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
 What the heck   [ 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

What the heck

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


50 posted 02-11-2006 09:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Same question to you, Ron, as to Noah. Which of your liberties have been violated? Which have been undervalued?

None of which I'm aware, Mike, or I'd likely already be in prison. I think I can assure you, it won't happen quietly.

Of course, if I was only concerned with my own rights I'd probably just shut up and try not to attract too much attention.

quote:
Fear does not rule us but caution does. I don;t see that as a bad thing..

Personally, I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and any surveillance not governed by adequate checks and balances are symptoms of a very bad thing, Mike. But those aren't so much the issue as is the attitude that Americans deserve to feel safe and some apparently are willing to pay any cost for that feeling of security.

I think we all need to realize that war entails the possibility of death, for soldiers, for civilians, even for the people we love, and if our only goal is to avoid death the answer isn't "caution," but capitulation.

I think Ideals are important and shouldn't be set aside in the name of "caution."

I think the only real security anyone ever has in this world is fueled largely by courage, not by "caution."

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


51 posted 02-11-2006 09:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Noah, I am not as concerned because I do not believe that actions like that are just random acts for the hell of it with no basis to back them up. All you know is that searches were made. Do you know why? No, you don't and neither do I but I doubt it was without reason. You would need a lot more facts than you have to make statements like yours.

It has long been accepted that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government possible. But it's still a dictatorship, and history suggests it rarely stay benevolent for long.

If we really wanted to trust our lives to men instead of the Rule of Law, Mike, we should have just stuck with King George III back in 1776. The result would have been much the same, it would have saved a lot of lives, and it would certainly have been the cautious thing to do.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 02-11-2006 09:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, I'm afraid I don't understand much of the crux of your reply, which may be my shortcoming, not yours.

Of course, if I was only concerned with my own rights..

Whose rights are you concerned with? Who is complaining that their rights are being violated and how are Bush's actions violating those rights?

Personally, I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and any surveillance not governed by adequate checks and balances are symptoms of a very bad thing, Mike.

Are you stating that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo were not covered by adequate checks and balances? Yes, the Democrats made Gitmo front page news until they actually investigated it and, when they saw no political fodder could be made from it, it disappeared rather quickly.

But those aren't so much the issue as is the attitude that Americans deserve to feel safe and some apparently are willing to pay any cost for that feeling of security.

Yes, I believe Americans deserve to feel safe, or at least deserve to feel that their government is doing everything possible to insure their safety. What is the comment "are willing to pay any cost" supposed to mean? No one has spoken about any cost. You pulled that out because Bush did exactly what Congress would have authorized him to do but didn't only because he didn't go to them? That is supposed to mean that Americans will do anything at any cost to be safe? That's fairly insulting to the common man and the type of comment I would consider to be beneath you, will all due respect. That is littledifferent than Noah proclaiming our rights are being trampled and then can't name one that is.

I think Ideals are important and shouldn't be set aside in the name of "caution."

You feel that one can't be cautious without shedding ideals? Don't you feel that one can, and should show caution when faced with a threat? Your sentence reads like if we are cautious we are going to set aside our ideals. that if we show caution we will do anything, right or wrong, to stay alive. Again i consider that to be an unfair statement.

All of this because we are using eavesdropping techniques to try to subvert future threats and Bush not telling congress before he did it? Ideals gone, do anything to stay alive, invividual rights trampling, national moral decay, the fabric of what made America great being torn apart....good grief!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 02-11-2006 09:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

and now you are likening the Bush presidency to a dictatorship???? Beacuse of this? Make that a good grief times 2!
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


54 posted 02-11-2006 11:46 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Far be it from me to put words in Ron's mouth, but if enough people begin to believe that it's okay for the president to break the law, then you've got a dictatorship, de facto if not de jure.

Think about it, Bush may or may not have broken the law (Do I really have to state what I think here?) concerning wiretapping or at other times, the thing that bothers me is that at least some Americans are beginning to think that's okay.

If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator.

Now, if Bush is a good guy, we don't have to worry, but what about the next one and the next one and the next one? People who live under authoritarian rule don't follow willingly, they shrug their shoulders, mumble under their breath, and stay under the radar as much as they can.

And don't tell me it can't happen, it can, it does.

Free republics are still the exception, not the rule when it comes to history.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


55 posted 02-11-2006 11:52 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


I think it comes down to relative risks.
I am more concerned about the damage terrorists,
(or is that insurrectionists) , could do now  to American society
than the possibility that the executive listening in on
their conversations to and from the United States
might someday lead to an American Hitler or Stalin ruling
in Washington, (which can be just as easily accomplished
with an election).

Speaking of which:
there is one thing Iíve noticed.  We are willing to go
on ad nauseam about our own government and society
yet fall mute regarding the real threats facing them.
Look how little comment there has been in:

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001334.html

Itís as if there is no belief it is real, much the way
Europe responded to Hitler.

Fact is two oceans donít protect us anymore.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


56 posted 02-12-2006 12:49 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Bovard

quote:
Arab students were locked up as suspected terrorists for working at pizza parlors (in violation of their student visas); a Pakistani immigrant was jailed after attracting attention because he and his Queens housemates let their grass grow long and hung their underwear out to dry on the fence; and one Muslim was arrested because "he had taken a roll of film to be developed and the film had multiple pictures of the World Trade Center on it but no other Manhattan sites," the inspector general noted. Some FBI agents were even instructed to look in phone books to find Arab- or Muslim-sounding names, according to Newsweek columnist Steven Brill.


The above was after 9/11 and the new paradigm.

quote:
The Department of Homeland Security in May 2003 urged 18,000 local and state police departments to treat critics of the war on terror as potential terrorists, according to a confidential DHS memo made public in 2004. Suicide bombers, the feds told local lawmen, could be detected by such traits as a "pale face from recent shaving of beard"; they "may appear to be in a 'trance' "; their eyes may "appear to be focused and vigilant"; and their clothing may either be "out of sync with the weather" or just "loose."


Don't state your opinion if you disagree with policy.

quote:
The Transportation Security Administration is also extremely arbitrary in how it designates names for its "no-fly" list. There are an estimated 70,000 names in the registry ó many of them stuck there for reasons that even the government cannot explain. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) were placed on the list. Everyone with the common name of "David Nelson" is treated like a would-be bomber ó as are 4-year-old children unlucky enough to have a name matching one on the list.


This may be the big problem, good ideas, legitimate ideas often go sour during the beauracratic process. People make mistakes and they can also be vindictive and spiteful.

quote:
Since December, according to media reports, TSA agents have been chatting up airline passengers to determine if they are terrorists, looking for such warning signs as "involuntary physical and psychological reactions" ó including whether people appear stressed out, frightened or deceptive. The number of people who fear flying outnumber Al Qaeda associates by at least a few thousand-fold, yet visible anxiety will be enough for the TSA to justify taking people aside for far more intensive examination.


The guidelines are most likely broad so that you don't miss the bad guy. The problem is that that inevitably leads to mistakes and misuse.


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


57 posted 02-12-2006 12:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator.

Brad, if it's far be it from you to put words in Ron's mouth, please don't try to put them in mine.

The next one and the next one and the next one? ..and Hillary says it's the REPUBLICANS spreading fear?

This entire thread is such a knee-jerk overreaction, in my book. Bush didn't follow protocol....ok...butlet's get a grip on reality here. Reading this thread one would think that the country is disintegrating. Everyone is running around scared, stripped of whatever personal freedoms they once had, willing to sacrifice whatever morals they once had just to be safe, the country now being run by a dictator, the constitution a shambles, everyone being wire-tapped and having their mail read, all of what America stood for destroyed and an end to life as we know it right around the corner.

My God, I know that poets tend to exaggerate and it's much easier to do so on the internet but come on....
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


58 posted 02-12-2006 02:42 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Balladeer You feel that one can't be cautious without shedding ideals? Don't you feel that one can, and should show caution when faced with a threat? Your sentence reads like if we are cautious we are going to set aside our ideals. that if we show caution we will do anything, right or wrong, to stay alive. Again i consider that to be an unfair statement.

Mike, I think we can and should be cautious without shedding ideals. That isn't what I've seen in this thread, however, as evidenced by these quotations:

LeeJ I have nothing to hide, and they can wire tap me all they want, or anyone else for that matter, if it's going to help deter another 9-11. ... So, if a little wire tapping is going to save some lives, then I'm all for it!

Christopher Would preventing another attack on American soil justify an illegal action by the President? I'd say so.

Denise Life is of much greater importance than "the law" anyway, even if the accusation could be made to stick that the President broke "the law."

Balladeer No, I don't mind any searches that are intended to protect me at all.

Huan Yi I think it comes down to relative risks ...

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "any cost," but I nonetheless have to stick with much too high of a cost. People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Why should Marines and soldiers die for this country if the very people who sent them into harm's way are unwilling to do the same? Everything we have in this country was paid for in blood. And if we want to keep it, we need to be willing to keep making the payments. Not just the young men. All of us.

If our only goal is to protect American lives, we should surrender immediately. I, uh, don't know to whom we can surrender, right off hand, but I'm sure we'll find someone if we look hard enough. There has to be someone somewhere who will promise us safety and security in exchange for ... what? Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe again?

quote:
This entire thread is such a knee-jerk overreaction, in my book. Bush didn't follow protocol....ok...butlet's get a grip on reality here. Reading this thread one would think that the country is disintegrating. Everyone is running around scared, stripped of whatever personal freedoms they once had, willing to sacrifice whatever morals they once had just to be safe, the country now being run by a dictator, the constitution a shambles, everyone being wire-tapped and having their mail read, all of what America stood for destroyed and an end to life as we know it right around the corner.

My God, I know that poets tend to exaggerate and it's much easier to do so on the internet but come on....

Mike, this isn't about Bush. I stopped caring about Bush the day after he won the last election. I don't know if he broke the law and, beyond wanting to see it handled through due process, really don't care. This, too, shall pass. However, any knee-jerk overreaction, in my opinion, is coming from those who are willing to surrender our Rule of Law in exchange for personal security.

You attempt to trivialize concern by exaggerating it (as you so often do), but you've got to realize, Mike, that has to work both ways. Have you been killed by a terrorist, yet? Anyone been killed in your city yet? Heck, do you even know anyone who has taken a day off work because they were too afraid to go out their door in the morning? If concern can only be justified by extremes, Mike, you clearly have nothing about which to be concerned. Let's talk about throwing Law and Order out the window when another twenty or thirty states have been attacked, okay?

Of course, unlike you, I'm not going to trivialize the potential for another attack. I don't think we have to wait for extremes to be concerned about extremes, and I honestly don't believe you think that either. People are going to die, and yes, that concerns me. Of greater concern, however, is whether America is going to survive as a country ruled by Law and not by men. People are going to die in the future, as they've died in the past, and I'd honestly like to believe the deaths were for something worth preserving.

Some 230 years ago, the people of this fledgling country wanted to crown George Washington the new King of America. Washington, of course, was far wiser than the people and he declined. Sadly, it seems the people haven't learned a whole lot in two centuries. They are still far too ready to surrender what others have died to earn for them.


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


59 posted 02-12-2006 09:01 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad and Ron, no I don't think it is "okay" for the President, or anyone else for that matter, to break the law. We do have to honor the Rule of Law for without it we would sink into dictatorship. And that would dishonor all those who have shed their blood for our freedom. And those who do believe that the President broke the law should call for an investigation into the matter.

My point was only that I think that sometimes we elevate that ideal to the point of throwing out common sense and a proper ordering of moral priorities, and the fact that there are also situations where there are sometimes "competing", "contradictory" laws to consider. It isn't a cut and dried, black and white issue. And the President's authority has always been more broad during  times of war than during times of peace, as a leader's power also is when Marshal Law is declared, for instance. I'm sure that all war time President's could have been accused by somebody to have broken this or that law.  But in this case I don't believe that any laws have been broken. If our government were not listening in on calls made to and from the cell numbers that are known to belong to the terrorists from evidence uncovered in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter where the calls are being placed to or from, then our government would be derelict in its primary responsibility to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens. And if some believe that such wiretapping violates the "letter" of the 1978 law that was signed prior to our war against terrorism and probably had to do with preventing another domestic spying situation as happened to MLK, then they should change the law to conform with the present day reality of our war against Islamic fascism.

And like Balladeer, I'm not seeing 'fear'. I'm seeing a common-sensical desire for caution to be exercised by our government for it to do all that it has to do in uncovering the plots aimed against us. If that means listening in on known Al-Qaida operatives, here and abroad, so be it. I don't think that they should fall under the protection of a 1978 domestic spying law. That was the context of my remark about life being more important than following a law, the letter of a law that is out of sync with present day reality, just as I don't believe that people are morally bound to obey a law that takes away an innocent life. In such cases 'breaking the law' is a moral imperative, just as I believe that "the law" should have been broken in the Terri Schaivo case. I still cannot get my mind around the fact that the courts denied her the due process granted any common criminal with far less evidence of judicial malfeasance than was evidenced in her situation, and that the Governor and President stood by "helpless" as an innocent was barbarically starved to death for 28 days at the behest of an estranged spouse. I never will get my mind around it. If the National Guard can be sent in to ensure desegregation, they could certainly have been sent in to protect a life. I believe that that was President Bush's major failing.  

Our military is sworn to protect our lives and our liberty. Although I am far from a coward, they are by far more brave than I. God bless them every one, past, present, and future.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


60 posted 02-12-2006 11:57 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Thanks, Denise. The only thing we disagree on, then, is the latitude the Executive branch of government should be given. I agree with surveillance of enemies, but only (and always) within the parameters of checks and balances to help curb the abuses we've repeatedly witnessed in the past fifty years (some of which I think Brad detailed a bit in one of his posts). Dissidents, like King and others, aren't enemies and shouldn't be treated as enemies. Those, however, are issues of Law. When at least two branches of our government are in agreement, they have my support even when I disagree (later, I may do my best to vote them out of office).

I have little fear of Law. I greatly fear men given too much power.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 02-12-2006 05:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice.

Again, I would like to know what liberties we have surrendered.

Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe again?

Again, what freedom have I  (or you( given up?

I don't know if he broke the law and, beyond wanting to see it handled through due process, really don't care. This, too, shall pass. However, any knee-jerk overreaction, in my opinion, is coming from those who are willing to surrender our Rule of Law in exchange for personal security.

If you don't know whether he broke the law or not then how can you label people as being willing to surrender rule of law? If he didn't, they didn't.

You attempt to trivialize concern by exaggerating it (as you so often do), but you've got to realize, Mike, that has to work both ways. Have you been killed by a terrorist, yet? Anyone been killed in your city yet?

LOL! I agree I have trivialized many things but not concern. It is my concern that causes me and millions of others to agree with Bush's actions. No, i haven't been killed by a terrorist and nor has anyone in my city. I attribute a large part of that to the way Bush has handled the security of this country since 9/11. The man has obviously done something right, whether you care to accept that or not.

Let's talk about throwing Law and Order out the window when another twenty or thirty states have been attacked, okay?

I refer you once again to your comment I don't know if he broke the law . Why, then, would you make the reference to throwing law and order out with respect to the topic?

Of course, unlike you, I'm not going to trivialize the potential for another attack.

I see nowhere that I have trivialized the potential for another attack. On the contrary, I have supported and applauded Bush's actions with regards to preventing it.

Some 230 years ago, the people of this fledgling country wanted to crown George Washington the new King of America. Washington, of course, was far wiser than the people and he declined. Sadly, it seems the people haven't learned a whole lot in two centuries. They are still far too ready to surrender what others have died to earn for them.

What in the world is that blurb supposed to be? Are the people ready to crown Bush king, in your opinion, or turn over absolute control to any one leader? Are people now ready to throw away their values indescriminately to anyone who offers them safety? You are insulting millions of people with that comment.

No, Ron, I didn't attempt to trivialize. I attempted to show in a light-hearted way that this overreaction is completely unwarranted (unless, of course, one happens to be a Bush-hater).  The actions of Bush dealt with the monitoring of certain overseas communications only. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Bush's actions in this incident. That frosts the cookies of the others. Instead of accepting it, they prefer to paint the picture that this overwhelming majority has simply gone though some moral crisis where they have surrendered their values. I'd like to know where all of this concern and indignation was all the times that Clinton, Hillary and Gore actually did break the law......they weren't here.

No one has been able to say that Bush broke the law in this incident. He hasn't been brought up on charges and no one has yet to come out with any definite proof that law was broken. You yourself claim not to know, nor does anyone else on this thread. Instead, hypotheticals are resorted to a la Brad. So what happens if there is a congressional investigation and it turns out that Bush did not break the law? Is all of this invalid? Is Bush not a dictator anymore? Do the American people regain their morality you claim they have lost over it? Did all of the soldiers of the past 200 years not die in vain? Do all of the "Bush the absolute power grabber" inferences disintegrate? Is it a non-issue?

Yes, I believe it is. You may call it trivializing it....I prefer to label it the Chicken Little syndrome.

Nan says hello  
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


62 posted 02-12-2006 06:32 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

http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021006.html

In an American Bar Association-sponsored poll released Friday, 52 percent of respondents said that the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms even during wartime, with another 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress, adding to a total of 77% having disagreement and skepticism toward the president's secret surveillance program.

*
http://www.abanet.org/op/domsurv/

Following the revelation in a December edition of The New York Times about Bush ordering extra-judicial domestic spying, the ABA created a task force to examine this issue, including a former director of the FBI, former General Counsel of the CIA and former Counsel of the National Security Agency.

*
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-aba11.html

Tomorrow, the American Bar Association will announce its opposition of the domestic spying program, in voting on a resolution drafted by the task force, which will include these six clauses:

*************************

1) Call on the President to abide by our constitutional system of checks and balances and respect the roles of Congress and the judiciary in protecting national security consistent with the Constitution.

2) Oppose any further electronic surveillance in U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge the President, if he believes FISA is inadequate, to seek amendment or new legislation.

3) Urge Congress to affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress in September 2001 did not provide an exception to FISA, saying such an exception must be explicit.

4) Urge Congress to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.

5) Urge Congress to assure proceedings of that investigation are open to public.

6) Urge Congress to review and make recommendations regarding intelligence oversight process.

*************************


Finally, the ABA President Michael Greco was asked today by the Chicago Sun Times if Bush's announcement Thursday about the Los Angeles attack "weakened his argument against unapproved eavesdropping."

*

"The attack -- at this point the alleged attack -- on Los Angeles is disturbing, but it doesn't change the fact that neither now nor ever in the future should we be frightened into sacrificing constitutional freedoms because something happened or something is about to happen. I personally reject the false choice that is being offered Americans that they must give up their liberties to have security."

*

I believe thus far they are doing an effective job attempting to frame the central issue here.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

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


63 posted 02-12-2006 07:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm not sure what gives me the bigger headache.. reading this thread or the mendacious, contumacious, obfuscatory argument presented by the Bush administration on this subject.  (Not that their arguments on other subjects are different).

The Bush administration (which is funded by Congress Alicat -- it's all Congressionally funded -- that's the only actual power of the Congress) basically says ;

"It's a time of war -- we can do what we want"

This, however flies in the face of FISA, which was passed in 1978 (which is your proof Ron that the government has been spying on us) and the current push to re-pass the Patriot Act.  If they can do whatever they want -- the Patriot Act is clearly superfluous.  This is why died in the wool conservatives and Republicans are also balking at this activity -- it's a far cry from a witch hunt.  This is nothing short of a Constitutional showdown over a power-grab by a deceptive administration.

If FISA doesn't do what they need -- then they can ask for it to be changed -- and haven't been at all bashful about going to the Congress to get whatever legislation they needed.  Why don't they simply seek an amendment to FISA?  Reference the above -- mendacious, contumacious, obfuscatory.

Add on top the equally counterfeit argument that even discussing this damages our national security and tips off our enemies... really?  They don't know we have electronic surveillance capability?  Well, according to the Attorney General's testimony presidents all the way back to Honest Abe and George Washington were using electronic surveillance.     What do they feed these people for breakfast?

What civil liberty is violated you ask?  Try the Fourth Amendment:

quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


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


64 posted 02-12-2006 07:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"sacrificing contsitutional liberties"..."giving up their liberties"..

Again, I ask...which? These are catch-phrases due to induce fear safe behind the fact that they specify nothing in particular.

I would like to hear from, or read about, these groups that are screaming that their constitutional liberties are being eroded. Where are they?

LR, I will point out to you as I did to Noah the word unreasonable in the 4th Amendment. Some comsider his actions reasonable and others don't. You obviously fall in the latter category, which is your right but perhaps you can also respect the rights of others to claim they are....or not.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


65 posted 02-12-2006 07:05 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Brad, if it's far be it from you to put words in Ron's mouth, please don't try to put them in mine.


I didn't.

I didn't start the hypothetical thing either.

If you want to get on my case about something (not you are getting on my case about something), the only thing I was trying to do was ask if people are serious about what they're saying.

If they're not, great. But, c'mon, Huan Yi, a few weeks back, actually said that parts of the constitution were now irrelevant.

Personally, it's the flippancy of some of these remarks that is troubling.

Denise,

Thanks. I wasn't, I'm not, trying to corner anybody anywhere. If we accept law as a benchmark, then we can discuss whether he did in fact break the law or not.

If you say, "He didn't break the law and it doesn't matter anyway," we're not even in the same ballpark.

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


66 posted 02-12-2006 07:27 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

LR, I will point out to you as I did to Noah the word unreasonable in the 4th Amendment. Some comsider his actions reasonable and others don't. You obviously fall in the latter category, which is your right but perhaps you can also respect the rights of others to claim they are....or not.



If they are reasonable it's for a judge to decide.  That's Constitutional.  Not whether or not I respect your right to an opinion.  I can have an opinion all day long that my neighbor is cooking meth.  My opinion doesn't give me the right to knock down his door and go in and look around.  Nor does it give a mob with torches that right.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 02-12-2006 07:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator. - Brad

When someone tells me what I am thinking, I normally consider that putting words in my mouth. If there is another meaning, please forgive my misinterpretation.

LR...I agree completely. Let's let a judge decide before condemning or mentioning dictatorships then.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


68 posted 02-12-2006 08:07 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well Mike, the only reason we're having this discussion is because this administration doesn't want a judge to decide.

But, are you saying you support a Senate Hearing?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 02-12-2006 08:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Fair enough....I am saying that if the congressmen who are making veiled accusations that the President broke the law wish to officially accuse him and try their case before a judge I would support it.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


70 posted 02-12-2006 08:49 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I'm cool with that.

Mike,

Does 'if' supply a function that I'm not aware of?

If you pass Go, you collect 200$.

That doesn't mean you've passed go or that I owe you 200$.

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


71 posted 02-12-2006 09:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No hidden functions, Brad. Nor is it a Clinton quote like "It all depends what "is" is."

Personally I don't think they will, that's all. Then it would be something they would have to prove instead of insinuate. If they do I'll be surprised....but i'll still support it.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


72 posted 02-13-2006 12:26 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


"People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Why should Marines and soldiers die for this country if the very people who sent them into harm's way are unwilling to do the same? "

I don't expect cities to start painting
bullseyes on their buildings or the average
citizen to start wearing them on their clothes.
TARGET stores are enough.

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


73 posted 02-13-2006 12:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If you don't know whether he broke the law or not then how can you label people as being willing to surrender rule of law.

Because several people in this thread, Mike, as I already quoted, said it? You, of course, have only implied it, but others have directly said they didn't care if the law was broken if it was done to save lives.

Perhaps you should make your own position more clear, Mike. Does it matter to you if the law was broken? Do you feel the means justify the ends? Bottom-line it for us, Mike. Do you trust Bush enough to let him make up his own rules? While I'm not unconcerned about laws being broken by Nixon, Clinton, Hillary, Gore, or Bush, my deepest concerns aren't for the people in power -- because I still trust the system to handle them, if perhaps sometimes badly -- but, rather, for the people who put them in power.

BTW, not that an understanding of the law matters a whole lot, but your local sheriff doesn't usually wait until he's caught breaking into a citizen's home before asking the judge for permission. He has to get the warrant first, not a year or two down the road when someone complains. In the case of FESA, as I understand it, Judicial review can be postponed until after the fact, but only a limited time after the fact. At this point, a Judge is never going to be asked to determine what was or wasn't "unreasonable" search and seizure. At this point, the checks and balances pass from Judicial review to Congressional review, and they won't be trying to determine probable cause. Their job will only be to determine guilt.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


74 posted 02-13-2006 12:30 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


"but others have directly said they didn't care if the law was broken if it was done to save lives."

It's a heavy burden to bear.
 
 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 >> What the heck   [ 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