susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Check & mate!tieguy said:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I'm not happy with some of the recent revelations about gov't surveillance as it applies domestically but it's far from surprise either. Before folks jump on GW thinking he's the first in human history to breach this threshold it might do us well to look back at the past. I would suggest a close look at gov't all through the 20th century would likely reveal this a continual pattern of operation rather than a most recent anomally. 1960's, Civil Rights, FBI, MLK. Sound familar?
This is therefore another reason I contend and will continue to contend that even had Gore or Kerry been elected, what they did in office wouldn't differ to much from what you see right now. Gov't is like a run away train on a dead end track and we actually have people either foolish enough or maniacal enough to run for the office of driving that train. They know there is no stopping it but making you think that is all they have to do and as long as their timing is right (train doesn't finally run off the end of the track or take a bad turn in an even worse direction, some would contend GW has) they can enjoy a few years thinking they are the big dog in charge and then leave the office set for life will great connections for their own personal agendas and generally some very nice speaking fees and sweet book deals.
Without surveillance, I agree some people "might" die and sadly but matter of factly that is the cost of freedom and liberty. How many who defend the surveillance would scream bloody murder if on a daily basis the agents of gov't came to their person and home and searched them routinely and maintained constent surveil of their conversations 24/7 and under the pretext of defending their freedom and liberty? How many would object if an agent of gov't went with them 24/7 to make sure no law at all was ever broken. Freedom and liberty are not easy by any stretch and at times very complex and difficult but for every time we give in and sacrifice some of our principles of liberty and freedom we die ever slower towards despotism and autocratic rule.
Don't Thread On Me!
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
This is therefore another reason I contend and will continue to contend that even had Gore or Kerry been elected, what they did in office wouldn't differ to much from what you see right now. Gov't is like a run away train on a dead end track and we actually have people either foolish enough or maniacal enough to run for the office of driving that train. They know there is no stopping it but making you think that is all they have to do and as long as their timing is right (train doesn't finally run off the end of the track or take a bad turn in an even worse direction, some would contend GW has) they can enjoy a few years thinking they are the big dog in charge and then leave the office set for life will great connections for their own personal agendas and generally some very nice speaking fees and sweet book deals.
Without surveillance, I agree some people "might" die and sadly but matter of factly that is the cost of freedom and liberty. How many who defend the surveillance would scream bloody murder if on a daily basis the agents of gov't came to their person and home and searched them routinely and maintained constent surveil of their conversations 24/7 and under the pretext of defending their freedom and liberty? How many would object if an agent of gov't went with them 24/7 to make sure no law at all was ever broken. Freedom and liberty are not easy by any stretch and at times very complex and difficult but for every time we give in and sacrifice some of our principles of liberty and freedom we die ever slower towards despotism and autocratic rule.
Don't Thread On Me!
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
wkmac,
Just to clear up any misunderstanding about the links you posted that show Clinton's and Carter's orders allow me to copy & paste this discussion (courtesy of News Hounds) of the links that Drudge posted and Fox news reported on:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more
Yesterday (12/21) the topic of Dayside was once again the controversy surrounding Bush's admission that he has been spying on American citizens. Juliet Huddy and Mike Jerrick interviewed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - TX) on the topic, but began the segment by spreading lies that were published on the Drudge Report.
JH: "Federal Judge James Robinson has resigned in protest of President Bush's authorization of domestic spying."
MJ: "This comes amid revelations President Bush is not the first Chief Executive of the United States to use these powers. Both Presidents Clinton and Carter also allowed domestic spying."
Comment: Amid revelations? This topic was reported, as far as I can tell, only on the Drudge Report, and has turned out to be nothing more than a lie.
Drudge claim: "Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order."
But what Clinton actually signed was this: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."
Notice the line "certifications required by that section." What does the section actually say? "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person".
Now as for Carter, Drudge claimed: "Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
But let's take a look at the actual Executive Order: "1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."
Ok, but what is the Section that is being referenced in this Executive order? "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".
Just to clear up any misunderstanding about the links you posted that show Clinton's and Carter's orders allow me to copy & paste this discussion (courtesy of News Hounds) of the links that Drudge posted and Fox news reported on:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more
Yesterday (12/21) the topic of Dayside was once again the controversy surrounding Bush's admission that he has been spying on American citizens. Juliet Huddy and Mike Jerrick interviewed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - TX) on the topic, but began the segment by spreading lies that were published on the Drudge Report.
JH: "Federal Judge James Robinson has resigned in protest of President Bush's authorization of domestic spying."
MJ: "This comes amid revelations President Bush is not the first Chief Executive of the United States to use these powers. Both Presidents Clinton and Carter also allowed domestic spying."
Comment: Amid revelations? This topic was reported, as far as I can tell, only on the Drudge Report, and has turned out to be nothing more than a lie.
Drudge claim: "Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order."
But what Clinton actually signed was this: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."
Notice the line "certifications required by that section." What does the section actually say? "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person".
Now as for Carter, Drudge claimed: "Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
But let's take a look at the actual Executive Order: "1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."
Ok, but what is the Section that is being referenced in this Executive order? "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".
ok2bclever
I Re Member
wkmac said:
I don't consider the fact that some president or presidents may or may not have violated or wished to violate American's rights in the past as a reason to condone it in the present or future.
I am not saying you were either wkmac, but I think that point should be made perfectly clear that condoning that is a dangerously steep downsliding slope to tyranny.
bush said he wasn't a dictator and was only doing what he thought he needed to do to protect the country and I believe he was sincere, but that statement would be true of a dictator as well, not that I am comparing bush to a dictator.
The point is not meant to be political as I don't want democrat overlords any more than republican overlords.
The checks and balances designed into our government were put there for very pertinent reasons and have proved themselves as we have managed a couple of hundred years without having to revolt again.
By the nature of the beast a government desires to have more and more control over it's people and freedom loving men and women must be vigilant in not giving a government a blank check to do what it will.
I believe the danger from a government becoming too all invasive that is given more and more rights to decide what is in the best interest of it's citizens without review or recourse is a far greater danger than foreign terrorists will ever be.
I think people should not be so quick to trade their rights and freedoms for a false sense of safety and security.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold's retort: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Sen. Russ Feingold's retort: "Give me liberty or give me death."
wkmac
Well-Known Member
ok2bclever said:
ABSOLUTELY and well said. You might do well to consider extending those very thoughts into many other areas however. Sorry, my anarcho-libertarianism just keeps getting in the way but I have considered therapy. OK, there I considered it so are you happy yet!
signed:
The resident Browncafe apologist for SusieDriver and OK2BC.
Hey I love being given important titles. Makes me feel needed and loved.
Does this qualify me to be first in line for cookies and juice before playground time?Now you children play nice!
To quote my hero Bugs Bunny:
Ain't I a stinker!
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Then you should try to add to the discussion, instead of whatever it is you are doing.tieguy said:
I heard that OK2B is spending his vacation next week in Maryland, looking up some aquaintances.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
So you're ready to make an intelligent response to the quotes I offered up?tieguy said:
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Thanks wkmac
Tell ya what, I will do my best to ignore "trembling in fear about me stalking him" tie as he continues to aggressively hound me.
I will try to limit my response to his further attacks with the comment "Sorry tie".
He will probably call me insincere as he did the last time I apologized when it appeared I might have been mistaken, when actually this one will also be heartfelt.
[EVIL]It just will not be an apology.
[/EVIL]
That should leave more room and time for more interesting and intelligent conversations.
, for the well said, not the alleged apologist appointment. Tell ya what, I will do my best to ignore "trembling in fear about me stalking him" tie as he continues to aggressively hound me.
I will try to limit my response to his further attacks with the comment "Sorry tie".
He will probably call me insincere as he did the last time I apologized when it appeared I might have been mistaken, when actually this one will also be heartfelt.
[EVIL]It just will not be an apology.
[/EVIL]That should leave more room and time for more interesting and intelligent conversations.
tieguy
Banned
ok2bclever said:Thanks wkmac, for the well said, not the alleged apologist appointment.
Translation thanks Wkmac for ignoring my stalking and jumping on tie for not taking it better.
Tell ya what, I will do my best to ignore "trembling in fear about me stalking him" tie as he continues to aggressively hound me.
Translation I'm still pissed because I think Tie was the one that sent in those remarks to the labor board. I also think tie was the one that slapped me too hard at birth and the one responsible for everything that has been screwed up in my life.
"Sorry tie".
That would be a refreshing change.
He will probably call me insincere as he did the last time I apologized when it appeared I might have been mistaken, when actually this one will also be heartfelt.
And hence the insincerity. If you're going to apologize then do it. Don't hem and haw.
[evil]It just will not be an apology.
Yes Okie Dokie we know. Don't worry your ego is safe.
That should leave more room and time for more interesting and intelligent conversations.
Your choice . All you have to do is get rid of the arrogant sarcasm and your obsession with me. Spend your time figuring out who really sent that quote to the labor board instead of chasing me around on this board.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
[EVIL]Sorry tie[/EVIL]
ok2bclever
I Re Member
I knew you wouldn't get it.