digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Gutting of the Fourth Amendment

huffingtonpost.com — Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Masternajee, on 07/05/2008, -6/+54Who would think that Congress would care about respecting the rights named in the Constitution. As for the Bill of Rights, the dems only care about the 1st and the Reps about the 2nd,
    • tehpwnerofn00bs, on 07/06/2008, -6/+25But the Reps go out of their way to violate and remove all the others, the Dems are just too lazy to try and stop them.
      • jaymzdean, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11Oh stop trying to carry on the facade that these 2 parties are competing incompetents. The Dems aren't spineless or lazy. They're complicit.
      • calantus, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6dems are just as bad don't fool yourself.
    • Dibou, on 07/07/2008, -10/+19Except for the fact that the Democrats only care about the 1st amendment when it is about people saying things they like to hear.
      Democrats want to kill free speech (not in the left fantasy world killing free speech sort of way either) with the Fairness Doctrine, where the government tells radio show owners what they can and can not say.
      The left of this country is also trying to push further to the left as far as Canada and Europe where they can charge people with 'hate crimes' if they don't like what you say, regardless of truth.
      Add in 'speech codes' in the universities and you find the left doesn't care for free speech at all and it is 'just words' to them.
      • user500, on 07/07/2008, -14/+3dude get off the wacky weed. If your not, do you believe the crap that write?
      • nugz85, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10dude, he makes a good point. stop having faith in the left in this country, they are no better than the right! they only want what is best for those in power, to hell with everyone else. this government is the enemy, thats why our founders (namely thomas jefferson) did what they could to limit the power of th government. go ahead, trust the government, until one day they are forcing you to trust them, and forcing you to do what they want. the people of germany trusted and gave their rights to their government in the 1920s and 30s... look where it got them
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9User500, just check out the links:

        ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Is A Code Name For “Censorship”
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nancy+pelosi+ ...
    • Gryffydd, on 07/07/2008, -3/+10The Dems care about the 1st amendment, except when it involves Christmas trees in airports, or anything else that might offend anyone other than white christians.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1Yeah, white Christians have a really hard time in America right now. It must be tough being so oppressed though they control congress, the supreme court, and the white house.
    • Infowarmachine, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8both sides
      both labels, are *****

      both sides, both labels, are doing everything they can to strip us of the whole bill of rights
    • scamper22, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3No government cares about rights.
      Democracy and rights are inconveniences for governments. I mean who voluntarily puts barriers in the way of getting things done?

    • SpinningHead, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Not all the Dems are the good guys, but most of the good guys right now are Dems. See how many Reps vote against this.
  • ti22, on 07/05/2008, -0/+31scary
    • Djharlock, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4Not really.

      Let's see, it's 2008, the fear tactics are finally wearing off and America has had about enough of his "terrorist" *****, so no one is really "pro" illegal wiretapping, and Congress knows they wouldn't get away with trying to even let a stunt like this happen. Otherwise someone would probably punch each one of them in the collective *****.
    • mrbeagle, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7They will "get away" with it. Relative to the voting population of the US, Digg readership is virtually insignificant. While we rant and rave about the injustices committed by the government, out in the real world, the general American population doesn't know or doesn't care.

      The US will continue on its descent into fascism until:
      a. it becomes an insufferable hellhole, or
      b. an outside force intervenes and blows the ***** out of everything, a la WWII.

      Realistically, we're *****.
  • Diggnabbit, on 07/06/2008, -23/+13Uh oh... Digg conflict of interest!

    It's huffingtonpost, so everyone has to hate on it, but it's anti-FISA so everyone has to love it!
    • relic180, on 07/06/2008, -2/+4Got some more labels in the labeling sack of yours that you'd like to throw out there?
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6Well.. It's true...
      Where's all the "fluffington spam" comments?
      Where's all the "real source please" comments?

      Just because YOU dont like something doesn't make it 'fluff' or 'spam' or 'bias'.
      When it was Hillary vs Obama, and Huffington Post was Pro-Obama, everyone loved it.
      But now that it's Obama vs McCain, anything slightly against McCain is spam or fluff.

      You should quit bitching about Obama changing his stance by compromising and start looking at yourself. How can you expect someone else to stand by their initial statements when you flip-flop worse than John Kerry?
      Compromises have to be made, some things can be afforded more compromise, some less. If you feel that there should be no compromises, then you're really just being selfish and greedy. The person running for president has to (try to) appease everyone in the United States while still holding their base values true. It's not about you, it's about everyone.
      Many of you even bitch about 'sheep' and how 'falling in line' is such a horrible thing, yet you expect everyone to line up behind you and follow you and think like you and act like you and agree with you...
      Bunch of hypocrites holding everyone else to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.
  • mrcoderga, on 07/06/2008, -10/+44"The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel’s persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our “freedom and democracy” as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?"


    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 ...
    • MikeFallopian, on 07/07/2008, -12/+5A Truther! Haven't seen your sorry lot in a while.
      • Opiate, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3Indeed, the fascist machine has done a pretty good job with the cover up so far. But tell me this, doesn't wearing the same brown shirt get tired and old? How do you keep your conscious? Do you simply cover your eyes and ears? For your sake I hope you truely beleive the government has done no wrong, because the worse kind of karma is the kind you are aware of your ignorance.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6You mean it's not because they're a bunch of nut job religious assholes who want to rule the world under their thumb like so many that came before them?
    • Moonkeeper, on 07/07/2008, -4/+2You mean Ron Paul was right?

      I thought he was a kook!
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Yes, lets discuss Dr Judy Woods' "compelling questions" about 9/11. What does she believe brought down the WTC?
    • AntiZionist, on 07/07/2008, -3/+0Anyone with half a ***** brain can figure that out! Do you think the Palestinians don't know they're being killed and oppressed with US weapons. Those two are crooks too. They should have spoke up then, not now when they decide to write a for profit book!
    • Herkimer56, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4"I thought he was a kook!"

      And you were correct!

      "Anyone with half a ***** brain can figure that out!"

      You certainly qualify. Now tell us who has been giving the Palestinians the explosives they use to send suicide bombers in to Israel to specifically target women and children.
  • openj, on 07/06/2008, -18/+5I've never understood this. You love worshiping a God who watches over you and determines your everlasting fate based on what He witnesses in His unending monitoring of you, but you get all pissy when your federal government decides to do the same. Do you want to be watched or don't you?
    • imgstacke, on 07/06/2008, -5/+3Actions like that condemn the Nation to damnation, trying to be equal or above God.
      • relic180, on 07/06/2008, -2/+7I should hope we, as a country, are not trying to be equal or above imaginary fairy tails.
        I'm not even sure exactly how that would work.
      • MWeather, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1We are above God. God doesn't mess with free will. We do.
    • netneutrality, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10The obvious difference is that if there's a God, we trust him (or have no choice). But mere men are always corrupted by power, so we're right to be suspicious.
      • relic180, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5But the real twist is that since "God" is a creation of man, it falls to reason that he would be susceptible to the same "corruption". Or, in the more commonly verbalized term, "interpretation".
    • gox35, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Where does the author of the article say he worships God? What are you talking about?
  • imgstacke, on 07/06/2008, -3/+87"We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us."
    • Dibou, on 07/07/2008, -25/+4If you mean by making the left in this country into rabid fear-mongers, then you might have a point. If you mean actual freedom, then you are wrong.
      How about this:
      "The hate from the left has done more damage to the American way of life than ten thousand bombs could have done."
      • hierophantus, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9OK, you're an obvious troll, but I'll play along anyway.

        What fear-mongering has "the left" done?
        What "hate" has come from "the left," and what damage did it do to "the American way of life?"

        Please answer with specific, objectively verifiable examples, not generalized rhetoric.

        (Note that I'll give you a pass on defining "the left" and "the American way of life," as manipulable as such generalities are.)
      • brianjlowry, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4Did you smoke dinner?
      • jaymzdean, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Would you kindly explain to us how you are anywhere near the right of anyone who stands in defense of the Constitution? Hey, buddy, attacking the Constitution is a crime in this country. That's why people like our president have to publicly take an oath to protect it. To attack or condone an attack on the Constitution is considered treason here. You're not publicly admitting to being a traitor are you?
        Because that's exactly what it sounds like.
      • Dibou, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Fear-mongering of the left:
        "The Republicans are going to draft us!"
        "The Republicans want to control your body!" (Instead it is Republicans don't want the slaughter of the unborn to satisfy your urge to screw whomever you want without consequences.)
        "Bush is listening in on our phone calls!" (Actually he (and Clinton before him) are listening in on foreign nationals phone calls that pass through US property.)
        "Bush hates black people."
        "Bush caused (or was complaisant in) 9/11!"
        "Republicans are trying to starve our children!" (This was a quote by Bill Clinton when the Republicans RAISED the amount budgeted for a children's food program, but not as much as he wanted.)
        "McCain wants the war to last 100 years!"

        That is just off the top of my head.

        As to jaymzdean:
        Attacking the Constitution is NOT a crime. Violating the Constitution is a crime. You see the 1st amendment allows people to disagree with whatever they want.
        To top it off, I am not even disagreeing with the Constitution, I disagree with knee-jerk cries of violation of the Constitution that have no basis in reality and only in hatred of Bush.
      • jaymzdean, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Dibou, so let me guess. You think warrantless wiretapping is Constitutional.
        The World Torture Prison System is...Constitutional?
        Trashing Habeas Corpus?
        Constitutional?

  • kineticworm, on 07/06/2008, -2/+74"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."---Benjamin Franklin
    • Dibou, on 07/07/2008, -18/+4"Those who blindly oppose laws they don't even understand and only know about through deception filled articles deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      • chrispr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10Perhaps you can set digg, the EFF, and the ACLU straight then?
      • KidCargo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4The intent of the immunity for telcos is self-explanatory. It is to immunize them from the courts of law of this country where a judge may decide that what they have done is illegal whereupon they would have to pay vast sums of money to the citizens that they may have violated. Let's let the courts decide. No "Get out of Jail Free Card".
      • MWeather, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2"Those who blindly support laws they don't even understand and only know about through deception filled articles deserve neither liberty nor safety."

        You don't think congress actually reads this *****, do you?
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/07/2008, -10/+3"Those who mistakenly misquote things and credit them to people who never said them after they have been shown to be incorrect many times on Digg.com deserve neither quoting nor posting privileges" ---me
      • nugz85, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2he was just quoting directly out of this article, i dont know where the problem is. i first heard this quote on civilization 4, it went along the lines of those who will give of a little liberty for a little safety, will deserve neither, and lose both. the general point of the quotes come through, however they are worded. dont give up your liberties and freedoms for safety, because you will lose both
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The problem is.. it wasn't Benjamin Franklin who said it.
        I'm not 100% on the details, but he either received that quote in a letter, or quoted it in a letter he wrote.
        People frequently use that quote on Digg, and every time that I can recall that I've seen it, there's someone who corrects that person.
        You can find more information if you Google the quote without attaching a name to it.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3True, that was an adaptation of Franklin's actual quote, but the actual quote has the same spirit.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

        The first variant was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1755 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly. See Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin. [1]"
        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
    • unii, on 07/07/2008, -6/+1This is why I dugg you down. it is an interpretation. Next time get your facts right :
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin. Search the real quote their and the subsequent correct interpretations. Enjoy !
      • yakski, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7You are completely incorrect as in lying as in falsifying... here is the direct quote you ass..
        "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
        Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
        The first variant was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1755 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly. See Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin. [1]
        The second variant was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) This book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts.[2] "
    • SpinningHead, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8What a traitorous statement. We need to call homeland security to arrest this Franklin guy.
  • GinsuGuy585, on 07/06/2008, -1/+33Here is the problem we face: the government-industrial complex is serving it's interests, not the people's interests.

    Do the people want this to become law? (probably not)
    Why are the representatives of the people voting it into law? (.......)
  • tajitj, on 07/06/2008, -7/+25And to think your man Obama supportes that. Wrong kind of change.

    Take a look at Bob Barr and Nader. They are not so scared of a few hundred man in a cave that they are willing to toss the 4th in the can.
    Anyone else think the people in Washington are taking this WAY to far because of their own fears.
    • AlwaysAwake, on 07/07/2008, -4/+7They are not afraid of the men in the cave. They are afraid of David de Rothschild, and his band of greedy super-rich sociopath banker/investors calling themselves The One World Company, and who control all the Telecoms. They have killed many Presidents and a Pope, and they will kill anyone who gets in the way of their now nearly realized ambition to enslave all human life on the planet. Rothschild just had his man in London, Lord George, former UK Spy, and Governor of The Bank of England, "take care " of Alex Allen, naive Chairman of The British Intelligence Committee, who probably got too nosy about what is really going on. Allen's job was like being the Director of the CIA, and The NSA, even though, when appointed, he had NO intelligence experience, whatsoever. Now why would Prime Minister Brown, put such a man in that position?
      • Ramble, on 07/07/2008, -2/+8Now that you've just hit on the obvious truth, why are you not dead?
  • buckchoris, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Take action,watch this video for more info and the subsequent links posted by the uploader.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3X6U-fBpts
  • Jebrooks, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5This is why we have judicial review, eventually this will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional. It's just sad that the spineless hacks in office really don't give a damn about their job, they only care about their paycheck.
    • netant, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3The Judiciary? You mean the guys who decided to USURP the Constitution and award the presidency to GWB in 2000? The guys who decided your property can be seized so they can build a speculative commercial venture on top of it?
  • LeeSoong, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9Criminal Looters and their corporate stooges should be brought up on charges of violating human rights.

    Nip it in the bud, defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

    Vote to remove these impostors from office - before they start down the path of smoking ovens burning night and day in prisoner death camps.
  • Khast, on 07/07/2008, -2/+32Excuse my anger, but it is completely justified.

    TRY EVERY LAST POLITICIAN WHO SIGNS AWAY OUR FREEDOM, FOR TREASON.

    The government WORKS FOR US...WE ARE THEIR EMPLOYER. I don't need their damn false protection. What are we so scared of? A few fanatics? Gee, thanks...I think this administration has done enough damage to America... Any government head which decides to eliminate our constitution should be executed for treason, because that is what it is.

    /rant
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -8/+0Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

      just to let you know that your rant of "someone did not do what I wanted" is not covered under the law
  • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -13/+2The 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.


    just so you Liberals who have never read it could see what it is you are talking about.
    • chrispr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

      Just so you can read it.
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -8/+0another example of the supreme court writing law which is solely the job of the legislature FTW
      • hierophantus, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I suppose you can explain why that would be so without even reading the case?

        Just admit it. You have no idea how the law works; you just repeat the conservative party line.
  • isparadiselost, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4I look forward to the day that we're gutting the traitors in DC. We'll hang them by their own entrails. It'll save on the cost of rope.
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1Treason is a real narrow scope of behavior. Please tell me how and site references what traitorous things were done by whom and I will lead the charge.
      • mrsammercer, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Well, our legislators are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. They take an oath to do so. They are ***** on it with this bill. To me, that is traitorous.
    • netant, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Yeah, all you 2nd amendment patriots, here's you opportunity to put it to good use!

      Oh wait, you only want guns because you look cool having one...
  • Ne007, on 07/07/2008, -0/+12I'm sure it's illegal to say that these people need to be lynched, even though that's what the constitutional right to bear arms is all about.

    I'm sure there is some patriot act clause that makes me a terrorist for saying that.
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -7/+1Um the 2nd amendment for your education:


      well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      sorry no mention of lynching you will have to get those kicks by joining a racist group perhaps.


      • RedHerringHack, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Massive lead poisoning works just as well.
      • Ne007, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5What are you going to do after you bear arms? Play tiddlywinks?

        Why did you think I didn't know what the 2nd amendment was?

        Anyways, for your education, a lynch is "an extrajudicial punishment meted out by a mob." Although lynching can involve racial groups, lynching is an act that can happen without racial motivation, duh.

        Ugh...I would go on...why do I even try...
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -5/+0you try because you are a non thinking bush hater bandwagon type. don't worry the next fad will come along to make you think your "political viewpoint" is superior to everyone else's but while you keep doing that the machine erodes your and my freedom every law they write is more tyranny and less freedom. They wrote 3000 laws last year alone thats 3000 restrictions on your freedom but you just keep complaining about what they want you to. They win because of fools like you. Abortion/ Anti Abortion- democrat republican Big government/ little government whats the diff neither when in power changes all these "rope-a-dope" things so you don't see the enslavement of all people.
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -4/+0neeo7 sorry I tried to POWN you on this thread. I read your history and nobody has ever got Pwned like you did on "the history of the presidents" thread yesterday. I am an nothing compared to the pros that gave you such an ass fistin ass Pwneage like they did so once again my sincerest apologies i wish you well my friend.

        again you got pwned in a way I could never dream of. wow did they pwn your ass
      • gzusfreak, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4bigsteve is a stalker!

        But in all seriousness, bigsteve, stop while you are ahead before you make a complete and total fool of yourself. Thats what the youtube comments are for, go join the lot over there.

        Also, you are saying that we are too busy throwing our "superior political viewpoint" around and not doing anything about our freedoms while you are doing the same thing! How convenient is that? Really, we are voicing our complaints about what they are trying to do over there in Washington. From what I have seen, all you have been doing is complaining about our complaining.
    • justz00t, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9nah, its not the Patriot act, see the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 for that clause.
    • TremorX, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7The Patriot Act and the HTPA have made us all criminals. It's just a matter of when they want to 'catch' us.
  • Hetman, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4To be honest. I am done with this whole thing. America has already allowed the government to much power. "Patriot Bill" They are trying to give it more by not protesting this bill. To put it simple as George Carlin did. Nobody cares, Nobody seems to notice.
  • captric, on 07/07/2008, -10/+3In the same week that American Intelligence with the help of the FISA act announced the prevention of hundreds of barrels of yellow cake uranium from reaching the shores of the US in the form of a dirty bomb, and the release of hostages in in Central America through signal intelligence, DIGGERS are still doubting the efficacy and legality of FISA. Anybody that opposes FISA deserves to have a 50 gallon barrel of yellow cake uranium dust strewn about their neighborhood by terrorist and terrorist wannabes who were not prevented from doing so by opposition to FISA.
    • mrsammercer, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1Exactly, numbnuts. If it's not broke, why fix it?
      • captric, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1WTF are u talking about - are you gay - or Canadian????
    • yakski, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5Oh yeah ... or maybe deplete uranium munitions that the US has distributed though out Iraq , Afghanistan and Kuwait... ... oh and the "yellow cake" was obtained during the time the US supported Saddam and Iraq... kind of forgot about that didn't you... you know the Reagan and early Bush Sr. years when the US help Saddam and ignored his chemical warfare use against Iran and the Kurds because it suited the right wing agenda in this country......... how hypocritical of you to not acknowledge that the US was intimately involved with allowing Saddam to prosper when he obtained this material... material that was never to be used for a dirty bomb... but for use in either a nuclear plant or in Saddam's search for a nuclear weapon.. neither of which proceeded ... but hey just ignore the US helping Saddam !!!
      • captric, on 07/07/2008, -5/+1No DIP-*****!!! The ***** Canadians sold Saddam the Uranium you illiterate little *****. Don't you just hate reality???? Why don't you smoke a joint and go run a few miles to get your lazy ass in shape and clear your mind.I don't buy into your illiterate revisionist view of history moron. The US shot down Iraqi airplanes that were dropping bombs on the Kurds in what was known as the NO FLY ZONE? Where did you get your information - from a bunch of nicotine addicted obese alcoholic Canadians living in their parents basement and wasting petro chemicals?????
      • yakski, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4No you moron ... the US allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and the Kurds... this was long before you were born I guess since you act like a teenybopper punk right wing nut.... The no fly zone was after the first Gulf war but long before that Reagan and Bush Sr, until Saddam invaded Kuwait... supported Saddam and sold him all kinds of weapons, and intelligence and chemicals and bought his oil and said all kinds of nice things about the man... you couldn't possibly remember ... wasn't that Rumsfeld shaking his hand back then... why yes it was... so sad you have absolutely NO historical perspective when viewing history or the truth... go back to your video games and keep your head in the sand and your mind in the gutter!!!!
      • captric, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1Yaksi - the US NEVER "allowed" such a thing and you are the one with a wacko revisionist view of historical events, slanted to meet your own political agenda. You obviously have NO education beyond being able to write in English and you sure as hell do not know anything about government, leadership, military, or diplomacy. You are just another diggtard with a computer and a severe lack of education.
      • banderwocky, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Wow. Captric you tool. Canada RECEIVED uranium removed from Saddam Hussain. Just do a search on whatever flaky news site you "read". Not the one included in your imaginary world. You make up the silliest crap. That's probably why you get buried...and your wife left you.
      • captric, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1Well I have some bad news for you banderwhackey! Canada sold Uranium to Iraq in the 80's for fuel for their Nuclear Power Plant. That is where the yellow cake came from, that is why Canada bought it back, caving in to American pressure. Canada is part of the problem in Iraq - not part of the solution.
      • banderwocky, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2By your logic...the US sold the chemicals to Saddam to create the gas used to kill the Kurds, part of the problem not the solution I guess. How many people where killed by Irans nuclear weapons....ohhhh yeaaaa..none. Even if that WAS true, provide three credible news sources that back up your claim, otherwise, your just full of the same old tired crap. Nothing new there.
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/j ... The Uranium was supplied to Iraq by Canada through France as an intermediary.

        http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq ...
    • yakski, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1You are correct on where the uranium come from... it was approved at that time by the USA / Reagan... but you are completely wrong about the yellowcake because that was NOT yellowcake uranium.!!!! .. that was uranium supplied from CANDU reactors which again is NOT yellowcake!!! The yellowcake I believe came from Nigeria .. but it was NOT refined enough for use in any kind of weapon ... it was obtained after the CANDU uranium and before the first Gulf War!! and nothing was ever done with it because Saddam had NO technology to do anything with it... As for the chemicals for the gassing of the Kurds and the Iranians... It is widely known that it originated in the US through a European country to Saddam.. with the full knowledge of the US where its final destination was... History... look it up ... Learn... get your facts straight ... quit ignoring the USA's mistakes and downright deplorable activities!!!
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1As usual you are 180 degrees off base, no surprise there!

        "It is widely known that it originated in the US through a European country to Saddam.. with the full knowledge of the US where its final destination was" This is NOT widely "known" and only speculated at by idiots with a political agenda and a lack of critical scientific thinking.

        http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

        The yellow cake is proven to have NOT come from Nigeria!

        Shipment so uranium to Iraq from Canada had NOTHING to do with REGAN OR THE USA!

        Where do you get your information, form some Gay Canadian Rag written by hippie flunky from journalism school???!!
    • yakski, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1You are completely and utterly LYING... I do agree I made one mistake.. the original fuel for the Iraq nuclear reactor came from France... not Canada... but that is the only error I made .. everything else is accurate and well established... ONLY a MORON LIKE YOU would not know that yellowcake refers to roughly processed uranium ore... very rough ... not useable for anything until more processing was completed... not for a bomb, a dirty bomb or a nuclear reactor... and YES it is well established that it came from Nigeria... ONLY a MORON LIKE YOU would not know that!!!!!!!!!..
  • 1dog, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Your freedom is based on the money you have, and the money you currently make. This country is so corrupt that the statue of liberty has rotted all the way Thur. One good wind and its blowing over.
    • counterspin, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Exactly! Talk to an "Indian" about treaties and "liberty". Nothing new is going on here. Fascism always starts at the fringes of society and works its way inward. Are Americans really that surprised? The 97% majority just need to quit quibbling over manufactured B.S. and ban together. Continuously allowing ourselves to be divided and conquered ensures the minority 3% win, Win, WIN ~ ALL the time! We must stop the madness, or be happy eating crow. The time has come for us to cease chasing our tails. It's this simple.
  • dalexandruz, on 07/07/2008, -8/+5stop with the 4th amendment crap. we never had any freedom. freedom of so called speech is very limited in this country. you need permission by the courts to protest in this country, you cant yell fire or obscenities, you cant say no to a draft, no to taxes, no to jury duty, cant carry drugs, you cant physically protect yourself from corrupt law enforcement, etc....
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/07/2008, -6/+0right on my brother nice to hear from a fellow libertarian!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • nontoxyc, on 07/07/2008, -2/+14The people of the United States have to hold their leaders accountable, the criminals in Washington DC have committed crimes against man, God, and country.

    Here is my list of grievances against the leaders in Washington:

    1) They have lied to us about the dangers posed by Iraq and Afghanistan to start wars of aggression.
    2) They have violated the Geneva Conventions in Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay
    3) They have waged wars of aggression for profit
    4) They have violated the Constitution of the United States of America
    5) They have financially harmed the People of the United States of America.
    6) They have worked tirelessly to prevent true democratic elections
    7) They have imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial

    Through these actions they have made a mockery of our Constitution, our Senate, and our Union. They have sacrificed the legitimacy of their claims to power.
    If they are not held accountable by Americans then all Americans will be held accountable by God and the rest of the world.
    • monkeeofevil, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Indeed!

      The current Administration should be held criminally liable for their actions.These scumbag traitors should be charged with MURDER by means of DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE for each of the 4,000 dead US Soldiers. Sentences to be served consecutively.. in a REAL prison. Not a ***** country club.

      One better, WHEN found guilty of said crimes, the people of the United States should demand their execution... DEATH TO THE TRAITORS (through legal means)

      but then...that wont happen. no one has the balls to *seriously* suggest that the President be executed for a crime. Worst case scenario for Bush will probably be house arrest, at the small ranch.

      meh.. our politicians are cowards.

    • eryximachus, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11) There is no proof of outright deception, and the history of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction is clear. Saddam intentionally misled UN weapons inspectors for years, thus making the acquisition of perfect "proof" impossible.

      2) The Geneva Convention is not law, but even if it were - the interrogation techniques utilized by the US do not apply to partisans. If anything, the Geneva Convention explicitly allows such persons to be summarily executed on the field. Their lives were spared, so you should be happy.

      3) Who profits? I will agree the war likely played a major role in the nation escaping the 2000-2001 stock market crash, but wars typically are good for the economy.

      4) Congress authorized the war. You are wrong.

      5) I would argue the war prevented a massive recession. There are many reasons to be against the war, but if anything - it has financially benefitted the country in terms of employment.

      6) The United States is not a democracy, and elections are the responsibility of the states. The "criminals" in Washington DC don't have much control over how elections are conducted in the US.

      7) This is true, but the US has done this during every war and on a much more vast scale.

      You're pretentious post indicates that you have no knowledge of the law, our system of government, or our history. You fail.
  • DarkReign16, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3And the one man who could really lead the charge against this bill, Barrack Obama, won't do so, for political expediency. This to me tells me that he values advancing his career before protecting the rights guaranteed to us under the fourth amendment. Perhaps he sees a greater good in it? But what good can come from not only betraying the constitution for convenience sake, but betraying those who supported you, and got you where you are today!?

    We need a leader who stands up for the constitution for a change, not one who goes against his very own beliefs just to win. What is more important to you Senator? The office, or our rights?
  • Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Buried for not bothering to mention Obama's stated support of the bill:
    "...Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists."
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/2 ...

    You can safely assume McCain supports it as well, but you don't see many blind McCain supporters here claiming their man is a messiah, they seem reconciled to the fact that he sucks, so I'm not going to bother looking for his position, I'll simply say that McCain, Hillary, Obama, and Bush will probably all have the same position again.
    • stealthc, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4How dare you speak blasphemy against the Messiah!

      ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOBAMA!!!
  • MelaiLama, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4So, by the corporations being immunized... we cant point a finger and say they were using unjust surveillance. We just have to take this?
    I smell fascism.
  • jdago, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM dont give it away
  • dildoolielly, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Meanwhile some idiot Bush voting inbred retard is sayin', "I'm sure glad 'da Terrists isn't attakin' ma' wudshed!"
  • VengeanceNight, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1I think we should step back from yelling "Freedom" and think through this whole thing for a minute. We had the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor and these companies are approached by representatives carrying request from upper most levels of government saying that we need to act now to prevent further attacks on American soil and thereby possibly saving countless more lives. Plus they were assured by these representatives (with authorization going up to the President) that it was legal. To me it would be very difficult to respond back that they need to let their lawyers look over it and we'll get back to you in a week.

    Moving on to the lawsuits themselves....what do they actually do? I'm sure most people on here will say that if these companies lose millions of dollars then they won't want to do this again. But who will actually profit from this and who will lose? Every time I've seen a company sued and lost it always the lawyers who make millions and the people who have actually been damaged might receive a few dollars. But somebody has to pay for this and it's usually either the customers who have to pay higher rates or the lower end employees of the company who lose their jobs. Plus if the lawsuits become so bad then the company might close down or get bought out. So we again have employees who lose their jobs and less competition in the market which tends to lead to higher prices.

    I know another argument is that these lawsuits could throw light on the administration on some of the illegal things that they might have done. Well I say, go after the administration directly instead. If you can't get to them now then keep pushing until you can. Don't go dragging all the companies in where you will possibly damage untold families on your quest. If you are so set on damaging the companies then start a campaign to "enlighten" the customers of those companies about their loss of privacy and if enough of them walk then you have damaged the companies. To me that is the right way to accomplish that and not through the courts.
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Remember..
    "Those that give up liberty for safety deserve neither"

    Timeless words.
  • thedv8don, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2 wake up! bush and co. has lied non stop, broken so many laws, he could be impeached a dozen times, we need to get it together and get them out of office now!, our spineless congress and senate, just turns their heads and let it go on, and on, we can deal with them later, bush and co. is more concerned with stopping gay marriage, than he is stopping the war, he is more concerned with starting trouble with Iran than he is with giving a effort to help with all the many serious problems we are having right here, right now, he still has plenty of time to do a lot more damage, enough is enough!

    while we still have the right to do so, we need to show those crooks that we are not sheep, and get them out of office now, we can deal with the war crimes, and treason at a later date. maybe we can help bush see an old friend... SADDAM i am sure they would have a lot of things in common to talk about

    impeach them now!!
  • stealthc, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Tell your personal Congressional birdbrain to resist this shredding of the fourth amendment.

    http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=81
  • Anonchrist, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The capitalist will sell us the ropes we use to hang them.

    The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Jul 2008 at 09:21:50 PM GMT = $9,499,147,296,433.47

    All your base are belong by them
  • AvangionQ, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution: "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." That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years." ... [REPEAT POST] In the last few years, the 4th Amendment has been under attack by corporations colluding with the Federal Government to get your personal information, in what can only be described as corporate soft fascism ... yes, that's right -- when corporations and government merge in a toxic mixture to break the law of the land, that's Fascism ... and its on the people to not roll over and take it -- to let the politicians know that we won't stand for the trampling of our rights and liberties anymore ...
  • captric, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Well - OK you ***** idiot - produce your credible sources!!!!! You cant because there are none proving that the only idiot here is YOU and your whacked out view of the world. Go smoke a joint, tie back your pony tail and have a good time with your boy friend. Someday maybe you will get a college education and learn to think critically and check your sources of information for bias and accuracy!
    • yakski, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2You cannot even post in the right place moron......... you are the idiot!!! It is impossible that you even have a high school education with your complete lack of knowledge.. you got to be kidding ... read about the reactor in Iraq .. read about the fuel... read about yellowcake.. completely different things.. read about the source of the yellowcake... read about the source of the chemical weapons... try using your brain instead of spouting moronic right wing nut job propaganda... probably you are not up to the task... you prove over and over and over again how STUPID you are.!!!
    • yakski, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2he Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army. This included information that was used by the Iraqis in targeting chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and U.N. expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[24] Most of these occurred during the Iran-Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings of 1991.[citation needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[25] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed] For example, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On 21 March 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[26]
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Not ONE source! Everyone KNOWS that Iraq used WMD against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. It is common knowledge, except for most Diggers who get their information from unprofessional and unreliable sources, that Iraq, under Saddam H developed WMD. THAT IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THE AMERICAN INTERVENTION. All you have posted here are political opinions from a mysterious source stating things like "the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons" and "there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons". It was Canada and France moron that gave Iraq their dangerous nuclear program and it was Israel with the help of American Reconnaissance that took it out.
        With you lack of real knowledge beyond a left wing political opinion I have to believe you are from Canada! And if you don't think Yellow Cake is dangerous than you wont mind if some of the Terrorists hiding out in Toronto and Vancouver spread it into the air in your neighborhood. Why don't you get an education and figure out what is going on in the world!!!! You despicable illiterate left wing nut case it sounds to me like you get your entire education from google and you know NOTHING about WMD and certainly nothing about NUCLEAR.
      • banderwocky, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2HAHAH! captric! Nice self pwn. Idiot. Since I am not claiming that Canada mined, manufactured and distributed Uranium to Iraq under Saddam Huessains rule, I have nothing to prove. You do. As for receiving Iraqs Uranium, here are all the news results:
        http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a& ...

        You just been served bitch.
      • yakski, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Captric... you are such a tool... that was straight from Wikipedia.. thought if you had any intelligence you would recognize it but obviously you only read right wing nutjob propaganda!!!!!... There is a long line of evidence showing the western world and the US in particular... arming Saddam .. You seem to forget that famous handshake from one of the Bush tools... what was his name??? Rumsfeld right!!!! The US was buddy buddies with Saddam as long as he was gassing Iranians or even Kurds... Reagan said nothing and did nothing and Bush Sr. followed his lead up until the Kuwait invasion... it was only after that .. that suddenly Saddam was no longer the West's friend... while he was building nuclear reactors and chemical weapons Reagan and the rest of the west was his buddy...!!!
  • Vektuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The vote recently passed. Obama voted yes for it. All republicans voted yes for it too, but that was kind of expected since they have no brains of their own.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.