| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Comments:
<0> FreeTrade they didn't just bug the numbers in that mans phonebook, they bugged the numbers of every person that person called, and so on in an exponential pattern
<1> yes it can
<1> it can just slow down the process
<2> it can when it's an urgent matter
<3> Herzen, I see it as a part of presidentical power which has been used time and time again by different presidents
<4> Free: I'm not against spying on terrorists ... this isn't spying on terrorists
<3> As long as their is some oversite and there is.
<2> it's spying on potential terrorists
<3> checks and balances.
<3> I have no problem with it.
<2> since we don't know who they are, always
<5> Timur, Then grant the president power to have immediate review
<3> Timur potential and probable even.
<4> It's spying on everyone in order to turn up suspects
<5> Wake the judge from his bed if you have to
<5> but I want some kind of Review
<1> all it does
<3> Thats not a loss of a civil right, unless you consider the right to life as an adult or child (NOT) a civil right
<0> They don't have to, under current law Bush could get a warrant 3 days after the fact of tapping a phone
<1> is add more red tape
<0> No point in waking the judge
<3> I consider my life a civil right.
<5> PirateJoe, "red tape" in this case is a fundamental check on the power of the executive
<3> And the governments duty above most duties is to protect me when I cant protect myself.
<5> I'm not saying what Bush did was illegal
<2> Herz: fine, but I'm interested in results, not legalisms as such
<5> I would just like to see some review
<4> Free: you give up your rights only by your own actions
<5> Which I think is reasonable
<2> the power of the executive grows when there's a mortal danger posed by terrorists
<0> I never make overseas calls and this still bothers me.
<2> so, that's pretty much that for me
<4> Timur: and it never goes back again
<6> FreeTrade: I don't think anyone has a problem with bugging people whose names are found on a terrorist's laptop. What I have a problem with is the administration wiretapping people who vocally disagree with their policies. I also have a problem with the president wiretapping political opponents or using the FBI to investigate political opponents. Remember Clinton's staff being caught with FBI files on his opponents?
<2> why not
<3> OcDoc, I know the odds of myself being eavesdropped on are less than 1:1,000,00O I dont consider any violation of a civil right when none has occured.
<4> there are two different forms of abuse in this issue
<3> I also once again, do not consider that terrrorists have civil rights.
<2> that's an ***umption that I don't see justified
<3> To me they dont
<4> Free: okay, it's the principle of the thing
<5> MrRod, Even if that isn't happening, thats why the review is necessary, to keep that from happening under any administration
<6> Herzen: It HAS happened. More than once.
<3> The principle without application is meaningless to me. Now when you have evidence of abuse of such things then its a civil liberties violation and its very dangerous
<7> someone wants to eavesdrop on me? go for it - but you will be seriously bored
<4> Free: scenario - one of your competitors doesn't like competing with you, so he asks his brother the police chief to get you out of the way
<6> FreeTrade: There has been abuse in the past.
<4> Free: is that close enough to you?
<3> I know very intimately the corruption of government historically. Because I know the biography of J.Edgar Hoover backward and forward.
<3> SO I am very intimate with the abuse of civil liberties.
<4> okay, don't answer my question
<2> ok, that's a 'maybe'
<6> FreeTrade: Ok. Then why set up a system that's easy to abuse.
<2> versus the 'certainty' of terrorists trying to blow us up
<3> Bushs program has been investigated and audited thoroughly by a 3rd party whose job is to ensure no violations occur.
<3> Theyfound no violations
<3> he will be audited again in this program to look for abuse.
<6> FreeTrade: What third party?
<8> MrRod: Congress
<3> MrRod, I believes its a seperate part of the NSA.. But its top secret I only know that it exists because several sources including the president have said it exists,
<0> Well the NYT book said roughly 2,000 Americans and there are roughly 300,000,000 Americans total so your chances are actually closer to 1:150,000
<4> wow, the government is auditing the government for corruption ... I"m impressed
<3> But on the non clandestine side of things, Congress was informed about it 12 times.
<3> The majority leaders, and the intelligence oversite committees
<8> OcDoc: that's the purpose :P
<2> yeah, the government is always evil, esp when it's protecting your sorry ircing *** from being blown up by terrorists.
<2> .gov = teh enemi!
<4> ah .... a SECRET government agency is secretly auditing the government for corruption ... even MORE impressive
<3> in fact one democrat when told we were doing this, replied allegedly, YOU mean we werent doing this already ?!
<6> FreeTrade: That's not an unbiased third party. I mean, that's like Clinton saying he'll have someone on his staff look into the Monica Lewinski affair.
<3> No OcDoc
<3> Congress is not secret
<7> we aren't gonna talk about Mr. Clinton's staff - this is a family channel ;-)
<3> please folks dont try to paint me in a corner, I always leave a trail to get out.
<8> although they do hold secret sessions for national security issues
<3> Congress has known about this since 1 month after it began.
<8> which this would fall under
<2> as well they should
<4> Timur: I always ***ume that the most dangerous threat in my world is, well .... threatening
<3> I know well the democrats are not out to protect the president.
<3> I know the only reasons its an issue now is because of the distance from 911 we are.
<9> Bush is a cheater a criminal and should be impeached
<4> Timur: I am in far more danger from my government than I am from terrorists
<9> Republicans are a bunch of yuppies
<2> yeah, right.
<3> 911 was so long ago none of us thing about being hit again, In fact 911 didnt happen it was just a nightmare i had 5 years ago or 4 + years ago.
<2> that pretty much says it all
<3> And the terrorists since then, They now love us.
<3> And they werent after us at koby towers
<6> FreeTrade: They need to figure out a system that works. So far they haven't.
<4> Congress! now there's a purely selfless government organization
<3> or the African embasies
<3> or the USS Cole
<3> OR Somalia
<3> And they will never hit us again
<10> interesting... in Cali now, specialty built vehicles are excempt from emissions checks provided that they are "hybrids"
<3> So lets all go back to sleep
<6> Somalia was our own damn fault.
<4> Timur: see? I told you you weren
<4> 't listening
<3> Somalian who downed the blackhawks were according to al queda braggadocia trained by al queda to bring down aircraft
<3> Somalia was stupid yes.
<4> Timur: see? I told you you weren't listening ... all ears, indeed!
<3> Stupid to try to feed starving people when the gangs steal all the food
<3> and stupid doing a military operation without the AC130 Support which was available but ordered not to be used by the stupid president.
<4> who is more of a danger to me? the guy next door and down the street? or some guy ten thousand miles away?
<3> For gods sake when you are in battle you let the generals decide how to use ANY ***ETTS on the ground in a country
<6> OcDoc: Depends. Do you live in a ghetto?
<4> MrRod: nope
<3> Seriously I think people do consider 911 a nightmare which didnt happen.
<6> OcDoc: Then maybe the guy 10,000 miles away is more dangerous.
<3> People dont want to believe it in its entirety so its a bad memory
<4> MrRod: I don't think he can shoot that far
<6> FreeTrade: I don't think people think that way.
<3> a suppressed nightmare
<10> OcDoc the guy down the street at the bar right now :)
<3> To people of new york who worked in Manhatten I bet they cant forget it.
<10> without a DD
<4> MrRod: without getting on a plane that I give to him for the purpose
<3> We cant remember it
<8> Clinton didn't know how to fight effective wars
<3> MrRod, I am sure people have grown complacent.
<3> I am positive because its human nature.
<4> Free: remembering and learning from is one thing ... throwing your tradition out the window and hiding in a foxhole is another
<6> FreeTrade: That may be happening. At the same time, I think many people are unwilling to allow the administration to have free reign to do whatever they want.
<3> Just like we grow complacent when we know the odds are very high we will see a huge earthquake in time now.
<3> But do you have all your water and food stashed away
<3> I Dont.
<3> I buy the water.
<3> I buy the first aid kits
<3> But I would have to find them if we had the earthquake today
<10> If we in this grand experiment called the united states, have to push aside the outlined liberties of our foundation in order to continue; then doesn't that mean the experiment has failed?
<4> Free: yes I have the water and food, and no I don't hide from the possibility of an earthquake
<4> Free: extremes are rarely the right response
<3> I have put off burying the carpenters tool box in the backyard and putting the food water batteryless radio and flashlight and first aid kit.
<10> FreeTrade I don't have water stashed away, but I have a well
<6> OcDoc: You get earthquakes there?
<4> MrRod: yes
<3> OcDoc, What is extreme ?
<4> Free: that's what we're debating
<5> "They scare Canadians into believing that "You wont recognize Canada when Harper gets through with it." Do we recognize the Canada of today upon which the Martin Liberals have imposed laws that would overturn the presumption of innocence in certain criminal cases; give state security agents open access to our e-mails; the power of "preventive control measures" against unindicted "enemies of the state;" and the right of random search o
<3> Resonding to al queda is extreme ? Or preparing for an earthquake ?
<6> OcDoc: Did you move again?
<3> I dont think either is extreme I think its prudent.
<5> http://rootleweb.blogspot.com/2006/01/decision-canada-flock-of-sheep-or.html
<4> Free: both
<4> MrRod: no ... you don't remember the Seattle earthquake a couple of years ago?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
john Mcaine
linux fdisk cannot open /dev/hda
#beginner
#delphi
#delphi
#politics
hate literachure
#linuxhelp
#unixhelp
|
|