PDA

View Full Version : Congress grants president wider powers of warrantless surveillance


Mr. Laz
08-06-2007, 11:11 AM
Congress grants president wider powers of warrantless surveillance
By CHARLES BABINGTON
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON | The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government’s abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate’s approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature.

Late Saturday, Bush said, “The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has assured me that this bill gives him what he needs to continue to protect the country, and therefore I will sign this legislation as soon as it gets to my desk.”

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency’s ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.” Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that “foreign intelligence information” is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don’t touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury.

The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush’s veto threats and the impending August recess.

“This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, during the debate preceding the vote. “I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans disputed her description. “It does nothing to tear up the Constitution,” said Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican.

If an American’s communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, “we go through a process called minimization” and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

ON THE WEB
The roll call vote for the surveillance bill can be found at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/219921.html

Brock
08-06-2007, 11:33 AM
Good thing the democrats are different from republicans.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 11:45 AM
Good thing the democrats are different from republicans.

How? The letters that make up the name of their parties?

Brock
08-06-2007, 11:49 AM
How? The letters that make up the name of their parties?

That, and also different in the way that black cats differ from white cats.

the Talking Can
08-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I don't know if I can support Democrats anymore.

They are cowards.

Outside of Feingold they are spineless pussies.

We deserve so much better. Just sickening.

Pitt Gorilla
08-06-2007, 12:03 PM
I don't know if I can support Democrats anymore.

They are cowards.

Outside of Feingold they are spineless pussies.

We deserve so much better. Just sickening.I tend to support neither, in general.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 12:05 PM
Does anyone know what exactly this changes?

In the sound-byte media, all you ever hear is some vague practice called "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic surveilance" but it's never explained what this actually permits and what is still illegal. Does anyone have anything concrete on what exactly it changes?

I like how much the Democratic congress is pissing off their base though.. all these years, conservatives had been trying to fight them... all they really needed to do was give them the majority back and let them act like themselves. They ran on getting out of Iraq and counteracting things like this and then not only don't stop either but participate in them once they get in office. What are they thinking?

They probably have lower approval ratings than Osama Bin Laden by now... can't imagine what it will be once they milk the war from here to election time.

memyselfI
08-06-2007, 01:34 PM
I don't know if I can support Democrats anymore.

They are cowards.

Outside of Feingold they are spineless pussies.

We deserve so much better. Just sickening.


Not to mention enablers. Dems are foolish for relinquishing this moral high ground. Later on, they better not even try to claim laws were broken because if they do well then they'd better be ready to accept responsibility for being an accomplice to the illegality.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 01:40 PM
We deserve so much better. Just sickening.

Sometimes I wonder if we do. :(

Pitt Gorilla
08-06-2007, 01:46 PM
Does anyone know what exactly this changes?

In the sound-byte media, all you ever hear is some vague practice called "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic surveilance" but it's never explained what this actually permits and what is still illegal. Does anyone have anything concrete on what exactly it changes?

I like how much the Democratic congress is pissing off their base though.. all these years, conservatives had been trying to fight them... all they really needed to do was give them the majority back and let them act like themselves. They ran on getting out of Iraq and counteracting things like this and then not only don't stop either but participate in them once they get in office. What are they thinking?

They probably have lower approval ratings than Osama Bin Laden by now... can't imagine what it will be once they milk the war from here to election time.The congress in general has low ratings; it's not just the Dems. I can't imagine a Republican liking anything about their elected officials over the last 8 years or so either. The two party system sucks.

chagrin
08-06-2007, 01:56 PM
Not to mention enablers. Dems are foolish for relinquishing this moral high ground. Later on, they better not even try to claim laws were broken because if they do well then they'd better be ready to accept responsibility for being an accomplice to the illegality.


This is excellent news - shut your whining about it all.
I doubt very seriously that the Government is interested in your boring f*cking life and your piddly redundant posting on this shitty message board, He is going after actual suspects, get over yourselves.

chagrin
08-06-2007, 01:58 PM
Oh and if he takes out a small time dissenter, that's the breaks.

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 02:02 PM
Oh and if he takes out a small time dissenter, that's the breaks.

hedging your bets?

Mecca
08-06-2007, 02:05 PM
As you lose a little bit of your freedom each day...

pikesome
08-06-2007, 02:08 PM
Oh and if he takes out a small time dissenter, that's the breaks.

Remind me not to elect you to Congress or the White House.

Taco John
08-06-2007, 02:15 PM
Oh and if he takes out a small time dissenter, that's the breaks.



I'm always amused by people with Christian avatars advocating a satanistic point of view.

"We've gone from 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,' to "If someone gets f***ed... BIG F***IN' DEAL!"

the Talking Can
08-06-2007, 02:23 PM
As you lose a little bit of your freedom each day...

and some days you lose a lot...

Mecca
08-06-2007, 02:35 PM
What blows my mind is how willing a lot of people seem to be to just trade in the freedom we are suppose to have.

They do it all with this "illusion" of safety the government says it's providing, but really that's what it is it's just an illusion.

Deberg_1990
08-06-2007, 02:45 PM
What blows my mind is how willing a lot of people seem to be to just trade in the freedom we are suppose to have.




Do you have something to hide??? Big deal.....they want to go after suspected terrorists, not USC homers who sit on sports message boards all day.

Taco John
08-06-2007, 03:22 PM
Do you have something to hide???



What if he did have something to hide? Are you saying that you favor a police state?

Logical
08-06-2007, 03:33 PM
Not to mention enablers. Dems are foolish for relinquishing this moral high ground. Later on, they better not even try to claim laws were broken because if they do well then they'd better be ready to accept responsibility for being an accomplice to the illegality.

Exactly, I hold little hope for our Republic. I am truly despondent over the state of governance.:shake:

Cochise
08-06-2007, 03:44 PM
Do you have something to hide??? Big deal.....they want to go after suspected terrorists, not USC homers who sit on sports message boards all day.

To me, if a practice would never be good then you don't allow it at all. If it can be helpful but could also be abused, then you need more oversight and review - in cases where time is of the essence, perhaps later review - but some kind of review.

This isn't a black and white issue. If we have information that in 30 minutes there's going to be a telephone meeting by a terrorist cell here in the United States, we ought to be able to listen in before having to run around and wake up judges and get a bunch of paperwork signed. But obviously using it in some RFK-like domestic spying program would be wrong.

Of course partisanship will enter even at that point, with some saying there is enough oversight, and some saying there isn't. I don't suspect anyone here knows much about the bill beyond what's written in the news, so in reality, none of us have a very informed opinion on that point.

I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater here though. The issue is not "Bush wants to stick a camera up my asz", it's whether or not these laws are being used appropriately, and if so how to stop/prevent such abuse.

trndobrd
08-06-2007, 06:14 PM
To me, if a practice would never be good then you don't allow it at all. If it can be helpful but could also be abused, then you need more oversight and review - in cases where time is of the essence, perhaps later review - but some kind of review.

This isn't a black and white issue. If we have information that in 30 minutes there's going to be a telephone meeting by a terrorist cell here in the United States, we ought to be able to listen in before having to run around and wake up judges and get a bunch of paperwork signed. But obviously using it in some RFK-like domestic spying program would be wrong.

Of course partisanship will enter even at that point, with some saying there is enough oversight, and some saying there isn't. I don't suspect anyone here knows much about the bill beyond what's written in the news, so in reality, none of us have a very informed opinion on that point.

I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater here though. The issue is not "Bush wants to stick a camera up my asz", it's whether or not these laws are being used appropriately, and if so how to stop/prevent such abuse.



This "rational thinking" crap has no place in DC. If you can't join in the hyperbole, pessimism and ranting, you shouldn't come here at all. I demand one doomsday scenario, right now, or I'm going to ask that you be banned.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 06:20 PM
To me, if a practice would never be good then you don't allow it at all. If it can be helpful but could also be abused, then you need more oversight and review - in cases where time is of the essence, perhaps later review - but some kind of review.

This isn't a black and white issue. If we have information that in 30 minutes there's going to be a telephone meeting by a terrorist cell here in the United States, we ought to be able to listen in before having to run around and wake up judges and get a bunch of paperwork signed. But obviously using it in some RFK-like domestic spying program would be wrong.

Of course partisanship will enter even at that point, with some saying there is enough oversight, and some saying there isn't. I don't suspect anyone here knows much about the bill beyond what's written in the news, so in reality, none of us have a very informed opinion on that point.

I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater here though. The issue is not "Bush wants to stick a camera up my asz", it's whether or not these laws are being used appropriately, and if so how to stop/prevent such abuse.

I generally agree with this, except for the notion about it being too much trouble to get a warrant from a judge. This isn't the 1940's. In our world of instant communications, it's simply not a valid excuse IMO. Not to mention the Fed Govt. could easily arrange to have a rotation of FISA Judges on call 24/7/365 "for just such an emergency". [/F. Leghorn]

While I realize it to be a personal preference, I'm far more comfortable with that authority residing in a panel of judges selected from appointees from multiple administrations, than trusting the current political hack tapped to act as AG.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2007, 06:21 PM
WE are going to hell.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 06:23 PM
WE are going to hell.
You might, but I quit going to imaginary places when I was a child. :p

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2007, 06:35 PM
You might, but I quit going to imaginary places when I was a child. :p

You have two generations in this country to establish your legacy and it's basically over. There will be no more middle class. Making the jump will be very rare. I basically just need to put on blinders and make my way. Leaving the country or at least establishing yourself outside of it has to become a very real option for many middle classers.

I really can't believe the way we give government unlimited [power for some small sense of security. We are too young of a country to be just giving it up that fast. I have zero confidence in our ability to pull out of this either. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 07:22 PM
You have two generations in this country to establish your legacy and it's basically over. There will be no more middle class. Making the jump will be very rare. I basically just need to put on blinders and make my way. Leaving the country or at least establishing yourself outside of it has to become a very real option for many middle classers.

I really can't believe the way we give government unlimited [power for some small sense of security. We are too young of a country to be just giving it up that fast. I have zero confidence in our ability to pull out of this either. I hope I'm proven wrong.


I hope you are as well, but fear you are not. I've always tried to do what I can to make things a little better for those that follow me, but it is discouraging.

As for the point in your second paragraph....sad but true.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Just like Rome. That empire passed for two main reasons. The reorganization of the "Legion" military system, and the death of it's Middle Class.

Sic Transit Gloria...

Logical
08-06-2007, 07:28 PM
To me, if a practice would never be good then you don't allow it at all. If it can be helpful but could also be abused, then you need more oversight and review - in cases where time is of the essence, perhaps later review - but some kind of review.

This isn't a black and white issue. If we have information that in 30 minutes there's going to be a telephone meeting by a terrorist cell here in the United States, we ought to be able to listen in before having to run around and wake up judges and get a bunch of paperwork signed. But obviously using it in some RFK-like domestic spying program would be wrong.

Of course partisanship will enter even at that point, with some saying there is enough oversight, and some saying there isn't. I don't suspect anyone here knows much about the bill beyond what's written in the news, so in reality, none of us have a very informed opinion on that point.

I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater here though. The issue is not "Bush wants to stick a camera up my asz", it's whether or not these laws are being used appropriately, and if so how to stop/prevent such abuse.
I seriously doubt if the congressmen and women know what it says either for the most part. Sure the authors (probably staffers) know what was in the bill but the actual people voting I would bet against it and win most of the time.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 07:34 PM
Not to mention enablers. Dems are foolish for relinquishing this moral high ground. Later on, they better not even try to claim laws were broken because if they do well then they'd better be ready to accept responsibility for being an accomplice to the illegality.

The dums wouldn't know how to find moral high ground let alone know what it means.

banyon
08-06-2007, 07:36 PM
The dums wouldn't know how to find moral high ground let alone know what it means.
Very enlightening and informative. Thanks for your considered posting!

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 07:41 PM
this seemed relevant...

Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

from Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html)
A new law expanding the government's spying powers gives the Bush Administration a six-month window to install possibly permanent back doors in the nation's communication networks. The legislation was passed hurriedly by Congress over the weekend and signed into law Sunday by President Bush.

The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

The Administration pushed for passage of the changes to close what it called a "surveillance gap," referring to a long-standing feature of the nation's surveillance laws that required the government to get court approval to capture communications inside the United States.

While the nation's spy laws have been continually loosened since 9/11, the Administration never pushed for the right to tap the nation's domestic communication networks until a secret court recently struck down a key pillar of the government's secret spying program.

The Administration argues that the world's communication networks now route many foreign to foreign calls and emails through switches in the United States.

Prior to the law's passage, the nation's spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't need any court approval to spy on foreigners so long as the wiretaps were outside the United States.

Now, those agencies are free to order services like Skype, cell phone companies and arguably even search engines to comply with secret spy orders to create back doors in domestic communication networks for the nation's spooks. While it's unclear whether the wiretapping can be used for domestic purposes, the law only requires that the programs that give rise to such orders have a "significant purpose" of foreign intelligence gathering.

The law:

* Defines the act of reading and listening into American's phone calls and internet communications when they are "reasonably believed" to be outside the country as not surveillance.
* Gives the government 6 months of extended powers to issue orders to "communication service providers," to help with spying that "concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The language doesn't require the surveillance to only target people outside the United States, only that some of it does.
* Forces Communication Service providers to comply secretly, though they can challenge the orders to the secret Foreign Intelligence Court. Individuals or companies given such orders will be paid for their cooperation and can not be sued for complying.
* Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months perpetually renewable after the six month "sunset" of the new powers last for a year after being authorized
* Grandfathers in the the current secret surveillance program -- sometimes referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- and any others that have been blessed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
* Requires the Attorney General to submit to the secret surveillance court its reasons why these programs aren't considered domestic spying programs, but the court can only throw out those reasons if it finds that they are "clearly erroneous."
* Requires the Attorney General to tell Congress twice a year about any incidents of surveillance abuse and give statistics about how many surveillance programs were started and how many directives were issued.
* Makes no mention of the Inspector General, who uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas, is not mentioned in the bill.

In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation's communication service providers -- which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks -- to create possibly permanent spying outposts for the federal government.

These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreigners, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.

Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.

In related international news, Zimbabwe's repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation's communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 07:46 PM
These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreigners, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.

Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.

In related international news, Zimbabwe's repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation's communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone.


And the Bananna Republicfication of the US continues. Thanks to a spineless Legislature and an idiotic Executive, cheered on by yammerheads that don't recognize the difference between "Freedom To" and "Freedom From". [/rant]

chagrin
08-06-2007, 07:47 PM
I'm always amused by people with Christian avatars advocating a satanistic point of view.

"We've gone from 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,' to "If someone gets f***ed... BIG F***IN' DEAL!"


Obviously you don't understand Christianity, and the idea that we humans are not Jesus Christ and it's a daily struggle to stay true to the word; but it's cool that you know scriptures, or um - did you have to look that one up?

a1na2
08-06-2007, 07:58 PM
Very enlightening and informative. Thanks for your considered posting!

What would you want here? I know, all you want is those that will bash the republicans. Your agenda is well known and just as useless as you feel I am.

Why don't you do something about your position? Run for office and show all of us how it's supposed to be done! We all know that you won't do anything, all you want to do is attack with no solution.

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:00 PM
What would you want here? I know, all you want is those that will bash the republicans. Your agenda is well known and just as useless as you feel I am.

Why don't you do something about your position? Run for office and show all of us how it's supposed to be done! We all know that you won't do anything, all you want to do is attack with no solution.

Yes, this personal investigation of my motives will surely lead us to enlightenment! Please continue with your pearls of wisdom!

chagrin
08-06-2007, 08:06 PM
Why don't you do something about your position? Run for office and show all of us how it's supposed to be done! We all know that you won't do anything, all you want to do is attack with no solution.


Dude, none of these yahoo's could actually do something other than write on this board; they have a nice little world here, all 8 of them feel exactly the same about everything, why risk losing that and go out to the world and organize "change"?

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:10 PM
Dude, none of these yahoo's could actually do something other than write on this board; they have a nice little world here, all 8 of them feel exactly the same about everything, why risk losing that and go out to the world and organize "change"?
Very Accurate. I spend all day on various chat rooms and collect unemployment. You have me pegged to a tee. SSSSS--nailed!

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:14 PM
Maybe we can get a whole page of this substantive discourse if we just put our minds to it.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:15 PM
Yes, this personal investigation of my motives will surely lead us to enlightenment! Please continue with your pearls of wisdom!

I'm nobody, your motives are clear as glass. You are a stick and nothing more. Anyone that really wanted to do something would be doing more than playing games on a bulletin board. With the amount of time you are here it just proves that you are all show and no go.

At least my little pearls of wisdom count for something. They keep your blood pressure on the rise.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 08:19 PM
At least my little pearls of wisdom count for something. They keep your blood pressure on the rise.

Rabbit farmers find 'pearls of wisdom' like yours at the bottom of a rabbit hutch on a daily basis. :moon:

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:20 PM
I'm nobody, your motives are clear as glass. You are a stick and nothing more. Anyone that really wanted to do something would be doing more than playing games on a bulletin board. With the amount of time you are here it just proves that you are all show and no go.

At least my little pearls of wisdom count for something. They keep your blood pressure on the rise.

Clearly, I am the one who started with the insults and getting off topic. My apologies. I bow before your superior humility, insight, and keen focus. Yes, I am using the board as a contrivance for amusement, you are clearly using it for a much higher, nobler purpose. Again I hope you accept my sincerest apologies if I have caused an affront to your unimpeachable reputation.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:22 PM
Rabbit farmers find 'pearls of wisdom' like yours at the bottom of a rabbit hutch on a daily basis. :moon:

Where do you think banyon is finding them?

My opinion might be shit, but it fits in with every one else on this forum with one exception. My class of shit is a level above the rest.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:23 PM
Clearly, I am the one who started with the insults and getting off topic. My apologies. I bow before your superior humility, insight, and keen focus. Yes, I am using the board as a contrivance for amusement, you are clearly using it for a much higher, nobler purpose. Again I hope you accept my sincerest apologies if I have caused an affront to your unimpeachable reputation.

What's your point? You seem to be perpetuating the off topic conversation. If you would just shut your pie hole nobody else would respond. Where are you now? 150/104?

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:25 PM
What's your point? You seem to be perpetuating the off topic conversation. If you would just shut your pie hole nobody else would respond. Where are you now? 150/104?

My apologies again. I don't have the obvious self control which you demonstrate increasingly with every post. I will attempt to keep my communications to a minimum, but I might have difficulty in my unrestrained praise for the wisdom you have shown here. As to your last percentage and joke, it seems very funny and I'm sure the percentages are accurate.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:30 PM
My apologies again. I don't have the obvious self control which you demonstrate increasingly with every post. I will attempt to keep my communications to a minimum, but I might have difficulty in my unrestrained praise for the wisdom you have shown here. As to your last percentage and joke, it seems very funny and I'm sure the percentages are accurate.

Really on the ball tonight eh? Blood pressure. Stay with the game and you will get it ... maybe in the next millennium.

Logical
08-06-2007, 08:31 PM
Dude, none of these yahoo's could actually do something other than write on this board; they have a nice little world here, all 8 of them feel exactly the same about everything, why risk losing that and go out to the world and organize "change"?Many things are wrong with this post.

First there are far more than 8 people posting.

2nd very few of us agree on multiple topics.

3rd you have no way of knowing what any of us do in the real world.

Finally what gives you the right to judge us?

Logical
08-06-2007, 08:33 PM
Clearly, I am the one who started with the insults and getting off topic. My apologies. I bow before your superior humility, insight, and keen focus. Yes, I am using the board as a contrivance for amusement, you are clearly using it for a much higher, nobler purpose. Again I hope you accept my sincerest apologies if I have caused an affront to your unimpeachable reputation.ROFLROFLROFL

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:33 PM
Many things are wrong with this post.

First there are far more than 8 people posting.

2nd very few of us agree on multiple topics.

3rd you have no way of knowing what any of us do in the real world.

Finally what gives you the right to judge us?

Probably the same right that everyone else here seems to have to judge one another.

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:34 PM
Really on the ball tonight eh? Blood pressure. Stay with the game and you will get it ... maybe in the next millennium.

With each post, my knowledge grows. Please continue to impart your wisdom. Your presence has been sorely missed in this forum as I think anyone can see from your posts in this thread alone.

Logical
08-06-2007, 08:39 PM
Probably the same right that everyone else here seems to have to judge one another.

I rarely judge people, but there are exceptions of course. Like you Tom I know you are an ignorant ass and judge all your posts based on that knowledge.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:42 PM
With each post, my knowledge grows. Please continue to impart your wisdom. Your presence has been sorely missed in this forum as I think anyone can see from your posts in this thread alone.



ROFL

banyon
08-06-2007, 08:44 PM
ROFL
Wow, that was exactly the right smiley to post! I really do have a lot to learn from you. What else can you teach us in this thread?

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 08:45 PM
Rabbit farmers find 'pearls of wisdom' like yours at the bottom of a rabbit hutch on a daily basis. :moon:

LMAO LMAO

4.0 with high-order and secondary detonations. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Sully
08-06-2007, 08:49 PM
So... unless youplan to run for office, you are not to have an opinion/discuss saidopinion/ especially on a message board about problems you may have with those in power?


How very American.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:54 PM
So... unless youplan to run for office, you are not to have an opinion/discuss saidopinion/ especially on a message board about problems you may have with those in power?


How very American.

That's not the point. If you are so fervent with your beliefs you wouldn't just sit around and bitch about it, you would do something. We have miles of bitching on a couple of inches of action going on here. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem and that is American.

You don't have to run for office to be part of the solution.

Hydrae
08-06-2007, 08:55 PM
So... unless youplan to run for office, you are not to have an opinion/discuss saidopinion/ especially on a message board about problems you may have with those in power?


How very American.

You're learning Grasshopper. Now if you want to praise the Great Leader, you are more than welcome to post to your heart's content of course! But no rabble rousing is to be allowed! :cuss:

Sully
08-06-2007, 08:56 PM
That's not the point. If you are so fervent with your beliefs you wouldn't just sit around and bitch about it, you would do something. We have miles of bitching on a couple of inches of action going on here. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem and that is American.

You don't have to run for office to be part of the solution.
A) I don't buy the whole "If you aren't part of the solution..." BS. It's simplistic, and just plain wrong.

However

B) If you don't think discussing these things, raising awareness is part of a solution... then you are even more brickheaded than I thought.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 08:59 PM
A) I don't buy the whole "If you aren't part of the solution..." BS. It's simplistic, and just plain wrong.

However

B) If you don't think discussing these things, raising awareness is part of a solution... then you are even more brickheaded than I thought.

The problem is that awareness isn't being raised, it is mostly a one sided argument on this board. Conservatives are put down at every turn. The basic premise here is liberals good conservatives bad and that isn't quite factual. What you are doing is "raising awareness" of the liberal agenda which is more attack without solution.

Sully
08-06-2007, 09:03 PM
The problem is that awareness isn't being raised, it is mostly a one sided argument on this board. Conservatives are put down at every turn. The basic premise here is liberals good conservatives bad and that isn't quite factual. What you are doing is "raising awareness" of the liberal agenda which is more attack without solution.
That is bullshit. If you think Libs aren't put down both here and in the main lounge, then you aren't reading... or you are just a little too sandy in the vaj area. It's amazing what confirmation bias can do to a person's perception.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 09:03 PM
I generally agree with this, except for the notion about it being too much trouble to get a warrant from a judge. This isn't the 1940's. In our world of instant communications, it's simply not a valid excuse IMO. Not to mention the Fed Govt. could easily arrange to have a rotation of FISA Judges on call 24/7/365 "for just such an emergency". [/F. Leghorn]

While I realize it to be a personal preference, I'm far more comfortable with that authority residing in a panel of judges selected from appointees from multiple administrations, than trusting the current political hack tapped to act as AG.

I'm just searching for a sane position apart from both extremes. I agree with your point about how it can't take that much time, but at the same time, to review all the relevant information might not be able to be done in minutes. Maybe it's a rare case where that needs to be done, but I think you always want to be more agile than you expect to have to be.

Maybe I as an intelligence officer go to the judge and say "this intel is solid, we need to hear this conversation that is going to happen in 10 minutes", but the judge says "I don't believe you, I want to see all the relevant information" and that might take days or even weeks to sufficiently convince the person. I think we should leave people room to stick their necks out and say, "we absolutely must do this now" if that is needed, but still with accountability for whoever makes that call at a later time.

I mean, I know if I were in a position where I had this intelligence that needed to be acted upon immediately to potentially save people's lives, and a judge was saying, "you have to wait until tomorrow for me to read all this info", I'd end up doing it anyway. It would be a greater crime to put people's lives at stake when I knew they were at risk than it would be to violate the letter of the law.

Rather than forcing people to totally disregard the law doing what their conscience does not allow them NOT to do, rather than making them into criminals automatically for doing what they feel they must, why can't we grant them a little authority to be decisive knowing they will have to answer under the same merits at a later time?

You need to be able to take extraordinary measures in truly extraordinary circumstances. I think the greatest crime of all would not be for us to cost people their lives or to violate their liberty, but to restrict our ability to make judgments between the two so much that we are too paralyzed to do anything.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm just searching for a sane position apart from both extremes. I agree with your point about how it can't take that much time, but at the same time, to review all the relevant information might not be able to be done in minutes. Maybe it's a rare case where that needs to be done, but I think you always want to be more agile than you expect to have to be.

Maybe I as an intelligence officer go to the judge and say "this intel is solid, we need to hear this conversation that is going to happen in 10 minutes", but the judge says "I don't believe you, I want to see all the relevant information" and that might take days or even weeks to sufficiently convince the person. I think we should leave people room to stick their necks out and say, "we absolutely must do this now" if that is needed, but still with accountability for whoever makes that call at a later time.

I mean, I know if I were in a position where I had this intelligence that needed to be acted upon immediately to potentially save people's lives, and a judge was saying, "you have to wait until tomorrow for me to read all this info", I'd end up doing it anyway. It would be a greater crime to put people's lives at stake when I knew they were at risk than it would be to violate the letter of the law.

Rather than forcing people to totally disregard the law doing what their conscience does not allow them NOT to do, rather than making them into criminals automatically for doing what they feel they must, why can't we grant them a little authority to be decisive knowing they will have to answer under the same merits at a later time?

You need to be able to take extraordinary measures in truly extraordinary circumstances. I think the greatest crime of all would not be for us to cost people their lives or to violate their liberty, but to restrict our ability to make judgments between the two so much that we are too paralyzed to do anything.


IIRC, the scenario you present is already covered in the original FISA. They can get a warrant, and must prove the need of it to the judge later.

I'm still far more comfortable with that decision being in the hands of a panel of judges, than a single political hack appointed as AG.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 09:08 PM
That is bullshit. If you think Libs aren't put down both here and in the main lounge, then you aren't reading... or you are just a little too sandy in the vaj area. It's amazing what confirmation bias can do to a person's perception.

If all things were even you might have a point but look at the posts and the back and forth arguments. Just like your response here the dems try to work more on the emotional level than the factual level.

Try being more even tempered and you might understand.

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:10 PM
I'm just searching for a sane position apart from both extremes. I agree with your point about how it can't take that much time, but at the same time, to review all the relevant information might not be able to be done in minutes. Maybe it's a rare case where that needs to be done, but I think you always want to be more agile than you expect to have to be.

Maybe I as an intelligence officer go to the judge and say "this intel is solid, we need to hear this conversation that is going to happen in 10 minutes", but the judge says "I don't believe you, I want to see all the relevant information" and that might take days or even weeks to sufficiently convince the person. I think we should leave people room to stick their necks out and say, "we absolutely must do this now" if that is needed, but still with accountability for whoever makes that call at a later time.

I mean, I know if I were in a position where I had this intelligence that needed to be acted upon immediately to potentially save people's lives, and a judge was saying, "you have to wait until tomorrow for me to read all this info", I'd end up doing it anyway. It would be a greater crime to put people's lives at stake when I knew they were at risk than it would be to violate the letter of the law.

Rather than forcing people to totally disregard the law doing what their conscience does not allow them NOT to do, rather than making them into criminals automatically for doing what they feel they must, why can't we grant them a little authority to be decisive knowing they will have to answer under the same merits at a later time?

You need to be able to take extraordinary measures in truly extraordinary circumstances. I think the greatest crime of all would not be for us to cost people their lives or to violate their liberty, but to restrict our ability to make judgments between the two so much that we are too paralyzed to do anything.

Cochise, I respect your view here, but it's not as if the Federal agents recording out conversations are having problems because they face criminal prosecution if they try to catch criminals.

The only thing the warrant requirement does is make any evidence gained as a result of an illegal search inadmissible in a further prosecution. They are still free to prosecute those people based on other evidence they may have or gain that is unrelated to the search. More importantly, they would be free to act on such info to protect people in a life-or-death situation.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 09:15 PM
IIRC, the scenario you present is already covered in the original FISA. They can get a warrant, and must prove the need of it to the judge later.

I'm still far more comfortable with that decision being in the hands of a panel of judges, than a single political hack appointed as AG.

Well, judges are even less accountable to the general public. The attorney general can be pressured to resign, he's a member of a political entity that can be pressured to stop supporting him, he's accountable to someone who could demand his resignation and such. But judges are under no such pressure.

If we want the people making these decisions to be accountable, I think they need to be held accountable by someone else who is also accountable for their choices, or else we end up with the same summation - that these decisions are being made by people who don't really have to answer for them, only this is slower and less effective than if we just gave intelligence gatherers carte blanche in the first place.

(not that I'm advocating that, just saying. The end result with judges is worse than before)

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 09:16 PM
The problem is that awareness isn't being raised, it is mostly a one sided argument on this board. Conservatives are put down at every turn. The basic premise here is liberals good conservatives bad and that isn't quite factual. What you are doing is "raising awareness" of the liberal agenda which is more attack without solution.

WTF are you talking about? This is a political forum. BOTH sides bicker incessantly, which is something that has been done since the Continental Congress had its first session. Americans LOVE to debate. And this is coming from a CONSERVATIVE.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 09:22 PM
The end result with judges is worse than before)

I disagree, it seems to have served us quite well. Besides, the "end result" with judges is what we've had for years. If it was good enough for Ronnie.... ;)

I see the independent judiciary (as I said, I want a number of judges appointed by different administrations to handle this, to limit the possibility of abuse due to ideology, etc.) as a tool far less susceptable to pressure by whichever administration happens to be in power.

In short, I wouldn't trust Janet Reno, Alberto Gonzales, or John "couldn't beat a corpse" Ashcroft with that power. I'm surprised you do.

Sorry, I don't want to tip the balance of power even further towards the Executive branch. We shall have to agree to disagree.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 09:27 PM
I disagree, it seems to have served us quite well. Besides, the "end result" with judges is what we've had for years. If it was good enough for Ronnie.... ;)

I see the independent judiciary (as I said, I want a number of judges appointed by different administrations to handle this, to limit the possibility of abuse due to ideology, etc.) as a tool far less susceptable to pressure by whichever administration happens to be in power.

In short, I wouldn't trust Janet Reno, Alberto Gonzales, or John "couldn't beat a corpse" Ashcroft with that power. I'm surprised you do.

Sorry, I don't want to tip the balance of power even further towards the Executive branch. We shall have to agree to disagree.

I don't mean that them only being accountable in the end to the President is the best situation either. If they were directly accountable to someone accountable to the voters that would be more ideal I think than accountable to no one.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 09:29 PM
WTF are you talking about? This is a political forum. BOTH sides bicker incessantly, which is something that has been done since the Continental Congress had its first session. Americans LOVE to debate. And this is coming from a CONSERVATIVE.

Debate is usually used to prove or disprove a point. What is the purpose here? Nothing is done because of the argument. No opinions are changed. The only thing that is accomplished here is that someone feels highly of themselves because they have put another down.

This isn't political debate, it doesn't even approach political debate.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 09:33 PM
Debate is usually used to prove or disprove a point. What is the purpose here? Nothing is done because of the argument. No opinions are changed. The only thing that is accomplished here is that someone feels highly of themselves because they have put another down.

This isn't political debate, it doesn't even approach political debate.

Wrong. Debate is an expression of 2 or more different parties or people. The objective of it is to 1) Express ones viewpoints and 2) to attempt to win over the debatee, or, at least reach some sort of compromise with them. It is an exchange of ideas.

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Debate is usually used to prove or disprove a point. What is the purpose here? Nothing is done because of the argument. No opinions are changed. The only thing that is accomplished here is that someone feels highly of themselves because they have put another down.

This isn't political debate, it doesn't even approach political debate.

so... why do you bother? maybe you could find a BB with civilized debate and leave the bickering to the CP'ers.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 09:37 PM
so... why do you bother? maybe you could find a BB with civilized debate and leave the bickering to the CP'ers.

It's the game dude, the game.

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:38 PM
Debate is usually used to prove or disprove a point. What is the purpose here? Nothing is done because of the argument. No opinions are changed. The only thing that is accomplished here is that someone feels highly of themselves because they have put another down.

This isn't political debate, it doesn't even approach political debate.

Your views on metadeliberation are almost as perspicacious as your insights on political trends or our own psychological profiles. I am even more impressed than before.

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 09:44 PM
It's the game dude, the game.

the game of football or the game? you sure do bitch about games alot. I cant imagine why you would keep coming back just to have all the DC regulars tell you to suck ****.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 09:45 PM
Your views on metadeliberation are almost as perspicacious as your insights on political trends or our own psychological profiles. I am even more impressed than before.

And your point is? If you vapor lock please post something about it before you wink out, OK?


ROFL

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:47 PM
And your point is? If you vapor lock please post something about it before you wink out, OK?


ROFL

Oh, the witty vapor lock comment! Even funnier than the first time!

a1na2
08-06-2007, 09:49 PM
Oh, the witty vapor lock comment! Even funnier than the first time!

So you are pissed because congress passed a bill that you didn't like? To justify your anger you are attempting to bait me to argue with you? You don't have an argument.

ROFL

Good night girls.

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:51 PM
So you are pissed because congress passed a bill that you didn't like? To justify your anger you are attempting to bait me to argue with you? You don't have an argument.

ROFL

Good night girls.

Yes, your insights into the substance of this bill have definitely convinced me that I must've been incorrect in my hours of study on this subject. Your dedication to a detailed policy analysis and theoretical value comparison have been staggering to behold.

But you leave us? Oh, why torture us with your absence, please tell us when you will log in again so that I may experience your illumination at its earliest dawning!

Logical
08-06-2007, 09:54 PM
WTF are you talking about? This is a political forum. BOTH sides bicker incessantly, which is something that has been done since the Continental Congress had its first session. Americans LOVE to debate. And this is coming from a CONSERVATIVE.

It won't take you long to realize Tom is delusional, and the only thing that matters is what he says matters.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 10:01 PM
Yes, your insights into the substance of this bill have definitely convinced me that I must've been incorrect in my hours of study on this subject. Your dedication to a detailed policy analysis and theoretical value comparison have been staggering to behold.

But you leave us? Oh, why torture us with your absence, please tell us when you will log in again so that I may experience your illumination at its earliest dawning!

I'd say that being an ass doesn't fit you, but we all know it does.

You spent hours studying the subject? You've been here all day, how did you have any time to study? You are fuller of shit than you say I am.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 10:02 PM
It won't take you long to realize Tom is delusional, and the only thing that matters is what he says matters.

This coming from beelzebubba himself!

Your opinion is just about as worthless as you claim mine might be. And if you think your words are damning to me you might back off the drugs a bit.

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:06 PM
I'd say that being an ass doesn't fit you, but we all know it does.

You spent hours studying the subject? You've been here all day, how did you have any time to study? You are fuller of shit than you say I am.

Yes, I have been here all day and would've only had today to read about this subject. Your deductive reasoning skills continue to impress.

I cannot begin to express how overjoyed I am that you have decided to grace us with more of your time despite your earlier post which indicated you had to retire for the evening. If only the unparalled excellence in discourse could continue untrammeled by the necessities of everyday life.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 10:08 PM
It won't take you long to realize Tom is delusional, and the only thing that matters is what he says matters.

Oh, Jim, I am aware of Omtay Ashcay. I had hoped that his time away would have increased in him the desire for lucidity but I was mistaken. Not the first time I have been wrong and certainly not the last. I hoped to use reason to gain some sort of common ground understanding as to the purpose of political debate but I failed.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 10:08 PM
I don't mean that them only being accountable in the end to the President is the best situation either. If they were directly accountable to someone accountable to the voters that would be more ideal I think than accountable to no one.


I understand. It's a difference in trust levels regarding the Judiciary. I don't trust them with some things, but I do with others. This is one of them. I think they'd be less susceptable to abuse by an Executive inclined to. If the actions are egregiously wrong at some point, mechanisms exist by which the judges can be removed. Are they easy or simple? No. I'm largely OK with that, after all the framers rejected a proposal that would have permitted removal of federal judges by a simple majority vote of the combined houses of Congress. I think they had a good reason, and it had to do primarily with seperation of powers.

I hoped to use reason

Aye, and I'm thinkin' that was the first mistake. ;)

I made it too, back when he was masquerading as Chiefs Express. Same pattern this time, so far. First, the tenative re-emergence. Then the pompus bombasity (where, IMO he fails miserably in comparison to my great, powerful, yet friendly and piquant pompus bombasity). I've already received a number of PM's (so I learned how to delete unread PM's...Thanks Tom!) and I figure it's just a matter of a few weeks at most before the inevitable meltdown and banning occurs.

So folks, let's grab some popcorn and a tasty beverage, lean back, and enjoy the show.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 10:12 PM
Yes, I have been here all day and would've only had today to read about this subject. Your deductive reasoning skills continue to impress.

I cannot begin to express how overjoyed I am that you have decided to grace us with more of your time despite your earlier post which indicated you had to retire for the evening. If only the unparalled unparalleled excellence in discourse could continue untrammeled by the necessities of everyday life.

Oh wow, I'm impressed with your professionalism. Some day you may be able to spell.

Now let me ask you a serious question. How many times have you attempted to read anything I've written? You've bypassed post after post in the past and only came up with the SOS. You attack me and haven't read a word written. Why should I even make an attempt to reply to anything you've written? There have been opportunities for you to have a discussion but you don't seem to have that ability with people you feel are inferior to you (which from what I've read on this board include more than a few people).

If you actually want respect, show some.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 10:13 PM
Yes, I have been here all day and would've only had today to read about this subject. Your deductive reasoning skills continue to impress.

I cannot begin to express how overjoyed I am that you have decided to grace us with more of your time despite your earlier post which indicated you had to retire for the evening. If only the unparalled excellence in discourse could continue untrammeled by the necessities of everyday life.

That post was almost Shakespearian in its eloquence. 'Once more into the breach dear friends'.........:)

Tom......err Omtay's posts are more like Lewis Carroll: 'T'was brillig and the slithy toves, did gyre and gimble in the wabe...all mimsy were the borgoves, and the mome raths outgrabe' LMAO

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 10:16 PM
That post was almost Shakespearian in its eloquence. 'Once more into the breach dear friends'.........:)

Tom......err Omtay's posts are more like Lewis Carroll: 'T'was brillig and the slithy toves, did gyre and gimble in the wabe...all mimsy were the borgoves, and the mome raths outgrabe' LMAO

it does have a nice flow to it.

do you write anything other than legal docs, Banyon?

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:17 PM
Oh wow, I'm impressed with your professionalism. Some day you may be able to spell.

Now let me ask you a serious question. How many times have you attempted to read anything I've written? You've bypassed post after post in the past and only came up with the SOS. You attack me and haven't read a word written. Why should I even make an attempt to reply to anything you've written? There have been opportunities for you to have a discussion but you don't seem to have that ability with people you feel are inferior to you (which from what I've read on this board include more than a few people).

If you actually want respect, show some.

Oh, after 50 posts, you caught me in a typo! Your keen gaze knows no equal!

You are right, I again ask your forgiveness for failing to comment on the immeasurable eloquence with which you have spoken on the above subject. Your policy position has been clearly laid out for me to reply to, but it is clearly my own shortcomings which prevent me from doing so. With every post in this thread you have made it clear that your only intention is to stay on track and to focus keenly on the subject at hand, as does the hawk upon a field mouse in a vast field of wheat, with its eyes only upon its one prey.

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:18 PM
it does have a nice flow to it.

do you write anything other than legal docs, Banyon?

I did have a life before I was consumed by the darkness. :)

a1na2
08-06-2007, 10:20 PM
Oh, after 50 posts, you caught me in a typo! Your keen gaze knows no equal!

You are right, I again ask your forgiveness for failing to comment on the immeasurable eloquence with which you have spoken on the above subject. Your policy position has been clearly laid out for me to repy to, but it is clearly my own shortcomings which prevent me from doing so. With every post in this thread you have made it clear that your only intention is to stay on track and to focus keenly on the subject at hand, as does the hawk upon a field mouse in a vast field of wheat, with its eyes only upon its one prey.


:rolleyes:

Cochise
08-06-2007, 10:21 PM
You guys think Tom is funny, but imagine if he was the posterboy for your side...

a1na2
08-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Oh, after 50 posts, you caught me in a typo! Your keen gaze knows no equal!




Blood pressure getting to you eh?

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:22 PM
:rolleyes:
Yes! The roll eyes Denise Smiley in all its glory! Your inimitable style is again the envy of the artistic and expressive community!

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:24 PM
Blood pressure getting to you eh?

Blood pressure jokes again! How incomparably humorous. I will assume that you possess a medical degree in addition to your various security clearances. Oh, to have lived at the zenith of your myriad experiences!

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 10:25 PM
You guys think Tom is funny, but imagine if he was the posterboy for your side...


Nah, you've still got recxjake and they've got jAZ and meme. I think it kind of balances out.

Then again, maybe you do have a point. Oy.

Blood pressure jokes again! How incomparably humorous. I will assume that you possess a medical degree in addition to your various security clearances. Oh, to have lived at the zenith of your myriad experiences!

Cardiovascular jocularity is the apex of wit.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 11:00 PM
LMAO. So much for the Iraqi government taking off a month.

Your Congress working for you. LMAO.

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:10 PM
You guys think Tom is funny, but imagine if he was the posterboy for your side...The good news for all is that all sides consider him irrelevant and just an annoyance. I certainly don't consider him representative of any side.

patteeu
08-06-2007, 11:13 PM
Does anyone know what exactly this changes?

In the sound-byte media, all you ever hear is some vague practice called "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic surveilance" but it's never explained what this actually permits and what is still illegal. Does anyone have anything concrete on what exactly it changes?

I like how much the Democratic congress is pissing off their base though.. all these years, conservatives had been trying to fight them... all they really needed to do was give them the majority back and let them act like themselves. They ran on getting out of Iraq and counteracting things like this and then not only don't stop either but participate in them once they get in office. What are they thinking?

They probably have lower approval ratings than Osama Bin Laden by now... can't imagine what it will be once they milk the war from here to election time.

Nobody has ever had anything concrete on exactly what the government was doing under the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program in the first place, but that didn't stop many of them from confidently telling us how GWB was trampling on the constitution to eavesdrop on Joe American. Obviously, the democrat controlled Congress either didn't see it the same way or, alternatively, decided one good trample deserved another.

It might be an interesting exercise to review the new legislation because it might actually give people some insight into what the Terrorist Surveillance program is really all about, but I'm not up to the challenge right now. I suspect that everyone will be satisfied with their uninformed, preconceived notions though.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 11:15 PM
Nobody has ever had anything concrete on exactly what the government was doing under the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program in the first place, but that didn't stop many of them from confidently telling us how GWB was trampling on the constitution to eavesdrop on Joe American. Obviously, the democrat controlled Congress either didn't see it the same way or, alternatively, decided one good trample deserved another.

It might be an interesting exercise to review the new legislation because it might actually give people some insight into what the Terrorist Surveillance program is really all about, but I'm not up to the challenge right now. I suspect that everyone will be satisfied with their uninformed, preconceived notions though.

The Imperial Congress going to Disneyland and leaving us in the hands of the Imperial President. We're all doomed. ;)

Taco John
08-06-2007, 11:28 PM
I'm always amused by people with Christian avatars advocating a satanistic point of view.

"We've gone from 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,' to "If someone gets f***ed... BIG F***IN' DEAL!"



This is worth sharing...

Here is Chagrin's response to my post above:

If someone gets ****ed, who gives a shit - people get ****ed everyday; it's called life on Earth. freak. If they get caught, too F'ing bad. Too bad it wouldn't be you, of course you're too cowardly to do anything worth finding out about, pussy



First of all, I'm not going to even bother with the Christian aspect of this. I sure am not trying to drag Christianity into this, as this doesn't reflect true Christianity at all... But what I will drag into this is the current state of the Republican party, which I would say is represented by this to the Nth degree. This is the poison that has taken over the quote-unquote "conservative" movement, in much the same way that Islam has been infected with the radical element.

People like Chagrin are willing to let people slip between the cracks in the machine and forget about them, with the thought that a life here and there don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Here's hoping that none of our lives meet this standard, as we waste away in some cold cell somewhere seperated from our friends and family without cause. Here's hoping that none of us ever have to face the consequences of the kind of evil that flippantly permits this to happen.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 11:37 PM
This is worth sharing...

Here is Chagrin's response to my post above:





First of all, I'm not going to even bother with the Christian aspect of this. I sure am not trying to drag Christianity into this, as this doesn't reflect true Christianity at all... But what I will drag into this is the current state of the Republican party, which I would say is represented by this to the Nth degree. This is the poison that has taken over the quote-unquote "conservative" movement, in much the same way that Islam has been infected with the radical element.

People like Chagrin are willing to let people slip between the cracks in the machine and forget about them, with the thought that a life here and there don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Here's hoping that none of our lives meet this standard, as we waste away in some cold cell somewhere seperated from our friends and family without cause. Here's hoping that none of us ever have to face the consequences of the kind of evil that flippantly permits this to happen.
And the democratic view is just stick a pair of scissors in thier brain since they can't complain or scream about it anyway.

I don't personally believe that but two can play that game. To say republicans are willing to let people fall thru the cracks because of one person's POV is mere speculation and is using too broad a brush to paint the real picture.

Taco John
08-06-2007, 11:54 PM
The problem is that awareness isn't being raised, it is mostly a one sided argument on this board. Conservatives are put down at every turn. The basic premise here is liberals good conservatives bad and that isn't quite factual. What you are doing is "raising awareness" of the liberal agenda which is more attack without solution.



There aren't many conservatives on this board *to* put down... But those of us who are actual conservatives generally handle the put downs in stride. Oh wait... You weren't talking about actual conservativism... You are talking about SOCIAL conservativism ("Friendly Fascism"). You're right... Those types get put down pretty regularly.

Taco John
08-07-2007, 12:02 AM
And the democratic view is just stick a pair of scissors in thier brain since they can't complain or scream about it anyway.

I don't personally believe that but two can play that game. To say republicans are willing to let people fall thru the cracks because of one person's POV is mere speculation and is using too broad a brush to paint the real picture.


I agree with your top statement. Chagrin is advocating abortion, only it's an abortion of justice... but regardless, a human life is hanging in the balance.

And as far as this position being one person's POV, I wish that were the case. I really do. But this has practically become a party platform. There is a healthy contingent that is willing to sacrifice the lives of a few to protect the many when, and apparently only when it comes to terrorism. But when it comes to things like stem cell research, or abortion, they are all of a sudden fervent defenders of the innocent.

Cochise
08-07-2007, 12:06 AM
If I were going to summarize what the article says, I would write:


The House voted to expand the government’s abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. It would speed the National Security Agency’s ability to intercept communications involving foreign nationals “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”

It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that “foreign intelligence information” is at stake.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don’t touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general.


But then you have Zoe Lofgren (D-California) saying:


“This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,”

This is what most Democrats and those opposed on this board seem to think, but I don't read that or anything like that from the article.

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 12:08 AM
Obviously you don't understand Christianity, and the idea that we humans are not Jesus Christ and it's a daily struggle to stay true to the word; but it's cool that you know scriptures, or um - did you have to look that one up?

He knows. He's a brother.

I'd like to wring his neck sometimes, but he's a brother.

Taco John
08-07-2007, 12:10 AM
He knows. He's a brother.

I'd like to wring his neck sometimes, but he's a brother.



The feeling is mutual at times, but that said, I've got a healthy amount of respect for you.


/respecing my elders and all... ;)

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 12:12 AM
....respecting my elders and all... ;)

Oh, thanks. You just had to add that.

noa
08-07-2007, 12:13 AM
This is what most Democrats and those opposed on this board seem to think, but I don't read that or anything like that from the article.


I watched an interview with two lawyers on the Jim Lehrer News Hour and basically one was left and one was right. The lawyer from the left kept declaring that this bill would grant too many powers that could easily be misused. The lawyer from the right denied this and said it was very reasonable. They each accused each other of not reading the bill and not truly understanding its contents.
All I could gather by the end of the debate was that people could argue over it....
Didn't seem like there were any definitive answers on real the ramifications of this bill.

Taco John
08-07-2007, 12:15 AM
Oh, thanks. You just had to add that.


:)

Taco John
08-07-2007, 12:21 AM
I watched an interview with two lawyers on the Jim Lehrer News Hour and basically one was left and one was right. The lawyer from the left kept declaring that this bill would grant too many powers that could easily be misused. The lawyer from the right denied this and said it was very reasonable. They each accused each other of not reading the bill and not truly understanding its contents.
All I could gather by the end of the debate was that people could argue over it....
Didn't seem like there were any definitive answers on real the ramifications of this bill.



That's because these things are written with enough ambiguity in them that they could be read either way. If you trust government, you're going to have faith that they'll execute the law within the spirit of the constitution. If you distrust government, you see the erosion of constitutional law, and are worried about the direction America is headed.

|Zach|
08-07-2007, 12:44 AM
Dude, none of these yahoo's could actually do something other than write on this board
That is just silly.

Pitt Gorilla
08-07-2007, 01:02 AM
Blood pressure jokes again! How incomparably humorous. I will assume that you possess a medical degree in addition to your various security clearances. Oh, to have lived at the zenith of your myriad experiences!
Ok, I don't get the blood pressure thing. Anyone?

CHIEF4EVER
08-07-2007, 01:12 AM
Ok, I don't get the blood pressure thing. Anyone?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 01:12 AM
Taco, let me pose this:

Say you're sitting in a tavern in 1794, as the Whiskey Rebellion is about to erupt. You're plotting against U.S. governmental interests. An agent of the government has been planted in that tavern to overhear your discussions. He hears enough to convict you.

Do you see any difference between that and we're doing now, except that we're probably much better at it now, and that our means of communication and that our standards of interdiction have evolved?

Pitt Gorilla
08-07-2007, 01:27 AM
Taco, let me pose this:

Say you're sitting in a tavern in 1794, as the Whiskey Rebellion is about to erupt. You're plotting against U.S. governmental interests. An agent of the government has been planted in that tavern to overhear your discussions. He hears enough to convict you.

Do you see any difference between that and we're doing now, except that we're probably much better at it now, and that our means of communication and that our standards of interdiction have evolved?I think one difference might be that the agent wasn't sitting in my home (which they essentially are now). Honestly, someone listening to my phonecalls doesn't bother me as I hate talking on the phone and tend to be brief. But, I would guess that the conversation not taking place in a public forum is at least part of the problem.

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 01:34 AM
I think one difference might be that the agent wasn't sitting in my home (which they essentially are now). Honestly, someone listening to my phonecalls doesn't bother me as I hate talking on the phone and tend to be brief. But, I would guess that the conversation not taking place in a public forum is at least part of the problem.

You've chosen to use a public carrier of your conversation. IMO, your conversation is no longer private.

|Zach|
08-07-2007, 01:44 AM
Taco, let me pose this:

Say you're sitting in a tavern in 1794, as the Whiskey Rebellion is about to erupt. You're plotting against U.S. governmental interests. An agent of the government has been planted in that tavern to overhear your discussions. He hears enough to convict you.

Do you see any difference between that and we're doing now, except that we're probably much better at it now, and that our means of communication and that our standards of interdiction have evolved?
For any visual learners


|

Taco John
08-07-2007, 02:02 AM
Taco, let me pose this:

Say you're sitting in a tavern in 1794, as the Whiskey Rebellion is about to erupt. You're plotting against U.S. governmental interests. An agent of the government has been planted in that tavern to overhear your discussions. He hears enough to convict you.

Do you see any difference between that and we're doing now, except that we're probably much better at it now, and that our means of communication and that our standards of interdiction have evolved?


Put your government agents in the bushes of every townsperson whether they are known to be part of the rebellion or not, and your metaphor creeps a little closer to what is happening here.

There's plenty of difference and plenty of nuance to explore in that scenario. If I'm in a public place, plotting to crop some tax collector and tar and feather him, I'm conspiring to harm another individual. The government should absolutely step in to convict for whatever charges that they can. But if my intention is to round up some Whiskey Boys and get loud in the city square in protest of a discrimanatory tax, then hell no, the government should not intervene under any condition until they cross the line that infringes on someone else's liberty.

Given the political nature of the Bush organization, I'm not convinced that they wouldn't use this kind of power to harass (ie. bring charges against) political opponents prior to any crime actually being committed (charge them now, and let the courts sort it out later - stop the dissent now and at all costs). But let's take Bush out of the equation. I'm not convinced that EITHER of our major parties could use this kind of power without abusing it. Do you seriously want Hillary with this kind of power? God knows I have nightmares of how Giuliani would use it - that guy hired Bernard Kerik!

These guys are in our homes now. This isn't about what is being said in a public tavern where anyone can hear it. This is about them being in our emails, and our phones. Cameras on every street. Power that was unimaginable to our forefathers, centralized and without oversight. All in the name of preserving liberty. It's a ridiculous connundrum.

It's not our liberty they're out to protect. You guys are falling for the cover story. This is nothing more than a power grab in an effort to change the face of America -- nay, The World! But you hear that and laugh about tin foil hats. Apparently, nobody wants to believe that there are organized groups who have their own visions for the world. And yet, all around us, more and more power is being centralized, at the expense of liberty.

We don't own our lives. Our paychecks don't belong to us, they belong to the government. They take their cut before we even see what we earned. Now our conversations don't belong to us any more. There's three of us on the line, though Big Brother isn't a part of the conversation... he's just listening in to make sure were not talking bad about him. This isn't liberty. This isn't freedom. It's "friendly fascism." It looks like freedom and liberty, but it doesn't act like it. And all it's going to take is one event to scrap the entire thing and turn us into something completely unrecognizable.

Taco John
08-07-2007, 02:12 AM
You've chosen to use a public carrier of your conversation. IMO, your conversation is no longer private.


Public carrier? What is your definition of "public" here? To my knowledge, the government doesn't own the phone lines, or the phone companies. They regulate them but they don't own any of the infrastructure.

In any case, your view is not the traditional view of the US Government, and especially not of the conservative wing of American politics. It's actually kind of shocking to me that you'd even say such a thing, and reminds me just how scary things have gotten in modern America.

Let me ask you something though... By your "public carrier" stance, I assume you'd be ok with the post office implementing a program that samples the mail of American's and sends it through a process of inspection to ensure that you're not planning anything untoward. Is this correct?

a1na2
08-07-2007, 05:59 AM
The good news for all is that all sides consider him irrelevant and just an annoyance. I certainly don't consider him representative of any side.

That's because you don't have a side Charllie Brown.

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 05:43 PM
Public carrier? What is your definition of "public" here? To my knowledge, the government doesn't own the phone lines, or the phone companies. They regulate them but they don't own any of the infrastructure.

In any case, your view is not the traditional view of the US Government, and especially not of the conservative wing of American politics. It's actually kind of shocking to me that you'd even say such a thing, and reminds me just how scary things have gotten in modern America.

Let me ask you something though... By your "public carrier" stance, I assume you'd be ok with the post office implementing a program that samples the mail of American's and sends it through a process of inspection to ensure that you're not planning anything untoward. Is this correct?

By public carrier, I mean a service that's open to anyone who chooses to use it, whether it's provided by a publicly held company or the government. I'm even fine with the government infiltrating private organizations.

Look, when the KKK gets together the government is allowed to place moles inside their organization to make sure all they are doing is exercising their first amendment rights of expression and assembly. I have no problem with the government doing the same thing with expression and assembly over telephone lines or through the postal service for that matter.

Except for that one time back in 1980 when a well-meaning but very misguided friend of mine actually mailed me a couple of blunts, and didn't put enough postage on the envelope. I had to pick it up at the post office and pay the postage due.

What a putz. We're lucky we both didn't do time over that.

Cochise
08-07-2007, 06:13 PM
Public carrier? What is your definition of "public" here? To my knowledge, the government doesn't own the phone lines, or the phone companies. They regulate them but they don't own any of the infrastructure.

In any case, your view is not the traditional view of the US Government, and especially not of the conservative wing of American politics. It's actually kind of shocking to me that you'd even say such a thing, and reminds me just how scary things have gotten in modern America.

Let me ask you something though... By your "public carrier" stance, I assume you'd be ok with the post office implementing a program that samples the mail of American's and sends it through a process of inspection to ensure that you're not planning anything untoward. Is this correct?

Yeah, I don't agree with the public carrier analogy either. Even if the government did own all the telecom infrastructure you should still have some expectation of privacy unless they had probable cause, for lack of a better term.

patteeu
08-07-2007, 08:05 PM
I'm still waiting for one of the people who claim that freedoms are being trampled to describe exactly what the government is doing under this NSA program. I'm pretty confident that no one here really knows what's going on.

go bowe
08-07-2007, 08:27 PM
This is excellent news - shut your whining about it all.
I doubt very seriously that the Government is interested in your boring f*cking life and your piddly redundant posting on this shitty message board, He is going after actual suspects, get over yourselves.shitty message board?

if that is so, you are one of the reasons why...

and, if that is so, you should find another bb that isn't as shitty, your highness..

don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

Logical
08-07-2007, 09:23 PM
That's because you don't have a side Charllie Brown.

That may be the nicest compliment you could have paid me, thank you.

Logical
08-07-2007, 09:39 PM
You've chosen to use a public carrier of your conversation. IMO, your conversation is no longer private.This sort of depends on whether you are using land lines or a cell phone. Anything in the air is fair game and you have to know it can be intercepted. Land lines are owned by private carriers (mainly AT&T) and are therefore theoretically not public.

a1na2
08-07-2007, 10:03 PM
This sort of depends on whether you are using land lines or a cell phone. Anything in the air is fair game and you have to know it can be intercepted. Land lines are owned by private carriers (mainly AT&T) and are therefore theoretically not public.

Aren't the land lines across the nation available for lease by anyone? the little town I live in only has AT&T lines but there are several phone companies using them. At what point does private become public? If you have free access to the lines are they really private?

About the surveillance, I question why anyone would have a problem with any agency selecting an incoming call from a known entity that may be passing information into the country. Unless they are tagging you (any American) calling out of the country I don't see a problem. It's our freedom to have that privacy, but those outside the U.S., not citizens calling home, that possibly present the larger threat to Americans IMO.

Jim, sorry for the Charlie Brown comment. I wouldn't have made it if I thought it was going to make you go all gushy.

ClevelandBronco
08-08-2007, 12:16 AM
...Land lines are owned by private carriers (mainly AT&T) and are therefore theoretically not public.

AT&T is publicly owned and the telecommunications industry is to some extent regulated by the government. That doesn't sound very private to me.

The Klan (KK&K, AT&T?), on the other hand, is a private club. Your argument would work better to protect them.

go bowe
08-08-2007, 02:03 PM
AT&T is publicly owned and the telecommunications industry is to some extent regulated by the government. That doesn't sound very private to me.

The Klan (KK&K, AT&T?), on the other hand, is a private club. Your argument would work better to protect them.publicly owned?

you mean like when a company sells its stock to the public?

or is it like the white house, owned by the government on behalf of the public?

and no, at&t is is not publicly owned...

at&t is owned by private shareholders, not the public in general...

because of regulations, at&t is required to lease the use of it's lines and equipment to competitors, not because thier lines and equipment are the property of the public...

and as far as privacy goes, law enforcement generally has to get a warrant to tap lines and such (unless it's the nsa doing it) which suggests that there is some reasonable expectation of privacy involved...

...

go bowe
08-08-2007, 02:07 PM
This sort of depends on whether you are using land lines or a cell phone. Anything in the air is fair game and you have to know it can be intercepted. Land lines are owned by private carriers (mainly AT&T) and are therefore theoretically not public.what he said...

jAZ
08-08-2007, 02:13 PM
AT&T is publicly owned and the telecommunications industry is to some extent regulated by the government. That doesn't sound very private to me.
That's as strange a choice of defninitions for the word "public" in public carrier as I've ever heard.

GoBo and Logical have cleared things up for you... but that contortion of words and ideas is a bit suprising.