As I said, the wiretapping was illegal.
A federal judge just ruled that the NSA wiretapping
used by the village idiot “violates the rights
to free speech and privacy as well as the
separation of powers enshrined in the constitution”
This means the village idiot has been violating
the law as I said. Every once in a while its
good to be right.
Kropotkin
i hope we let one in, and he blows you up first
GliderPendalehaven:i hope we let one in, and he blows you up first"
K: I expect no less from a defender of the worst
president in American history.
Personally, I do not wish harm on anyone.
And that is the difference between us.
You want people to get hurt and be blown up, whereas
I want peace and prosperity.
but I hope I get what I want, endless peace,
more then you getting what you want, endless violence.
Kropotkin
GP, times of war (not that the war on terrorism is an “official” war …) are when civil liberties are most often in jeopardy. eventually as more and more of our civil liberties are whittled away one at a time, we wake up to realize that our “free” nation is anything but the sort. that we have become a police state and no one is going to raise much of a fuss until it stops you from doing something that you want to do.
if you don’t speak up now when a freedom that someone else cherishes is taken away, no one else will speak out for the one freedom you cherish. we can’t pick and choose our freedoms. the united states was founded on these freedoms and nearly every founding father has warned against an overly controlling central gov’t like the one we currently have.
there are dangers to living in a truly free nation. one of them is self-responsibility. no one else is there to coddle you. another is safety. people have weapons, and can use them. a free nation is not proactive, it’s reactive, as in it punishes actual wrong do’ers, it doesn’t punish possible wrong do’ers.
as far as terrorists getting to their target? its like caulking a house that is 20 feet underwater. a lost cause. you have to stop the problem at its root. stop giving the terrorists reasons for hating the “western world” and you end the attacks. it’s not a mystery why “they” hate “us.”
… and the answer is NOT our freedoms.
that “judge’s” ruling will be overturned on appeal and the tapping of terrorists will continue and the lying lefties will keep demanding rights for al qaida and win the popular election (amongst terrorists)
-Imp
I imagine you’re right, Imp.
Not that this has anything to do with the present issue but the 9th circuit is notorious for producing opinions that are the epitome of legislating from the bench. Not to mention the fact that its opinions are those most frequently overturned by the SC.
http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/education/supreme_court_wary_of_9th.htm
And, Bishop, the founders of this country gave specific powers to the President and Congress to violate “sacred rights” when the circumstances called for it, eg, wartime. It’s all in the Constitution. The ideal balance to be acheived in a society from a political perspective is that of freedom vs. security - when people feel more secure they expect more freedom, and the reverse should logically be the case. What you claim flies in the face of almost all political theory.
I’m sure it feels great to say it, but how could a country function if it gave more rights when it was (actually or not) threatened?
Country A says: “There is a threat that a bomb will be imported via cargo ship into this country, our response is, in accordance with the rule of Bishop, to maintain current levels of security at ports and thus providethe same, non-wartime freedom of transport.”
Country A will shortly no longer exist.
I understand what you’re saying, of course our rights are more threatened during wartime (false war or not). But the balance between freedom and security is not easy to maintain when people refuse to acknowledge that during war (once again, false or not) some sacrifices are required. I agree that we must remain vigilant as regarding our rights, but preventing the government from doing something that might actually save many lives may not be the best approach.
Could someone please post a link that demonstrates that a US citizen has been charged with a crime that he or she could not have been without those wiretaps? What I am looking for is a real-world example of how these wiretaps actually do curtail de facto rights.
Thanks.
faust:Could someone please post a link that demonstrates that a US citizen has been charged with a crime that he or she could not have been without those wiretaps? What I am looking for is a real-world example of how these wiretaps actually do curtail “de facto” rights.
K: alas, I can’t because matters of this sort have been classified.
If they wiretap without a court order, they quite clearly have
violated both the law and the 4th amendment. But we
have no specifics because the government in the name of
security won’t release any specifics. Sorry.
Kropotkin
Impenitent"]that “judge’s” ruling will be overturned on appeal and the tapping of terrorists will continue and the lying lefties will keep demanding rights for al qaida and win the popular election (amongst terrorists)
Y: I imagine you’re right, Imp. The 9th circuit is notorious for producing opinions that are the epitome of legislating from the bench. Not to mention the fact that its opinions are those most frequently overturned by the SC.
K: great logic except its wrong. the judge in question belongs
to the 6th district court.
And, Bishop, the founders of this country gave specific powers to the President and Congress to violate “sacred rights” when the circumstances called for it, eg, wartime. It’s all in the Constitution. The ideal balance to be acheived in a society from a political perspective is that of freedom vs. security - when people feel more secure they expect more freedom, and the reverse should logically be the case. What you claim flies in the face of almost all political theory.
K:And according to the judge, the government violated the
constitution, that is her job, her sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
Y: I’m sure it feels great to say it, but how could a country function if it gave more rights when it was (actually or not) threatened?
K: We are far more threaten by the actions of the village idiot
then we ever were by terrorist.
Country A says: “There is a threat that a bomb will be imported via cargo ship into this country, our response is, in accordance with the rule of Bishop, to maintain current levels of security at ports and thus providethe same, non-wartime freedom of transport.”
Country A will shortly no longer exist.
K: Your example is rather strange.
Y: I understand what you’re saying, of course our rights are more threatened during wartime (false war or not). But the balance between freedom and security is not easy to maintain when people refuse to acknowledge that during war (once again, false or not) some sacrifices are required. I agree that we must remain vigilant as regarding our rights, but preventing the government from doing something that might actually save many lives may not be the best approach."
K: please, what exactly have we been asked to sacrifice?
For the first time in our history, we had tax cuts in a
period of “war”, I don’t recall the same drive to save fuel, material,
metals, as was in WW 2 or even in WW 1. This administration has
done nothing to actually protect this nation. Are our ports safer,
nope, do we have better immigrations enforcement to protect
our self, nope. This administration is a joke. and should be
held criminally liable for its many disasters.
Kropotkin
i am not saying that it should give more rights during a time of war. although, i am saying that it should not take rights away at any time. they call them rights for a reason, it’s not because they are privilages, it’s because they are inherrent properties to every human. my rights are non-negotiable during any time.
as for country A getting blown up because of a bomb being brought in. my previous post dealt with the idea that the u.s. needs to focus on why they want to bother blowing us up. a few hundred years ago, guns were the deadly equivalent of today’s bombs (the most efficient way to kill someone). yet nearly everyone owned a gun. they walked around with them. they were a common accessory. likewise, i can make a bomb, as long as i don’t try to kill someone with it, should i not be allowed to make them as i please? who’s rights am i violating by making/possessing weapons?
i am not familiar with any provisions in the u.s. constitution that allow anyone to violate our most basic civil rights (the bill of rights) unless someone has actually done something wrong (reactive, not proactive).
this seems similar to the privacy argument of just letting anyone into your private life … as long as you don’t have anything to hide you don’t have anything to worry about. how they are similar? it doesn’t matter if someone has been charged or not with a crime they would not have otherwise or not, but that their privacy was violated. regardless of having something to hide or not, the authors of the constitution understood the dangers that lie in warrentless searches, which is, in effect, what Bush has been doing.
Peter - I would have thought that the ACLU was monitoring this. In other words, if someone has been charged with a crime with no evidence other than a wiretap, wouldn’t we know? Presumably, these people would have families, lawyers - someone who would know this. We would at least know if someone has been arrested and jailed without any discernable evidence, would we not?
faust: Peter - I would have thought that the ACLU was monitoring this. In other words, if someone has been charged with a crime with no evidence other than a wiretap, wouldn’t we know? Presumably, these people would have families, lawyers - someone who would know this. We would at least know if someone has been arrested and jailed without any discernable evidence, would we not?"
K: actually the ACLU brought the case that the judge ruled on,
but the government under the cloak of secrecy has hidden
all traces of these cases. We don’t know jack about them.
We do know Americans (Padilla for one) who are stuck in
guantanamo bay, but without disclosure of some sort by
the government, we can’t get information. And they won’t
let the people in custody have access to lawyers, another
violation of the constitution and illegal by the way.
So no one outside the government knows exactly what is going
on and they intend to keep it that way.
Kropotkin
Peter, my understanding was that Padilla was charged, and has been allowed access to a lawyer. I’m not sure he’s the best poster child for how the innocent may be harmed, in any event.
faust;: Peter, my understanding was that Padilla was charged, and has been allowed access to a lawyer. I’m not sure he’s the best poster child for how the innocent may be harmed, in any event."
K: thank you. I wasn’t aware of that. Learn something new
everyday, and the best part of this new knowledge is
I don’t have a scar on my body for a change.
Anyone who has been denied due process regardless
of the crime is a poster child for how the innocent have been
harmed in wiretaps. Don’t mistake the a person who is not
the “best character” with illegally gotten knowledge of crimes
against him/her.
Kropotkin
Peter, I understand the principle involved, and perhaps I can be accused of taking it a bit lightly. But I can’t help compare the circumstance under discussion to “everyday justice”, which involves a few cut corners from time to time and things like the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. I do not defend that (the internement) but neither can I defend the draft during the Vietnam War, or anything about the first Gulf War. Wartime usually involves a few sacrifices. So far, I do not see a crisis, I see some sacrifices. I think things are better this time than they usually are, during war. That’s not to say they are perfect.
I wouldn’t normally utilize wikipedia as a resource for this type of discussion; but it adequately explicates my point, so here goes.
"Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice.
"Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d’état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.
“Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law does not contain that crime or punishment in its system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Constitution of the United States, Article 1 Section 9
“The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
faust: Peter, I understand the principle involved, and perhaps I can be accused of taking it a bit lightly. But I can’t help compare the circumstance under discussion to “everyday justice”, which involves a few cut corners from time to time and things like the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. I do not defend that (the internement) but neither can I defend the draft during the Vietnam War, or anything about the first Gulf War. Wartime usually involves a few sacrifices. So far, I do not see a crisis, I see some sacrifices. I think things are better this time than they usually are, during war. That’s not to say they are perfect."
K: the so called “crisis” is manufactured to scare people into
allowing the GOP to write blank checks to halliburton and
other corporations with taxpayer money. It is also a means
to scare people into voting GOP. I point out WW 1 and WW 2,
GULF WAR were all started by others and we joined in later.
Here we are the aggressor, we invaded Iraq creating the war
environment. This so called “WAR” is our creation and the
village idiot is calling for a permanent war status.
Have you seen a time table for withdrawal from the MID-EAST?
No, because it doesn’t exist. The village idiot
has said publicly he doesn’t see withdrawal from Iraq until
THE NEXT ADMINSTRATION which is over 2 years from now.
Unless that is their October surprise, either this election or
next and that wouldn’t shock me because this administration
plays politics with people lives.
Kropotkin
Thanks for the correction, Peter. The article I looked at only mentioned San Francisco, so I assumed it was 9th circuit.
Peter - everybody plays politics.
To say that the first Gulf War wasn’t our “creation” is to bend the facts. Our participation was our creation. We don’t intervene every time one country attacks another. Certainly not with a full-scale assault. That the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor does not by itself justify the jailing of any American citizens without charges or convictions - I smell a double standard.
I also don’t see how we can ever know how long a war will last. We sure didn’t seem to know in Vietnam. This president is at least honest about that, even if his motives for being so are self-serving.
