How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Spying On Americans/Dissent   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Spying On Americans/Dissent

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 08-17-2006 05:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement calling the program "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling."

"United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives," he said. "The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected.

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero  called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."


There's your bottom line...the nail in the Bush coffin. Forget the part about stopping terrorist attacks and saving American lives. That's immaterial. The object is Bush's coffin and Democratic power brokers and the ACLU would accept the deaths if it meant getting George.

We deserve whatever will happen to us.....


By the way, before anyone  jumps up and says it not the program but the way Bush handled it alone without Congressional approval first, Please re-read the paragraph where the ACLU gives their reasons. It IS the program they object to, regardless of who approves it.

When the first incident  that this program could have prevented happens, they can all give each other high-fives.

Go, ACLU!!....somewhere else!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 08-17-2006 05:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL! Noah, I hadn't seen your entry before putting in mine...sorry.

At any rate, I'll point out once again that the ACLU's complaint was NOT that Bush did it on his own but that the program exists at all.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


52 posted 08-17-2006 10:31 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

The headlines I've been reading don't suggest that the program in its entirety is unconstitutional; it's simply that a warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.

I myself believe that the NSA's program generally speaking is a necessary tool, and any ACLU plaintiff or civil libertarian or New York Times reporter or activist who believes everything about the program is wrong, I would strongly disagree with and believe they're not being realistic in that we need to pinpoint and detect these specific threats to our ways of life which could otherwise go by unnoticed or undetected.

But we have also have to be understanding that with all these necessary tools present, there also comes great responsibility, and when we certainly need to use these tools, may they be used the legal way. Otherwise, in allowing the circumvention of the law, it could potentially put "anyone" as risk of being spied on with any burden of proof required prior to doing so.

Like I said, Bush has every right to question FISA's relevance today, as things certainly have changed since the Carter Era and we are coping and enduring new and evolving threats. I agree that I think most Americans believe some changes need to be made inevitably, and had Bush notified Congress to discuss reforming FISA and allowing a bi-partisan change to the rules under his understanding, I absolutely approve of that.

But that wasn't the case, and chose instead to pretend there was no such thing as FISA and did not seek a warrant under the rule. And I believe that these sorts of executive overreachings are only going to encourage successors of Bush to behave just like this and continue experimenting with how far they can go beyond the limits of the law, which I believe sends a freightening message to our children that if they can get away with it, why can't they.

That's really what the concern here is and has been, and if we choose to be passive and allow this executive power grab to continue, we're just allowing a free pass for future exploitation of our American values. This goes beyond any particular president or elected official, this is about our democratic foundation.

Moreover, I believe just the opposite as some may think that this decision puts the rights of our enemies above our lives. In fact, I believe very much the reversal, in that this decision is a blow to the terrorists who are attempting to manipulate us, play mind games with us, and hope that our ways of life, our democratic foundation, are internally chiseled away because of our lack of resolution and patience, who are hoping we'll compromise our principles in dwelling under an umbrella of paranoia. I believe this decision eloquently tells them, "We believe in wholeheartedly securing this nation, while also securing our values, and believe us, we CAN defend both hand in hand!"

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 08-18-2006 01:15 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
There's your bottom line...the nail in the Bush coffin.

Maybe for some, Mike. But their intent, by itself, would accomplish little. Their intent, by itself, is a gun without bullets.

quote:
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

For me, Mike, that is the bottom line. And the bullets.

Personally, this isn't about the President, except perhaps peripherally. I suspect the very qualities that make a man want to hold the highest office in the land will also compel him to push all boundaries should he gain that office. Such a man will always be convinced he is right, will always be certain he knows best, will always trust to his own devices rather than those of others. It's the nature of the beast, I think. It's also exactly why our system of checks and balances is so absolutely vital.

It's never been about Bush (or Clinton, or Nixon, or any other such man) thinking he was above the law. I almost expect that. For me, the real concern has always been that so many Americans seem to agree with Bush. I firmly believe the system will protect us from any over-eager President. I'm not so sure anything can protect us . . . from us.


icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


54 posted 08-18-2006 12:22 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox



"I suspect the very qualities that make a man want to hold the highest office in the land will also compel him to push all boundaries should he gain that office. Such a man will always be convinced he is right, will always be certain he knows best, will always trust to his own devices...."


…an illuminating perspective.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 08-18-2006 01:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's really what the concern here is and has been, and if we choose to be passive and allow this executive power grab to continue, we're just allowing a free pass for future exploitation of our American values.

Really, Noah? What then of the executive "power grabs" of Truman, FDR and Eisenhower,  whose solitary actions make this one pale into oblivion? Were American rights or the constitution shattered those 50-60 years ago?  If you really feel that this decision is a blow to the terrorists, feel free to join the ranks of possibly 2% of the human race.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,"

Plaintiffs being Democrats,  news reporters, lawyers and the ACLU.  Do you really think their main goal is the public interest, Ron?...and I still have not yet seen where the constitution has been violated. I can understand your or anyone's concern about an "over-eager" president but, in this matter, if an act like 9/11 cannot shift a president into overeagerness concerning national safety then he's not the man I want to see sitting in the Oval office.

You are concerned that so many Americans support Bush? Well, tell me.....do you feel your rights have gone downhill under him? Do you feel that his implementation of the surveillance program - even without getting congressional approval -  was detrimental to the U.S? They don't. Do you feel that your rights and your safety is more secure now that a court has ruled against the wiretapping and surveillance? They don't. Most of the Americans who support Bush are just ordinary, common-sense folks. They don't see the destruction of the constitution you may - they see a fellow who acted by implementing things to make them safer - and they can look at five years of post-9/11 history of no domestic attacks to appreciate. The surveillance is all but toothless now with all of the publicity. It only worked on a clandestine level, which has been blown apart. These peoeple will remember that, too, and who blew it apart.

Even if I grant you that Bush did not follow the protocol he should have, I cannot join in your or Noah's claim that the constitution is being decimated or that our rights are going down the tubes. It is what it is...one small incedent that, at least in Britain, just saved thousands of lives. If the Democrats want to scream that they were left out of the loop and missed getting some credit for what they haven't done....tough patooties. That's the bottom line......not that the program was bad but that they didn't get in on it......makes them despise Bush and attack so much more.

If you can see that so many people agree with Bush, that could be a hint for a little self-examination.......or just accept the fact that so many people are so dumb and ignorant that they just don't know any better.

The Constitution is alive and well.....no one man is going to bring it down.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


56 posted 08-18-2006 03:01 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Plaintiffs being Democrats,  news reporters, lawyers and the ACLU.  Do you really think their main goal is the public interest, Ron?

Mike, their goal, main or otherwise, isn't an issue. The purpose of an adversarial system isn't that someone wins and someone loses, but rather that everyone is constantly scrutinized and forced to justify their actions. Trust me, if wasn't Democrates, reporters, lawyers, and the ACLU, it would be someone else (if only retired nerds), 'cause that's the only way the system works. Frankly, if they can't take the heat, they shouldn't be in the kitchen.

quote:
Well, tell me.....do you feel your rights have gone downhill under him?

Yes.

quote:
Do you feel that his implementation of the surveillance program - even without getting congressional approval -  was detrimental to the U.S?

Yes.

quote:
Do you feel that your rights and your safety is more secure now that a court has ruled against the wiretapping and surveillance?

Yes.

quote:
I cannot join in your or Noah's claim that the constitution is being decimated or that our rights are going down the tubes. It is what it is...one small incedent

Or one small step?

Come on, Mike. Your not untypical exaggeration sounds like a B-movie gangster.

"Yo hona, we'd just knocked 'im down a bit, it's not like we killt 'im or somethin." And the camera pans to a close-up of the wizened judge, his right brow quirked and clearly wondering what might have happened had the police *not* arrived in time?

Don't get me wrong. I don't for a minute believe that Bush or anyone else serving this country wants to decimate the Constitution. I'm sure Bush's intentions are noble. I'm equally sure that he's horribly, terribly wrong.

quote:
... if an act like 9/11 cannot shift a president into overeagerness concerning national safety then he's not the man I want to see sitting in the Oval office.

quote:
If you can see that so many people agree with Bush, that could be a hint for a little self-examination.......or just accept the fact that so many people are so dumb and ignorant that they just don't know any better.

Dumb and ignorant? No, Mike, just afraid. And far too complacent after 200 years, apparently forgetting that terrorism is a relatively new danger among many, many much older dangers. People can only kill you once, and then it's over. When people control you, it's never over.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There are three rights listed there, Mike. Not just the one.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 08-18-2006 10:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, if you  feel that your rights and your safety is more secure now that a court has ruled against the wiretapping and surveillance, then you leave me without any possible reply.

There are three rights listed there, Mike. Not just the one.

I would be interested in knowing which two Bush has wiped out.

So your opinion is that so many support Bush because they are scared. That can only be an opinion of yours since you are not one of them. I AM one of them so I feel qualified to answer that. It's not fear- it's the recognition of a common sense manner of responding to and dealing with a situation. Many feel that Bush used quick, decisive and intelligent thinking in the implementation of this action. We could care less that he didn't waste time bringing it before Congress. It was, after all, a good, sound plan that everyone would endorse. You don;t hear Democrats claim that it was a bad procedure or something they would be against. Their only complaint was that they weren't part of the decision to implement it - that THEY could not in the future use it as political fodder (WE authorized the program and gave Bush the ability to proceed!) Well,we "scared" people that you refer to could care less how hurt their feelings are. It was a sound plan and Bush went with it. We have no problem with it. Do we feel that the Constitution has been damaged because of it? No, we don't. Do we feel that our rights are being violated because of it? No, we don't. Are we complacent? Just the opposite. We saw the World Trade center fall just like everybody else. How you can suggest we are scared and complacent at the same time baffles me. We saw the first WTC bombing attempt. We saw the USS Cole. We saw the marine barracks in Beirut and we've seen many terrorist attacks aimed at us over the years. We also hear groups and even countries calling for our destruction. We know the threat is real and we stand behind someone who thinks clearly and acts decisively in our best interests. You claim that he should be forced to justify his actions? We feel that his actions are justified and we feel that the charges  against him are nothing more than an attempt to be adversarial on a personal level.

We will let the retired nerds, the professors, the lawyers and the political opponents sit around and theorize about the damage to the constitution and the loss of human rights. We are not smart enough to do so. We do know, however, that every presidency is different and the constitution remains constant. We hear the theories that if one president does something it will lead to further variations of that particular thing in the future until it raches a point where all rights are gone... and we don't believe them. Every presidency is a new beginning and the term of every president is unique. FDR interred Japanese in the U.S. during WWII. Have we tried to inter muslims? Has anyone in the past 60 years tried to inter any group again? Did that violation of rights lead to a chain of events which snowballed into a major fracturing of the constitution? No, it didn't. I can give similar examples of actions of other presidents. Have any of those actions lead to the doom that you and Noah project for the future if Bush is not stopped? None.

You make innuendos about 'when people control you' as a reference to the present. THERE we are getting into B movies, with all due respect. When do the references to Big Brother begin? It's not 1984 - it's 22 years later and Big Brother has still not made the scene.

We don't feel we are being controlled. We still feel that our rights have  not been violated and we support a man who is acting in our best interest in the realm of national security. He has the tools - we don't. You may choose to believe it or not but we would support his action even if he were of a different party. Mike, their goal, main or otherwise, isn't an issue. Actually, it is. We recognize that the only reason this  is such a major issue is based on partisan bickering and personal dislike and we don;t care for political parties playing political football with our national or personal security.

I realize  that I have left plenty of  avenues in this little speech for people to pick apart. I'm not writing this as a 'scholar' (even if I could). I'm just writing it as one of the many people that concern you with their support of Bush's action in this matter. Frankly,I don't feel that your rights have been diminished any more than I believe that you are safer now that the wiretapping program has been exposed but if you do,  then so be it. That's how we feel. We are not any more scared or complacent than anyone else but we can recognize smart thinking when we see it and we applaud it. That's just the way we are........


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


58 posted 08-18-2006 10:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Amen, Mike, Amen.

And God help us all if the courts ruling against eavesdropping on the commuications of known terrorists stands. Because we are certainly going to need His help big time. The thwarted bombings last week would certainly have not been thwarted and a major disaster would have happened two days ago.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


59 posted 08-18-2006 11:17 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Again, I believe you're overlooking that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wasn't ruling against the NSA program in its entirety; she was only ruling against the program in its warrantless form. Observe Page 1 in particular closely:

*

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's Decision

*

"This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”)undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since."

*

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


60 posted 08-19-2006 04:13 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ron, I'm in total agreement with you.  

Noah, thanks for pointing out the significant part about "warrantless."  Exactly, why is it so difficult to get a warrant and do it the right way?    

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


61 posted 08-19-2006 04:33 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If it makes you feel any better Ron the numbers agreeing with Bush seem to be on waning...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701484.html
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=285
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


62 posted 08-20-2006 11:49 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://www.slate.com/id/2147955/?nav=tap3

quote:
The president's claim of executive authority to ignore the Fourth Amendment and violate federal laws in the name of protecting national security has no apparent limits. Under the Bush administration's argument, federal law enforcement could seemingly go into anyone's home, at any time, without a warrant by claiming that it might better catch terrorists. There is simply no obvious stopping point, and that's what makes the president's claim of broad executive power so alarming. Nor is there any reason to believe that warrantless wiretapping is needed to protect national security. The administration could have gone to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves more than 99 percent of all government requests for warrants. Under the procedures of that court, it even could have gotten the warrant after the surveillance had been done.


and
http://www.slate.com/id/2134215/

quote:
Robert Bork, who is admired and reviled as the king of stinting literalism in constitutional interpretation, always uses wiretapping as his one great example of legitimate reasoning by analogy. The authors of the document didn't know about wiretapping, but if they did, they would regard it as a "search and seizure" just like a police raid, and therefore restricted by the Fourth Amendment. The administration doesn't deny this directly, but its logic leaves citizens little or no protection against government wiretapping as a practical matter.


Don't have time to go into this right now, but I tell you what? In '88, let's all vote Democratic, see what happens when that President invokes these precedents, and we'll all be on the same side.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


63 posted 08-23-2006 08:41 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

It has been found that the Honorable Diggs made multiple large donations to the ACLU, who happened to be one of the primary plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit over which the Honorable Diggs volunteered to preside.  To this simpleton, that's a conflict of interest.  She should have recused herself from the case and her verdict should be nullified for prejudice and said conflict of interest.

To quote the New York Times, of all places:
quote:
Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.

[This message has been edited by Alicat (08-23-2006 10:36 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


64 posted 08-23-2006 10:53 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Ali, I'm honestly not sure a belief in upholding the law can legitimately be called a prejudice or conflict of interest, let alone a reason for recusion. Besides, donating to a cause doesn't create a financial or personal relationship with the ACLU any more (or less) than voting for a Presidential candidate creates a relationship with the Bush administration.


Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


65 posted 08-23-2006 10:59 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Actually Ron, the ACLU lists the Honorable Diggs as one of their secretaries.  That sounds pretty darn cozy to me.  Not to mention the ACLU shopping the case around until they found a rather sympathetic ear.  Which was connected to a Carter appointed Federal Judge who made hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the ACLU in 1999.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 08-24-2006 12:44 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

financial= hundreds of thousands in donations.
Personal = listed as a secretary of the ACLU.

You may want to rethink that,  Ron.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


67 posted 08-24-2006 01:45 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I'll admit I would prefer more distance. However, a judge who donated either time or money to a political party would have to face similar scrutiny. And any judge that was appointed by the reigning political party would be no less linked than would a secretary (uh, whatever that is?). Face it, in any Federal case of this nature a Federal judge is going to be associated to one and probably both parties involved.

When push comes to shove, however, the decision has absolutely nothing to do with the ACLU. Their victory is a moral one, not a profitable one, and the issue decided wasn't about the watchdog but about the Constitution they safeguard. When a man stands before the bench, his guilt doesn't depend on who arrested him but only on what he did.

Was Diggs influenced by ties to the ACLU? Or does she simply agree with them? There is a difference. A judge who supports his local police, either financially or vocally, doesn't recuse himself every time they arrest a criminal, after all. Even if he personally wants the police to win, he judges each case on its merits. That's the job.

I would have liked a cleaner victory, by a judge no one could reproach (as impossible as I suspect that would ever be). But then, that's why we have an appeals process. If Diggs was wrong, her decision will be reversed. I don't think she was wrong.


iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


68 posted 08-24-2006 02:20 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ron:  "I would have liked a cleaner victory, by a judge no one could reproach (as impossible as I suspect that would ever be). But then, that's why we have an appeals process. If Diggs was wrong, her decision will be reversed. I don't think she was wrong."

In agreement with you, Ron.  However, I believe Ali is right in that there really are no non-political judges until they reach the Supreme Court....and even then, it takes them a few pay backs before they can really be unbiased.  That doesn't mean every decision the lower court judges make is biased though, so I'm in accord with you  there, too.  I applaud her ruling in this case.  Unfortunately, I think it will be reversed and have to go to the Supreme Court.  Then we will find out if the two new judges have their debts paid yet.  *wink*  

I fear that if the Supremes do not interpret the Constitution in 'our' favor, a nonreversible precedent will be set for all times, giving the executive branch way, way too much power and ultimately paving the ground for a dictatorship.  Maybe even a democratic candidate, Ali.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 08-24-2006 01:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Iliana, for provimg my point so vividly. You belive in Diggs even with her affiliation and support of the ACLU....and  yet you are already coming up with sly insinuations that if it reaches the Supreme Court, the odds are that judges will be biased for having been appointed by Bush..."if they have paid their dues yet.." is that how you put it?

Say what you will but i have a feeling that if the decision had gone in favor of Bush by a judge appointed by a Republican, a member of a Republican organization and a donator of hundreds of thousands to their causes, you and Ron would both being holding your noses. Since it is the exact reverse, you applaud her decision. Must be nice.......

Should be interesting watching the ACLU now. They are going after all the congressional bills before Congress dealing with surveillance, stating that, after the Diggs ruling, they are all illegal. Their point has ALWAYS been the program, not the protocol. Stay tuned...
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


70 posted 08-24-2006 02:25 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, as much as I admire your fierce defiance, I am totally baffled by your stance.  Are you all that eager to give up your freedom and privacy?  Searches without warrant...really?  My point was that a precedent would be set, and it could well be that the next president will take full advantage of it!  Or maybe the next one after that....could be a dem., could be a repub.; it doesn't matter.  We are talking about facilitating abuse of executive powers here and not partisan mumbo-jumbo as you always seem to turn the threads into.  And....I'm out.......
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 08-24-2006 03:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Give up freedom and privacy? Well, you need to make up your mind, Iliana. Is your problem with it all the surveillance or the lack of warrant?

That's the one point that is so ludicrous in the Democratic hoopla. First, they don't condemn the surveillance itself. They know how unpopular that would be. Their grievance is the lack of notification and participation. At the same time, they pose little innuendos to mom and pop and all inbetween, hinting that freedoms are being lost or trampled on. They get people like you to speak of the loss of freedom and privacy. So what does that mean? Does it mean that, if Bush had got warrants before and made notifications then the plan was a good one and nobody's freedoms or privacy would be in danger? It's just another sleazy tactic....

Your freedoms and privacy are intact, Iliana, unless you care to show me where they are not. The wiretapping and surveillance dealt only with overseas calls to people with possible terrorist ties. Granted, if you have made calls like that to people like that, then you would have a point. In every war (and don't think for a minute we are not in one) there are freedoms traded for security, be it curfews, rationings, blackouts or a variety of things we are not subject to in peacetime. I can relate better to ron's point that it is the supposed illegality of the situation that is the question more than I can your doomsday concern about our rights and privacy. The plan was a good one - an intelligent and logical plan to implement. The question is whether or not it was implemented legally - not whether or not it destroys our freedoms and privacy. It doesn't.

As far as your point of a precedent being set, I covered that in an earlier comment. Perhaps you missed it....
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


72 posted 08-24-2006 04:11 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, I thought I was finished on this thread and after the following I am.  First, it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you because you make everything partisan.  Secondly, your comment:  "They get people like you" -- what is your implication?  You don't know anything about me except that my son has joined the Army Reserves.  And....what the heck are you implying?  You mean independent thinkers, like me?  If so, you'd be right.  You think I do not have a mind of my own???  Ask my husband, he'll tell you, I certainly do.  I think for myself based on listening to both sides and weighing the evidence!  I was addressing the legalities, as well and said I was in agreement with Ron.  And, YES, I think warrants are necessary....I did not say anything about notification (that would ruin the element of surprise).  What is so freaking wrong about asking the executive branch to get a warrant through the special court they established?  

As to the privacy....you are dead wrong about that, Mike.  We talked about the banking situation once before and I have first-hand proof through a foreign banker for my friend whom I'm the executrix for that more than terrorists' bank accounts are looked at. It is part of their disclosure procedure in my friend's case.  Additionally, overseas phone calls are listened to.  The internet is watched closely, yahoo mail, etc.  How on earth do you think security distinguishes one call or one email from another.  They've been listening for years based on certain key words.  For instance, if I use the word "bomb"....you can bet your booty it will be picked up on.  I was in the airport in 2000 and was discussing the fact that there was a bag sitting beside a trash can with my daughter.  I mentioned that I hoped it wasn't a bomb or something and that maybe we should report it.  The next thing I knew, I was approached by a security guard and questioned with my family for several minutes.  Pretty spooky.  My daughter was retained at the SF Airport because she had a keychain that looked like brass knuckles given to her as a gift after she was assaulted....they fined her $150 for having it in her possession even though she threw it away....that was Homeland Secuirty.  Everytime I fly, they search my bags.  The last three or four times I have flown, they have gotten me up out of my wheelchair and searched me head to toe....pat down and between my legs.  You tell me that our rights are intact.....bullhockey!  

Mike, sometimes, I think you just want to be beaten up on by a woman....lol.  

And now....I am really out.  But I do wish you well.  
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


73 posted 08-24-2006 04:13 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

As for "turning these threads into partisan mumbo-jumbo", Mike has no copyright on that. It has certainly proven to be a two-way effort.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 08-24-2006 04:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I wish you well as well, miss.
Whether you beat up on me or not, you always have my admiration for your "Don't expect me to back down, buster" attitude and may your day go well.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Spying On Americans/Dissent   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors