USA: Police State? II by rue

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So I take it everyone is OK with warrantless government phone snooping ? Look around at the next 9 people you see. One of you DID HAVE your phone calls traced.

And everyone is OK with warrantless tracking of their financial transactions ?

With warrantless phone taps on their phones ?

With data-bases of personal information ?

With 'enemy combatant' designations at the Bush's discretion ?

With lack of habeus corpus ?

With random government snooping on its own citizens ?

With 'free speech' zones ?

With the government photographing, identifying and monitoring anyone taking part in a march or protest ?

Going once, going twice ...

***************************************************************
SOLD ! a bill of goods to the gutless Browncoats !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Germany isn't the only country that has arrested CIA agents for "rendering" people for torture.

Italy has done the same, arresting 13 Americans, mostly CIA agents, for "rendering" Hassan Nasr to Egypt for torture.

Quote:
he had been abducted and taken to Egypt, where he said he was tortured and injured so badly that he lost his hearing in one ear. He made the phone call after being released because of what the prosecutors' statement termed a ''deteriorating physical condition... The United States has acknowledged that renditions have taken place but has declined to discuss specific individual cases or reveal how many transfers have occurred.

www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/25/italy_judge_seeks
_arrest_of_alleged_cia_agents/

British resident Bisher al-Rawi, was "rendered" from Gambia in 2002 to Aghanistan by the CIA. The original purpose of his flight was to set up a peanut oil factory in cooperation with his brother, who was already in Gambia. After having been transfered through several prisons, he has been held in Guantanamo FOR FIVE YEARS w/o charges on apparently phonied suspicion.
www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2137255,00.html

A Canadian engineer Maher Arar, later found innocent of all suspicion, was kidnapped from JFK airport in 2002 and sent to Syria

Quote:
The pain was so unbearable, he said, that “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.”

www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

The CIA has reportedly rendered hundreds of people suspected to third-party states such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. ...A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated one hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture

The simplest gloss of headlines over the past few years should have alerted you all to the acknowledged FACT that the CIA kidnaps people and takes them to other countries for torture. And while some of these people are radical Muslims, some of them are innocent of all suspicion. Please don't continue the argument about whether people are "rendered" or "tortured" as the answer to both questions is an undeniable "yes".

The question we should be focusing on is whether or not the various programs: extraordinary rendition and torture, warrantless eavesdropping, indefinite detention, etc etc. should have judicial oversight... and if not, why not.

So far, all I've heard is the squealings of frightened little boys.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist _surveillance;_ylt=AthlyBeCa8Julb78tF_zEWCs0NUE

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

On 1 in every 10 americans.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The lower courts did NOT dismiss the case for lack of merit or lack of jurisdiction. That has meaning which you refuse to address.

Legally it has no meaning. If those issues were not addressed then there is nothing to argue, no case to be made, no evidence to be examined, and no decision upon those issues to be attacked.

Its like a dead ball foul in football. You snap the ball, drop back, roll left, throw, the ball is caught for a touchdown. Now questions of whether you were over the line of scrimmage before the throw, whether the receiver had possession, whether he was in bounds, whether the Defender had illegal contact, whether there was contact out of bounds...they all don't matter because the play is whistled dead at the snap.

You can have the best case in the world, with all the evidence you'd ever need, but if you miss a deadline, or its a collateral attack, or the wrong defendant, or the case is moot or any one of a hundred tiny little things that they pay me big money to avoid, your case is over BEFORE it starts.

In this case the fella had little admissable evidence and was likely on some sort of a fishing expedition. I note for the record that this is not the first time a case like this has come up since 9/11.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"In this case the fella had little admissable evidence"

Now there you go again, mistaking your propaganda for fact. German authorities arrested and are trying 11 CIA operatives for this exact case. No evidence ?? Bullshit.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You would think Hero would be on the German prosecutors' side, seeing as they have so much in common.

So, to get back to the question of whether or not renditions, eavesdropping, and indefinite detention should have SOME sort of review the Democrats proposed this:

Quote:
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.

Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.

If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.

Eh? See, no problem. The government gest to do it's eavesdropping, and a program comes under review. It's not the BEND OVER OR DIE!!!!! Jack-Bauer-type scenario that some people seem fixated on.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So I take it everyone is OK with warrantless government phone snooping ? Look around at the next 9 people you see. One of you DID HAVE your phone calls traced.

It depends on the circumstances. I favor monitoring the calls, but I don't necessarily agree with having all of the phone calls admissable in court. That requires scrutiny. In a perfect world we could stop the terrorist attack AND use the phone call as evidence...but if I have to choose one or the other, I think we should stop the attack and maybe find some other evidence to use in court.

Quote:

And everyone is OK with warrantless tracking of their financial transactions ?

Have you noticed all the credit card applications you get...I've got news for you, your already being traced.

Quote:

With warrantless phone taps on their phones ?

I got news for you again...if all our phones are tapped then it would take tens of millions of people to monitor those conversations. Hmm...maybe thats what India is really up to...

Quote:

With data-bases of personal information ?

Like the BMV, they have your SSN and with that all your secrets are open.

Quote:

With 'enemy combatant' designations at the Bush's discretion ?

Thats only necessary because we're at war and the pansy liberal judges and lawyers don't seem to understand that. We'd never have needed new legally ambiguous designations if we'd have been allowed proper use of the traditional ones. We would not need to work around you folks if you'd get out of the way.

Quote:

With lack of habeus corpus ?

Missed that one. What lack? I habeus corpus all the time.

Quote:

With random government snooping on its own citizens ?

My government monitor just IM'd me on this one and said its not happening. Nothing "random" anyway. Except those of us "randomly" calling known terrorists.

Quote:

With 'free speech' zones ?

What's your problem with free speech? Personally, I'm in favor of free speech...perhaps we differ on this point.

Quote:

With the government photographing, identifying and monitoring anyone taking part in a march or protest ?

Nobody is forcing you to march and protest. Your in public, the point is to be both seen and heard. I don't see why your upset that the govt. is seeing and hearing you.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thats only necessary because we're at war and the pansy liberal judges and lawyers don't seem to understand that. We'd never have needed new legally ambiguous designations if we'd have been allowed proper use of the traditional ones. We would not need to work around you folks if you'd get out of the way.

More squealing? I'll bet you can't find ONE instance in which a "terrorist" was let go because of a "pansy" judge.

ALSO

Quote:
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.

Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.

If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.

See? It's so easy to be reasonable. Unless of course you're ... not.

---------------------------------
BEND OVER OR DIE!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I favor monitoring the calls" of 1 in every 10 ordinary Americans who are not suspect and have done nothing wrong ? Isn't there some kind of law or something about unreasonable search and seizure and probable cause ? I know I read it somewhere - now where could that be ???

"warrantless tracking of their financial transactions" ... "Have you noticed all the credit card applications you get...I've got news for you, your already being traced." But that's by corporations who are super-people in our system. It's their right.

I'm talking about by the federal government. I keep thinking there's something about that ... it's right there at the edge of my memory ...

"if all our phones are tapped then it would take tens of millions of people to monitor those conversations" Uh, you're from this century, aren't you ?

Quote:

"the Department of Homeland Security, over the last several years, has been secretly compiling detailed records of the travel activities of American citizens and assigning "risk assessment" ratings based on a whole slew of related information it collects and stores -- assessments which citizens have no right to review and which will be maintained by the U.S. Government for the next 40 years"

"that USA Today revealed earlier this year that the NSA continues to compile comprehensive records of every telephone number which every person inside the U.S. calls, every telephone number from which they receive calls, and the duration of the calls."

"Total Information Awareness" followed by

"A forthcoming government database will compile information from all federal agencies and the private sector on people deemed possible terrorist threats, President Bush said Tuesday evening.

Bush used his State of the Union address to announce the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), a mammoth data-collection project intended to fuse information collected domestically by police and internationally by spy agencies."

"With lack of habeas corpus" if you're designated an enemy combatant. You DO read the news. Right ?

"Like the BMV, they have your SSN and with that all your secrets are open." But the information stays out of the federal government's hands until the government decides to compile all your information in one place. My grandma, what a big database you have. The better to track you with my dear. My grandma, what a big dick you are. The better to screw you, my dear.

"Free speech zones" which restrict people's rights to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap, Jong, Fletch, Hero - the usuals, and Arclight.

Sigh.

What do you all have against freedom ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:09 AM

Actually nothing, you will note that I mentioned the rendition secret prisons and the whole deal. However every time you do 2+2=5 I feel forced to call you on it. The US clasifying this case does NOT mean that everything the complainant says is gospel, which seems to be your argument, it just means that the government has decided to claim national security, which incidentally this administration does for just about everything.

If you came here and said. The CIA frequently sends folks to it's own fascilities in 3rd countries for interigation and occasionally hands folks over to other countries where there is a risk of physical torture, you would not hear one argument from me, there is evidence in multiple places to prove that. However to decide that everything THIS complaint says MUST be true because the government doesnt want the case heard is a logical error, the government doesnt want ANY national security cases heard in court. Like I said if you could make a case that Elvis is alive that has security overtones the gov will squash that, it doesnt mean the King is alive and well and shopping at Walmart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:57 AM

LEADB

Rue,
I'm feeling a bit 'off today', so maybe my thinking isn't entirely clear; however, there's a huge difference between someone saying 'Elvis lives' and having the case tossed as frivolous; and the judge not calling it frivolous but just because it has some merit doesn't mean it is true.

For instance, the German dude might have 4 people who say, 'Yeh, he suddenly went missing' and heck, perhaps he was arrested and held somewhere for the time being incommunicado; but that doesn't mean he'd -win- the civil case, it just means the judge is prepared to give him a day in court... until the US says 'it involves state secrets' and they say so sorry, too bad.

What I don't see is a solution to this. Obviously, we can't force the government to reveal it's legitimate secrets, but I'm decidedly getting to the point where it seems the Fedgov is abusing the power. If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust. And then, what if the verdict in and of itself would by it's nature reveal a secret. I'm very interested to see where the German court ends up on this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:52 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap, Jong, Fletch, Hero - the usuals, and Arclight.

Sigh.

What do you all have against freedom ?

I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

What I've been saying is that just b/c the court tossed it due to 'state secrets' doesn't mean it's invalid - as Rap claims.

But I also think that one can read more into it. It COULD have been tossed as frivolous. It wasn't. Therefore, there was enough merit to bring it to trial. And IF it was brought to trial the government COULD have claimed that the complainant and they had nothing to do with each other, therefore they were innocent of his complaints. They wouldn't have to delve into their operations IF those operations had nothing to do with the lawsuit. But the government didn't go that way and chose to claim 'state secrets' instead.

See where this is leading ?

LeadB
"If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust."

That's what the FISA courts do. It's not impossible.

Edited to add - FISA was re-written over a dozen times to give more authority and more flexibility to the secret investigation process before 9/11. The government had the power to tap, to trace, to search ... to do whatever they needed to do when they needed to do it as long as they went to the FISA court 72 hours AFTER their actions.

Bush doesn't want ANY review. EVER. Not even by a secret court that doesn't turn the government down or reveal secret information. He wants to be able to invesigate anyone, at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all. In secret and without any accounting.

What does that say about your liberties - to be presumed innocent, to be free of search and seizure except for probable cause ? To peacefully gather and petition ? Those rights have been hosed by the administration.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.

So, you gonna apologize to the 350 million non-terrorists for stomping on their rights? It seems to me that in your fear of terrorists and your zeal to find them you wind up treating everyone like a terrorist. Does that seem right to you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"freedom for terrorists to do as they please"

Your posts reek of cowardice.

You'd rather the entire country be under investigation to assuage your fears.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.
So, you gonna apologize to the 350 million non-terrorists for stomping on their rights? It seems to me that in your fear of terrorists and your zeal to find them you wind up treating everyone like a terrorist. Does that seem right to you?

One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.

rue - You're the coward who doesn't want to face the reality of those out there who want to kill you, your love ones and all they stand for.

Pathetic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap - perhaps you failed to read things like - every phone call is traced by the government and the data stored. Doesn't that infringe on freedom of assembly, innocent until proven guilty and freedom from unreasonsable search and seizure unless for probable cause ?

Or are those liberties that everyone USED to enjoy mere trifles to you ?

I'm really curious how you can justify this to everyone here on the board. Feel free ...

***************************************************************
At your leisure ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.

So have you actually read The Constitution lately? Aside from the rather general instrusion into privacy on a good sampling of the population (and Bush's insistence that he has the right to snoop into anyone's phone conversaiton no matter what) what about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows people to be detained indefinitely with no charges, no review, and no legal recourse? Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:02 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.
So have you actually read The Constitution lately? Aside from the rather general instrusion into privacy on a good sampling of the population (and Bush's insistence that he has the right to snoop into anyone's phone conversaiton no matter what) what about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows people to be detained indefinitely with no charges, no review, and no legal recourse? Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

Nope. Not true. Sampling of phone conversations with KNOWN or SUSPECTED terrorist on phon calls OUTSIDE OUR COUNTRY. This isn't nearly as complicated as you're trying to make it out to be.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:03 PM

This peripherally brings up a couple of interesting questions. What I want are honest answers, not an ideal perfect world view or a slip into political dogma.

1) Do you think that the abuse of foreigners abroad by US intelligence REALLY worries middle American middle class Soccer Moms and Nascar dads. I'm not talking the chattering classes or the political junkies, I'm talking about your average Joe. If you said "we had to torture this Saudi national because that was the only way we coulod keep America safe how many would accept that? To what extent is the "Jack Bauer" effect part of the American consensus.

2) As a hyperthetical. Subject Ali has information about a 9/11 scale attack you know will kill 3000+ Americans. Technical means have failed and the only way to get the information is torture -- and I mean the nasty 3rd world kind before anyone uses hazing as an analogy. If you knew 100% before time that this would make him crack and avert the plot would you do it or would you let 3000 of your fellow citizens die. Would your opinion be different if your wife/mother/children where in the target zone?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap - perhaps you failed to read things like - every phone call is traced by the government and the data stored. Doesn't that infringe on freedom of assembly, innocent until proven guilty and freedom from unreasonsable search and seizure unless for probable cause ?

Or are those liberties that everyone USED to enjoy mere trifles to you ?

I'm really curious how you can justify this to everyone here on the board. Feel free ...

...

I'm not paranoid, as you are. EVERY phone call traced ? WTF does that exactly mean? We knew of the Carnivore program going on under Clinton, but gee oh golly, no one seemed to care then. Wonder why they care now ? Hmmm.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And if you go back through my posts you will see me lambasting Carnivore as well - even years after the fact. Gee, how did that slip by you ?

"The FBI describes Carnivore as a "well-focused" system that has been used in only a small number of cases: 16 this year, including six criminal and 10 national security investigations. Each case, however, could involve dozens of wiretaps. The FBI didn't offer details." And the program - eventually abandoned.

At the time the repubicans were all twisted about it.

And Bush's programs now which are a vast expansion of anything ever done by the Clinton administration ? By, for example, tracing every phone call WITHIN the US - they don't even merit a yawn.

So, can you respond to the question I posed or are you going to bob and weave on the entire topic ?

The question - if I may remind you - is how you justify the loss of recent freedoms such as presumed innocent, assembly, and freedom from search and seizure, to all of us here.

Any time you're ready ...

***************************************************************
And yes - it's EVERY domestic phone call traced.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

For someone who's looking for 'honest' answers you sure are stacking the questions. If you get any anwers at all what you'll get are hyper-focused distorted hypothetical ones that have no bearing on what people 'honestly' think.

***************************************************************
And my opinion - I don't approve of torture. First of all, it doesn't work. That's a big flaw in your argument. Second of all, torture is used to gain admission of guilt, not information. That means anyone for whom there isn't enough solid evidence is liable to being tortured - and that includes all innocent people. Me, or you, or my family. And finally, torture's most efficient use is to spread fear and keep people compliant.

So the question isn't - would I approve of torture for one? It's a question - how many people will be tortured ? And what will that do to our freedoms ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:30 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB
"If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust."

That's what the FISA courts do. It's not impossible.

Sorry, I have a cold or something... at one point I heard about FISA, and since forgot.

Quote:

Edited to add - FISA was re-written over a dozen times to give more authority and more flexibility to the secret investigation process before 9/11. The government had the power to tap, to trace, to search ... to do whatever they needed to do when they needed to do it as long as they went to the FISA court 72 hours AFTER their actions.

Bush doesn't want ANY review. EVER. Not even by a secret court that doesn't turn the government down or reveal secret information. He wants to be able to invesigate anyone, at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all. In secret and without any accounting.

Does seem to be the case.

Quote:

What does that say about your liberties - to be presumed innocent, to be free of search and seizure except for probable cause ? To peacefully gather and petition ? Those rights have been hosed by the administration.

Even with a cold, I agree with you on that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi LeadB

I'm sorry about your cold. There is something nasty going around here was well. I hope you're better soon.

Anyway, I need to sign off. There are things I need to get done.

Signing off for now ...

good night.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:08 PM

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-appeals-court-judges-scr
utinize-bush-administrations-wiretap-arguments.html

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, plugging your ears and closing your eyes is pathetic. Just pathetic. I found these articles in wildly leftwing sites like, c|net and Ars Technica and Christian Science Monitor

Quote:
... the NSA does not monitor domestic communications exclusively between persons in the United States without warrants, but the government will not provide such an assurance under oath. Despite broad public knowledge of the NSA wiretap program's existence, the federal government continues to assert that national security would be threatened if any evidence were presented that merely confirms the program's existence, even if no other information about the program is exposed in the process.

Quote:
The illegal NSA domestic surveillance was first revealed by the New York Times on December 16, 2005.... the NSA has gained access to major telecommunications switches inside the US, giving it essentially unchecked access not only to international communications but to purely domestic emails and phone calls. A new book by New York Times reporter James Risen... along with reporting in the LA Times and ABC News further revealed that the NSA has been using that access--as well as access to telecommunications companies' databases--to data-mine Internet logs and phone logs for "suspicious patterns" presumably to find new targets for the wiretapping program.... The administration has admitted to the existence of the classified program... not only is the legal standard lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable basis," the determination of whether there was or was not such a reasonable basis was left to NSA agents and their shift-supervisors, eliminating even the limited check of the FISC from the process (the FISC has approved all but five of the 19,000 requests placed before it).

www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/

Bush wants permanent warrantless wiretap law 'Nuff said
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0921/p99s01-duts.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

For someone who's looking for 'honest' answers you sure are stacking the questions. If you get any anwers at all what you'll get are hyper-focused distorted hypothetical ones that have no bearing on what people 'honestly' think.

As I recall you wanted a focussed answer on your free speech question. These are two questions and yes the second one is artificial and extreme, much as your free speech question was.

My view is that average Americans don't care what happens to none citizens in other countries if the end result is that it keeps them "safe." While the talking heads where rending garments on TV about Abu Graub the impression I got when I spoke to people "on the street" was that they felt let down but the military in the same way they felt let down by a sports team if they are caught cheating. There wasn't a sense of moral outrage that this was wrong so much as an anger that these people had let the side down somewhat and embarressed America. Just like supporters of a sports team might be embarressed if their team was found doping.

As to my second question. I justify it in the following way. In the free speech debate you constructed an artificial yes/no black white answer and I think we explored out personal perceptions and limits pretty well. It was informative, certainly more so that just hurling insults. So perhaps I'm trying to catch lightning in a bottle to want another exploration, but I do think it's a valid question.

My view is that principles become mutable in extreme situations, I think that's a matter of basic human psychology. You may believe firmly in "thou shalt not kill" but it's far harder to hold to that ideal if the situation becomes "him or you" harder yet if it becomes "him or your loved ones." The world does have saints, I haven't met any of them myself though because in the end we are all imperfect beings. I want to explore those limits, so I'd like your take on teh question as posed and then if you like you can modify it along the lines you feel are more "real world."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:12 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
God! I just want to ram my head into a wall! It might feel better than reading this.

By "this," do you mean this thread?

Here are my two cents.

I don't know what scares and saddens me more: The government abusing our freedoms or all the people who believe this sort of government is necessary and desirable.

Erosion or outright attacks on freedoms are always preceded by a good enemy, for whom such sacrifices are necessary and desirable.

Just because there are worse police states out there doesn't mean ours is not also a police state.

What keeps us from being as bad as the other police states is that we have an armed citizenry. If they ever try to attack too many of us at once, or too many average citizens, armed citizens will and can fight back.

Citizen weaponry will always be outgunned by government weaponry. It won't stop the govt from attacking people's freedoms, but it does slow the attack down.

I'm becoming convinced the crumbling of the last stronghold for freedom, America, is irreversible, and that our only option for real freedom is technology and space travel.

At least, the sky is MY only hope.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, that and the internet, the last bastion of real free speech, IF you can cover your tracks well enough to keep off any folk you annoy...

No wonder the Gov and their Corpie friends wanna strangle it, monitor it, or shut it down and slice it up, eh.

I was gonna give some bits of detailed advice, but yanno what ?

No, no I don't think so, and I have my reasons.

I'm with CTS, I want off this rock - but that'd take more than an overcomplicated antiquated piece of junk designed to put corporate or Gov spy sattelites in orbit and of NO use for anything else.

Screw the shuttle, build a damned SPACE ship, not a pissant station, a SHIP, one not dependant on ability to take off and land on a planet, put the parts on these crummy orbiters, take em out to the L5 point and put the damned thing together.

If naught else, it'd give us a better idea of how we need to go about properly building a REAL deep space exploration vessel - but you know where that runs into problems ?

Putting people outside the reach and control of earthly governments - they totally shit bricks over even the concept, a case study was done by our intel folks and their psych crews, who determined that even IF a crew was up to 70% Gov plants or partisan fanatics, they'd STILL defect en masse the very instant they achieved self-sufficiency.

And following that to it's natural, logical conclusion once typical Gov threats are issued ?

Rocks are cheap in space, and dumping one into a gravity well is dead bang simple in comparison to spatial navigation.

So hell no they don't wanna go down that road, even if we had the tech right now, they wouldn't... cause folks like me would do just about anything to get the hell OUT of their reach and control, and every time they expand their influance, we'd just move further out.

Kinda reminds me of something, yanno...

But yes, I'd like off this rock before the fearful little crazy bastards blow half of it to bits with nukes and make the rest uninhabitable.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

You'd rather the entire country be under investigation to assuage your fears.

When your looking for needles in the haystack...it helps to look in the haystack.

I suspect you'd rather have us suffer more terrorist attacks then accept reasonable govt. surveillance. The "1 in 10" innocent Americans who you claim were monitored...and thats thirty million people, which I doubt because the volume of calls is such that your talking perhaps hundreds of millions of man-hours to review the conversations, they have nothing to worry about because, as you say, they are innocent.

Its like being mad at the policeman running laser on the side of the road because he might clock cars that are not speeding and that's not fair. Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

I note for the record that legally a person's rights cannot be violated until they have suffered actual harm.

For example, the mere passage of a bill or a policy by the government is not per se a violation of the rights of the whole of the American people, even if later found to be unconstitutional. Only those people directly harmed by it, in your example a innocent person who is illegally detained, would have standing to challenge the issue.

Your other example, the Terrorist Surveilance Program, would only harm the rights of person's who were surveiled, not the 300 million others not party to any particular call.

I also note for the record that the question is not just whether this policy is an intrusion, and that is a question since I would argue that a person talking to a suspected terrorist has no expectation of privacy...especially since now everybody knows they can listen in. Its also whether the intrusion is unreasonable, which is a subjective test. To some persons, like yourself, any intrusion is unreasonable. The Framers disagreed because they could have said "any intrusion" and chose not to so they clearly intended some intrusions to be reasonable and others not to be. I would suggest the question of what's reasonable is also circumstancial, and that is also the position of the govt.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I may not always agree with em, but damn the LR guys make a good point sometimes.
Even moreso when you ponder this bit was written in 1939!

Original URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/nock/nock13.html

The Criminal State
by Albert Jay Nock

As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally-expressed attitude.

All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.

I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put everytime a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture-platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would expect? – look at the record!

No State Excepted

That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices largescale carpet-baggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.

In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose.

No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. In the last analysis, what is the German, Italian, French, or British State now actually doing? It is ruining its own people in order to preserve itself, to enhance its own power and prestige, and extend its own authority; and the American State is doing the same thing to the utmost of its opportunities.

A Scrap of Paper

What, then, is a little matter like a treaty to the French or British State? Merely a scrap of paper – Bethmann-Hollweg described it exactly. Why be astonished when the German or Russian State murders its citizens? The American State would do the same thing under the same circumstances. In fact, eighty years ago it did murder a great many of them for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by G. Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat's holiday.

The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler's record or Stalin's. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness – which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe – its criminality may be safely got on with.

So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country.

Two able and sensible American publicists – Isabel Paterson, of the New York Herald Tribune, and W.J. Cameron, of the Ford Motor Company – have lately called our public's attention to the great truth that if you give the State power to do something FOR you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something TO you. I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering that truth into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. The State was organized in this country with power to do all kinds of things FOR the people, and the people in their short-sighted stupidity, have been adding to that power ever since. After 1789, John Adams said that, so far from being a democracy of a democratic republic, the political organization of the country was that of "a monarchical republic, or, if you will, a limited monarchy"; the powers of its President were far greater than those of "an avoyer, a consul, a podesta, a doge, a stadtholder; nay, than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta." If all that was true in 1789 – and it was true – what is to be said of the American State at the present time, after a century and a half of steady centralization and continuous increments of power?

Power Corrupts

Power, for instance, to "help business" by auctioning off concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land-grants, franchises; power to help business by ever encroaching regulations, supervisions, various forms of control. All this power was freely given; it carried with it the equivalent power to do things TO business; and see what a banditti of sharking political careerists are doing to business now! Power to afford "relief" to proletarians; and see what the State has done to those proletarians now in the way of systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had! Power this way, power that way; and all ultimately used AGAINST the interests of the people who surrendered that power on the pretext that it was to be used FOR those interests.

Many now believe that with the rise of the "totalitarian" State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will.

The idea that the State is a social institution, and that with a fine upright man like Mr. Chamberlain at the head of it, or a charming person like Mr. Roosevelt, there can be no question about its being honorably and nobly managed – all this is just so much sticky fly-paper. Men in that position usually make a good deal of their honor, and some of them indeed may have some (though if they had any I cannot understand their letting themselves be put in that position) but the machine they are running will run on rails which are laid only one way, which is from crime to crime. In the old days, the partition of Czecho-Slovakia or the taking-over of Austria would have been arranged by rigmarole among a few highly polished gentlemen in stiff shirts ornamented with fine ribbons. Hitler simply arranged it the way old Frederick arranged his share in the first partition of Poland; he arranged the annexation of Austria the way Louis XIV arranged that of Alsace. There is more or less of a fashion, perhaps, in the way these things are done, but the point is that they always come out exactly the same in the end.

Furthermore, the idea that the procedure of the "democratic" State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister-democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kichener's democratic concentration camps and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O'Dwyer and Governor Eyre? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell-roaring Jake Smith, in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can't say fairer than that.

The British State

As for the British State's talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them "birds of prey and passage." Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that "the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country." Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that "most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach"; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man. There was the iniquitous salt-monopoly; there was extortion everywhere, practiced by enterprising rascals in league with a corrupt police; there was taxation which confiscated almost half the products of the soil.

If it be said that Britain was not a sister-democracy in those days, and has since reformed, one might well ask how much of the reformation is due to circumstances, and how much to a change of heart. Besides, the Black-and-Tans were in our day; so was the post-Armistice blockade; General O'Dwyer's massacre was not more than a dozen years ago; and there are plenty alive who remember Kitchener's concentration camps.

No, "democratic" State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other.

Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics:

You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.

A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson has but little more left to learn. Stripping the American State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring one; and if they attend to it properly they will have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except what goes on right here in the United States.

The following article was originally published in H.L. Mencken's American Mercury, March, 1939. Albert J. Nock was a regular contributor to the publication under Mencken.

Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) was an influential American libertarian author, educational theorist, and social critic. Murray Rothbard was deeply influenced by him, and so was that whole generation of free-market thinkers. See Nock's The State of the Union.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:44 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.

I like that Hero....In the good old days people that promulgate the insane horseshit I read on the web would have been shunned and mocked by society...in many cases they'd be put in straight-jackets & hauled off to insane asylums. Now...with the internet, all manner of whack jobs, flakes, perverts, conspiracy lunatics, etc, etc have crawled out from under their slimy rocks to spew their paranoid and demented thoughts with impunity, polluting the landscape of a once-sane society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

I can't believe what an ass you are at times, and a stupid one at that.

My question was open ended - HOW you justify .... no yes/ no there, is there ? Now, HOW did you miss such a simple reading of normal English ?

Yours is such a pathetically stupid question it's beyond meaningful answer.

It's so structured that the information you'll get back reflects only the structure of your question.

Like shining a red light on a white piece of paper and declaring it red.

***************************************************************
God what a stupid ass you can be.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

I can't believe what an ass you are at times, and a stupid one at that.

My question was open ended - HOW you justify .... no yes/ no there, is there ? Now, HOW did you miss such a simple reading of normal English ?

Yours is such a pathetically stupid question it's beyond meaningful answer.

It's so structured that the information you'll get back reflects only the structure of your question. Like shining a red light on a white piece of paper and declaring it red.

***************************************************************
God what a stupid ass you can be.

So what you are saying is you won't answer? Ok I have no problem with that, just so we know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I did answer - I gave you my honest opinion, which is what you SAID you were looking for.

Now to deconstruct your question:

IF you know that the person planted a device, AND you know that it WILL kill 3000 people, THEN he/ she (I'll say he for convenience) is guilty, isn't he ?

FURTHER I'll POSIT even more extreme torture - the kind that doesn't end when he answers the questions but goes on and on so that you know the only thing at the end will be a painful death.

The question then becomes - do you approve of cruel and unusual punishment if it means saving lives ? And would your answer change if one of those lives was a member of your family ?

With me so far ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.- Hero

I like that Hero....In the good old days people that promulgate the insane horseshit I read on the web would have been shunned and mocked by society...in many cases they'd be put in straight-jackets & hauled off to insane asylums. Now...with the internet, all manner of whack jobs, flakes, perverts, conspiracy lunatics, etc, etc have crawled out from under their slimy rocks to spew their paranoid and demented thoughts with impunity, polluting the landscape of a once-sane society.- Jongsstraw

Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did answer - I gave you my honest opinion, which is what you SAID you were looking for.

You did? I missed that. Did you answer the specific question or did you rework it ans answer your own question?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I note for the record that legally a person's rights cannot be violated until they have suffered actual harm.

That is not true. There are two intepretations about privacy (for example). To illustrate, let's say a Federal agents come into your home, rifle (carefully) thru your things, make a copy of your hard drive(s), carefully lock the door behind themselves. You had no knowledge they were there, and nothing comes of the search except a file mouldering somewhere.

On interpretation is that you didn't suffer any "harm" so no violation occurred. Another intepretation is that your rights are a thing onto themselves, and that the Federal agents violated them. I'm of the second interpretation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You did? I missed that. Did you answer the specific question or did you rework it ans answer your own question?

Somewhere in that explanation as to WHY you framed the question the way you did, you also said that readers could modify the question to be more "real world". Seems like Rue took you up on the offer.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

You said you were looking for honest opinions. "What I want are honest answers, not an ideal perfect world view or a slip into political dogma." My honest opinion was that I couldn't answer the question as proposed. To answer it would be to accept certain predications that are not only factually wrong but internally inconsistent and that remove the essence of the dilemma. (And I also pointed out how MY question to Rap - which is open ended - is not a yes/ no question as you so erroneously claimed, and therefore is not like YOUR yes/ no question.)

So I reworded the question slightly in a way that makes logical sense and is not internally logically invalid.

here it is, again:

IF you know that the person planted a device, AND you know that it WILL kill 3000 people, THEN he/ she (I'll say he for convenience) is guilty, isn't he ?

FURTHER I'll POSIT even more extreme torture - the kind that doesn't end when he answers the questions but goes on and on so that you know the only thing at the end will be a painful death.

The question then becomes - do you approve of cruel and unusual punishment if it means saving lives ? And would your answer change if one of those lives was a member of your family ?

With me so far ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:46 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

If you hate 'The Police State' as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace mean and anarchistic? Like Somalia, Rwanda, or Mongolia?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:46 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

Too hot & muggy in Cuba, and I don't enjoy octopus
Chinese people all look alike, too confusing to live there
I chew gum and smoke, so Singapore's out
...and for the record, and for your personal need's fulfillment, I value the freedom that has been fought and won for, and the freedom that comes at the end of a tough work week when you get your paycheck...the type of "freedom" you typically refer to is the freedom to be a bum, leech, and scumbag, all on my dime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:48 AM

Actually I said they should answer the question as posed and then modify it if they believed it was unrealistic (which it was and I said it was and knew it was.)

Rue's free speech question was framed in a "does no harm" context. As I said at that time if there was no harm then nobody could possibly object to free speech, the problem came in the messy real world where harm could be done or where X's right to free speech effected some right of Y's.

In my mind this is the same deal. My question removes all "what if's" and speculation. It has an artificial cause/effect because it's a direct moral question ----are your principles with regard to torture worth trading 3000 lives for? Are they worth trading the lives of loved ones for?

I was looking for a simple answer to that question and in exchange I was willing to let the question be reframed so that an answer more in keeping with "real life" conditions was possible.

So for example an answer could be "yes in that situation of course I would do whatever was nescessary to save those 3000 people but you realise in real life torture like that would never give you reliable information."

or

"No I would never consider that as a valid tactic. A measure of a societies resiliance is it's ability to hiold by it's highest principles even in the face of a deadly challenge. Once we go down that kind of path far more than 3000 people will be at stake. In a civilised society we must set limits and be willing to stand by them."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Or Canada, France or Germany ? Or some other democracy that's signed onto the ICC ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

If you hate American law so much why don't you go live in Canada.

Or we can compromise and both stay here in North Mexico.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:54 AM

I don't accept your rewording. There is no logical inconsistancy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:55 AM