http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa
Delightful. :puke
How much longer before that idiot is sent packing once and for all?
So much for the rule of law.
MadMarchHare called it shortly after the election - there is the very real possibility he won't be going anywhere for a long time. With control of congress and the Supreme Court, Bush could declare a national state of emergency or martial law or some such, and "ask" that he remain in office until the "crisis" is over. I was wondering how he was going to wring this situation out of the war on Terrorism, but now it is looking like he might try to leverage the country into a panic over Avian Flu (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051004&articleId=1041)...
I read something a little while back that Rumsfield had a ton of money to earn from a bird flu scare. Something about him owning a lot of stock in the company that would be producing a gazillion vaccines.
edit- found something on it- link (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/)
I loved watching Bush kiss McCain's ring yesterday.
The chickenhawk deferring to the war hero on matters of conscience... just awesome.
:yay :yay
Thank goodness I have my tin foil hat so the government can't read my thoughts. ;)
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 09:52:47 AM
MadMarchHare called it shortly after the election - there is the very real possibility he won't be going anywhere for a long time. With control of congress and the Supreme Court, Bush could declare a national state of emergency or martial law or some such, and "ask" that he remain in office until the "crisis" is over. I was wondering how he was going to wring this situation out of the war on Terrorism, but now it is looking like he might try to leverage the country into a panic over Avian Flu (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051004&articleId=1041)...
(http://obix1.com/Off_Site/Palpatine-Saga.jpg)
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 09:52:47 AM
MadMarchHare called it shortly after the election - there is the very real possibility he won't be going anywhere for a long time. With control of congress and the Supreme Court, Bush could declare a national state of emergency or martial law or some such, and "ask" that he remain in office until the "crisis" is over. I was wondering how he was going to wring this situation out of the war on Terrorism, but now it is looking like he might try to leverage the country into a panic over Avian Flu (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051004&articleId=1041)...
You two are obviously retarded.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 10:43:53 AM
You two are obviously retarded.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/SamiB/spit.gif)
You have got to be kidding me...
:-D
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 10:43:53 AM
You two are obviously retarded.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/SamiB/spit.gif)
You have got to be kidding me...
:-D
No, I am not kidding. Because the president had VERY REAL concerns about our national security, he authorized this surveillance.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:06:25 AM
No, I am not kidding. Because the president had VERY REAL concerns about our national security, he authorized this surveillance.
No, crackhead. I'm just rolling on the floor laughing that you have audacity to call anyone retarded.
Add it up, folks.
Pentagon spying on law abiding, peaceful citizens--even classifying them as a "threat"--simply because they disagree with the administration. Bush "authorizing" NSA to spy on citizens. American citizens detained without a warrant, charges, or access to legal counsel, and held for indefinite amounts of time in secret locations. The White House secretly paying for reporters to produce op ed pieces in support of their policies, and the Pentagon paying millions to private firms to plant postivie spin articles isn Iraqi newspapers. The Feds can look at what book you take from libraries, and search your home without informing you until a month later.
In the so called land of the free. I'm astounded by how easily most people take all this in stride, assuming that the government knows what's best, and should be trusted. Fools.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:06:25 AM
No, I am not kidding. Because the president had VERY REAL concerns about our national security, he authorized this surveillance.
No, crackhead. I'm just rolling on the floor laughing that you have audacity to call anyone retarded.
You are a high school kid right? When you are a man talk to me.
Here ya go fella's:
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)
(http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbhead.jpg)
Hey Wingspan, remember this thread? :evil (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=16199.0)
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:18:33 AM
Hey Wingspan, remember this thread? :evil (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=16199.0)
cheney = count dooku
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:15:06 AM
You are a high school kid right? When you are a man talk to me.
Yes, it is so mature that you create another user to log on to a board and talk about yourself.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 11:17:29 AM
Trust the government. Don't ask questions. Don't worry about the erosion of civil liberties. Here, just step into the showers...
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:14:04 AM
Add it up, folks.
Pentagon spying on law abiding, peaceful citizens--even classifying them as a "threat"--simply because they disagree with the administration. WHAT? Bush "authorizing" NSA to spy on citizens. American citizens detained without a warrant, charges, or access to legal counsel, and held for indefinite amounts of time in secret locations. Way to over simplify The White House secretly paying for reporters to produce op ed pieces in support of their policies, and the Pentagon paying millions to private firms to plant postivie spin articles isn Iraqi newspapers.Are you upset over stealing Democratic strategies? The Feds can look at what book you take from libraries, and search your home without informing you until a month later.
In the so called land of the free. I'm astounded by how easily most people take all this in stride, assuming that the government knows what's best, and should be trusted. Fools.
If the Patriot Act is thwarting terrorism it may be a neccessary evil in the war on terrorism
Quote from: Wingspan on December 16, 2005, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:18:33 AM
Hey Wingspan, remember this thread? :evil (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=16199.0)
cheney = count dooku
Rumsfeld=Grand Moff Tarkin
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:22:38 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 11:17:29 AM
Trust the government. Don't ask questions. Don't worry about the erosion of civil liberties. Here, just step into the showers...
Fight!
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:24:39 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on December 16, 2005, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:18:33 AM
Hey Wingspan, remember this thread? :evil (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=16199.0)
cheney = count dooku
Rumsfeld=Grand Moff Tarkin
Padme Amidala = Hottie From "Closer."
Ha!
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:24:39 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on December 16, 2005, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 16, 2005, 11:18:33 AM
Hey Wingspan, remember this thread? :evil (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=16199.0)
cheney = count dooku
Rumsfeld=Grand Moff Tarkin
Condi Rice = Salacious Crumb >:D
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:22:57 AM
If the Patriot Act is thwarting terrorism it may be a neccessary evil in the war on terrorism
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
BTW, the goal of terrorism is not to kill people - it is to make people afraid. American citizens are not only afraid, but we have a web site (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) to tell us just how afraid we should be today. The war on terrorism was lost a long time ago...
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:22:38 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 11:17:29 AM
Trust the government. Don't ask questions. Don't worry about the erosion of civil liberties. Here, just step into the showers...
You should buy two beenies Dio. The extent of your exaggerations never cease to amaze me. :-D
The extent of your blind allegience to authority never ceases to amaze me. You'd make a great Nazi, and you're doing a good job helping Bush Co. turn America into a police state. Ridicule the dissenters all you like, it only makes you look ever more like the the jackbooted pigs you defend.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:22:57 AM
If the Patriot Act is thwarting terrorism it may be a neccessary evil in the war on terrorism
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
BTW, the goal of terrorism is not to kill people - it is to make people afraid. American citizens are not only afraid, but we have a web site (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) to tell us just how afraid we should be today. The war on terrorism was lost a long time ago...
As to Franklin's character:
Benjamin Franklin.(This prediction was made in a Chit Chat Around the Table During Intermissions, at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the diary of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.): I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will or how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:59:11 AM
The extent of your blind allegience to authority never ceases to amaze me. You'd make a great Nazi, and you're doing a good job helping Bush Co. turn America into a police state. Ridicule the dissenters all you like, it only makes you look ever more like the the jackbooted pigs you defend.
Ahhh, the beloved Nazi reference. The sad part is, you and your kind helped Bush get re-elected by called him a Nazi and comparing him to Hitler. Americans generally do not like their leaders bashed, regardless of their level of competence, and this tends to lead to a "circle the wagons" mentality.
Despite
6 years of listening to the left bemoan the loss of rights and the coming of the "police state" I have yet to see one shred of evidence (waiting to see if the NY Slimes article is actually real) that this is taking place. We have the internet (no, the government is not taking it over), satellite radio (which the government cannot control), and a free press that bashes Bush at every turn.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:14:04 AM
Add it up, folks.
Pentagon spying on law abiding, peaceful citizens--even classifying them as a "threat"--simply because they disagree with the administration. Bush "authorizing" NSA to spy on citizens. American citizens detained without a warrant, charges, or access to legal counsel, and held for indefinite amounts of time in secret locations. The White House secretly paying for reporters to produce op ed pieces in support of their policies, and the Pentagon paying millions to private firms to plant postivie spin articles isn Iraqi newspapers. The Feds can look at what book you take from libraries, and search your home without informing you until a month later.
In the so called land of the free. I'm astounded by how easily most people take all this in stride, assuming that the government knows what's best, and should be trusted. Fools.
What are you gonna do about it? You gonna storm the White House and throw up your hands and cry to Bush? You can't do shtein about it. Do something constructive about it or get over it.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 16, 2005, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 11:14:04 AM
Add it up, folks.
Pentagon spying on law abiding, peaceful citizens--even classifying them as a "threat"--simply because they disagree with the administration. Bush "authorizing" NSA to spy on citizens. American citizens detained without a warrant, charges, or access to legal counsel, and held for indefinite amounts of time in secret locations. The White House secretly paying for reporters to produce op ed pieces in support of their policies, and the Pentagon paying millions to private firms to plant postivie spin articles isn Iraqi newspapers. The Feds can look at what book you take from libraries, and search your home without informing you until a month later.
In the so called land of the free. I'm astounded by how easily most people take all this in stride, assuming that the government knows what's best, and should be trusted. Fools.
What are you gonna do about it? You gonna storm the White House and throw up your hands and cry to Bush? You can't do shtein about it. Do something constructive about it or get over it.
How are you going to do anything constructive about a regime like this one?
Hopefully come November 2008, he'll be voted out and agree to relinquish the reigns of power just like his predecessors have done for 230 years. Something tells me that that won't happen. No, some terrorist will spark up a doobie somewhere and then * poof * Marshal Law will be declared.
Suspend habeas corpus, I say!
:puke
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 16, 2005, 01:02:44 PMWhat are you gonna do about it? You gonna storm the White House and throw up your hands and cry to Bush? You can't do shtein about it. Do something constructive about it or get over it.
Well
IkilledmynephewbecauseIwasactinglikeanass99burninhell is right. There's nothing to be done, at least nothing that will work. Dissenters are not countenanced any longer. The government militates against them, and the people poo-poo them for being whiners. Working within the system won't change jack.
Still, I'm gonna keep telling fools like you about it. I'm gonna keep donating to the ACLU. I'm gonna keep voting, and keep protesting. But long term, I'm going to abandon this country, because I think it's a doomed empire, falling to the likes of you and
Joel, Bush and Cheney. And when a Democrat busts back in, he'll only be marginally better. As soon as I have an option out, I stop caring what this country becomes. But that's about 7 years away from now, by my most recent personal financial forecast, so until then I have a stake in this aborted social dream.
The land was beautiful, the idea was great, but the United States is DOA. I've only got so many years to live, and I'd much rather spend them in a place like Spain, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, or any of another dozen places. I'm embarrassed to be American, and I can't wait to shed that shame. First, I get out of debt, then I get a job overseas. Then I leave, and you can have McAmerica all to your self.
:-D
If they are spying on muslims :yay :yay :yay
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 02:28:30 PM
If they are spying on muslims :yay :yay :yay
Ah yes, freedom of religion in America...as long as you are a Christian.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 02:28:30 PM
If they are spying on muslims :yay :yay :yay
Ah yes, freedom of religion in America...as long as you are a Christian.
No one mentioned a state sponsored religion. Why is it a persecution of religious freedom to spy on a Hate Group. It helped that we had spys in the Bund prior to WWII. Islam is a hate group. Simple. They are a "religion" that espouses the philosophy of death to all non-muslims. If you don't recognize this, you are not worthy of lively reparte`.
Spying on people who are trying to kill you is wise. ;)
If Islam is a hate group, then so is Christianity.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 02:39:41 PM
If Islam is a hate group, then so is Christianity.
I am no fan of the snakehandling fundementalists but in reality they don't preach hate.
Bullshtein.
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 02:39:13 PM
Spying on people who are trying to kill you is wise. ;)
Quakers aren't trying to kill anyone.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 02:39:13 PM
Spying on people who are trying to kill you is wise. ;)
Quakers aren't trying to kill anyone.
I'll bet almost all were Muslims, Mosque's, violent prisoner "convert muslims" (who bragged about payback against "the Man"). It helps everyone in war time if we don't get to sensitive about our enemies and if needed.. sacrifice a little to get the bad guys. :yay Hey, they want to listen in on my phone the only thing that would piss me off is that there wasting there time :-D
Dio, Spain isn't big enough for the both of us. I want to move there within the next five years and i don't know if it can handle us both. So, can you let me have Spain?
No. Stay in Texas.
spain is a beautiful country, and it shouldnt be spoiled with some pissed off ex americans.
I'm one of the spies. You're all going to be under arrest soon.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 02:44:36 PM
Bullshtein.
Witty response.
I have not seen any christian leader recently claim the holucaust was a hoax or that Isreal should be wiped off the map. I HAVE seen a major Islamic leader do it though.
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 02:39:13 PM
Spying on people who are trying to kill you is wise. ;)
Agreed, but spying on people who go to the same church as people who
might want to kill you is unconstitutional.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:12:26 PMI have not seen..
You haven't looked. Check out what your wet dream date Ann Coulter has to say on the subject, or what Pat Robertson has to say about damn near anything. Check out the hate rhetoric spilling out of fundamentalist christian churches all over America about homosexuals, liberals, muslims, scientists, and non-christians generally. Christianity is not short on hate speech.
If you claim Islam is about hate, you must admit the same of Christianity.
Look, my real problem with this is escalation. Right now, we're only spying on "terrorists". You know what the definition of "terrorists" is to the Justice Dept and the Office of Homeland Security. I don't. And I probably won't know until I'm in a gulag if it changes to incorporate me.
The current situation is not all that unlike 1930's Germany. And it keeps unfolding in frightening ways.
But, I'll give W this, at least I can buy automatic weapons. Viva revolucion!
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 12:05:36 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:22:57 AM
If the Patriot Act is thwarting terrorism it may be a neccessary evil in the war on terrorism
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
BTW, the goal of terrorism is not to kill people - it is to make people afraid. American citizens are not only afraid, but we have a web site (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) to tell us just how afraid we should be today. The war on terrorism was lost a long time ago...
As to Franklin's character:
Now for stillupfront's character (emphasis his):
Quote from: stillupfront on September 27, 2004, 04:23:51 PM
And my personal favorite
Why is anal sex more satisfying than vaginal sex?
It's warm. It's tight. And it's much more demeaning to women!
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:27:14 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:12:26 PMI have not seen..
You haven't looked. Check out what your wet dream date Ann Coulter has to say on the subject, or what Pat Robertson has to say about damn near anything. Check out the hate rhetoric spilling out of fundamentalist christian churches all over America about homosexuals, liberals, muslims, scientists, and non-christians generally. Christianity is not short on hate speech.
If you claim Islam is about hate, you must admit the same of Christianity.
Since when do you not post facts to back up your rhetoric? Show me where any major (not some hillbilly from Mississippi) christian leader has said the holocaust was a "hoax" and that Isreal should be wiped off the map.
I am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:28:34 PM
Look, my real problem with this is escalation. Right now, we're only spying on "terrorists".
Ok everyone, here's a quiz:
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
What color was his skin?
What kind of church did he go to?
Bonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:28:34 PM
Look, my real problem with this is escalation. Right now, we're only spying on "terrorists".
Ok everyone, here's a quiz:
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
What color was his skin?
What kind of church did he go to?
We should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted :yay
Bonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
i'll go with the jap's attack on pearl harbor, but you're probably looking for the mcveigh character who some have reported that he had ties to some of the same terrorists that ended up flying planes into the towers.
You got a link for that T?
Quote from: T_Section224 on December 16, 2005, 03:44:13 PM
i'll go with the jap's attack on pearl harbor, but you're probably looking for the mcveigh character who some have reported that he had ties to some of the same terrorists that ended up flying planes into the towers.
Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation upon the military base of another. It was an act of war. Granted, a surprise attack. But it was not terrorism by any but the most liberal definition of the term (e.g. all bombs are terrorism).
And dude, McVeigh had nothing to do with Osama. Are you farging kidding me?
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:38:32 PM
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
We should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted :yay
Hmm...guess I'll have to give the answers for our less educated friends...
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
Oklahoma City, 1995.What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
Timothy McVeigh, AmericanWhat color was his skin?
As white as IGYWhat kind of church did he go to?
Roman CatholicBonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
your sorry ass, because you are a white christian hick who might want to kill someone
looking for it.
a while ago michael smirconish (remember him from graduation?) had a public figure on (politician??) that was talking about the links that could be drawn between mcveigh and the same terrorists that planned the 9/11 attacks.
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 03:42:41 PMWe should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted
Oh, so you're one of those.
Doesn't matter, there are fundamentalists of all religions and degrees. to compare the both is to compare black and white, everyone is different. forming others thoughts while scaring them to do this way or that in the name of God is wrong, but works when the target market is uneducated and or educated and angry.
i was reading an article in the lastest issue of Rolling Stone, about homeland security and how it is not working as far as the proper states getting the right funding and what they are using the funds for. Basically the low-threat states are getting the majority of the money, while high risk states such as new york, pa, jersey, illionois and california are receiving far less. they went into pointing out that a fire department in virginia bought bullet-proof vests for their fire dogs. now how american is that! this is a major issue that needs to be addressed and seems to be a administrative failure to monitor and run this department. tons of our money is pouring into the program. obviously Hurrican Katrina was a HUGE homeland security failure. imagine if terrorists follow up with a man made disaster, comparable to Katrina. How would FEMA respond? we would be fargED! :boom :boo
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 02:44:36 PM
Bullshtein.
Witty response.
I have not seen any christian leader recently claim the holucaust was a hoax or that Isreal should be wiped off the map. I HAVE seen a major Islamic leader do it though.
You're right. The Catholic Church tacitly approved of the holocaust while it was happening. They didn't bother to wait 60 years.
BTW: I'm a Catholic and even I say it's one of the most shameful periods in our history, and considering our history, that's saying something.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:47:32 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:38:32 PM
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
We should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted :yay
Hmm...guess I'll have to give the answers for our less educated friends...
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
Oklahoma City, 1995.
What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
Timothy McVeigh, American
What color was his skin?
As white as IGY
What kind of church did he go to?
Roman Catholic
Bonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
your sorry ass, because you are a white christian hick who might want to kill someone
Without Waco there wouldn't have been an Oklahoma City bombing..You have study all of history not just pick and chose ::)
Chill, Dio, we'll need the gun nuts in the revolution....
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:50:36 PM
Chill, Dio, we'll need the gun nuts in the revolution....
I'm a gun nut...
:-*
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:50:36 PM
Chill, Dio, we'll need the gun nuts in the revolution....
I think liberals should orchestrate a nation wide assualt rifle purchase day. Put out a press release saying "we have guns, too. and we're buying more. On July 4th. Hundreds of thousands of assault rifles will be purchased by book readers, Romes, socialists, and anti-war zealots."
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:46:42 PMAnd dude, McVeigh had nothing to do with Osama. Are you farging kidding me?
crazy to think he would want something bad to happen in the US :paranoid
Just one quick reference to the ties
http://www.answers.com/topic/timothy-mcveigh
QuoteSome investigators contend that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols had ties to Islamic terrorism through Ramzi Youssef, the Al Qaeda operative who planned the 1993 WTC bombing, and through a series of meetings with Islamic terror group Abu-Sayef members in the Philippines.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 03:50:36 PM
Chill, Dio, we'll need the gun nuts in the revolution....
I'm a gun nut...
:-*
You're hired! Got any grenades?
Grenades? They're for the gays. I got seven, no... SIX anti-personnel mines in my front yard.
One went off the other day and I laughed! Finally, that little corksucking poodle from next door tried to poop on my lawn and he got smoked!
Good times.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
No question that christians have done some very "hateful" things :P...but most of it happened long ago and is reviled by christians in modern times (last 100-150 years) :-[
Jesus, T, this is hardly causal evidence. Who were these "investigators"? How many of them were there, and what percent believe this?
It wouldn't surprise me if McVeigh did blow up the Murrow building to protest the Waco incident, as many believe. But what isn't much in question is that he was a right-wing militant who wanted to lash back at the gov't. And most of those people consider themselves "patriots" and that the gov't has forgotten what was mandated by the founding fathers. These people probably hate Al Qaeda even more than you or I do, and I find it very hard to believe they'd work in unison, even with a common "enemy".
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PMYou're claiming that an entire religion is hateful
i actually thing the religion is one of the most peaceful religions out there, however as with everything the extremists give everyone a bad name. i still give my friend a hard time about him being a seventh day adventist and being linked to the david koresh.
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:47:32 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:38:32 PM
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
We should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted :yay
Hmm...guess I'll have to give the answers for our less educated friends...
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
Oklahoma City, 1995.
What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
Timothy McVeigh, American
What color was his skin?
As white as IGY
What kind of church did he go to?
Roman Catholic
Bonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
your sorry ass, because you are a white christian hick who might want to kill someone
Why are you comparing the act of a lone nut or two (Nichols is still in jail) to a sect of a religeon that wants every non-believer murdered?
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 04:00:58 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
No question that christians have done some very "hateful" things :P...but most of it happened long ago and is reviled by christians in modern times (last 100-150 years) :-[
Yeah, those ass-raped choirboys were centuries ago. No, wait.....
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:47:32 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:38:32 PM
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
We should have spied on the FBI and ATF and maybe WACO coulod have averted :yay
Hmm...guess I'll have to give the answers for our less educated friends...
Prior to 9/11, what was the most devastating act of terrorism within US borders?
Oklahoma City, 1995.
What was the nationality of the perpetrator?
Timothy McVeigh, American
What color was his skin?
As white as IGY
What kind of church did he go to?
Roman Catholic
Bonus:
Who should we have spied on to prevent this disaster?
your sorry ass, because you are a white christian hick who might want to kill someone
Why are you comparing the act of a lone nut or two (Nichols is still in jail) to a sect of a religeon that wants every non-believer murdered?
I think this makes our point.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
You're confusing me with someone else, I never said all of Islam is hateful, but there is a significant portion of it that is and that portion is growing. And that "one man" was elected by that nation...several million people also believe what he is saying.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 04:03:19 PM
Jesus, T, this is hardly causal evidence. Who were these "investigators"? How many of them were there, and what percent believe this?
:-D i was just pointing out that the concept was not just in my head :paranoid
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 03:30:12 PM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 12:05:36 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 16, 2005, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 11:22:57 AM
If the Patriot Act is thwarting terrorism it may be a neccessary evil in the war on terrorism
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
BTW, the goal of terrorism is not to kill people - it is to make people afraid. American citizens are not only afraid, but we have a web site (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) to tell us just how afraid we should be today. The war on terrorism was lost a long time ago...
As to Franklin's character:
Now for stillupfront's character (emphasis his):
Quote from: stillupfront on September 27, 2004, 04:23:51 PM
And my personal favorite
Why is anal sex more satisfying than vaginal sex?
It's warm. It's tight. And it's much more demeaning to women!
Thanks for the link! I just got a good laugh.
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 04:00:58 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
No question that christians have done some very "hateful" things :P...but most of it happened long ago and is reviled by christians in modern times (last 100-150 years) :-[
Really?
Direct and indirect support of slavery, segragation, the holocaust, abortion doctor assasinations, every single war that any western nation starts, etc. The list goes on and on.
If you look at history, Islam has been waaaaay more tolerant of non-believers than Christians.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 04:04:09 PM
Yeah, those ass-raped choirboys were centuries ago. No, wait.....
Quote
Families and members are leaving the Catholic Church in droves because of the Vatican's disgraceful stance on this issue :P
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 03:31:44 PMI am talking about the leader of a major nation...an Islamic theocracy...what do you have?
You're claiming that an entire religion is hateful, pointing to the speech of one man as proof, and asking me to join your piss poor logic by doing the same. If you want to claim Islam is hate, then you must admit that so too is Christianity. Both harbor throngs of hateful adherents, both lionize leaders who promulgate hateful rhetoric, both have long-standing histories of murder, rape, and torture. If the one is hate, so is the other.
You're confusing me with someone else, I never said all of Islam is hateful, but there is a significant portion of it that is and that portion is growing. And that "one man" was elected by that nation...several million people also believe what he is saying.
If you think Khatami ascended to power via some sort of popular, democratic vote, you're clearly delusional.
Time for a mom joke.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:12:00 PM
If you think Khatami ascended to power via some sort of popular, democratic vote, you're clearly delusional.
Wow...where do you people get your news? Jon Stewart? ::)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the current President of Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm
Yet you claim
I am delusional. :-D
Quote from: T_Section224 on December 16, 2005, 04:03:28 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 16, 2005, 03:52:36 PMYou're claiming that an entire religion is hateful
i actually thing the religion is one of the most peaceful religions out there, however as with everything the extremists give everyone a bad name. i still give my friend a hard time about him being a seventh day adventist and being linked to the david koresh.
Youi are believing alot of drivel put out by the liberal media. The muslims are taught from the cradle to hate non-believers! They are a religion that believes that if you are killed in a holy war, you will go to paradise and receive 72 virgins (obviously T-hawks mom won't be there). These miscreants are excited to die for their cause. Not because they believe in the cause but because they wanna fock virgins! Think about that. The problem is that the definition of an Arab virgin is a 9 year old girl who can out run their brothers and father. Really the answer to most of this terrorism is: soap. If these smelly disgusting pigs took a nice shower, shaved and dressed well, they might get laid! That is all they want.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:20:05 PMYoui are believing alot of drivel put out by the liberal media. The muslims are taught from the cradle to hate non-believers!
and you learned this after years of living in the desert with them?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 16, 2005, 04:17:28 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:12:00 PM
If you think Khatami ascended to power via some sort of popular, democratic vote, you're clearly delusional.
Wow...where do you people get your news? Jon Stewart? ::)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the current President of Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm
Yet you claim I am delusional. :-D
My bad. I forgot his name. Khatami was the reformer who was tossed out on his ass by the clerics. Ahmadinejad is the former "student" who was involved in the kidnapping of American hostages.
CRACKHEAD
Quote from: T_Section224 on December 16, 2005, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:20:05 PMYoui are believing alot of drivel put out by the liberal media. The muslims are taught from the cradle to hate non-believers!
and you learned this after years of living in the desert with them?
Maybe after watching them celebrate in the streets after 9/11 ::)
that was part of the drivel put out by the liberal media, duh.
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: T_Section224 on December 16, 2005, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:20:05 PMYoui are believing alot of drivel put out by the liberal media. The muslims are taught from the cradle to hate non-believers!
and you learned this after years of living in the desert with them?
Maybe after watching them celebrate in the streets after 9/11 ::)
Thanks 61.
You know what sucks?
We guys from the sixties have become the establishment. I wish I still shared the idealism of these college guys on here, but I have become quite cynical of all that crap.
oh believe me i have quite a healthy hate towards islamic terrorists but i'm also rational enough to realize that they are not the majority.
my point was the only thing you know about how "all muslims" is from the drivel the liberal media spews.
the muslims i know are pretty nice people and quite friendly.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on December 16, 2005, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: T_Section224 on December 16, 2005, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:20:05 PMYoui are believing alot of drivel put out by the liberal media. The muslims are taught from the cradle to hate non-believers!
and you learned this after years of living in the desert with them?
Maybe after watching them celebrate in the streets after 9/11 ::)
Thanks 61.
You know what sucks?
We guys from the sixties have become the establishment. I wish I still shared the idealism of these college guys on here, but I have become quite cynical of all that crap.
AND my dad was right...I should have studied harder in school :paranoid
College guys?
:-D
Does the band "The Clash" ring a bell because the last time I was in college, they were still popular (not to mention together).
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:31:42 PM
College guys?
:-D
Does the band "The Clash" ring a bell because the last time I was in college, they were still popular (not to mention together).
Old bastich
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:31:42 PM
College guys?
:-D
Does the band "The Clash" ring a bell because the last time I was in college, they were still popular (not to mention together).
I SAW Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show...YIKES
Yo mama so fat, every time someone say "Kool Aid" she bust through the wall.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:31:42 PM
College guys?
:-D
Does the band "The Clash" ring a bell because the last time I was in college, they were still popular (not to mention together).
Old bastich
Oh, it's worse than you ever thought... I had hair like this once...
(http://www.leninimports.com/u2_bono_photogeny_pc_1.jpg)
:flipoff :-D
Jerome is this you?
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/joe_dirt/david_spade/joedirt2.jpg)
Every religion has its radicals. The Muslim radicals have raised the bar of late because some of them feel they are missing the money train as their governments get rich off of all that oil. They are probably right to some extent. The Saudi Royal family is pretty well off. The Egyptian Government is not really a democracy. The Pakistan people couldn't handle democracy and they got themselves a military dictatorship. The problem with the Islamic culture is that there are parts of it that are very desperate and poor. That makes them very susceptable to be recruited for a "higher" purpose in life. When you have nothing virgins sound like a heck of a retirement plan. Jordon and Seria have themselves a king. Iran isn't really a democracy as the "elected" leader answers to an IMAM. The only islamic country I can think of that has their shtein together is Turkey. Guess what? You don't hear about terrorists from Turkey.
If we have to keep an eye on our citizens to prevent terrorism then so be it. As soon as it is abused, and knowing human nature and governments it will be, then there should be a process in place to prosecute and attack that problem. This is the new era we live in. The Have nots are working outside of their shteiny governments to go after the haves.... us!
You are all wrong! It comes down to Vag!
Have you ever smelt someone from over there? They get soap. They get laid. They eat some goat. They take a nap. Terrorism is over.
See Turky.
Their all clean over there.
Plenty of Virgins for everyone!!
Pretty stable goverment there? See how smart my theory is? Set up a couple of waxing shops in Turkey and it would be a paradise.
Quote from: stillupfront on December 16, 2005, 05:11:54 PM
You are all wrong! It comes down to Vag!
Have you ever smelt someone from over there? They get soap. They get laid. They eat some goat. They take a nap. Terrorism is over.
most rational think you've posted all day.
Hey whitey, where's your hat?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gainesville.jpg/300px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg)
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 16, 2005, 05:45:56 PM
Hey whitey, where's your hat?
I love "Blazing Saddles".
(http://www.scvhistory.com/gif/lw2145d.jpg)
Quote from: Phanatic on December 16, 2005, 05:07:15 PM
If we have to keep an eye on our citizens to prevent terrorism then so be it.
Fine. Volunteer yourself and your family for state-sponsored monitoring.
Just leave me and my family out of it.
Don't have to. We've already been asimulated. Heck we don't even get offered virgins!!
Quote from: Phanatic on December 16, 2005, 05:07:15 PM
The only islamic country I can think of that has their shtein together is Turkey. Guess what? You don't hear about terrorists from Turkey.
If we have to keep an eye on our citizens to prevent terrorism then so be it. As soon as it is abused, and knowing human nature and governments it will be, then there should be a process in place to prosecute and attack that problem. This is the new era we live in. The Have nots are working outside of their shteiny governments to go after the haves.... us!
And you are wrong with the interpretation there, I think...
The reason why Turkey is not a religious inspired state is because Ataturk, when he founded modern Turkey in the aftermath of WW I, as a secular state, he put a clause in the constitution that every government has to be approved by the army. The army is what keeps Turkey secular. Most recently less then a decade ago, when an islamist party won the elctions (overwhelmingley) and the army threatened to intervene if certain sections of their political program were not scrapped. Although it is a little blun and generalizing to say, you are not that far of when you state that modern Turkey stops 2 miles from the city-limits of Istanbul, Ankara and the beach-resorts.
Second, Turkey does not get much press because it is, politically, a very useful ally for the United States. Turkey has waged a campaign against the Kurds that short of the use of chemical weapons was as bad or even more destructive then what Saddam did towrds the Shiites and Kurds. Turkey has in the past, and in some respects to this day, had a ruthless policy of "Turkification" that can be compared to elements of the Balkan Wars of the 1990's, and even policies of Arianization/Germanification and resettlement as implemented by Hitler between 1938 and 1945. Turkey to this day denies the Armenian Holocaust (over 1 million dead, and some historians argue that this is where Hitler got some of his crucial ideas for the Jewish genocide from, especially the "deathmarches" and mass shootings as occurred before the widespread use of carbon-monoxide and chemicals). In fact, any mention of this is still punishable by law.
As a reward the US has been pushing heavily to admit Turkey to the EU (dating back to at least the 80's).
Anyway, they still know terrorism... both the Kurdish element and Islamist element (which at times make the press over here) as well as from ultra-nationalist Turks towards non-Turks (theseseldomly make the press over here).
Turkey simply has not been hit by fullscale terrorism for a couple of reasons, IMHO (listed in no paticular order):
- Turkey is a muslim country, but not an Arab country (just like Iran). Also, their brand of Islam is not as extreme as the versions preached in Saudi-Arabia and Iran (which differ from eachother considerably, with IMHO the Saudi from way more oppressive, especially concerning women). The fact that they are muslim, already makes them a less likely target, as it is harder for the terrorists tojustify an attack on fellow muslims. In fact, even in Iraq these terrorists are running into justification problems some of their attacks, predominantly those that exclusively target civilians who are NOT cooperating with the occupation forces.
- Despite the fact that the army is all powerful (and almost untouchable) Turkey does not have a regime that is as oppressive and corrupt as say that of Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Algeria. So the support among the population for this kind of terrorism is less. The fact that Turkey is more and more dependent on Western Europe only decreases further support.
- Turkey can not be accused of any cooperation concerning Iraq. In fat, it has won great respect (at least among large sections of Arab/mulim society) for refusing to bow for the bribes and bullying by the Bush administration. So again, the terrorists lack justification.
- Other regimes make far better and juicier targets. The West for their imperialist policies... and the regimes in Saudi-Arabia and Egypt because of the generall dissatisfaction among large sectionf of the population.
If there, IMHO ever had been a "western" muslim country, which had it's shtein together it would be Lebanon.... before Israel and Syria screwed things up over there... and IMHO there is good hope that they can get there as well. As long as both Syria and Israel stay out of it. And then in fact, one could argue it would make as good if not a better EU candidate then Turkey, Ukraine, Israel.
The idea that this is needed to keep a country safe, IMHO, is a fallacy. Not only that, but you are relying on the goodwill and faith of those in power or (probably more correct) those running these operations, to not abuse them. Which, IMHO is a huge risk, and a risk not worth taking. Because, behind the scenes, the government has now appropriated for itself a good number of powers that enables the Syrian regime to keep control (and terrorism down) or the KGB, Gestapo and SD to found their reign of terror.
In fact, almost all, if not all, of the provisions Hitler used to get into power were put in there by the victorious Allies of WW I, and the flaws were known, but everybody relied on good faith that eventally what happened would not happen. Bush himself might not have the intention to go this far, some of those around him might not, but someone in the future might... in fact, even today with the current provisions there might be some who abuse the system.
I'm embarrassed that a non-American can state a case for liberty more eloquently than any of us.
Absolutely excellent post, Dutch.
Well done. :yay
War and Peace. Read it!
I have read it. It has nothing to do with terrorism or civil rights. Tolstoy had bigger fish to fry.
Thanks for joining the fray, Dutch.
Now who's delusional? That line's from Caddyshack.
Lebanon is much different from other "Muslim" nations in that only 60% of the population is Muslim. Approximately 40% is Christian.
Excellent Post Dutch. I feel smarter for having read it.
I do think that the more affluent countries that aren't as repressive to their population breed less terrorism. My example was a bit short sighted however.
In saying that I think that this power will be abused. I know it will be because all human endeavor is flawed. The great thing to be about America is that it will be policed and reacted too when that happens and I just can not believe that the entire US government would take advantage of these powers on such a grand scale. Maybe that is because I know folks that work for DOD and the FBI. Maybe that is because I worked for the US government in the military and I know people still doing the job.
I guess I'm just an optimist about it. I know there will be mistakes and flaws and I feel it will all work out in the end. I think the overall positives of preventing an attack will outweigh the mistakes. Certainly the mistakes will get all the press though because that sells.
um... dutchbird for prez?
Quote from: Geowhizzer on December 16, 2005, 08:40:49 PM
Lebanon is much different from other "Muslim" nations in that only 60% of the population is Muslim. Approximately 40% is Christian.
I know that Lebanon had quite a large Christian population... though their numbers have been on the decline (relatively). But what is most remarkable about Lebanon both before the civil war and now is that their are all kinds of provisions within the constitution that safeguard rights of others. Provisions that, to my knowledge, are far more solid and less susceptible to manipulation and abuse and have far less loopholes then what is now being implemented in Iraq. In principle it is the most democratic country in the muslim world.
By the way, on the "democracy"-list of muslim countries Iran probably would rank fairly high. Certainly above the staunch allies in the "war on terror."
Quote from: Phanatic on December 16, 2005, 09:26:02 PM
Excellent Post Dutch. I feel smarter for having read it.
I do think that the more affluent countries that aren't as repressive to their population breed less terrorism. My example was a bit short sighted however.
In saying that I think that this power will be abused. I know it will be because all human endeavor is flawed. The great thing to be about America is that it will be policed and reacted too when that happens and I just can not believe that the entire US government would take advantage of these powers on such a grand scale. Maybe that is because I know folks that work for DOD and the FBI. Maybe that is because I worked for the US government in the military and I know people still doing the job.
I guess I'm just an optimist about it. I know there will be mistakes and flaws and I feel it will all work out in the end. I think the overall positives of preventing an attack will outweigh the mistakes. Certainly the mistakes will get all the press though because that sells.
Thanks for the compliments....
I agree with you that if it gets too far out of hand, the people will react. It is a given... for me, the more important question is how much damage I think will be done before the country/people reacts, and how much of it is irreversible.
Where I have little faith, and that goes for almost any powerfull organization, wether government, military or business, is the abuse element. What, IMHO history has shown is that it can take very few people at a few crucial spots to gain horrific results. They do not necessarily even have to have the same interests, but just some common elements within their interests...
And to go back to WW II, one of the most shocking realizations after the war both in Germany and the occupied countries was for how easy it was for humans to compartimentalize, and just ignore the big picture by simply doing their job... the basic problem of every single bureaucracy. It is stunning to see or read how it took only a few men (with largely different interests) to turn the German Gestapo or the German Gruene Polizei (regular police) in instruments of terror. IIRC one of the most stunning turnarounds was the fact that one of the most avid Nazi-hunters of the 1920's became IIRC head of the SD before the end of WW II. And he could completely rationalize it away. In general, it is stunning to see how easily and fast it was to turn bureaucracies around for the Germans in occupied countries... and they didn't do it by replacing 90% of personnel.
IIRC Klaus Barby is one of the greatest war criminals in French history. Not because he shot Jews or ordered them to be shot. No, his crime was that he rubberstamped the transports that sent over 100,000 Jews to their deaths in Eastern Poland and Byelo-Russia.
Concerning these kinds of laws, one of the more remarcable things IMHO is that countries which have a far greater history with terrorism (like Spain, UK, but even the likes of India and Indonesia) are not implementing anything as close as stringent as the USA Patriot Act. In fact, when Blair tried to do something in that direction he was, in a political sense, completely destroyed, AFAIK (maybe Bobby and Henchman can clarify this further).
The idea that this is necessary to prevent further terrorism is a fallacy, IMHO. It was a given that the US would get hit, just as it was that England would get hit, and chances are that we will get hit as well. Sheer size of both the country and the influx of people and goods is a guarantee. The question should not be if terrorism will stike, but when.
And many (as in 95+%) of the potential terrorists will not be caught by these kind of measures that would not, if competently applied, have been caught by other measues. there are those who argue that anyone caught by this methods who would have not been caught by measures already in place are caught through luck rather then anything else. The London bombers would IIRC never have been caught, not even with the measuress of the Patriot Act, unless they had cameras installed everywhere etc, etc, etc. Numerous attacks have been prevented on this side of the Atlantic without such invasive laws and methods as currently employed or suggested by this administration.
Add to that the fact that it probably is impossible to treat the data found the way they should have been. Because there will be too much of it, for too few men. And then the question is, are you willing to accept the setbacks... of which the one mentioned below is one of the lesser...
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...OFLY.xml&rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...OFLY.xml&rpc=22)
Quote from: Reuters report as posted on another board
US no-fly list vexes travelers from babies on up
Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:12 AM ET166
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sarah Zapolsky was checking in for a flight to Italy when she discovered her 9-month-old son's name was on the United States' "no-fly" list of suspected terrorists.
"We pointed down to the stroller, and he sat there and gurgled," Zapolsky said, recalling the incident at Dulles International Airport outside Washington in July. "The desk agent started laughing. ... She couldn't print us out a boarding pass because he's on the no-fly list."
Zapolsky, who did not want her son's name made public, said she was initially amused by the mix-up. "But when I found out you can't actually get off the list, I started to get a bit annoyed."
Zapolsky isn't alone.
According to the Transportation Security Administration, more than 28,000 people have applied to the TSA redress office to get on the "cleared list," which takes note of individuals whose names are similar to those on the terrorism watch list, but does not guarantee an end to no-fly list hassles.
The Patriot Act wasn't put in place to catch terrorists. It was put in place to lay the groundwork of usurping power. I honestly believe that. The question then becomes - will the Congress do anything about it. It's pretty clear to me that the current administration has stopped even caring what the general populace thinks. They're already doing whatever they want and damn the consequences.
If the Congress won't step in, then it falls back to the populace, which the founding fathers understood all too well. The guardians of liberty aren't politicians, it's the governed. Most people have forgotten this. You can either flee the country and say USA be damned, or you can stay and fight. With two small kids, I'm not sure what I'll do if it comes to that. My inclination is to ship them off and fight. But reality is a lot different than the movies....
Damn straight. They had all these ideas stored away somewhere and when 9/11 happened, they collectively realized they could put these ridiculous ideas into practice without so much as a peep from a scared American populace. What they didn't count on, obviously, was that after the initial fervor died down, people would start questioning the practices and then start screaming about them.
That's happening now as you can see from yesterday's dismissal of the Patriot Act by the Senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act :yay
Bush and his pals are in full retreat now. Therefore, I fully expect a terrorist incident to occur any day now because without fear to prop them up, they have nothing.
Our government is totally farged. The problem is, nothing will ever be done about it. I can't do anything, you can't do anything our kids can't do anything. It's as corrupt as organized crime.
I spy on you. You spy on me. So what? What do you do that you don't want to the government to know about? Do you find your life that important that the government can't see it? I could care less if they see me sitting here tonight, lying on the floor and watching my son play with his toys. Big fargin deal. What do you do that is so private that they haven't already seen?
Spoken like a born cop.
Well, you haven't mentioned what is so important that noone else can see it. Privacy? You think the government is spying on you? Are you a threat?
The burden of proof is not on the citizen, it's on the government. Let them prove what is so important that they have to see it, not the other way around, Gestapo Kid
Zieg Heil!
Bow down to your Fuhrer!
So without having read any of this thread, are there actually people defending Bush for his sign-off on this? farging disgraceful. I don't care what you're political affiliations are, that should scare the ever-loving shtein out of everyone.
Well, i certainly don't defend Bush on this. The only question i ask is, what exactly is anyone gonna do about it?
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 17, 2005, 02:22:34 PM
Well, i certainly don't defend Bush on this. The only question i ask is, what exactly is anyone gonna do about it?
Vote for anyone other than his supporters/cronies/successors in the next election. Unless Hillary is running, then I'll just do what I normally do and hope for a rich relative to die and leave me money so I can buy myself an island and make my own rules. Mandatory beer for breakfast!
Well, what if McCain runs against Hilary?
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 17, 2005, 03:10:32 PM
Well, what if McCain runs against Hilary?
I wouldn't consider McCain a Bush cronie at all and he would probably get my support, but he would probably win in such a landslide that voting would be unnecessary.
EDIT: Then again I don't really know enough about him or his politics to make a decision one way or the other right now. All I know is that I respect politicians who have the balls to speak out against their own party when they disagree with something that is going on and he seems to have that quality.
Does anyone know who the favorites are to try for the Republican nomination yet?
Well, i found who the public wants to run.
Giuliani is first, McCain second and Cunnilingus Rice third.
Here's what I know so far:
1. McCain is staying in the national spotlight. He's almost definitely going to run.
2. Mitt Romney (gov. Mass) just announced that he will not run for re-election. Has indicated a desire to run for president in 2008 before, and this may be a sign that he's preparing to do so.
3. Rice has not publicly shown an inclination to run, but could be preparing to do so behind the scenes. Her "promotion" to Secretary of State in Bush's second term is much higher in profile, and could be a springboard.
Other than media speculation, I'm not sure about Giulianni. However, he is still occasionally grabbing the spotlight, so it could definitely be a possibility.
Late in '06 we'll start seeing people publicly declaring their intentions.
If you need any more signs of what a fascist prick this icehole is:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html
You have no idea what facism is.
:-D
Bush: "It was necessary and legal" :boom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_76;_ylt=ApsXuauzM_zg7x6Yi.TIM8dqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
QuoteThe president said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.
Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.
"I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand," Bush said.
Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton — without naming them — to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer" without the extension, he said.
I can't make up my mind whether that farger is clueless or simply really adept at looking that way.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on December 17, 2005, 03:28:57 PM
Here's what I know so far:
1. McCain is staying in the national spotlight. He's almost definitely going to run.
2. Mitt Romney (gov. Mass) just announced that he will not run for re-election. Has indicated a desire to run for president in 2008 before, and this may be a sign that he's preparing to do so.
3. Rice has not publicly shown an inclination to run, but could be preparing to do so behind the scenes. Her "promotion" to Secretary of State in Bush's second term is much higher in profile, and could be a springboard.
Other than media speculation, I'm not sure about Giulianni. However, he is still occasionally grabbing the spotlight, so it could definitely be a possibility.
Late in '06 we'll start seeing people publicly declaring their intentions.
Rice said today on CNN that she has no desire to be president. Her next goal is to be commissioner of the NFL. I don't care how politically incorrect it is, THAT IS NOT A WOMANS JOB!
Anyway, I digress, I believe JC Watts of Oklahoma (former Sooner option QB) is a likely republican canidate.
I thought that Watts could be the one to become the first African-American to become President, but I don't think that he'd be a good candidate in 2008, at least to have a chance of winning. He's been out of the loop for awhile (which could actually be a positive, ala Carter in '76, if played the right way), but also doesn't have the star power of McCain and Giuliani.
Overall, I think that the 2008 election is the Democrats' to win, provided that they don't screw up royally in their nomination and electoral process.
Which they did in 2004.
It's about time we win the Whitehouse.
Quote from: BushSecondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
White House Transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
Quote from: stalker on December 19, 2005, 10:02:15 PM
It's about time we win the Whitehouse.
Wow. Looks like we were wrong about you the whole time. There's no way you and Stillupfront are the same person. Why, not with you being black and all. We've all terribly misjudged you.
Dumbass
how Bush is not impeached is beyond me. Torture prisons, lying to start a war, illegally spying on his own people... and that is just the start. The list could go on forever. What a disgrace.
George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000
And that list just includes the offenses we know about....
Ooh, ooh. A new game.
Add to the list:
Bush has taken more vacations than any other president.
Secretly paying journalists to promote White House policies on U.S. news channels and newspapers.
Appointing patently unqualified campaign cronies and good 'ol boys to positions of National Security.
Paying private firms millions to plant "positive" articles in Iraq newspapers.
Spying on US citizens in the name of national security.
Handing out no-bid contracts to the companies of political insiders (i.e. Halliburton).
Leaking the name of a CIA operative as punishment for speaking out against policy.
Dumbya = Fulgencio Batista.
You gonna impeach him to get Cheney in there? Yeah, nice work..get someone just as shady in there.
Just live out the next three years and worry about the next one. You are an ant and Bush is the shoe.
Well, I can't argue with you there, Waco. :-[
Quote from: MURP on December 20, 2005, 11:47:15 AM
how Bush is not impeached is beyond me. Torture prisons, lying to start a war, illegally spying on his own people... and that is just the start. The list could go on forever. What a disgrace.
George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000
Pretty easy explanation there:
Impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives. According to the House of Representative website, the current make up is 231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 Vacancy.
Unless there is a party turnover in the 2006 Congressional elections, Bush isn't getting impeached, short of pulling a gun and shooting Hillary Clinton or Herry Reid on nationwide TV.
Even then it would be iffy. Probably blame it on national security needs.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 20, 2005, 12:45:34 PM
You gonna impeach him to get Cheney in there? Yeah, nice work..get someone just as shady in there.
Just live out the next three years and worry about the next one. You are an ant and Bush is the shoe.
Aren't you the same guy who spends his time telling us to do something about it or stop whining?
:-D
That doesn't matter. YOU can't do a damn thing about getting him impeached. YOU have no say when it comes to that.
So i ask again, what can YOU do about it.
Here is what people that actually have some power want to try to do.
Impeach (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Censure_motion_introduced_in_House_over_1220.html#suckit)
So much anger...
:-\
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 20, 2005, 02:35:51 PM
So much anger...
:-\
It's from listening to the whiny Cowboys fans the past two days. It's been terrible.
My buddy is a federal corrections officer and told me the Crips... err... I mean COWBOYS fans at the prison didn't take Sunday's demolition very well.
:D
One of the associates at the office here has a husband who's a Cowboys fan. He usually stops in to say hello and to talk about football when he's here at the office on Mondays. He was here yesterday, but surprisingly, he didn't stop in to say hello. Imagine that?!
:-D
It's been brutal. They are mostly in a "Parcells Must Go" mode right now. I'm sorry, but the Cowboys players have been underachieving as of late. It's not Parcells fault.
On the other hand, they are still gloating about beating the Birds both times and that is sickening. But when they are sitting at home with me this winter, it won't mean a damn thing! Ha ha and ha!
Uh-oh. Sorry to pee on the "impeachment" parade. Looks like Clinton and Carter did the same thing. I guess its legal?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Gee, at the bottom it seems to suggest the Senate be involved. That's a little different than what doofus did.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 20, 2005, 09:41:35 PM
Uh-oh. Sorry to pee on the "impeachment" parade. Looks like Clinton and Carter did the same thing. I guess its legal?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Umm... are Clinton & Carter still in office? No.
Bush is, however.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 20, 2005, 09:54:44 PM
Umm... are Clinton & Carter still in office? No.
Bush is, however.
The point is that this seems to have been an acceptable practice for some time. You don't think the Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton over this? Christ, they made a mockery of the impeachment process for a lot less than this (if this was illegal).
Quote"If we live in a free country, then why isn't the FBI, the President, whoever free to monitor whatever they like?
Does freedom in our country really only extend to some people?
I have never thought about this until now, since I am not greatly concerned by it, but the thought came to my mind when I saw someone reference the idea that the FBI was improperly monitoring some groups. I was wondering what, in a world of freedom, consitutes "improper monitoring." Why isn't the FBI (or anyone else) free to monitor whatever they like?
So tell me, why does freedom only extend to some people and some groups, but not to all?"
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=003928;p=0
It's galling that there are people this farging stupid in this country.
Religious zealots...
:-D
link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resigns.ap/index.html)
One of the judges that sits on the secret Federal spy court FISA, which handles requests for wiretaps like those Bush has "authorized" extra-judicially, has resigned in protest over this scandal.
Hypothetically speaking, as I heard someone on Wolf Blitzers show say last night, if this is an impeachable offense who would take over as the president. My knowledge of the executive branch of the govt and the impeachment process is not up to snuff.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on December 21, 2005, 08:45:00 AM
Hypothetically speaking, as I heard someone on Wolf Blitzers show say last night, if this is an impeachable offense who would take over as the president. My knowledge of the executive branch of the govt and the impeachment process is not up to snuff.
Cheney, unless he is impeached before or at the same time (see historical footnote below).
Here is the current line of succession:
The Vice President- Dick Cheney
Speaker of the House- Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate- Ted Stevens
Secretary of State- Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury- John Snow
Secretary of Defense- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General- Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior- Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture- Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce- Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Labor- Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services- Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development- Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation- Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy- Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education- Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs- Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security- Michael Chertoff
Historical Footnote: Just before Watergate, Nixon's VP Spiro Agnew resigned due to an unrelated scandal (taking bribes- he ended up pleading nolo contendere to tax evasion and was placed on probation). Nixon picked then-House Republican Leader Gerald Ford to be the new VP, and Ford was confirmed by the Senate (worked just like Cabinet selections). When Nixon resigned in August of 1974, Ford automatically assumed the presidency.
Thanks, Whiz.
I knew that the VP was the successor for every other reason but wasn't sure on impeachment. And in this situation, the way Cheney is speaking, it sounds like he's as culpable as Bush.
link (http://badpolitics.ytmnd.com/)
odd, i really think secretary of state should be above secretary of the treasury.
this spying on its own citizens really rejuvenates my confidence that were doing a good job keeping the terrorists out of this country. but i guess that's why were in iraq.. or wait.. umm.. hmm, yah screw it.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 20, 2005, 09:41:35 PM
Uh-oh. Sorry to pee on the "impeachment" parade. Looks like Clinton and Carter did the same thing.
Or not (http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv)
HA!
Don't get pissed at peolpe who are trying to keep people in major cities alive ;)
Quote from: MURP on December 22, 2005, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 20, 2005, 09:41:35 PM
Uh-oh. Sorry to pee on the "impeachment" parade. Looks like Clinton and Carter did the same thing.
Or not (http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv)
Stop it MURP! I'm gonna run out of urine!
Cute sixty second sound bite. Unfortunatly it doesn't tell the full story. Sure the semantics
(thanks rjs) are different between the executive orders, but lets look at the actual law being used here shall we?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, allows the gov't, under certain circumstances to eavesdrop on Americans (without warrant or court order) when
1.) the purpose of the eavesdropping is to gather foreign intelligence
- AND -
2.) the communication in question is between known foreign agents overseas and the American (like if UBL contacts the likes of Jose Padilla).
-AND-
3.) the American in question is acting in his role a part of an association or corporation that is "not substantially composed of United States persons."
- AND-
4.) The eavesdropping is done incompliance with a list of specified "minimization procedures", which include making regular reports to
4a.) the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence AND
4b.) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence AND
4c.) the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
It is now known as US Code Title 50 Secs. 1801 et seq.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1801
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1802
The whole reason behind 4 and 4abc is so that there is oversight...meaning if any abuses are suspected the practice can be stopped at any time.
I am not for domestic surveillance of US citizens at all, and was surprised to hear about this law. However, it does not appear that any laws have been broken here.
I still don't see how Carter and Clinton have anything to do with Bush breaking the law.
If they feel the need to prosecute Carter & Clinton, then be my guest. Drag their tired asses out into the street and beat them with billy clubs for all I care.
Bush broke the law but then again, breaking the law for this administration is the rule rather than the exception.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 23, 2005, 07:45:58 AM
Bush broke the law but then again, breaking the law for this administration is the rule rather than the exception.
What law did he break?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 23, 2005, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 23, 2005, 07:45:58 AM
Bush broke the law but then again, breaking the law for this administration is the rule rather than the exception.
What law did he break?
None! He broke no laws! Hooray! Our president rules! He's the smartestest mostest bestest president ever! Yay!
Quote from: rjs246 on December 23, 2005, 09:36:29 AM
None! He broke no laws! Hooray! Our president rules! He's the smartestest mostest bestest president ever! Yay!
See, thats one of the problems in the US today...total lack of communication. Instead of responding to a legitimate question, you make an ass out of yourself. You would rather believe as truth the sound bites from Jon Stewart or the opinions of people on an Eagles message board than actual facts. The same goes for both sides of the political spectrum...for every Rush Limbaugh there is an Al Franken.
Look...no one is claiming that Bush is a great President, possibly not even a "good" one. The blind hatred people have for him is foolish and uneducated (just as it was for the Clinton haters).
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 23, 2005, 09:49:42 AM
Look...no one is claiming that Bush is a great President, possibly not even a "good" one. The blind hatred people have for him is foolish and uneducated (just as it was for the Clinton haters).
I finally agree with something you say... sort of. My dislike for Bush has a whole lot more to do with his lack of qualifications for the job. I don't have any idea about laws he's broken and I'd be hypocritical if I judged someone on that since I've broken a few myself. I do have a good idea about rights he's infringed upon, but he's a republican President, it comes with the territory.
(And before you get your thong in a bunch about his qualifications I'll tell you why I don't think he's qualified. His track record of failed business decisions, questionable (at best) governance of the state of Texas and inability to even maintain decent grades at an Ivy League school, and as a person who has MANY friends who went to Ivy League schools let me tell you, there is nothing more difficult than getting a C at one of those schools. Ask anyone who went to harvard/yale/brown/etc. If you work hard you get an A, if you show up you get a B, if you make absolutely no effort to even pretend that you are in school, you get a C.)
In other words, he may not be an idiot, but he's done a damn good job of trying to convince everyone that he is. And stupidity and I don't get along.
Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html)
QuoteBy Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A04
The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.
Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.
The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."
There is one other statutory authority for wiretapping, which covers conventional criminal cases. That law describes itself, along with FISA, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."
Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.
But Moschella argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Such eavesdropping, he wrote, necessarily included conversations in which one party is in the United States.
Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.
As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."
Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night.
JFC - this dude really scares me....
NY Times: Domestic spying widespread (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/24/domestic.spying.ap/index.html)
QuoteNEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported.
The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.
The story did not name the companies.
Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.
But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.
The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the September 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.
QuoteBush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
link 1 (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r)
link 2 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi)
Ugh, make it stop.
Quote from: MURP on December 24, 2005, 11:02:47 AM
NY Times: Domestic spying widespread (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/24/domestic.spying.ap/index.html)
another article on this:
QuoteNSA Web Site Puts 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer1 hour, 39 minutes ago
The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 — likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.
"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies — those that aren't automatically deleted right away — unless there is a "compelling need."
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
We get it! Our president is scary! Our government is scary! They are doing things that we thought only dictators and alien-invaders do. Must we be reminded over and over again? Anyone who doesn't see it yet isn't ever going to see it. Those of us who do see it don't need any more evidence to convince us.
Who visits the NSA's website?
Oh no...the NSA knows what sites i visited...i think i'll cry. Big fargin deal. I don't know why the media cares. What do they do that is so terrible that the NSA might report them to the police. Wah!
You are so farging stupid, the only job you could keep is police officer. Or maybe prison guard.
Oh no, the NSA is monitoring me. I havn't done anything wrong, what the hell do I care?
Oh no, I've been arrested with no warrant. I'm an American citizen, I havwn't done anything wrong, what the hell do I care.
Oh no, I've been in Gitmo for 4 years with no charges filed, becuase I havn't done anything wrong, no access to a lawyer and no one knows I'm here. I think I might cry a little.
Selfish I am...The only big winners in monitoring phone calls fom the bad guys is our cities....cities are pits of corruption and taxpayer rape..lets stop ...Bye Bye Dio et. al. :P.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 28, 2005, 07:08:17 PM
You are so farging stupid, the only job you could keep is police officer. Or maybe prison guard.
Dude, you are so far beyond icehole that you'll never make it back to reality. And oh by the way, looks like i'll be leaving my profession to start teaching you stupid farg!
The kids are farged.
Do Something About It (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=1rb2hgb962.app23a&page=UserActionInactive&id=343)
Guess someone heeded my advice.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 28, 2005, 06:27:27 PM
We get it! Our president is scary! Our government is scary! They are doing things that we thought only dictators and alien-invaders do. Must we be reminded over and over again? Anyone who doesn't see it yet isn't ever going to see it. Those of us who do see it don't need any more evidence to convince us.
wah. dont open the thread if it's gonna get your panties in a bunch.
NSA Spied on U.N. Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051227/cm_huffpost/012927;_ylt=Am1hu1iXXV5mRS93C99l7Jglr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html)
Now the US Spying on diplomats is WAY scary!! That's just freaking wrong and it's also how world wars get started. I sure hope we can make it through the next 3 years...
Quote from: Phanatic on December 29, 2005, 11:11:20 AM
Now the US Spying on diplomats is WAY scary!! That's just freaking wrong and it's also how world wars get started. I sure hope we can make it through the next 3 years...
I would hardly call an "article" from the Huffington Post credible, but if true its not without precedent. That doesn't make it right by any means, but we have spied on diplomats (and our dipolats have been spied on) many times before.
Spying on diplomats is hardly a Bush-policy. It's been pretty standard fare forever, I'd imagine.
Information is power.
Plus, I've never heard of RAWSTORY, but based on the ads, I'll assume it's somewhat biased?
Am I a hypocrite for adding to this thread? I chastized others for feeding the fire so feel free to chastise me. This isn't surprising in the slightest but here's some more fuel for the fire. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/09/terrorism.mail.reut/index.html)
Quote from: rjs246 on January 09, 2006, 08:35:20 PM
Am I a hypocrite
Have you ever actually set fire to someone? Do you always ask rhetorical questions?
Quote from: General_Failure on January 09, 2006, 08:37:34 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 09, 2006, 08:35:20 PM
Am I a hypocrite
Have you ever actually set fire to someone? Do you always ask rhetorical questions?
I literally laughed out loud after reading that.
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml)
Quote from: MURP on January 16, 2006, 12:14:45 PM
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml)
Cue "That's a liberal-bias site" dismissals from closed minds that didn't read the article and think about it, 4...3.....2....1!
Oh and: Hail the benevolent Führer, Herr Bush!
Move to Spain already.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 16, 2006, 12:38:04 PM
Quote from: MURP on January 16, 2006, 12:14:45 PM
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml)
Cue "That's a liberal-bias site" dismissals from closed minds that didn't read the article and think about it, 4...3.....2....1!
Oh and: Hail the benevolent Führer, Herr Bush!
Then I can post one from a "conservative-bias site" and you can keep you trap shut.
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150
Once again, seems like Clinton did the same thing, but no one (inlcuding the NY Slimes) gave a farg.
I find that site name highly amusing and more than a little ironic.
Once and for all, the fact that a predecessor did something wrong doesn't sanction the same action in the incumbent.
my how american is turning into a bunch of finger pointing baby's.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on January 16, 2006, 01:11:11 PM
Move to Spain already.
Working on it,
pig. Working on it. If you want to help out, the first goal is to get out of debt. That would make me a lot more attractive to whatever government I petition for permanent residency. I owe the IRS, Maryland Revenue Service, and Sallie Mae for college loans. About 25k total. If you'd like to make a donation to speed the cause, that would be just swell.
Where can i send the funds and made payable to whom? I'll send you all of it today.
You could start by sending a check for $3,468.17 to the IRS with "Diomedes' Get Out of Nationlist Hell Fund" in the memo field. Thanks.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on January 16, 2006, 01:54:27 PM
Where can i send the funds and made payable to whom? I'll send you all of it today.
Wait, if I call you a doofus pig cop over and over, will you send me $25k? I really could use a windfall like that.
No, i'd just kick you in the jimmy.
Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/26/MNG24GTB8O1.DTL)
QuoteGrover Norquist is one of the most influential conservative Republicans in Washington. His weekly "Wednesday Meeting" at his L Street office is a must for conservative strategists, and he has been called the "managing director of the hard-core right" by the liberal Nation magazine. Perhaps the country's leading anti-tax enthusiast, he is, like Diamond, a hawk in the war on terror.
QuoteReferring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: "It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don't break the existing laws."
San Francisco Chronical :-D :-D Yep they ain't biased!!
If the president really did break a law, why would the Dems not have charges at his door already? THey would be all over it, imo no law has beenbroken, it isn't domestic like the dems are saying, it's calls coming and going from our country. And even if it was domestic, are you not supposed to listen to two suspects calling each other in this country?
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 02, 2006, 11:31:16 PM
San Francisco Chronical :-D :-D Yep they ain't biased!!
If the president really did break a law, why would the Dems not have charges at his door already? THey would be all over it, imo no law has beenbroken, it isn't domestic like the dems are saying, it's calls coming and going from our country. And even if it was domestic, are you not supposed to listen to two suspects calling each other in this country?
Not without a warrant. That pesky 4th Amendment, you know.
QuoteNot without a warrant. That pesky 4th Amendment, you know.
OK so domestic he can't, he has never said that he did, and no one has proved that he did. He said it was outgoing or incoming. I would assume if it was different the dems would be doing backflips.
Spying on your own people is for the gays.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 03, 2006, 11:17:13 AM
Spying on your own people is for the gays.
Your own people? If we spied on a Atta (sp ???) phonecall before 9/11 you'd still be pissed right?
For the gays!!
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 03, 2006, 05:13:21 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on February 03, 2006, 11:17:13 AM
Spying on your own people is for the gays.
Your own people? If we spied on a Atta (sp ???) phonecall before 9/11 you'd still be pissed right?
Ummm... Atta wasn't American, dude.
;)
QuoteUmmm... Atta wasn't American, dude.
Ummm, he was in the states (I know he was not American) and a call from/to him would have left/entered the U.S. I find nothing wrong with that kind of listening in.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 03, 2006, 08:02:15 PM
QuoteUmmm... Atta wasn't American, dude.
Ummm, he was in the states (I know he was not American) and a call from/to him would have left/entered the U.S. I find nothing wrong with that kind of listening in.
Well that is because you are also clearly for the gays.
Here I thought all Rah Rah Bushteines were AGAINST the gays... It's all making sense allot a sudden!
That said I don't have a problem with the domestic spying at this point...
Our Prez making more friends (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_us/terror_plot_mayor_1;_ylt=AhLwLxeHWj9kdWaoKbxt3YVqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
Quote"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."
Um, could that be because the whole thing is made up? I'm leaning towards yes.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 09, 2006, 06:16:24 PM
Quote"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."
Um, could that be because the whole thing is made up? I'm leaning towards yes.
exactly..and I put it in this thread for that exact reason.
When he starts feeling the heat from something, he makes up shtein to take the focus off of his farg ups.
he's quite the originator if thats the case.
More filth comes spewing out. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak)
Anyone who thought Scooter was the end of the line on that business is a dumbass.
Of course his superiors okayed the leaks.
For God's sake, America... wake up!
Wasn't sure where to put this, but it's an interesting article.
Bush admits the CIA runs secret prisons (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_25)
Excerpt:
QuotePresident Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time that the CIA runs secret prisons overseas and said tough interrogation forced terrorist leaders to reveal plots to attack the United States and its allies.
Of course the U.S. runs secret prisons. And of course they torture people in those places. Furthermore, we all know that torture is immoral AND ineffective.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 06, 2006, 08:19:55 PM
Of course the U.S. runs secret prisons. And of course they torture people in those places. Furthermore, we all know that torture is immoral AND ineffective.
The U.S doesn't torture. President Bush says so.
Quote"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture," Bush said. "It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."
See? :paranoid
No shtein? I feel so much better now! Thanks for pointing that out!!
Quote from: Diomedes on September 06, 2006, 08:28:10 PM
No shtein? I feel so much better now! Thanks for pointing that out!!
No problem, Dio, glad to be of service... ;D
On a related note:
Guantanamo now holds top terror suspects (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_military_tribunals)
Excerpt:
QuoteThe most notorious terrorism suspects held by the U.S. are now at Guantanamo Bay, kept in windowless cells in the highest security section of the detention center and facing military tribunals that could begin early next year.
Does anyone else see a problem with keeping ALL of the "most nortorious terrorism suspects" in ONE place?
In a span of the last hour, I've read that:
1. Bush is announcing to the world that the U.S. has been keeping suspects in secret CIA prisons, where guards used "tough interrogation tactics." (Not torture, according to Bush, but the prisons have not been open to inspection.)
2. The U.S. is now housing ALL (or almost all, anyway) of the suspected top terrorists in the SAME location.
3. This location is about as close to me as the Georgia border.
Seriously, this crap is starting to scare me mightily.
PS - Here's a bit on the history of Guantonomo (http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/09/guantanmo.history/).
Quote from: Diomedes on September 06, 2006, 08:19:55 PM
Of course the U.S. runs secret prisons. And of course they torture people in those places. Furthermore, we all know that torture is immoral AND ineffective.
Yeah, but it makes the people doing the torturing feel big and strong.
I seem to remember the Nazis doing this, and 200 some guys escaping from the internment camp. Anyone else remember something similar?
I'd like to point out for the record that I am in favor of torture, because they probably deserve it. Unless it's bad guys torturing US military, then I'm against it.
I'm also in favor of the merciless killing of bad guys.
I guess that makes me kind of a prick, but I'm OK with that. I like to keep issues black or white.
More torturing of non-Americans, and more merciless killings of bad guys.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 06, 2006, 11:25:53 PM
I seem to remember the Nazis doing this, and 200 some guys escaping from the internment camp. Anyone else remember something similar?
Since these would be coming from Cuba, I'd wonder if they would be under the "political refugee if they reach land" rule.
Demon i second your view. Im happy we have secret prisons but pissed that reporters have made so many inquiries into the camps and their existence.
We had this discussion before. Torture can be defined many ways.
Cutting fingers/toes off is torture.
Playing AC/DC really loud is not torture.
To some, the US "tortures" because we play good loud music.
They probably play loud bad music, too. There's plenty of that.
your all idiots
Quote from: General_Failure on September 07, 2006, 12:50:23 PM
They probably play loud bad music, too. There's plenty of that.
Point taken. I guess it could be considered torture if they were blasting say, Neil Diamond.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on September 07, 2006, 02:41:41 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on September 07, 2006, 12:50:23 PM
They probably play loud bad music, too. There's plenty of that.
Point taken. I guess it could be considered torture if they were blasting say, Neil Diamond.
Barry Manilow. That would bring up charges against the Geneva Convention.
Abortions for some, secret systematic torture for others!
Yaaaaaay!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/11/30/traveler.screening.ap/index.html
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) -- Without notifying the public, federal agents have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.
The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments. The government intends to keep the scores on file for 40 years.
The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.
The program's existence was quietly disclosed earlier in November when the government put an announcement detailing the Automated Targeting System, or ATS, for the first time in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules.
....
He also said the names of vehicle drivers and passengers are entered when they cross the border and Amtrak is voluntarily supplying passenger data for trains to and from Canada.
Its what credit card companies do for credit risk. its a proven system, i have nothing to worry about.
Ha.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 01, 2006, 09:40:46 AM
Its what credit card companies do for credit risk. its a proven system, i have nothing to worry about.
The problem is, its much easier to run an analysis and be able to say "ah-ha! bad credit risk" than it is to say "ah-ha! we think you are a suicide bomber!". This is a worthless system, and a clear invasion of privacy.
I have no problem with it.
re: It's okay with me. I have nothing to hide. Etc..
Of course not. Your name hasn't popped. And you don't care about those who have been trapped in the mess....they must've deserved it, eh? You trust the government so well that this kind of database sounds like a good idea; the governement wouldn't possibly misuse this kind of system. And you're so confident in their skills and organization that you think this kind of program will actually be effective at something other than funneling money to corporations who provide "security" while frustrating citizens.
The government which is usually characterized as wasteful, inept and corrupt is all of a sudden efficient, competent, and benevolent when it comes to "security?"
Sheep.
It's a creeping death that say you don't mind; the freedom and liberty for which this country is rightly admired is being killed. And you're fine with that. Keeps you "safe."
Makes me sick.
Secrecy and democracy do not mix. Nothing good is going to come of their unholy union.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 01, 2006, 10:25:52 AMits much easier to run an analysis and be able to say "ah-ha! bad credit risk"
Not to mention that you can see your credit score and object/appeal if you find it to be incorrect. It's a horrible pain in the ass to do so, and is designed to be difficult to people don't fight the system, but it's possible.
This idiotic, Nazi-like "security" plan is totally secret. You can't see your profile or do shtein about it if you're on there by mistake.
I'm not sure what to make of that. It doesn't seem to be an invasion of privacy or anything so no big deal. At the same time, I can't say that I see/understand how this is going to be an effective tool either. I'd say the odds of this system successfully identifying an individual or group as a legitimate security threat are about the same as hitting the lottery 2 days in a row.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 01, 2006, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 01, 2006, 09:40:46 AM
Its what credit card companies do for credit risk. its a proven system, i have nothing to worry about.
The problem is, its much easier to run an analysis and be able to say "ah-ha! bad credit risk" than it is to say "ah-ha! we think you are a suicide bomber!". This is a worthless system, and a clear invasion of privacy.
Hahaha. Dio hacked Joel's account.
Well done, Dio!
:yay
So if I enjoy middle eastern food am I a risk to the country? ::)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 01, 2006, 10:57:07 AM
Hahaha. Dio hacked Joel's account.
Well done, Dio!
:yay
Assuming you know someone because they post on a football message board makes you master of teh internets.
Quote from: Beef Rapp on December 01, 2006, 11:00:11 AM
So if I enjoy middle eastern food am I a risk to the country?
Well, if you shop in arabic stores, you're more likely to be financially supporting terrorists. So I think the government should track what you buy/where you shop. Same for what restaurants you eat at. There should be a database for that too. You know, for "security."
Also, the government should be able to cross reference the shopping and restaurant databases against what books you buy, or borrow from the library.
And with the phone calls you make outside the country, websites you frequent, emails you send And also against a database of your flights.
For security, these things are obviously needed. And of course, they should all be secret..blocked from you or the press getting access. What do you have to hide?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 01, 2006, 11:03:24 AM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 01, 2006, 10:57:07 AM
Hahaha. Dio hacked Joel's account.
Well done, Dio!
:yay
Assuming you know someone because they post on a football message board makes you master of teh internets.
It was a joke, Joel. Relax, big boy. ;)
what books you buy, or borrow from the library.
reading habits are how mills and somerset found john doe
Quote from: Diomedes on December 01, 2006, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: Beef Rapp on December 01, 2006, 11:00:11 AM
So if I enjoy middle eastern food am I a risk to the country?
Well, if you shop in arabic stores, you're more likely to be financially supporting terrorists. So I think the government should track what you buy/where you shop. Same for what restaurants you eat at. There should be a database for that too. You know, for "security."
Also, the government should be able to cross reference the shopping and restaurant databases against what books you buy, or borrow from the library.
And with the phone calls you make outside the country, websites you frequent, emails you send And also against a database of your flights.
For security, these things are obviously needed. And of course, they should all be secret..blocked from you or the press getting access. What do you have to hide?
Crap, I always go to 7-11, Dunking Donuts, and this lovely Falaffel place. :paranoid
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 01, 2006, 11:12:44 AM
what books you buy, or borrow from the library.
reading habits are how mills and somerset found john doe
Ha. Awesome movie. :yay
I got Basmati rice at the grocery store. help!
Quote from: MURP on December 01, 2006, 12:06:31 PM
I got Basmati rice at the grocery store. help!
New movie....Terrorista :-o
Quote from: Diomedes on December 01, 2006, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 01, 2006, 10:25:52 AMits much easier to run an analysis and be able to say "ah-ha! bad credit risk"
Not to mention that you can see your credit score and object/appeal if you find it to be incorrect. It's a horrible pain in the ass to do so, and is designed to be difficult to people don't fight the system, but it's possible.
This idiotic, Nazi-like "security" plan is totally secret. You can't see your profile or do shtein about it if you're on there by mistake.
Actually, Dio, this is the part of the program I do have a problem with. You should have the right to see, dispute, and correct. But as a whole, I don't see the issue. Where I eat, call, and shop is not really an invasion of privacy, since credit cards companies, retail outlets, and sometimes even employers do the same kind of data harvesting. And frankly, if people are misidentified, as long as the system catches someone like it should, that that's a success.
I have a buddy of mine that is a salesman, and his name is on the security list for flying. A nice, common name like David Hill. He flys an average of 8 to 10 times a month, and can never check in early, use curbside check-in, and is hit through the security lines. He realizes it's a PITA, but he also acknowledges that it's a fact of life in this day and age for some to be inconvenienced to protect others. I agree with him, especially since his opinion is first hand experience.
Quote from: Father Demon on December 01, 2006, 12:15:19 PMWhere I eat, call, and shop is not really an invasion of privacy, since credit cards companies, retail outlets, and sometimes even employers do the same kind of data harvesting. And frankly, if people are misidentified, as long as the system catches someone like it should, that that's a success.
Unless it is you who gets misidentified. This (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16155226.htm) is why you should care:
Quote
The tool works by plugging 30 to 40 variables into a computerized checklist, which in turn produces a score associated with future lethality.
"You can imagine the indicators that might incline someone toward violence: youth; having committed a serious crime at an early age; being a man rather than a woman, and so on. Each, by itself, probably isn't going to make a person pull the trigger. But put them all together and you've got a perfect storm of forces for violence," Berk said.
Hey Billy Bob - This here nifty new compuputuer says since this guy eats burger every 2nd Thursday of the month, he might be a killer. Better round him up for questionin'
more civil rights erosion from the nazi
of course the ignorant masses have bought into the red herring security over liberty philosophy and wont blink at this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
awful.
sickening
it's so maddening, it makes me want to have a cigarette...oh...wait...
but..... but ......but ..... he will only open the terrorists mail..........
Now SunMo will have to stop sending me love letters.
{wishful thinking}
So THATS were my Amex bill went the month after Christmas.
{/wishful thinking}
Seriously though, if this is true (the link is an editorial which is citing a known "rag"), the Dems need to exercise their new power and put a stop to it.
edit:
Here is an MSNBC link to the story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472777/
See, Butch, this is why I worry about abdication. What won't this farging guy do?
The only comfort is that most of the Congress and the military dislike him as much as I do. So even if he wants to he probably can't.
If true, it's obviously unconstitutional.
Of course, does that mean anything?
"exigent circumstances," my ass. Go ahead and keep arguing, those of you that do, that this administration isn't comparable to the early stages of Nazi germany. all the stage is set.
awful.
I can't believe we haven't seen massive terrorist attacks in this country yet. Talk about a perfect opportunity for those thugs to declare martial law and suspend parts of the Constitution they don't agree with (like the entire Bill of Rights, for example).
It'll happen eventually.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 04, 2007, 07:43:24 PMTalk about a perfect opportunity for those thugs to ...suspend parts of the Constitution they don't agree with (like the entire Bill of Rights, for example).
They're already doing it, dook.
more secrecy at the White House. the principle of an open, transparent government accountable to the people is not part of the Bush regime's view of the U.S.
QuoteASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.
The Bush administration did not reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall.
The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front, a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
In a federal appeals court filing three weeks ago, the administration's lawyers used the memo in a legal argument aimed at overturning the judge's ruling. The Washington Post is suing for access to the Secret Service logs.
The five-page document dated May 17 declares that all entry and exit data on White House visitors belongs to the White House as presidential records rather than to the Secret Service as agency records.
Therefore, the agreement states, the material is not subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the past, Secret Service logs have revealed the comings and goings of various White House visitors, including Monica Lewinsky and Clinton campaign donor Denise Rich, the wife of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who received a pardon in the closing hours of the Clinton administration.
The memo last spring was signed by the White House and Secret Service the day after a Washington-based group asked a federal judge to impose sanctions on the Secret Service in a dispute over White House visitor logs for Abramoff.
The chief counsel to another Washington-based group suing to get Secret Service logs calls the creation of the memo "a political maneuver couched as a legal one."
"It appears the White House is actually manufacturing evidence to further its own agenda," Anne Weismann, a Justice Department lawyer for 19 years and now chief counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Friday.
The White House and the Secret Service declined to comment.
more at link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/05/white.house.visitors.ap/index.html
I read that earlier. The only saving grace is that he protects gun rights, so when we need to flee into the hills to fight the fascist takeover of our country, at least we'll be well armed.
Yeah...because AR-15s and Glocks are so effective against F-15s and bunker busters.
Works in Iraq, no?
Perhaps it does once in a while, but IEDs are doing the real damage. Snipers are doing some damage as well.
Dude, I'm a combination chemist and biologist. I'm much more dangerous than an IED.
That semi truck in Miami that was supposedly a threat? Non threat.
The package that tested positive for C4 six times today before it was blown up by cops (also in Miami)? Also not a threat.
The fear mongering government propaganda designed to unsettle and scare people into obedience: mission accomplished
Isnt that a CSI Miami Episode Dio :-D I must have missed that but on CSI they had a Semi packed with C4 going to Turkey Point Nuclear plant, the Prez must have seen the episode too.
We're peppered with these security scares that turn out to be nothing, and then they tell us nothing--for security reasons--about the ones that are supposedly legit.
It's farging bullshtein.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 08, 2007, 07:33:39 PM
The fear mongering government propaganda designed to unsettle and scare people into obedience: mission accomplished
Is it the gov't or the media? Granted, those "terror alerts" of a few years ago were 100% gov't propaganda, but almost everything since then has been media driven.
The sad fact is that sex, violence, and fear are great news stories because they make people watch and "big" media understands that. Until people start changing the channel you'll see more and more of it.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 08, 2007, 07:33:39 PM
That semi truck in Miami that was supposedly a threat? Non threat.
The package that tested positive for C4 six times today before it was blown up by cops (also in Miami)? Also not a threat.
The fear mongering government propaganda designed to unsettle and scare people into obedience: mission accomplished
There were a lot or rumors floating through the airport last night as I was about to fly home but no one was panicky or anything. Just trying to find out wtf was going on in New York and elsewhere.
The TSA douchebags were as pleasant as ever, though. Hiring semi-literate high school dropouts to search bags, deal with the general public while at the same time using multi-million dollar equipment to do it was a brilliant strategy on the Feds' part. I can't tell you how safe I feel after watching 85 year-old grandmothers being hauled off to private rooms to be strip-searched.
:yay
But hey, at least they steal anything which looks even remotely valuable from your bags.
Watch what you buy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_bank_records_2)
Under Bush, without any warrant, the government can now listen to/trace your phone calls, open/read your mail, audit what books you take from the library, scrutinize your bank account, throw you in jail, fly you to a foreign country to throw you in jail, torture you, review which internet sites you visit...etc.
And the list goes on.
Tell me the stage isn't set for Nazi America.
Under Bush, without any warrant, the government can now listen to/trace your phone calls, open/read your mail, audit what books you take from the library, scrutinize your bank account, throw you in jail, fly you to a foreign country to throw you in jail, torture you, review which internet sites you visit
and no one really cares
shame on us
Quote from: Diomedes on January 14, 2007, 12:55:47 PM
Under Bush, without any warrant, the government can now listen to/trace your phone calls, open/read your mail, audit what books you take from the library, scrutinize your bank account, throw you in jail, fly you to a foreign country to throw you in jail, torture you, review which internet sites you visit...etc.
And the list goes on.
Tell me the stage isn't set for Nazi America.
Ah, the good news I was looking for after last night's game.
As IGY said...shame on us.
if anyone really does care and i dont think they do moveon.org is a great organization to join up with....if nothing else sign up for their newsletter...and if you wanna take it further they have monthly grass roots meetings....ive been to a few and they really are great...mine happen to take place in my town but unless you live in utah there should most likely is a metting place very close to you....its def worth a look see
www.moveon.org
you're about to get blasted by some of our resident nazi lovers for posting a link to moveon
batten down the hatches, here come the money loving war loving neo con bush loving soon to be American SS recruits..
http://www.cc.org/
"..Defending our Godly Heritage." ha ha ha. the enemy is so funny.
If you are interested in having a positive pro-family impact on your government, the Christian Coalition of America is your organization.
because if you dont believe in the almighty and/or the cc youre ANTI family
Is anyone else surprised that George Soros hasn't died in a tragic "accident" yet? Something like a meteor hitting his limo or a bolt of lightning striking him on the golf course?
:-D
or AIDS
I like Bush/Cheney declaring that more troops will be sent regardless what Congress or the American people want. Yay fake democracy.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 15, 2007, 07:16:26 AM
I like Bush/Cheney declaring that more troops will be sent regardless what Congress or the American people want. Yay fake democracy.
It's hard work installing a fake democracy in Iraq when you're busy trying to destroy a legitimate one at home, Dio.
Fair point.
This program has been discontinued:
Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-17T204435Z_01_N17341517_RTRUKOC_0_US-SURVEILLANCE-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
Yeah, and when that scumbag in charge decides he wants to start it up again, he will. Because he thinks he's King of America, and no one has the balls to put him in a guillotine, where he belongs.
Bush has the greatest employment guarantee of any President in history. Impossible as it may be to believe, the assclown standing behind him in the line of succession is infinitely worse. Bush's enemies might hate him and his "base" might be lukewarm towards him at the moment, but both groups absolutely loathe Dick Cheney.
With good reason, too. He's about as evil as it gets.
They're both on a par with Osama and Hussein.
I see them more like this:
(http://www.upci.homestead.com/files/Natasha_Fatalle___Boris_Badenov.gif)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/45361453951169684424
QuoteU.S. Military Spied on Hundreds of Antiwar Demos
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 24 (OneWorld) - At least 186 antiwar protests in the United States have been monitored by the Pentagon's domestic surveillance program, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which also found that the Defense Department collected more than 2,800 reports involving Americans in a single anti-terrorism database. The documents were obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request filed last February.
"It cannot be an accident or coincidence that nearly 200 antiwar protests ended up in a Pentagon threat database," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement. "This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using 'national security' as an excuse to run roughshod over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans."
The internal Defense Department documents show it is monitoring the activities of a wide swath of peace groups, including Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, the American Friends Service Committee, the War Resisters League, and the umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, which is spearheading what organizers hope will be a massive march on Washington this Saturday.
"This might have a chilling effect on some groups," United for Peace and Justice's Leslie Cagan told OneWorld, "particularly among high-risk communities like immigrants who don't have their papers yet and U.S. citizens or people with green cards who are of Muslim or South Asian or Middle Eastern descent. They've already been targeted by the government and they might feel like, with this, it's just too dangerous to come out and protest."
"It seems pretty par for the course," said Daniel Fearn of the group Veterans for Peace. The eight-year Marine Corps veteran is helping to organize an event in Washington Thursday ahead of the larger march January 27th.
"What do you expect from an administration that thinks torture is an accurate way to get accurate information?" he said. "It's the same thought process that says 'we're going to get good information from torturing somebody'--that same flawed process leads to spying on peace activists."
At Thursday's event in Washington, Fearn said veterans will read sections of the Constitution they believe the Bush administration is violating as it prosecutes the war in Iraq.
Fearn said veterans will also speak out against unwarranted surveillance and torture and argue for the repeal of laws they believe violate the Constitution, such as the Military Commissions Act, which prescribes secret tribunals for terrorism suspects.
The event appears similar to those the Pentagon has kept tabs on, according to the internal documents obtained by the ACLU.
"Veterans for Peace erected an antiwar display the week of 18 April 2005 at a local university," reads a report on a New Orleans protest from the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database. "A local army recruiter mistook the event as a memorial to fallen service members and arrived to view the display."
According to the TALON report, six individuals, who the report acknowledges may not have been associated with the Veterans for Peace group, shouted "war monger" and "baby killer" at the recruiter and a shoving match ensued.
"Veterans for Peace claim to be nonviolent," the report concludes. "This incident demonstrates a propensity for violence, and the Veterans for Peace should be viewed as a possible threat to Army and DoD [Defense Department] personnel."
For its part, Veterans for Peace describes itself as a non-profit educational and humanitarian organization committed to non-violence. "We draw on our personal experiences and perspectives gained as veterans to raise public awareness of the true costs and consequences of militarism and war--and to seek peaceful, effective alternatives," the group's Web site reads.
In response to the documents' release, Pentagon officials said the material on antiwar groups should not have been collected.
"I don't want it, we shouldn't have had it, not interested in it," Daniel Baur, the acting director of the Defense Department's counterintelligence field activity unit, told the New York Times. "I don't want to deal with it."
Baur told the Times his agency is no longer monitoring peace groups.
Experts on government spying caution not to take the Pentagon at its word, however. The ACLU notes the Defense Department documents reveal that other government agencies were also involved in the spying.
In one report, a Department of Homeland Security agent warned after a peaceful protest by the War Resisters League at a military recruiting station that the group may favor "civil disobedience and vandalism." The report indicates that the
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Atlanta and New York were briefed on planned protests.
"We have only the Pentagon's word that the errors and misjudgments that led to widespread surveillance of U.S. citizens have been corrected," the ACLU said in a statement last week.
"Congress should not let this president off the hook for inappropriate surveillance by the Pentagon," the group's Caroline Fredrickson said. "Americans must once again be confident we can exercise our constitutionally protected right to protest without becoming the subject of a secret government file."
Better watch out for those Quakers. Dangerous dudes.
Enough with the bullcrap! This Congressional action is nothing more than a jazzed up press stunt. It means nothing. If these chumps had the courage of their convictions, they'd vote to withhold funding for the Iraq war. Instead, they just send a signal of weakness to our troops in the field and the watching enemies of the Country. If you want to stop the war then stop it. You have the freaking power. Use it. This isn't a freaking parliament, you dumbasses!
Event Horizon = Since75 ???
FBI turns to broad new wiretap method (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6154457.html)
QuoteInstead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.
Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.
Call it the vacuum-cleaner approach. It's employed when police have obtained a court order and an Internet service provider can't "isolate the particular person or IP address" because of technical constraints, says Paul Ohm, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. (An Internet Protocol address is a series of digits that can identify an individual computer.)
That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing--or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at the junction point of a router or network switch.
The technique came to light at the Search & Seizure in the Digital Age symposium held at Stanford University's law school on Friday. Ohm, who is now a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Richard Downing, a CCIPS assistant deputy chief, discussed it during the symposium.
In a telephone conversation afterward, Ohm said that full-pipe recording has become federal agents' default method for Internet surveillance. "You collect wherever you can on the (network) segment," he said. "If it happens to be the segment that has a lot of IP addresses, you don't throw away the other IP addresses. You do that after the fact."
"You intercept first and you use whatever filtering, data mining to get at the information about the person you're trying to monitor," he added.
On Monday, a Justice Department representative would not immediately answer questions about this kind of surveillance technique.
"What they're doing is even worse than Carnivore," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who attended the Stanford event. "What they're doing is intercepting everyone and then choosing their targets."
When the FBI announced two years ago it had abandoned Carnivore, news reports said that the bureau would increasingly rely on Internet providers to conduct the surveillance and reimburse them for costs. While Carnivore was the subject of congressional scrutiny and outside audits, the FBI's current Internet eavesdropping techniques have received little attention.
Carnivore apparently did not perform full-pipe recording. A technical report (PDF: "Independent Technical Review of the Carnivore System") from December 2000 prepared for the Justice Department said that Carnivore "accumulates no data other than that which passes its filters" and that it saves packets "for later analysis only after they are positively linked by the filter settings to a target."
One reason why the full-pipe technique raises novel legal questions is that under federal law, the FBI must perform what's called "minimization."
Federal law says that agents must "minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception" and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations.
Prosecutors routinely hold presurveillance "minimization meetings" with investigators to discuss ground rules. Common investigatory rules permit agents to listen in on a phone call for two minutes at a time, with at least one minute elapsing between the spot-monitoring sessions.
That section of federal law mentions only real-time interception--and does not explicitly authorize the creation of a database with information on thousands of innocent targets.
But a nearby sentence adds: "In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception."
Downing, the assistant deputy chief at the Justice Department's computer crime section, pointed to that language on Friday. Because digital communications amount to a foreign language or code, he said, federal agents are legally permitted to record everything and sort through it later. (Downing stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the Justice Department.)
"Take a look at the legislative history from the mid '90s," Downing said. "It's pretty clear from that that Congress very much intended it to apply to electronic types of wiretapping."
EFF's Bankston disagrees. He said that the FBI is "collecting and apparently storing indefinitely the communications of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of innocent Americans in violation of the Wiretap Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution."
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said a reasonable approach would be to require that federal agents only receive information that's explicitly permitted by the court order. "The obligation should be on both the (Internet provider) and the government to make sure that only the information responsive to the warrant is disclosed to the government," he said.
Courts have been wrestling with minimization requirements for over a generation. In a 1978 Supreme Court decision, Scott v. United States, the justices upheld police wiretaps of people suspected of selling illegal drugs.
But in his majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist said that broad monitoring to nab one suspect might go too far. "If the agents are permitted to tap a public telephone because one individual is thought to be placing bets over the phone, substantial doubts as to minimization may arise if the agents listen to every call which goes out over that phone regardless of who places the call," he wrote.
Another unanswered question is whether a database of recorded Internet communications can legally be mined for information about unrelated criminal offenses such as drug use, copyright infringement or tax crimes. One 1978 case, U.S. v. Pine, said that investigators could continue to listen in on a telephone line when other illegal activities--not specified in the original wiretap order--were being discussed. Those discussions could then be used against a defendant in a criminal prosecution.
Ohm, the former Justice Department attorney who presented a paper on the Fourth Amendment, said he has doubts about the constitutionality of full-pipe recording. "The question that's interesting, although I don't know whether it's so clear, is whether this is illegal, whether it's constitutional," he said. "Is Congress even aware they're doing this? I don't know the answers."
In a telephone conversation afterward, Ohm said that full-pipe recording has become federal agents' default method for Internet surveillance. "You collect wherever you can on the (network) segment," he said. "If it happens to be the segment that has a lot of IP addresses, you don't throw away the other IP addresses. You do that after the fact."
"You intercept first and you use whatever filtering, data mining to get at the information about the person you're trying to monitor," he added.
hmmmm.....
[sheep]The wolves are here to protect us.[/sheep]
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/06/europe/EU-GEN-France-UN-Disappeared.php
QuotePARIS: Nearly 60 countries signed a treaty on Tuesday banning forced disappearances, capping a quarter-century of efforts by families of people who have vanished at the hands of governments.
The United States was notably absent among the signatories. U.S. President George W. Bush's administration opposed an early draft of the treaty, which bars governments from holding people in secret detention.
no why would the land of the free and the home of the brave oppose a ban on "disappearing" people? oh..right..because it's neither
QuoteLatin America, once an epicenter for such disappearances, is now owning up to much of the violence that left hundreds of thousands dead or "disappeared" during wars and under dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s. Disappearances were also a common Nazi tactic in World War II.
huh...so let's see...U.S. supported death squads and right wing South American regimes behaved like Nazis behaved like...Bush's America.
yay secret government. yay disappearances.
go shopping America
no why would the land of the free and the home of the brave oppose a ban on "disappearing" people?
how could they validate their secret cia torture camps they have all over europe if they signed onto this ban
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 15, 2007, 08:14:41 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on January 15, 2007, 07:16:26 AM
I like Bush/Cheney declaring that more troops will be sent regardless what Congress or the American people want. Yay fake democracy.
It's hard work installing a fake democracy in Iraq when you're busy trying to destroy a legitimate one at home, Dio.
Isn't "installing a democracy" an oxymoron anyway? A democracy is supposed to by created by and for the people of that counry. Having an outside country come in and impose it's own agenda can't create a deomcracy.
Now that's just crazy talk. CRAZY TALK! What are you, some kind of terrorist lover?
from yesterday's NYT:
QuoteMaking Martial Law Easier
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation's governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
worst President ever.
farging ridiculous.
1/20/09.
Maybe.
don't think for a moment that all of your key strokes aren't being recorded
Bold prediction:
The next President will be an uninspiring, watered-down politician and will not effect much serious change.
Quote from: FFatPatt on February 20, 2007, 01:35:06 PM
Bold prediction:
The next President will be an uninspiring, watered-down politician and will not effect much serious change.
That's about as bold as Hunts ketchup.
Well, considering how much power has been re-allocated (to put it charitably) to the executive by Bush, that prediction assumes that whoever is President will either hand the power back or not use it, both of which are somewhat dubious assumptions. Since when does a president/politician not use power to gain more power to use more power to gain more power?
Ho-lee shtein. Yeah, abdication's a given. Absolutely.
Shocker:FBI Underreported use of the Patriot Act. (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/03/09/606139.html&cvqh=itn_patriotact)
PATRIOT Act redefines Domestic Terrorism (http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html)
QuoteThe definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.
Basically, according to the terms of this law, civil disobedience is domestic terrorism.
*shudder*
Librarian Who Resisted FBI Says Patriot Act Invades Privacy
By Andrew Miga
Washington Post
Thursday, April 12, 2007; A12
A librarian who fended off an FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday that secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.
"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.
In prepared testimony for a Senate panel, Christian said his experience "should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution" about the strain that the government's pursuit of would-be terrorists puts on civil liberties.
He said the government uses the USA Patriot Act and other laws to learn, without proper judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review, what citizens are researching in libraries.
A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general found 48 violations of law or rules in the FBI's use of national security letters from 2003 through 2005. Some congressional critics want to tighten legal safeguards on the letters.
" 'Trust us' doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights.
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can use the letters to acquire telephone, e-mail, travel and financial records without a judge's approval. Letter recipients are not allowed to disclose their involvement in a request.
Prosecutors have said secrecy is needed to avoid alerting suspects.
In July 2005, the FBI issued a national security letter to Christian and three other Connecticut librarians. The letter sought computer subscriber data for a 45-minute period on Feb. 15, 2005, during which a terrorist threat was thought to have been transmitted. A gag order prevented the librarians from talking about the letter.
The librarians refused to comply with the FBI's request.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a legal challenge on behalf of the librarians but did not name them.
A judge ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarians from participating in debate over how the Patriot Act should be rewritten. Prosecutors appealed, but in April 2006 they said they would no longer seek to enforce a gag order.
Last year, authorities dropped their demand for the records, saying they had discounted the potential threat that led to the request.
oh, the hits keep coming.
the U.S. is nothing like Nazi germany at all, nothing I say! anyone who points out similiarities is a traitor...throw 'em in the fires!!
Just more of the same from this gang of thugs...
Quote"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.
Another great quote. And 100% spot on.
It's not even a quote - just the correct definition. Something the government seems to have forgotten.
i love this little line at the end....
Last year, authorities dropped their demand for the records, saying they had discounted the potential threat that led to the request.
talk about burying the lead...so on what basically was a whim the govt insisted on invading peoples privacy
i remember when the patriot act was frist introduced the talking point for the bush admin was "imminent danger"...basically they tried to portray that they would only erode civil rights if your neighbor was a terrorist who was about to blow up your house...and everyone bought it...even tho a samll minority of civil rights defenders at the time said that it would open a can of worms of which we have never seen before
Quote"I don't believe that you're involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn't prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"
Ha! Gonzo gets it up the pooper from his own party! Republicans are a mess right now.
Ten steps to fascism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html) - and how close the US is to all 10.
The scary thing is that this doesn't necessarily all go away when Georgie Porgie leaves town...
QuoteWhat if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.
While the worst president ever and his gang of evil handlers are busy spying on Americans and torturing prisoners of war, other folks are actually doing some good anti-terrorism work. Unfortunately, when they let the Bushies in on their intel, they get stabbed in the back for their trouble.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteA small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.
Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.
"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.
The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record, but they did not challenge Katz's version of events.
more at link
Quote from: rjs246 on April 12, 2007, 08:34:13 AM
Quote"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.
Another great quote. And 100% spot on.
So true
AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004662.php)
Quote
Earlier today we flagged that Mark Klein, who uncovered a secret surveillance room run by the NSA while employed as a San Francisco-based technician for AT&T, is in Washington to lobby against granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies. In an interview this afternoon, Klein explained why he traveled all the way from San Francisco to lobby Senators about the issue: if the immunity provision passes, Americans may never know how extensive the surveillance program was -- or how deeply their privacy may have been invaded.
"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."
What Klein unearthed -- you can read it here -- points to a nearly unbounded surveillance program. Its very location in San Francisco suggests that the program was "massively domestic" in its focus, he said. "If they really meant what they say about only wanting international stuff, you wouldn't want it in San Francisco or Atlanta. You'd want to be closer to the border where the lines come in from the ocean so you pick up international calls. You only do it in San Francisco if you want domestic stuff. The location of this stuff contradicts their story."
That's what's at stake in the telecom immunity provision, Klein believes. If the surveillance-related lawsuits are invalidated by a provision in the intelligence-committee-passed FISA bill, then the extent of the program -- at least between 2001 and 2006 -- will remain the exclusive purview of the Bush administration, the communications firms and the handful of Senators selected to review legal justifications for the program. "These are not babes in woods. They knew what they were doing," Klein said. "The violation of the Constitution is where they split off -- where the splitter splits off full copies of a datastream, and connects to other companies' internet stuff, like Sprint or GlobalCrossing. They don't want people to understand that. They want to portray it like the president does, that it's a handful of international phone calls. That's the soundbite, and that's not true. It affects millions of people domestically."
Klein has been public with his insider account for nearly two years, with precious little publicity to show for it, thanks to the relative paucity of national media in San Francisco. Coming to Washington might have changed that: his day was packed with press calls and face time with at least a half-dozen Congressional staffers, mostly from Democratic Senators Joe Biden, Sheldon Whitehouse and Barbara Boxer. Press attention and one-on-ones in the corridors of power might be nice, he said, but it's not enough. "I'm not impressed by people with speeches pretending to be on your side," he said. "I want to see votes. In our favor."
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the surveillance bill tomorrow.
The question becomes, is there any escape from this? This type of domestic spying and strong-arming has always been associated with 'enemies' that we were taught to despise. Now it is very much a reality from our own government. Where do you go? There is no new world to escape to.
Does revolution become the only answer? Is someone monitoring this thread right now to get out in front of people who start to see revolution as an option? farging crazy.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 09, 2007, 01:33:24 PM
The question becomes, is there any escape from this?
canned food and a basement trap door?
Quote from: rjs246 on November 09, 2007, 01:33:24 PM
The question becomes, is there any escape from this? This type of domestic spying and strong-arming has always been associated with 'enemies' that we were taught to despise. Now it is very much a reality from our own government. Where do you go? There is no new world to escape to.
Does revolution become the only answer? Is someone monitoring this thread right now to get out in front of people who start to see revolution as an option? farging crazy.
Puuuurple Haze.....Puurple Haze
You kid, but I'm serious. We have a government that spies on us. Congress and the President had the unmitigated gall to publicly pass a law allowing us to be spied on. We now officially sanction government behavior that we have always regarded as evil and foreign. And no one seems to give a shtein. No one is up in arms about it. How is that possible? Has this country become so soft that a completely open announcement from the government informing us that we no longer have any privacy or any way to avoid government intrusion invokes no response?
Obviously, the answer is yes. Kill your congressmen.
Soft...no.
1) Ignorant: half the population of the US believes in creationism. Not intelligent design mind you, but literal creation as is described in the Bible. This is a population that is used to being told what to think.
2) Distracted: no significant amount of the population is suffering yet from this power grab, and in fact, because of #1, the sheeple think that their government is protecting them from terror. The fact that the terror has been created by those who are doing the protecting is again lost. The population is more interested in what is happening on American Idol than they are about what is happening in Washington.
QuoteThe population is more interested in what is happening on American Idol than they are about what is happening in Washington.
or is Britney Spears a good mother?
As Cerevant pointed out, fear makes stupid people do as they're told.
Hitler found an enemy by blowing up his own Congress building, and blaming it on Serbian terrorists.
Islamofascists are so much better a choice. Serbia could be beaten. You think they'll ever admit the Muslim threat is over? Could you ever prove it?
Brilliant.
Is anyone else following this? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/senate.pro.forma/index.html)
I love the spiteful nature of the whole thing. 'If we can't reach a compromise we're going to block you from doing anything on your own. Dick.'
Awesome.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 31, 2007, 04:44:31 PM
Is anyone else following this? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/senate.pro.forma/index.html)
I love the spiteful nature of the whole thing. 'If we can't reach a compromise we're going to block you from doing anything on your own. Dick.'
Awesome.
Jesus. We are destined to be a third world country within 10 years. The good news is, we're going to be so irrelevant soon Al Qaeda won't care about us anymore.
If congress had any real balls they'd kill funding for Iraq..this pro forma session crap to keep Bush from appointing another pro-torture nazi is nice and all, but it's a weak ass substitute for doing their job.
Reid and Pelosi are farging ass-clowns.
There is a way to fix this, but it requires the average moron that makes up the majority of our populace to participate.
Vote out ever incumbent, regardless of party. Just replace all of them. Then make a global statement - You got 2 years, or we'll vote all you fargheads out too.
Yeah, you can't clear out the Senate that fast, but you farg up Congress that bad, the party's will pay attention.
Threats on Bush's life (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4093635&page=1)
Dammit. The worst thing that could happen to this country is for Bush to be assassinated sending everyone into a tizzy and giving all of the people who live in fear of an imaginary threat legitimacy. Awful.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 07, 2008, 10:26:27 AM
Dammit. The worst thing that could happen to this country is for Bush to be assassinated sending everyone into a tizzy and giving all of the people who live in fear of an imaginary threat legitimacy. Awful.
That's only the tip of the iceberg.
1. It would almost certainly improve Bush's legacy.
2. We'd get President Cheney for a year.
3. The Republican nominee in 2008 suddenly is anything but an "also ran".
That said, I'm pretty sure terrorist groups know all of the above.
Being killed did wonders for Kennedy's reputation. How about if they assassinate Cheney instead. Everyone wins.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 07, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Being killed did wonders for Kennedy's reputation.
LBJ was doing him a favor there.
QuoteBush lobbies for surveillance law
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago
President Bush on Monday lobbied again for an intelligence law allowing government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, as the tone of the dispute between the White House and Congress over terrorist surveillance grew increasingly sharp.
"To put it bluntly, if the enemy is calling into America, we really need to know what they're saying, and we need to know what they're thinking, and we need to know who they're talking to," Bush said at the start of his annual meeting with the nation's governors at the White House.
"This is a different kind of struggle than we've ever faced before. It's essential that we understand the mentality of these killers," Bush said.
The law in question targets foreign terrorist threats and allows eavesdropping on communications involving people in the U.S., so long as those people are not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The latest version of the legislation expired on Feb. 16, and the rules reverted to those outlined in the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Bush and Congress are at odds over whether to give legal immunity to companies that in the past helped the government spy on customers without court warrants.
Bush wants the House to act on legislation the Senate has passed. That bill provides retroactive protection for telecommunications companies that wiretapped U.S. phone and computer lines at the government's request after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, without court permission.
The House version does not provide such immunity.
"Our government told them that their participation was necessary," Bush said. "And it was, and it still is, and that what we had asked them to do was legal. And now they're getting sued for billions of dollars. And it's not fair."
The president's pitch was the latest installment in a long and increasingly sharply-worded debate between Bush and congressional Democrats.
Democrats, in an op-ed piece Monday in The Washington Post, accused Bush of resorting to "scare tactics and political games."
"It is clear that he and his Republican allies, desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures, are trying to use this issue to scare the American people into believing that congressional Democrats have left America vulnerable to terrorist attack," said the article.
The piece was signed by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; and John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
White House press secretary Dana Perino responded to their op-ed with her own statement. Perino said that Bush is not using scare tactics, but rather repeating the concerns of the intelligence community about the risks to the nation. "Unless this threat is taken more seriously in Congress, the ability to obtain the intelligence we need will be at risk, and with it our national security," Perino said.
Later, speaking to reporters, Perino said the Democrats' use of the phrase "scare tactics" must "be like one of their favorite words — it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time. What we have done is state facts."
The Justice Department and Office of National Intelligence said Saturday that telecommunication companies are now complying with existing surveillance warrants. The agencies also said that new surveillance activities under existing warrants will resume "for now," but that the delay "impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information."
Bush says flatly that telecommunications won't help the government if they don't have protection from lawsuits, and that he will not compromise with Democrats on that point.
"I was just following orders" is not a legal defense.
It worked just fine for Iran Contra scumbags
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/bush/index.html
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2297874797_9ed013e51e.jpg?v=0)
real or photochop?
Real, here is a link to the video of one being put up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5IrnYIfI0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5IrnYIfI0)
That is farging awesome.
http://www.yahoo.com/s/824967
yeah
but the American people have pretty much spoken, and what they've said is that this kind of thing plays largely as "liberal media scores minor point against government"
transparency of government is not important to most Americas. It's fine with most Americans for the government to spy on citizens without warrants. Only the guilty ought to oppose it, right? Most Americans are fine with the idea of granting immunity for any missteps IN THE LAW that communications companies might make in compliance with the government's demand for customer data.
It is however interesting that this news is breaking on a day dominated by headlines about the Democratic primary struggle. Like the Bush-endorses-McCain story, the conservatives have managed to pull off a mid week news dump rather slickly.
And no, I don't think I'm being paranoid about the motives and systems in play. People get paid to orchestrate this shtein and sometimes it really works.
I don't care if they have plans in place to spy on the bad guys, but fargin follow the rules a-holes. this is bs
QuoteBush Vetoes Bill That Would Limit Interrogations
President Bush announced his veto on a bill that would require intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as the military.
Ya, keep telling me the U.S. doesn't torture...
He's a farging disgrace. An absolute disgrace.
romeys up and i havent gone to bed
Watched the Flyers came home and crashed.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 08, 2008, 10:48:47 AM
QuoteBush Vetoes Bill That Would Limit Interrogations
javascript:void(0);
Insert Hyperlink
President Bush announced his veto on a bill that would require intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as the military.
Ya, keep telling me the U.S. doesn't torture...
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/92/274002001_2727a16aae_b.jpg)
funny sign.
He kind of looks like the guy from happy Gilmore " That's Happy's jacket Shooter"
Now it all makes sense...see, the 4th amendment does not apply (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/administration-asserts-no-fourth-amendment-domestic-military-operations) to domestic military operations:
Quote... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001).
WTF?
QuoteDoes this mean that the Administration's lawyers believed that it could spy on Americans with impunity and face no Fourth Amendment claim? It may, and based on the thinnest of legal claims -- that Congress unintentionally allowed mass surveillance of Americans when it passed the Authorization of Use of Military Force in October 2001.
Facepalm
Climate Findings Were Distorted, Probe Finds
Appointees in NASA Press Office Blamed
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 3, 2008; A02
An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday.
The probe came at the request of 14 senators after The Washington Post and other news outlets reported in 2006 that Bush administration officials had monitored and impeded communications between NASA climate scientists and reporters.
James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and has campaigned publicly for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, told The Post and the New York Times in September 2006 that he had been censored by NASA press officers, and several other agency climate scientists reported similar experiences. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are two of the government's lead agencies on climate change issues.
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."
Officials of the Office of Public Affairs told investigators that they regulated communication by NASA scientists for technical rather than political reasons, but the report found "by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career public affairs officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior public affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases."
The political interference did not extend to the research itself or its dissemination through scientific journals and conferences, the investigators said. "We found no evidence indicating NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate scientists," the report said, but as a result of the actions of the political appointees, "trust was lost, at least temporarily, between the agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves."
Kristin Scuderi, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an e-mail that director John H. Marburger III "would not comment until he's reviewed the report, and he has not yet done so yet. Therefore, OSTP has no comment at this time."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the senators who pressed for the investigation, said in a statement that the report showed that citizens had been denied access to critical scientific information that should inform public policy.
"Global warming is the most serious environmental threat we face -- but this report is more evidence that the Bush Administration's appointees have put political ideology ahead of science," Lautenberg said. "Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush Administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust."
worst president ever
Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts
From Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The decision marked another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the U.S. military lacks the legal autonomy to prosecute as many as 300 prisoners.
a stunning rebuke of the administrations policies by the supreme court...hooray for them...i thought for sure they would go 5-4 the other way...a great day for freedom and liberty
scalia is still a douche tho
Scalia read his dissent from the bench. "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today," he said.
Bush won't be impeached (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/bush_impeachment)
The English are having their own problems...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/12/terrorism.labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/12/terrorism.labour)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.spy19jul19,0,5775512.story
Yay for state spying on peaceful law abiding citizens...yay for J Edgar Hoover wannabe republican governors....yay for Gestapo secret police thugs
And you know, I don't see the government spying on the NRA and their gun swaps, or on the anti-abortionists at their bomb making seminars...it's always the quakers and the cookie baking 65 year old hippie grandmas that the Fuhrer's henchmen target
funny that
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 12, 2008, 12:28:36 PM
Bush won't be impeached (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/bush_impeachment)
Just in case everyone thought this was about the election...
The real reason why Peolsi and the house democrats are bending over and taking it from Bush? Because they are guilty too (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/15/complicity/index.html).
Bush's awfulness is really drowning out the just-as-awful Congress.
Seriously. Term limits are too kind for these losers.
Term limits, and campaign finance reform. Until then Microsoft, Exxon, Wal Mart, Verizon and GM run this country. (not a complete list)
TSA puts CNN reporter on terrorist watch list after story about them, more...
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2286
And that story about the MD State cops spying on peaceful, law abiding citizens for 14 months in '05/'06...they found nothing, of course. No broken laws, no intent to break laws, no violence, no violent intent..nothing.
But they put some of these people on terrorist watch lists too.
Joe McCarthy would get along famously with Bush Cheney, would be right in his element in America 2008
The war on terror is exactly what the terrorists want. (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/06.12/05-richardson.html)
QuoteFundamentally, terrorism requires a "lethal cocktail," she wrote — "a disaffected individual, an enabling community, and a legitimizing ideology."
And any terrorist wants "three immediate objectives," according to Richardson, who coined "the three Rs": revenge, renown, and reaction.
So far, Richardson contended, American response to terrorism — including declaring a global war on fighters without armies or states — has given Islamic terrorists all three outcomes they desire.
Not every attack can be prevented, she said, but democratic governments can temper and control their reactions.
Richardson's latest book, co-edited with Robert J. Art, is "Democracy and Counterterrorism" (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007). It outlines 16 case studies of how democracies combated terrorism and won.
According to Richardson, fighting terrorism requires having a defensible and achievable goal — and "eliminating terror" is neither, she said. Fighting terrorism also requires living by democratic principles, knowing your enemy, finding allies, maintaining perspective, and separating terrorists from their communities.
Was there a war on terror when they flew those planes into our buildings?
There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated. The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 06:38:38 PM
There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated. The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.
So what are you saying, nothing should have been done?
I'm not saying the way Bush has gone about it is right, but it was the biggest attack in world history. Ignore them, and it would have or will happen again.
QuoteRichardson is a master of context. For one, she said, the idea of terrorism goes back millennia. Its first documented practitioners, Richardson argued, were the Zealots, Jewish nationalists who nearly two thousand years ago opposed Roman rule in Palestine. Since then, said Richardson, religious believers of every stripe — when weaker than their adversaries — have resorted to terrorism.
QuoteRichardson's latest book, co-edited with Robert J. Art, is "Democracy and Counterterrorism" (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007). It outlines 16 case studies of how democracies combated terrorism and won.
16 studies? It would almost be worth buying the book to read about that.
Seems to me that this administration wrote some sort of propaganda to combat terrorism and used said propaganda as actual strategy. Maybe I'm wrong there but that's something that has irked me about this White House. I'll go along with propaganda as long as I have the feeling that your doing something real behind the scenes.
There should be a difference between the reaction they are hoping for, and the reaction they should get. There should be a difference between the response they are hoping for, and the response they get. I suspect that in the 16 case studies, the victims did not start two wars and run two elections with "terror" as a primary theme.
The goal of this administration was not to fight terrorism. The goal of this administration was to use terrorism to push through their agenda.
Afghanistan was the right war, Iraq the wrong one. Simple and Plain, and its amazing to see how the two have been handled, and mismanaged.
The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.
What about the war on message board seriousness?
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fICOcYSbr_bYnM:http://megantower.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/batmanreturnsthedarkknightposter.jpg)
This country deserves a better class of criminal.....uh, I mean politician.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 06:38:38 PM
There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated. The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.
Hahaha, ok. So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react? Just let bygones be bygones? Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?
Seriously, what do you do in the event of a major attack?
Quote from: Rome on July 28, 2008, 07:55:05 PM
The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean it's not a war worth waging more intelligently.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 28, 2008, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 06:38:38 PM
There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated. The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.
Hahaha, ok. So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react? Just let bygones be bygones? Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?
Seriously, what do you do in the event of a major attack?
Quote from: Rome on July 28, 2008, 07:55:05 PM
The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean it's not a war worth waging more intelligently.
Clearly flagry will work in defending a nation.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 28, 2008, 09:45:06 PM
Hahaha, ok. So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react? Just let bygones be bygones? Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?
Quote from: shorebird on July 28, 2008, 06:45:11 PM
So what are you saying, nothing should have been done?
I'm not saying the way Bush has gone about it is right, but it was the biggest attack in world history. Ignore them, and it would have or will happen again.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 07:13:41 PM
There should be a difference between the reaction they are hoping for, and the reaction they should get. There should be a difference between the response they are hoping for, and the response they get. I suspect that in the 16 case studies, the victims did not start two wars and run two elections with "terror" as a primary theme.
The goal of this administration was not to fight terrorism. The goal of this administration was to use terrorism to push through their agenda.
No one is arguing that this administration sucks. What I want to know is if your man is in the Oval Office and America gets attacked, what in the farg do you do? Your response is nothing but a bunch of chatter with no real answer, so I'll ask you again.
I'm not the farging expert, but there are 16 case studies that say there is a better way to handle things. If I had to guess?
Mistakes:
* Creating DHS drew attention and created fear in the US. The same measures could have been implemented without creating a whole new bureaucracy. BushCo created DHS because he wanted everyone to know how much they were supposed to be afraid (threat level)
* Border security measures are ineffective and would not have prevented 9/11. Again, BushCo wanted everyone to see that he was on the job.
* The Patriot act and FISA changes. Again, playing to the people's fears to give more power to the executive. No effect on terrorism.
* Partisan support for xenophobia. More fear.
Two options for dealing with Bin Laden:
* I think a quiet assassination would have been easier to pull off than a full frontal assault, but I don't have access to the intelligence to say if that would have been possible.
* If not, I would have thrown every available fighting man into Afghanistan and cut the head off of al Qaeda, even if it meant marching into Pakistan. Hell, if there was that kind of commitment, we could have prevented him from ever getting to Pakistan. There was no reason - zero - to set foot in Iraq. The US had unqualified international support for dealing with al Qaeda after 9/11. There is almost zero support for the war in Iraq. Obama has this point 100% correct.
The only change in place that would have prevented 9/11 are changes to airline cockpit security.
The difference is in how you meet out justice: define specific limited goals, achieve them quickly and efficiently, with minimal fanfare.
Simple example - Reaction to Bin Laden's successful assination
Bad: Bush makes a long winded speech about dealing a blow to terrorists around the world and how great the US is, and how we must stay vigilant, yadda yadda...
Good: Press release stating the facts, followed with a statement that this should serve as a warning to others that attacks on US sovereignty will not be tolerated and that those responsible will be dealt with.
They got their revenge, and there was no way to mitigate the reaction to 9/11. The only option left was to control the response. Instead of a cold systematic hunt for Bin Laden, the US exploded in hysteria and started flailing around all over the planet.
So we agree, Afghanistan was the correct operation, Iraq was a colossal clusterfarg, and seriously impeded our operations to the north in Afghanistan.
Exactly. The bottom line is it's ridiculous to say the U.S. shouldn't have fought back at all. The problem is that the administration abandoned the actual war on terror to wage war for ulterior motives.
There is no problem with the concept of wiping out those responsible for 9/11. Creating a "global war on terror" with no final objective (even if we didn't go into Iraq) is a big mistake which legitimizes all terrorism and hands the concept victory, since such a war cannot be won.
Who, exactly, are "those responsible?"
1. The people who carried out the attacks, all of which are dead.
2. The people that actively planned the attacks
3. The people that financed the attacks
4. The people that support the same extremist ideals and could be planning similar attacks
5. All Muslims
6. All members or affiliates of any terrorist organization
7. Anyone with brownish skin
I'm just saying - Drawing the line is not that simple.
Seems pretty clear to me...
1, 2 and conditionally 3. 3 depends on fore-knowledge and intent.
4 is thought crime
5 isn't relevant
6 similar to 4, we don't prosecute people for what they might do.
7 isn't relevant.
Also, 4 and 6 are dealt blows by executing 1-3: by showing terrorists that the tactic is not effective, you reduce the incentive to carry out further attacks. Not saying it won't happen, but there was terrorism before 9/11.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 29, 2008, 09:50:38 AM
there was terrorism before 9/11.
No shtein. What?!?
i know this report came out yesterday but this stuff is unbelievable to me..its incredible how time and time again regardless of the issue how in your face with no care in the world this administration is
Quote
Internal Justice Dept. Report Cites Illegal Hiring Practices
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008; A01
For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a "farm system" for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.
That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command.
An extensive report by the department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in "misconduct," a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions. The report depicted Goodling as a central figure in politicizing employment decisions at Justice during the Bush administration.
Goodling declined to cooperate with investigators, who instead interviewed 85 witnesses and scoured documents and computer hard drives to prepare their report. Last year, she trembled as she told the House Judiciary Committee that she "crossed the line" by asking improper questions of job seekers to gauge their political leanings.
But the report and accounts from lawyers who worked alongside Goodling, 34, at Justice provide a far more extensive examination of her dominance during her time as the department's White House liaison and counselor to the attorney general. One source said staff members called her "she who must be obeyed."
Thirty-four candidates told investigators that Goodling or one of her deputies raised the topic of abortion in job interviews and 21 said they discussed same-sex marriage, the report said. Another job applicant said he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, only to watch Goodling "frown" and respond, "But she's pro-choice."
She and her aides regularly gave candidates for career civil service jobs a form designed for political appointees that sought information on party affiliation and financial contributions. When job seekers sometimes raised objections, Goodling replied that the form was a mistake, showing that she was "aware that it was improper," the report said.
John M. Dowd, an attorney for Goodling, said yesterday that she deserved praise, not scorn, for her "exceptional candor" with Congress last year. "Each and every one of the core conclusions of the OIG/OPR report . . . is consistent with and indeed derived from Ms. Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee," he said.
The 140-page report appeared to confirm the suspicions of congressional Democrats and raised fresh questions about the reputation of the Justice Department, which has been roiled since the resignations of more than a dozen top officials last year, including Goodling, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson. The report also found that Sampson had engaged in misconduct by systematically involving politics in the hiring of immigration judges.
Investigators cited discrepancies in information provided by Goodling, Sampson and former press aide John Nowacki, who, like Goodling, received his law degree from Regent University, founded by television evangelist Pat Robertson. But they stopped short of concluding that the conduct rose to the level of a criminal violation.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said yesterday he had directed his staff to consider whether there are grounds to refer allegedly inconsistent statements for possible criminal prosecution. Attorneys for the former Justice Department officials scoffed at the idea, and independent lawyers following the case said it is likely that officials who had left the department will face only ethics inquiries in connection with breaking civil service laws.
Current and former department lawyers said they were appalled by the deep reach of the political hiring, which affected hundreds of rejected job seekers and as many as 40 immigration judges who were recruited under the political criteria. Those judges may remain on the bench because their career civil service jobs carry significant employment protections.
In several instances, candidates for immigration posts were solicited directly from the White House political affairs and personnel offices, as well as Republican congressmen, without ever being formally posted to the public, according to the report.
Then-White House adviser Karl Rove once recommended a childhood friend for a judgeship in Chicago, to which the lawyer was named in October 2005 after a months-long delay. "The finger was on the scale," a career lawyer in the immigration office wrote in an e-mail at the time, which was later cited by investigators.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called on current Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to review hiring and remove workers who were recruited based on the illegal criteria. "The taxpayers are entitled to have the best, most qualified candidates dealing with the most important federal responsibilities, including enforcing our immigration laws, protecting national security, and enforcing criminal and civil rights statutes," Nadler said.
In a statement, Mukasey said that he was "disturbed" by the findings and that he is reviewing the report to determine whether further action should be taken.
A report last month by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett found that politics had permeated hiring for the elite honors and summer law intern programs. That revelation already has prompted unsuccessful candidates to bring lawsuits seeking monetary damages and access to internal department correspondence. Lawyers who scrutinized yesterday's report predicted fresh claims would flow from people who maintain that their employment prospects have been hindered.
Leslie Hagen, an assistant U.S. attorney who according to yesterday's report was denied at least two positions at the Justice Department because Goodling suspected she was a lesbian, is petitioning current leaders for a "mutually agreeable permanent position," according to Lisa J. Banks, Hagen's employment attorney.
In another instance that investigators called "particularly damaging," Goodling refused to hire an award-winning career prosecutor with nearly two decades of experience for a temporary counterterrorism job in Washington because his wife served as vice chairman of the local Democratic Party and ran local congressional campaigns.
The prosecutor is not named in the report, but sources identified him as William J. Hochul Jr., an assistant U.S. attorney in Buffalo. He won guilty pleas from a New York collective known as the Lackawanna Six, which was accused of providing support to terrorists. Hochul, who started his career as a prosecutor in the District, did not return calls seeking comment.
Instead, a registered Republican with three years of experience as a federal prosecutor and no background in counterterrorism was selected for the position, according to the report.
Gonzales told investigators he was unaware of the illegal hiring practices his aides were using. "It's simply not possible for any Cabinet officer to be completely aware of and micromanage the activities of staffers, particularly where they don't inform him of what's going on," said George J. Terwilliger III, Gonzales's attorney.
Gonzales's statements to Congress last year about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and other subjects remain under investigation by the inspector general.
Investigators said the most widespread politicization occurred in the hiring of immigration judges, where vacancies and case backlogs mounted while officials sought to find politically appealing candidates. Hiring policies there changed after Texas lawyer Guadalupe Gonzalez filed a discrimination lawsuit: That suit was settled last year, and now such jobs are awarded on merit. "It was very apparent the department was going off in a different direction and it was also very clandestine," Gonzalez said in an interview yesterday.
Bradford A. Berenson, an attorney for Sampson, who oversaw the hiring of immigration judges, said the trouble stemmed from a misunderstanding. "With respect to immigration judges, he believed in complete good faith that they were not career civil service positions and that political criteria could be taken into account," Berenson said.
Investigators said they could not find evidence to support an account by Sampson, now in private law practice in the District, that Justice lawyers agreed with his interpretation.
Yay two party system
this went beyond the nomral dem-pub partianship...condy rice who has been a very loyal foot soldier for the admin was frowned upon because is pro choice
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 29, 2008, 10:17:26 AM
i know this report came out yesterday but this stuff is unbelievable to me..its incredible how time and time again regardless of the issue how in your face with no care in the world this administration is
Quote
Leslie Hagen, lesbian
(http://www.washblade.com/2008/4-11/news/national/Leslie%20Hagen.jpg)
I'm so immature...
Heroin production in Afghanistan has gone up 90% since we invaded so maybe we didn't handle that the best we could either.
Quote from: Billy Beane on July 30, 2008, 01:02:51 PM
Heroin production in Afghanistan has gone up 90% since we invaded so maybe we didn't handle that the best we could either.
Thats a bad thing?
Honestly, the Afghani stuff rarely makes its way into the US, whereas Europe and Asia is the primary place where the afghani crop goes.
America still gets most of its from South America/Mexico
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 30, 2008, 01:03:39 PM
Quote from: Billy Beane on July 30, 2008, 01:02:51 PM
Heroin production in Afghanistan has gone up 90% since we invaded so maybe we didn't handle that the best we could either.
Thats a bad thing?
Honestly, the Afghani stuff rarely makes its way into the US, whereas Europe and Asia is the primary place where the afghani crop goes.
America still gets most of its from South America/Mexico
Actually I read in the St. Louis Post Dispatch last year that the drug task forces in the area were experiencing a large influx of pure heroin from Afghanistan. Still dwarfs what we get from south of the border but it does make its way here.
It doesn't come with this logo on it, does it?
(http://www.likwid-kaneo.com/storage/random_pictures/funny/myspace/johnny_chimpo.jpg)
Johnny Chimpo
The Rand Corporation (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3671) (conservative Pentagon think tank) has said that using the military against terrorists is a losing strategy, and that the US should use a law enforcement / criminal prosecution model. Oh, and stop using the phrase, "war on terror"
Where have I heard that before?
dammit, i was hoping you traveled out to Manitoba yesterday
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on August 01, 2008, 08:12:49 AM
dammit, i was hoping you traveled out to Manitoba yesterday
ha
crazy canucks....flin flon FTL
don't talk to the police
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m8d4-Loose-lips-can-get-you-arrested-or-why-you-shouldnt-talk-to-the-police
Bush on the NBC set with Bob Costas talking about the Olympics...
Costs asked about the Russian/Georgian conflict and Bush says how the Olympics are supposed to represent peace and promote peace but we have a conflict going on.
Um, George? Didya forget about YOUR Iraq war?
Bush's 5 best and 5 worst economic moves (http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/080807/07_bushs_5_smartest_and_dumbest_economic_moves.html?.&.pf=banking-budgeting)
There are actually 5 best. Really.
hes really reaching to even be able to get 5
fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 11, 2008, 04:21:23 PM
hes really reaching to even be able to get 5
fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy
Bill Clinton
Kenya embassy bombing, uss cole, first wtc bombs, for all intents and purposes went unanswered.
I am not saying he condoned anything...just saying that the responses to these acts were pretty weak.
Wow, these lists lean way right.
Quote1) Getting the 2003 tax cuts passed.
Maybe.
Quote2) Lifting the executive ban on offshore oil drilling.
Bullshtein. Lifting the ban had zero effect on anything. Administration officials admit that if they started work today, offshore drilling would not produce a drop of gas for 2-3 years.
Quote3) Pushing Social Security reform.
This is a definite need.
Quote4) Fighting the war on terrorism.
No no no. Attacking Iraq started the oil price climb, and has devastated the US budget situation. This is a 100% negative for the economy, and has been poorly executed politically.
Quote5) Picking Hank Paulson.
Yeah, whatever.
QuoteNow the Dumbest Moves:
1) Getting the 2001 tax cuts passed.
God forbid we aren't helping big money.
Quote2) Failing to reform entitlements.
Gets credit for wanting it, but dinged for not pulling it off?
Quote3) Passing Medicare Part D.
4) Boosting big, expensive government.
Bush is definitely a borrow and spend Republican.
Quote5) Not supporting the U.S. dollar.
How? When the economy is tanking the dollar is going to go with it. Let's go borrow some more...
Quote from: Wingspan on August 11, 2008, 04:25:05 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 11, 2008, 04:21:23 PM
hes really reaching to even be able to get 5
fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy
Bill Clinton
Kenya embassy bombing, uss cole, first wtc bombs, for all intents and purposes went unanswered.
I am not saying he condoned anything...just saying that the responses to these acts were pretty weak.
yet they were still all better responses than invading iraq
plus those were all pre 911 incidents....the bush admin did nothing about the cole attack either...it was a different world then
I don't consider the iraq invasion/war an anti-terrorism act.
Quote from: Wingspan on August 11, 2008, 04:39:42 PM
I don't consider the iraq invasion/war an anti-terrorism act.
bush does
good read:
The Eternal Value of Privacy (http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886)
MURP's triumphant return comes complete with an outstanding link. Post more.
QuoteToo many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
Amen.
I couldn't agree more. I love personal freedoms.
Of course, Obama is also going soft on wiretapping, so once again, we have no viable choice in this election to preserve our liberties.
obama went soft on wiretapping because america is too stupid to elect someone who would be against that because they actually believe they are gonna have their house blown up by a terrorist if we dont wiretap...and in reality where he went soft was in protecting the phone companies from litigation in the aftermath of the wiretapping...it isntt like hes for wiretapping itself
if you think obama is going to take away liberties youre crazy...the question is will he be able to give any of them back...because once you take these kinds of things away they are hard to return...and for him to even attempt to do these things he has to get elected first
Don't worry. I'm considering voting for Kay Hagan.
and the beat goes on...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying.on.americans/index.html
The bad thing about that is that we probably know only a small part of what has actually gone on. For every incident that comes to light, there are probably numerous more that are not known about.
With all of these revelations that the Cheney Bush regime is a secretive, authoritarian spying group of thugs, I wonder if the government isn't engaging in a broad domestic psy-ops campaign. The question being, how big a difference is there to them between actually spying on us all over the place, and getting us to think they are doing it?
If they can scare us into thinking we are being watched--for our own safety and security they ominously claim--then the population is easier to control. Being scared of being recorded, we limit our speech even further than we otherwise might. Instead of joking about Bush dying being a good thing, we keep our mouths shut, for example. Instead of complaining that the armor we were promised isn't coming, we stay quiet. Rather than tell our families and friends that we are going to protest this or that, we skip it.
The impression that we are being spied on is a handy tool for keeping the people in line with the government's agenda.
This Bush guy and his gang of criminals...worst administration ever. I'll repeat it over and over again, no president has gone so far towards trashing the Constitution and ruining the U.S.
I can't stand McCain, and he truly has been Bush's insipid little lap dog, but even he once in power cannot possibly be this bad. farg, at least the man understands that torture is ineffective, wrong, and un-American.
He might understand that torture is wrong but he's never come out and said the U.S. won't employ those tactics.
He's a worthless piece of shtein and so is the funhole he's running with.
well, it's not a spying story, but it speaks to the secretive, police-state, core of Bush Cheney's war on human rights:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Guantanamo-Chinese-Detainees.html
November 20, 2008
Conservatives Call on Bush to Free Muslim Uighurs
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:24 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A group of conservatives is chastising the Bush administration for refusing to free 17 Turkic Muslims being held without charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying their continued detention defies legal principles and ''undermines our standing in the world.''
The 10 conservatives, including legal scholars and officials who worked for Republican presidents, said the Uighurs -- a group of Muslims from China -- should be freed immediately because they are no longer considered enemy combatants. Their statement comes as a federal appeals court was set to hear arguments next week on whether the Bush administration overstepped its constitutional bounds by blocking the Uighurs' release.
''The executive branch is wrong to have detained the Uighurs for nearly seven years without meaningful review,'' says a letter being released Thursday by The Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank. ''Moreover, it is wrong in opposing the exercise of their habeas corpus rights, and it is wrong in asserting they can be detained indefinitely.''
The letter was signed by Stephen E. Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who played a key role in the ''enemy combatant'' hearings at Guantanamo Bay before repudiating the process last year; Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell; and Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration.
''The continued detention of the 17 Uighurs in Guantanamo compromises our principles and undermines our standing in the world,'' they wrote.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in October ordered the government to immediately free the detainees into the United States, criticizing their detention as having ''crossed the constitutional threshold into infinitum.''
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked their release while the Justice Department appeals the decision, a process that could take years.
At issue is whether a federal judge has the authority to order the release of prisoners at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay who were unlawfully detained by the U.S. and cannot be sent back to their homeland.
The Uighurs (pronounced WEE'-gurz), who are Turkic-speaking Muslims in western China, have been cleared for release but fear they will be tortured if they are turned over to China.
The Bush administration, which contends the Uighurs are too dangerous to be admitted into the U.S., has said it was continuing ''heightened'' efforts to find another country to accept them. Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but since has balked at taking others, partly for fear of diplomatic repercussions from China.
Other signers to Thursday's statement are David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, a lobbying group; Richard Epstein, a prominent conservative legal scholar at the University of Chicago; former FBI director William Sessions; Thomas B. Evans Jr., former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee; Mickey Edwards, former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee; John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute; and Don Wallace Jr., chairman of the International Law Institute.
another example of the patriot act gone wrong....i must lololol @ the women saying 'never in my worst nightmare did i ever think that it would be my own government that i would have to protect my children from.....this is the united states....and i feel like i live in a third world country now"...
bitch this is exactly what opponents of the act were warning about when it was passed....all this crap sounds awesome till five oh is knocking down your door
slippery slope indeed
Quote
Oxford, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
Teen's mom questions Patriot Act
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
"I was terrified," Lundeby's mother said. "There were guns, and I don't allow guns around my children. I don't believe in guns."
Lundeby told the officers that someone had hacked into her son's IP address and was using it to make crank calls connected through the Internet, making it look like the calls had originated from her home when they did not.
Her argument was ignored, she said. Agents seized a computer, a cell phone, gaming console, routers, bank statements and school records, according to federal search warrants.
"There were no bomb-making materials, not even a blasting cap, not even a wire," Lundeby said.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."
Passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., the Patriot Act allows federal agents to investigate suspected cases of terrorism swiftly to better protect the country. In part, it gives the federal government more latitude to search telephone records, e-mails and other records.
"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case.
Critics of the statute say it threatens the most basic of liberties.
"There's nothing a matter of public record," Boyce said "All those normal rights are just suspended in the air."
In a bi-partisan effort, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., last month introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives a bill that would narrow subpoena power in a provision of the Patriot Act, called the National Security Letters, to curb what some consider to be abuse of power by federal law enforcement officers.
Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said.
"It very well could be a case of overreaction, where an agent leaped to certain conclusions or has made certain assumptions about this individual and about how serious the threat really is," Boyce said.
Because a federal judge issued a gag order in the case, the U.S. attorney in Indiana cannot comment on the case, nor can the FBI. The North Carolina Highway Patrol did confirm that officers assisted with the FBI operation at the Lundeby home on March 5.
"Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from," Lundeby said. "This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now."
Lundeby said she does not think this type of case is what the Patriot Act was intended for. Boyce agrees.
"It was to protect the public, but what we need to do is to make sure there are checks and balances to make sure those new laws are not abused," he said.
Quote from: ice grillin you on May 06, 2009, 04:51:05 PM
another example of the patriot act gone wrong....i must lololol @ the women saying 'never in my worst nightmare did i ever think that it would be my own government that i would have to protect my children from.....this is the united states....and i feel like i live in a third world country now"...
bitch this is exactly what opponents of the act were warning about when it was passed....all this crap sounds awesome till five oh is knocking down your door
slippery slope indeed
Quote
Oxford, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
Teen's mom questions Patriot Act
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
"I was terrified," Lundeby's mother said. "There were guns, and I don't allow guns around my children. I don't believe in guns."
Lundeby told the officers that someone had hacked into her son's IP address and was using it to make crank calls connected through the Internet, making it look like the calls had originated from her home when they did not.
Her argument was ignored, she said. Agents seized a computer, a cell phone, gaming console, routers, bank statements and school records, according to federal search warrants.
"There were no bomb-making materials, not even a blasting cap, not even a wire," Lundeby said.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."
Passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., the Patriot Act allows federal agents to investigate suspected cases of terrorism swiftly to better protect the country. In part, it gives the federal government more latitude to search telephone records, e-mails and other records.
"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case.
Critics of the statute say it threatens the most basic of liberties.
"There's nothing a matter of public record," Boyce said "All those normal rights are just suspended in the air."
In a bi-partisan effort, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., last month introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives a bill that would narrow subpoena power in a provision of the Patriot Act, called the National Security Letters, to curb what some consider to be abuse of power by federal law enforcement officers.
Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said.
"It very well could be a case of overreaction, where an agent leaped to certain conclusions or has made certain assumptions about this individual and about how serious the threat really is," Boyce said.
Because a federal judge issued a gag order in the case, the U.S. attorney in Indiana cannot comment on the case, nor can the FBI. The North Carolina Highway Patrol did confirm that officers assisted with the FBI operation at the Lundeby home on March 5.
"Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from," Lundeby said. "This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now."
Lundeby said she does not think this type of case is what the Patriot Act was intended for. Boyce agrees.
"It was to protect the public, but what we need to do is to make sure there are checks and balances to make sure those new laws are not abused," he said.
farging nazi bastiches!
I fully support the government in everything they do.
if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear?
U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!
Run your cursor over IGY's post, specifically the bottom.
Quote from: Diomedes on May 06, 2009, 05:13:03 PM
if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear?
This line of reasoning right here is the single biggest thing that makes me want to murder people. Every time I hear someone say this I want to find something heavy and bludgeon them to death with it. And then feast on their minuscule brains.
Wait, strike that last part. I hate zombies.
I understand, sorta, the 12 agents there, but why did they bring a widow and cats?
Quote from: Rome on May 06, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
Run your cursor over IGY's post, specifically the bottom.
That's some incognito shtein. You should open a spy agency
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/bush.surveillance/index.html
the more time goes by, the more we learn about how Bush Cheney broke laws to spy on us.
worst president ever
You gotta admit, though, they were great criminals.
Quote from: Rome on May 06, 2009, 05:06:01 PM
I fully support the government in everything they do.
Yeah, even when they are frittering away our money for generations to come.
how is this not treason?
QuoteThe Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp
I'm astounded that power was peacefully transferred last January. Fascist pigs.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 12, 2009, 06:55:10 AM
how is this not treason?
QuoteThe Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp
no less treasonous than lying about going to war and murdering thousand of american soldiers...he should be in jail for that...and then should be tried for war crimes for all the iraqis slaughtered
scariest of all is that our country elected that administration TWICE
Shocking why? This is a country that elected Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice, the second times by unparalleled landslides.
Quote from: Rome on July 12, 2009, 08:39:09 AM
I'm astounded that power was peacefully transferred last January. Fascist pigs.
Hell, I'd been arguing that for his whole presidency. I think the only reason he didn't emulate Hitler's rise to power was he pissed off the military, and didn't have their full support.
QuoteEfforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.
Really? You called his relatives? The former VP and you can't find him? If true he should be locked up at the least.
More Cheney discussion. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/nichols)
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2009, 09:35:22 AM
scariest of all is that our country elected that administration TWICE
Jeb in 12, Jeb in 12, Jeb in 12 :-D :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: fansince61 on July 13, 2009, 01:54:56 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2009, 09:35:22 AM
scariest of all is that our country elected that administration TWICE
Jeb in 12, Jeb in 12, Jeb in 12 :-D :-D :-D :-D
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Compared to Palin? Really?
A Palin/Jeb ticket would completely demolish the pubs. What the hell, go for it!! Maybe a new party would come out and get rid of some of these dumbshteins.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 13, 2009, 06:59:07 PM
Compared to Palin? Really?
I lived under Jeb for 8 years. No mas! No mas!
One thing I can say for Jeb is that he stood up to his brother and President Cheney and steadfastly opposed off shore drilling.
Wasn't he also a driving force in the deal to get that sugar factory and all the land around it back into public hands so the keys wouldn't suffer even further damage? That was an important step towards preserving a pretty important natural wonder.
He seems to have gotten much better genes than his brother.
His brother is a mongoloid, so that's not saying much.
Still, if Geo'd rather have Palin than Jeb, that's pretty scathing.
Quote from: Eagaholic on July 15, 2009, 01:02:09 AM
One thing I can say for Jeb is that he stood up to his brother and President Cheney and steadfastly opposed off shore drilling.
that was in 2000 when he was in a fight for re-election and florida was a huge swing state for his brothers presidential bid...they both jointly announced no drilling in fla for votes
last year he said he would consider drilling off florida....he also supports anwar drilling
I can't imagine caring less about drilling for oil. Do it. Don't do it. Whatever.
so dependence on foreign oil or the effects on the environment...which one swayed your decision in buying that Prius?
or neither--youre just a cheap ass?
dont prius run in the mid to upper 20's...i think there are many vehicles you can get cheaper than a prius
worst cars ever... Smart Cars. you look like a douche, and get only 35mph, add to that they cost a shteinload for a car that will kill you in a crash.
(http://www.ecogeek.org/images/stories/electric_smart_car.jpg)
The Prius was low 20s brand new at a time when gas was almost $4 a gallon.
The ladyfriend does 90% of the driving since she commutes 450 miles a week so she had more say in the decision than I did since I take public transportation to work.
Moderately priced car + huge gas savings + super liberal ladyfriend = Prius.
In terms of drilling, I believe the humans impact the environment. I also believe that drilling for oil on our own land is a good bridge to reduced foreign dependence and potentially less future consumption. But the truth is that I don't really care at the moment. Maybe some day when I have more free time I'll care but in the mean time I'll just recycle my mountains of empty beer cans and take the T to work and feel actively superior about passively saving the planet.
Poll: Majority of Americans Opposed to Being Killed by Drone
March 8, 2013
MINNEAPOLIS — In a possible setback for the Administration's controversial drone policy, a new poll conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that a broad majority of Americans are opposed to being killed by a drone strike on U.S. soil.
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points, showed that ninety-seven per cent of those surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement, "I personally do not want to be killed by a drone," with three per cent responding, "Don't know/No opinion."
"There's no other way to interpret these numbers," said the University of Minnesota's Davis Logsdon, who oversaw the survey. "The idea of being killed by a drone is not playing well out there."
And while the poll numbers may not augur well for the Administration's expanding use of drones, the response was even more negative in a focus group of likely drone victims.
One member of that group, a forty-three-year-old male from St. Paul, complained that "it doesn't even seem like the government is trying to come up with alternatives to killing us with drones."
"It seems like they could figure out some kind of system where instead of just being killed by a drone, people could maybe present evidence to see if they're guilty or not," he said.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney tried to make the best of the poll results, telling reporters, "Look, people are afraid of getting killed by a drone. We get that. But there is still broad public support for drones killing somebody else."
Why is this here and not in the Obama drone killings thread?
One would think 100% of respondents would choose NOT to be killed by a drone.
And by the way... as the loony lefty who started this thread, I am disgusting beyond words that President Obama has followed President Bush down this rabbit hole. Surveillance by drones represent sickening and shocking abuses of our right to privacy and should be halted immediately.
Change thread title?
Quote from: Rome on March 09, 2013, 07:46:04 AM
One would think 100% of respondents would choose NOT to be killed by a drone.
Pretty much. I don't want to be killed by anything, really. Except natural causes.
Dudes. The "article" is obviously a joke. WTF is wrong with you people.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 09, 2013, 08:27:07 AM
WTF is wrong with you people.
You've been posting here like 10 years (minus your sabbatical) and you really need to ask this? WTF is wrong with you, sir?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/house-democrats-demand-obama-release-full-legal-basis-for-drone-strikes/
Dems wising up...demand Obama account for drone program.
Maryland has a drone program instituted for DNR to patrol in some of the counties
The DNR better arm those drones, I can see one getting mistaken for a duck. Drunken eastern shore hunters will shoot just about anything.
I'm not against drones. They can be fantastic tools. For example, drones would do a much better job finding rockfish poachers than a couple DNR patrol boats can manage. We just need some goddamn rules and oversight.
Rules and oversight are only good for the public. Our government is incapable of policing itself.
It is the people's responsibility to police the government, which they in fact elect. Blaming the government for not policing itself is a convenient way of deflecting attention from the real problem: American citizens suck, and they get the government they deserve.
Drones are also good for keeping an eye on where the elephants are. That way, the rangers don't spend a whole lot of time elsewhere...they follow the elephants and they'll be able to interdict poachers.
lol at electing a corrupt official to make sure other iceholes aren't being corrupt.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 12, 2013, 08:13:35 AM
I'm not against drones. They can be fantastic tools. For example, drones would do a much better job finding rockfish poachers than a couple DNR patrol boats can manage. We just need some goddamn rules and oversight.
I agree with this one. Just make sure they don't have any rockets or guns on them.
Quote from: Tomahawk on March 12, 2013, 08:22:06 AM
lol at electing a corrupt official to make sure other iceholes aren't being corrupt.
lol at complaining about the government you do nothing to improve, citizen.
How can I improve it? Voting for people who have a conflict of interest the second they assume their position in D.C.?
Do you vote?
Always voted locally and ended my federal boycott with the last presidential election because I was terrified Romney might win if I didn't vote against him.
I'm genuinely surprised. I figured you abstained entirely.
How can you improve it? Write letters to reps. Volunteer locally, etc.
Actually do all the shtein you learned in grade school.
I'm awful tired of government haters. Get involved or shut up, the government can't do everything for us, and it can't do much at all without funds and public support/scrutiny/participation. It's not enough to just pay taxes.
Voting is useless. I still do it but I'm not under the misguided notion that it actually means anything. The candidates in every election are never overwhelmingly appealing to me. No matter who I vote for, I'm voting for a lying, cheating dirt bag has already sold him/herself out to the highest bidder 100 times and will do it 100 more times if there's a quick buck to be made.
The real question is just HOW do the people hold their elected officials accountable? It's not like we just fire them and elect someone else. Even if we could, there's no doubt that the replacement would be just as awful. Do we just storm our state capitol buildings and toss everyone through the window?
Aside from the fact that our options are too limited, the majority of voters don't even know why they're voting for the people they vote for. Most people vote the party line, so the most difficult choice they have to make is during primaries. Do I vote for Mitt or or Newt? I like Newt better than Mitt so I'll vote for him. Then when Mitt wins the GOP nomination, they go to the polls and vote for Mitt anyway because he's a Republican. And the same goes for Dems. How many people voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries but didn't vote for Obama in the Presidential Election? Not too many I imagine.
People are dumb because they've allowed themselves to be driven to 1 side or the other by the 2 party system. Divide and Conquer. Sad thing is that most people don't even realize it. I forget who said it on the previous page (maybe Rome?) but this country has the gov't it deserves. No wonder politicians don't give a shtein about the people who elected them.
If that's your attitude then you're part of the problem.
Get involved locally. Go to your neighborhood association meetings, your town hall meetings, whatever they are, assume some role in some committee for something that matters to you locally. Take an actual stake in government rather than throwing up your hands at how corrupt it is and voting to starve it.
I'm not saying you can change the world, but you can actually help if you try.
And if you dont' want to try, if you think other people are going to do i tall for you and all you hvae to do is vote occasionally and pay your taxes, then shut up about how bad it all is.
Dio, I do like the idea of drones as a cheaper alternative to running multiple boats or planes to regulate poaching. I'm curious to where you land on Speed ticket cameras, and Street surveillance cameras.
I support speed cameras, assuming they are accurate of course. I was pissed as hell when they first went up in town because I didn't realize they were going up and I got tagged like four times at one light before the notices started arriving in my box. But here's the rub: their installation was well publicized, I just didn't pay attention. Furthermore, I was speeding. Had a cop been there doing nothing but hitting everyone who sped, I'd have gotten four tickets. So fair is fair. Since then I've adjusted my behavior. I ALWAYS drive below the ticket threshold (11mph above posted limit) now, and what do you know, I never get tickets for speeding.
Street surveillance as in, by a municpal body? For what purpose? As crime prevention? Nope, don't think that works, evidence is very poor that cameras prevent anything. As a means for prosecuting crimes after they happen...I'm on the fence there. It's a much more gray area than a speed camera, which is an extremely narrow purpose and use. Is the footage being browsed for any possible wrongdoing in real time and the jackboots dispatched whenever something untoward appears to have happened? That's no good. It is being stored for a defined period of time so that, should something go down, it can be used in a court by either/all parties...that makes more sense. It depends.
I didn't realize you were such an idealist, Dio. Hopefully your rainbow umbrella deflects all the gumdrops and lollipops that are raining down.
Not sure if you've been following the Baltimore county speed ticket issue. You have contracts handed out, signed by elected leaders. The installing company gets a cut of each ticket issued. I have a real issue with that, not to mention calibration concerns. I'd fight a ticket if i got one, let alone four. You more or less helped fund a private company with those donations.
As far as cameras used as surveillance, I'm talking about how the UK uses them. I just find your viewpoints kind of odd as far as you're more or less supporting parts of the patriot act. To each his own, I'd prefer to be on my own rather than being monitored in every facet.
All salty people are idealists.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 12, 2013, 10:57:39 AM
If that's your attitude then you're part of the problem.
Get involved locally. Go to your neighborhood association meetings, your town hall meetings, whatever they are, assume some role in some committee for something that matters to you locally. Take an actual stake in government rather than throwing up your hands at how corrupt it is and voting to starve it.
I'm not saying you can change the world, but you can actually help if you try.
And if you dont' want to try, if you think other people are going to do i tall for you and all you hvae to do is vote occasionally and pay your taxes, then shut up about how bad it all is.
I've slowly been getting myself involved in the local landscape. Wasn't much into it while in the military because I was constantly on the move. It's also pretty easy to keep tabs on small town politicians. And my town is so small that the Mayor isn't even a "full time" Mayor. He works his 9-5 on top of his mayoral duties. Same goes for the 8 elected members of the Borough Counsel. They work regular jobs along with their counsel duties. So it doesn't take much effort to make sure they're properly doing the jobs they've been elected to do. They all live here, they work here and they're easy to find and get a hold of. But none of these guys really has a political future outside of small town politics so they pose very little threat to the big picture.
As for speed and surveillance cameras, I'm torn on both.
Speed cameras suck. I hate them. But I guess it would be foolish not to take advantage of the technology. It's much cheaper and more efficient than hiring more cops to patrol the streets. And the only thing I hate more than cameras is an excessive amount of cops. But I don't think speeding is a major concern in this country. Cameras are an easy way for the the gov't to hand out tickets and generate additional revenue that will ultimately be misspent. If potholes suddenly started going away or a public park got a nice make over, I'd have less of an issue with it. But it's just a money making scam that isn't going back into the community.
Agree with Dio on surveillance cameras. They don't deter or prevent anything and live public surveillance simply makes me uncomfortable. Not to mention that live surveillance requires additional manpower to monitor the cameras and I'm not paying taxes so some schmuck in a converted broom closet can watch me walking up and down the street. I think I'd rather see some sort of tax break or other incentive given to business owners who install cameras on the outside of their buildings and maintain the footage for X amount of time before deleting or recording over it. And I'm not even 100% sold on that. But it's definitely better than actually being watched whenever I step foot out of my house.
First, farg Baltimore County. I have a passionate hatred for them. Sonsofbitches fled the city, took all their money, come in here for games and work, don't contribute shtein, boast like tough guys about living in "Baltimore," and complain complain complain about what all the black people are doing in the city. farg farg farg them. I wholeheartedly support complete annexation of the County so that this city can get a goddamn tax base back. Until then, i don't want to hear shtein from those suburban leaches.
re: speed cameras
I too have an issue with a bounty payment for ticketing cameras. That's an obvious problem. It needs to be city run through and through, audited, etc. Still, I broke the law, I got caught, so I paid. Now I follow the law, and I don't get fines. Seems fair to me.
re: surveillance cameras....I don't think I want the kind of system they have in London, though I admit to being only vaguely acquainted with their situation. I do know that the cameras we have installed on private property all over the country help to lock up shteinbags every day. My mother's workplace has them outside and has been able to prove, without a shred of doubt, that employee x was stealing, security guard y was not locking up, drunk driver z did in fact run through the stop sign and hit the parked car, etc. I don't like the idea of watchers hunched over live cameras keeping an eye on us, but the record created by cameras undoubtably helps keep the facts straight in a beef.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on March 12, 2013, 12:01:07 PMBut I don't think speeding is a major concern in this country.
Many motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, parents of small children, old people, handicapped people, crossing guards, bus drivers, pet owners, people who prefer clean air, people who have to repair wrecked signs fences curbs, etc. would all disagree. Speed is the number one issue with almost every auto accident. There's no reason to drive 45 mph between blocks of stop signs, but people do it all day long. Slowing down isn't just a quality of life issue in a city, it's a life and death issue.