert) then I suggest you go back to the Nickelodian chat rooms where that excuse actually intimidates someone.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
However, it cannot exist where privacy does not exist.If I spend the rest of my life in Time Square Central, do I still have freedom of speech?

I think we're going to have to define what exactly a "constitutional" right is, btw. I hope you're not saying that anything the Supreme Court says is ok is a constitutional right.
Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'm not allowed to make a fucking joke, no matter how poor in taste it may fucking be? If you went into a crowded theater and yelled "FIRE", I hope you don't believe "jk!" would be an adequate legal defense.

[CrystalTears]

BTW, the sign about not joking at checkpoints is in conjunction with not mentioning bombs either.

I'm pretty sure that they don't mean joking in general as my fiance and I were laughing a lot while waiting to get checked and we didn't even get glanced at. Although he wanted to joke about being a bombadier and I glared at him. :D

[Gan]

Airports are quite specific and say so repeatedly in that any comments relating to bombs, terrorism, or weapons will be met with detainment and possible charges, even if they are said in jest.

Endangerment speech clause to the max.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Necromancer
However, it cannot exist where privacy does not exist.If I spend the rest of my life in Time Square Central, do I still have freedom of speech?

I think we're going to have to define what exactly a "constitutional" right is, btw. I hope you're not saying that anything the Supreme Court says is ok is a constitutional right.

The 4th amendment protects us from random search and seizure. Thats very strongly implied advocacy for privacy in this country. Even the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, implies some serious privacy issues and if you step over my door-cill without invitation I’ll blow your fucking head off.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
The 4th amendment protects us from random search and seizure. Thats a pretty strong implied advocacy for privacy.
The actual word is "unreasonable", although I realize I never took Con Law so obviously I don't have the ability to read these newfangled magical constitutional words.

In any event, I was more curious about the other stuff he was going on about.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Necromancer
However, it cannot exist where privacy does not exist.If I spend the rest of my life in Time Square Central, do I still have freedom of speech?

I think we're going to have to define what exactly a "constitutional" right is, btw. I hope you're not saying that anything the Supreme Court says is ok is a constitutional right.

The 4th amendment protects us from random search and seizure. Thats very strongly implied advocacy for privacy in this country. Even the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, implies some serious privacy issues and if you step over my door-cill without invitation I’ll blow your fucking head off.

Actually, you have the right to protect your property, but only in select states do you have the right to protect your property with the use of deadly force.

[Necromancer]

>Wrong, it has a greater chance of being subjected to the compelling interest of the state.

Factually incorrect. It is on equal legal standing. Any constitutional right abridgement is subjected to a compelling state interest argument, but as with all constitutional rights, it must pass strict scrutiny in most cases. The right to privacy gets as much consideration as the right to free speech.


>And quit throwing out the "take a con law class" excuse. If you can not participate in a debate with others without trying to impose an air of superiority with alleged expertese (to which 1 class does not make you an expert) then I suggest you go back to the Nickelodian chat rooms where that excuse actually intimidates someone.

Sorry, you're saying things that are blatantly false with regards to Constitutional Law, and you're using these false statements to make points. If you don't know anything about Con Law, don't try to make a case about it. Educate yourself on the basics, THEN bring up points about our rights.

And, so you are aware, the vast majority of our constitutional rights are NOT delineated in the constitution. Their applications are almost always inferences from the actual text. The right to privacy is no different. This is always subject to judicial interpretation (as is whether or not a particular case even involves an abridgement of these rights), but that does not make these rights any less important in the eyes of the law. Implicit or explicit, the right to privacy is a fundamental constitutional right in this country. That could change one day, but any one of the rights we have could be taken away (been paying attention during this administration? Loss of the right to due process has been a big one) at any time. That doesn't mean they should be treated as transitionary rights.

[Gan]

Lets use your argument of inherency then.

Which is greater?

The inherent powers of Executive branch as implied by the Constitution. Specifically involving the protection of the US against foreign aggressors.

Or the inherent right to privacy as implied by the 4th amendment of the Constitution? Specifically involving the use of electronic surveillence to monitor foreign terrorist activity.

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Ganalon]

[TheEschaton]

The President is there to serve the interests of the people, not vice versa.

This is just the whole federalism vs. republicanism debate: should the gov't be involved in everything we do?

I hate to sound conservative: but in this case, no, the gov't should not infringe our privacy.

I hate this idea of everyone giving up liberties in order to be more safe. Maybe I just don't value my life that much. ;)

-TheE-

[Gan]

I guess when my civil liberties are actually violated I'll fell different.

For now, especially living in the 4th largest city (target) in the US, I'm all for having some security.

[Warriorbird]

Right. Because you'd rather have no liberty than die.

[Gan]

I'm actually quite happy with a balance of civil liberty and security. You know me, the middle of the road guy. I do not desire a police state, but I also do not desire anarchy.

The economist in me would say there's a trade off to move from one extreme to the other. I'm willing to trade off some privacy for some security.

[Izalude]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-- Benjamin Franklin

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by Izalude]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Izalude
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-- Benjamin Franklin

[Edited on 12-25-2005 by Izalude]

I'd almost give my left testicle to see what Ben Franklin would think about our political system if he were alive today.

[Izalude]

I'd love to know what any of the great minds of the US Revolution would think of of what the nation has become. ESPECIALLY Ben Franklin.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Izalude
I'd love to know what any of the great minds of the US Revolution would think of of what the nation has become. ESPECIALLY Ben Franklin.

I have a very good idea of what they would think. I just wish they were around to put some of this crap to rest, and bridge the divide, bring us Americans back together again. I think most Americans would actually listen to what those founding fathers have to say, instead of fighting for their side of the aisle.


Originally posted by Ganalon
For now, especially living in the 4th largest city (target) in the US, I'm all for having some security.

Wow Ganalon, it's good to see the administration has really got you shaking in your underoos about the massive threat of terrorism. Keep them affraid, then theyll do whatever you say and question nothing.

[Gan]

Originally posted by nocturnixWow Ganalon, it's good to see the administration has really got you shaking in your underoos about the massive threat of terrorism. Keep them affraid, then theyll do whatever you say and question nothing.

No you fucking idiot, its called living in a viable target because of its large dense population (4+million), large sea ports, and home of the largest oil and chemical refinery complexes in the modern world.

But you're right, the world is safe, no one is going to hurt or kill anyone, especially those of us here in the US. :rolleyes:

Hell, I even expect you to start doubting the seriousness of 911 and the fact that we are not invincible nor untouchable. I bet you're also one to tell the European Jews that the threat of Germany was 'blown out of proportion'. If you didnt get it the first time, I'll repeat: I think you're a fucking idiot.

Nothing you can say, chicken little II, will defer my opinion to think we are not as safe as you'd like for us to belive over here on the other side of the pond.

Sorry, I dont perscribe to your paranoia of a corrupt government just as you dont buy into my 'paranoia' of being in danger from those who would do the US harm.

Edited to add:
For further opinion, see your quote in my sig.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Sorry, I dont perscribe to your paranoia of a corrupt government just as you dont buy into my 'paranoia' of being in danger from those who would do the US harm.

Its not a good idea to see those as opposites. And seriously, the only people who say those kinds of things are the tighty rightys.

Whenever someone in our own country makes a fuss its always the same argument. You must be a terrorist. Bull-Fucking-Shit.

Bull-Fucking-Shit. It needed to be said twice.

Its pretty fucking clear we all stand on the same side. Its the “right” who keeps wanting to fight their fellow Americans.

[Hulkein]

<< Its not a good idea to see those as opposites. >>

He didn't say they were opposites. Re-read.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
<< Its not a good idea to see those as opposites. >>

He didn't say they were opposites. Re-read.

Re-read what I quoted.

Corpupt American Government = Terrorsits who kill innocents

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Backlash]

[Warriorbird]

Hell, I even expect you to start doubting the seriousness of 911 and the fact that we are not invincible nor untouchable.

-Ganalon

Now, I'll be real happy when Republicans stop associating 9-11 with Iraq. It's an insult to everyone who died in 9-11. If they didn't, you might have something of a point.

You also just Godwin's Lawed the thread.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Wow, 8 pages.

The people defending Bush make me laugh. It astounds me how anyone could defend Bush about the war in Iraq. Perhaps there isn't enough hard evidence to impeach but his statements about Iraq on 9-12 makes one wonder.


Regarding the Patriot Act, it removes civil rights that were obtained under the Magna Carta of 1215. Regardless of who voted for it, it is clear it is an Orwellian step backwards in civil rights and to say otherwise is ignorance.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by xtc]

[Wezas]

*BUMP*


By 95 to 4, the Senate agreed to changes meant to clarify the rights of people under surveillance and to further limit the government's ability to scrutinize library records.


One change would clarify that traditional libraries would not be subjected to National Security Letters, a federal subpoena issued without the approval of a judge.

Another would remove a previously proposed requirement that NSL recipients provide the FBI with the name of their lawyer.

A third would allow individuals to challenge gag orders when they have been subpoenaed to produce personal information. But they would have to wait a year to do so.

Among the additional revisions already being pushed in the Senate for consideration later this year is one that would require the government to notify targets of "sneak and peek" searches within seven days.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/01/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Wish more people had Feingold's grit.

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501

Hopefully, the people who were so against this bill when Bush signed it will be equally outraged by Obama extending it.

Kudos Obama.

[Warriorbird]

If the 'lone wolf' notion doesn't require court approval I'm pretty damn bothered by it.

[BigWorm]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501

Hopefully, the people who were so against this bill when Bush signed it will be equally outraged by Obama extending it.

Kudos Obama.

I wasn't part of the original thread, but I didn't like it when Bush signed the original Patriot Act and neither do I like Obama extending these three parts of it. Don't be a dumbass and try to say that Obama is extending the entire Patriot though.

[BigWorm]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501

Hopefully, the people who were so against this bill when Bush signed it will be equally outraged by Obama extending it.

Kudos Obama.

I wasn't part of the original thread, but I didn't like it when Bush signed the original Patriot Act and neither do I like Obama extending these parts of it. Don't act like Republicans are any friend to personal liberties, though.

[Gan]

The fact that anything from the "Bush Big Brother Act" was continued/extended by a Democrat Congress and Administration astounds me.

You dont suppose there's more to the story do you?

[Daniel]

The fact that anything from the "Bush Big Brother Act" was continued/extended by a Democrat Congress and Administration astounds me.

You dont suppose there's more to the story do you?

You mean besides your ignorance and naïveté?

[Methais]

You mean besides your ignorance and naïveté?

Gan's ignorance and naïveté is part of the story as to why Obama extended the Patriot Act?

Who woulda thought?
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/the_more_you_know2.jpg

[TheEschaton]

I didn't like it then, don't like it now, PB. Nice try. Unlike conservatives, we can criticize our own President instead of falling lock-step behind him.

[Methais]

Unlike conservatives, we can criticize our own President without being called racist.

Fixed.

[ClydeR]

The fact that anything from the "Bush Big Brother Act" was continued/extended by a Democrat Congress and Administration astounds me.

You dont suppose there's more to the story do you?

The Democrats and the Republicans are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power. Once power is granted to a president, whether the grant was intented to be on a permanent or a temporary emergency basis, the power is never voluntarily relinquished.


But the momentum of accumulating powers in the executive is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration. The whole history of America since World War II caused an inertial transfer of power toward the executive branch. The monopoly on use of nuclear weaponry, the cult of the commander in chief, the worldwide network of military bases to maintain nuclear alert and supremacy, the secret intelligence agencies, the entire national security state, the classification and clearance systems, the expansion of state secrets, the withholding of evidence and information, the permanent emergency that has melded World War II with the cold war and the cold war with the "war on terror"—all these make a vast and intricate structure that may not yield to effort at dismantling it. Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941–2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order.

The truth of this was borne out in the early days of Barack Obama's presidency....

More... (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23110?email)

George Washington was an anomaly.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't like it then, don't like it now, PB. Nice try. Unlike conservatives, we can criticize our own President instead of falling lock-step behind him.

Riiiight.

You can criticize him.. when pressed up into a corner.. but that's the only time.

Personally, I think it's hilarious to watch liberals squirm over this.

PS - Conservatives were the ones who criticized Bush.. spending, immigration, medicaid, etc.. the "moderate" ones weren't.

[Ker_Thwap]

I love the Patriot Act. Although, it's curtailed my plan to become a one man nuclear power.

[radamanthys]

I love the Patriot Act. Although, it's curtailed my plan to become a one man nuclear power.

You wanted a plutonium piston, did ya? A uranium ureter?



On the pat act: Amazing. There's way more going on than we know about. I can say all I want that I wish it were cancelled, but I have no idea the effectiveness of the law, since most of that information is "national security".

[Gan]

You mean besides your ignorance and naïveté?

Please enlighten us then.

*Personally I think that there's more to it than what was known prior to holding office. And now, regardless of campaign rhetoric and leftwing idealism, some things Bush enacted actually serve a purpose.

[radamanthys]

Please enlighten us then.

*Personally I think that there's more to it than what was known prior to holding office. And now, regardless of campaign rhetoric and leftwing idealism, some things Bush enacted actually serve a purpose.

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[Keller]

Conservatives were the ones who criticized Bush.. spending, immigration, medicaid, etc.. the "moderate" ones weren't.

Speaking of squirming . . .

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Hahaha

[Rocktar]

Holy necro a dead fucking thread Batman.

OK, you all know that the vast, and I mean almost all of the thing vast, majority of the Patriot Act provisions regarding domestic surveillance and so have long since been legal and well used and supported in the Rico Laws among others used in fighting Organized Crime, right? You also know that the NSA has had the ability to monitor phone and computer traffic automatically since some time in the late 60s early 70s, right? You must also realize that if the government wants in any way, shape or from, to monitor you, they will, right? Ever since the development of digital computer phone switches, all of this has been possible and in various ways, legal.

[Kithus]

Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the primary U.S counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations.

The proposed protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Dashing the hopes of liberals, the Senate Wednesday night instead passed — by voice vote without debate — a one-year extension of key parts of the USA Patriot Act that would have expired on Sunday.

Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records. The House was prepared to approve the extension Thursday, dropping even more extensive privacy protections approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

The Democratic retreat is a political victory for Republicans, who gained new ammunition for their election theme that they can better protect America. The outcome is a major disappointment for Democrats and their liberal allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, who believe the Patriot Act fails to protect Americans' privacy and gives the government too much authority to spy on Americans and seize their property.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, noted that the bill with privacy protections had been approved in committee by a bipartisan majority. He said the measure "should be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when we work together, but I understand some Republican senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight and judicial review provisions in this legislation."

But Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on Leahy's committee, said Thursday that any changes to the Patriot Act would weaken it.

"Recent terror attacks, such as those at Fort Hood and on Christmas Day, demonstrate just how severe of a threat we are facing," Sessions said. "This extension keeps Patriot's security measures in place and demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that these crucial provisions must be preserved."

The Obama administration supported the revisions to the law as approved by the committee.

The three sections of the Patriot Act that would stay in force:

Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called "lone wolf," a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters, and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized with these letters.

Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the Patriot Act to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted, and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.

The House Judiciary Committee's bill would have restricted use of National Security letters even further, and eliminated the authority to spy on a "lone wolf" suspect. The Justice Department has said the "lone wolf" authority has never been used, but sought to retain it.

Republicans have been steadily pounding the Obama administration over the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as the possibility of holding civilian trials for detainees in the United States. They have also criticized federal agents for informing a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, of his right to remain silent after 50 minutes of questioning for allegedly trying to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound airliner Dec. 25.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571223/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

TLDR: A bi-partisan committee had agreed to changes to the Patriot Act to protect civil rights. The Republicans in the Senate threatened fillibuster and those provisions had to be dropped. Party of NO! strikes again. Instead they only extended certain parts of the act, which they felt were necessary, even though they couldn't properly protect our civil rights because of Republican antics.

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of squirming . . .

There was zero squirming on my part actually.. since my stance has remained consistent for both Presidents.

A credit to you though.. you posted nonsense when George W Bush was President.. and that nonsense has remained consistent.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571223/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

TLDR: A bi-partisan committee had agreed to changes to the Patriot Act to protect civil rights. The Republicans in the Senate threatened fillibuster and those provisions had to be dropped. Party of NO! strikes again. Instead they only extended certain parts of the act, which they felt were necessary, even though they couldn't properly protect our civil rights because of Republican antics.

It must soil your little panties knowing the Republicans have been in the super-minority for 2 years.. yet have completely dictated the entire legislative agenda of Congress.

Goes to show what pussies you liberals really are.

[Kithus]

It must soil your little panties knowing the Republicans have been in the super-minority for 2 years.. yet have completely dictated the entire legislative agenda of Congress.

Goes to show what pussies you liberals really are.

Actually it's refreshing that the party with a majority in congress has members who are able to think for themselves, and about their constituents, instead of towing the party line. Democrat Senators have considered what they think is best for their constituents and voted accordingly. It makes it hard to pass legislation when Republicans only vote along party lines and Dems vote based on their convictions but its starting to look up.

The Republicans just picked up a Senator like that and they're already throwing him under the bus. That's right after 3 votes they're already calling Scott Brown RINO (Replublican In Name Only) for his vote on the jobs bill. He's been labeled a traitor and worse for voting against the party line and doing what he thought was best for his constituents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303656.html

[Parkbandit]

Actually it's refreshing that the party with a majority in congress has members who are able to think for themselves, and about their constituents, instead of towing the party line. Democrat Senators have considered what they think is best for their constituents and voted accordingly. It makes it hard to pass legislation when Republicans only vote along party lines and Dems vote based on their convictions but its starting to look up.

The Republicans just picked up a Senator like that and they're already throwing him under the bus. That's right after 3 votes they're already calling Scott Brown RINO (Replublican In Name Only) for his vote on the jobs bill. He's been labeled a traitor and worse for voting against the party line and doing what he thought was best for his constituents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303656.html

To get this level of spin, you must be using this:

http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/3/ce/3ce9eab1f12de56c102b59e783785037-orig

[ClydeR]

Goes to show what pussies you liberals really are.

The Democrats are even worse than you think. Because every state gets two Senators regardless of population, less than 11% of the nation's population elects 41 Senators -- enough to filibuster anything. The Democrats can't even stop 11% of the population.

[Kuyuk]

That is a sexy washer.