How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 The Alley
 Spying On Americans/Dissent   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76
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 
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US

75 posted 08-24-2006 07:08 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

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...

Had the decision gone the other way, Mike, I wouldn't have questioned the judge's partisanship. I would have questioned their sanity.  

Seriously, this isn't even a close call. We are protected from illegal search and seizure, period, end of discussion.

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.

I think you're confusing program and protocol, Mike. Any congressional bill dealing with surveillance that does not include judicial overview is illegal. The only way around that is a Constitutional amendment or, perhaps, a declaration of martial law.

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.

There's nothing wrong with surveillance. It just can't go unchecked because, yes, Mike, THAT constitutes a loss of personal freedom. That's not an innuendo or a hint, it's simply the way our Constitution was written. One man doesn't get to decide another man's fate in a free country. We are protected by due process, where no one gets to simultaneously be judge, jury, and executioner.

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....

It's not a sleazy tactic to expect our elected officials to follow the law, Mike. If the Administration procures warrants, that means someone else agrees that probable cause has been established. Checks. Balances. Due process.

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.

No, Mike, we are NOT in a war, and even if we were, the things you list are privileges not liberties. Throwing innocent people into an internment camp, as we saw happen in WWII, is illegal -- despite widespread fear that let's our government get away with it. Even in war, where the Constitution grants the Executive branch far more power than in peacetime, there are checks and balances established. The President only gets that extra power when Congress declares war, not when the President declares war. Checks. Balances. Due process.

Iraq aside, because that's not the issue here (although I'd be happy to discuss that, too), the so-called War on Terrorism is no different than Johnson's War on Poverty or the subsequent War on Drugs. It's rhetoric. We are no more at war with terrorists than we are at war with the gangs in Los Angeles, the drug peddlers in New York, or any other criminal between the two coasts. Terrorists are criminals, little different from Al Capone, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh.

The question is whether or not it was implemented legally - not whether or not it destroys our freedoms and privacy. It doesn't.

You can't separate the two, Mike.

If it was accomplished illegally then it WAS an infringement on those people's liberties. And, I'm sorry, but your freedom and my freedom is inextricably tied to their freedom. You can't protect your own rights unless you are ready to protect everyone's rights. When due process is thrown out the window, the baby goes with it and no one is safe.

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

76 posted 08-24-2006 09:11 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

There are times when I wished you were not so articulate, and then again those times when I'm thankful you are.  *mutter praise mutter praise*

Irrespective, since the Honorable Diggs failed to disclose her contribututions to the ACLU, as well as her personal ties to the same organization, her Opinion should be strenuously reviewed and overturned, pending further examination by one who is not tied so intrisically to the plaintiffs.  Kinda reminds me of the Molly McGuire cases of unionized coal miners against the owners of those coal mines and the lawyers and judges who had investitures in said coal mines.  All the 'ring leaders' were executed.
 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 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors