What is Digg?64 Comments
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+88How can they fail? They're on both sides of the war!
- FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54the terrorists are winning
- GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36They're supposed to be upholding the law, not breaking it. Stop using terrorism as a ***** excuse, coward.
- KeepSwinging, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35@knightmare01
"Those would trade freedom for safety deserve neither"-Ben Franklin - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Silveravnt: Everything is fine until they come sniffing into your biz. Maybe that exemption you claimed on a tax return, maybe its an affair you had with a neighbor's dog... but in the end the Constitution serves and protects us all. Until stuff like this occurs. Power is held by the people, not the person. - UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@knightmare01
While I agree with the fact the beltway sniper was a criminal and taking one's life is not a decision you, I, or anyone should make, classifying him a terrorist is a Bush Administration approach into instilling fear in America so we can relinquish some of our freedoms so that they can accomplish what "they" want to do. How the ***** can you or the FBI determine who the beltway sniper was by listening into any phone conversation out there when they didn't even know who the ***** it was or the fact that he most likely wasn't using a phone. If they did, they would have arrested him under the suspicion to prevent it. There is no way to prevent any deranged individual from doing something like this, but giving them a education and them not having a ***** up home life. I for one didn't have the best upbringing and I am perfectly fine. I have a family and kids and will do anything for them. My bad life experience makes me not want that for my children. Grow up and get ***** backbone and quit blaming others and the world for your problems. Everyone has problems, take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions, or inactions. Ran a little off topic, but you get my point.
American Revolution 2.0 - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@silveravnt
Hey, since you are all about not worrying about due process, perhaps you should give me all your phone records. Perhaps your bank statements too? I feel those are important in my investigation, seeing they I suspect you are a terrorist. - scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@sortaburnt
I hope not... - Darksaber11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"Ya know what, ***** you. I hate just saying that outright, but you are a ***** *****.
So what if they are eliminating the processes that ensure freedom from fascism. You and people like you would give up everything this country stands for not only for yourselves but everyone else who cherishes and loves it."
Took the words right out of my mouth man. It's bad enough that the government expects all us little lemmings to follow right along, it's worse that so many do. - warox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16right75
Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Congress commissioned the investigation (ever hear of a US Attorney?), but the verdict is not related to Congress, and he's not innocent.
Congress, constitutionally, has the powers of investigation and can create grand juries, subpoena, and ruling on its findings. These powers are actually a crucial part of the balance of power shifting you bemoan losing. It's different because the Constitution awards them these powers, where as it is the FBI that is shifting the balance of power by bypassing judicial oversight in investigations by abusing the Patriot Act's provisions.
In other words, everything you said was wrong. - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Ya know what, ***** you. I hate just saying that outright, but you are a ***** *****.
So what if they are eliminating the processes that ensure freedom from fascism. You and people like you would give up everything this country stands for not only for yourselves but everyone else who cherishes and loves it. - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"What Constitution?"
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@owdenbowden
It's called 'dissent'. It's also one of the only tools we have available to effect political change. You are trying to shame people into standing up for their rights, by *not* dissenting. I think you have it backwards. We need more dissent, not less. - GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Libby? Hahahaha. Just blew your entire argument right there.
- ikkmoof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9FBI changes name to Fondling Books Improperly
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The federal terrorists, are winning
- EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Don't you just love abuse of powers?
- marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You are seriously talking about Congress upsetting the balance of power??
We have a powerless court system, and an Executive paving the way for fascism and a police state.
Nah, I would rather have the completely insignificant risk (which the Government and Media overhype in their fear mongering ways) of being the victim of a terrorist act than to give up one more inch of my freedoms. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Whine Whine Whine.....
This Great nation is filled with Whiners, Talkers and Takers. Further - That is all I have been seeing on DIGG and in around this country.
WAKE UP!
WE ALL LET THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE WE DID NOT GET UP AND STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS.
Its starts simple with baning smoking, then guns, then other "blue" areas of society that our politicians say "its not good for you and the children", and then the next thing you know we have the Patriot Act / rouge politicians / unaccountability and our own government is tapping our transmissions and eliminating each and everyone of our rights "For our protection" of course. Then they start banning this and that and get the people so focused on bull ***** and arguments about "He's smoking; She is having an abortion; Inteligent Design is the reason for life; No war for oil; What do you need a gun for?; and the list goes on and the sheep start following the wrong Sheppard's - all the way to the slaughter!
FYI
Tobacco is the backbone that help to start and sustain this country.
Guns help to Protect this country and the rights within and without!
You have the Right to freedom of Religion in this country!
You have the right to CHOOSES in this country!
Well I say - SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. FOR BOWING DOWN TO THE DOG AND PONY SHOW AND DOING NOTHING.
SHAME
SHAME
SHAME - warox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6jrossol:
"the amount of times the wiretaps will be used will be LIMITED to situations where 'in which the loss of life or bodily harm is believed to be imminent'."
This was originally the intent of the Patriot Act provisions which were abused. A piece of paper encouraging FBI investigators to return to the original intent does not satisfy my worries that this will continue to be abused.
I am not a law student, but you are only partially right about Due Process being misinterpreted by the original poster, and your are right about the FISA oversight program being constitutional. I'm also fine with your presumption about information being divulged in a trial discovery process. Due Process, imho, is the right to a fair and public trial. The FBI deciding what methods they can use to investigate without oversight could be argued as removing or bypassing due process because it allows investigators to operate with the presumption of guilt, not innocence, and it removes the publicity of a trial by allowing investigations to proceed unchecked. Our expectations of liberty and privacy per constitutional mandate are different, but given 1) the abuses in the past and 2) the elimination of judicial oversight, I am very leery of the validity of this program. - ntuli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My god, the audacity of this administration is criminal and has reached historically unprecedented proportions. This decree is clearly coming from Rove or Cheney in reaction to all the scandals going on with the Attorney General's office. The FBI is under the AG's umbrella and it is his responsibility to oversee them, yet this decision is squarely aimed at eliminating the paper trail that would allow any oversight. I hope this decision by the FBI to FURTHER DECREASE the level of accountability meets with stiff resistance in the senate and the house.
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In conservative America, process does you!
- Smaugrens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Down with all instances of the Patriot Act!
- bffoley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@owdenbowden
Looks like someone forgot to take their meds this morning - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Scooter lied to congress while under oath. He destroyed his own life, which if you think he'll do a single day in jail you're seriously delusional. I see a presidential pardon in poor Scooter's future.
- umbriago, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Officials called the procedure an "efficiency move."
- OUberLord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Look people. This ***** has to stop, and theres two ways we can go about doing it. The first way is the easiest and involves simply educating yourself, clicking that link above and filling out the information, and contacting your representatives. It doesn't take long, and they do actually read them (I've gotten at least 4 personal responses back from Congressman Lee Terry on some issues I sent to him).
The second way is to let this ***** get more out of hand than it already is and then you're looking at a rebellion down the road against the country with the most powerful military in the world.
It's really down to those two options; apathy will get us nowhere. The FBI wiretaps can be rendered completely useless by encryption as it is anyway, so regardless of how little they care for due process it's not even an effective method at making us any safer; it's simply the next trip for a government on a power high.
Wake up, America. This is our country, not theirs, and though they are our voice it is time we made them listen. - furryplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We are headed to *****!
- Calann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the Bush administration wants to allow activities like this, they should just be honest and open about it and repeal the Bill of Rights.
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"YOU allowed them to take away all of the weapons available"
Oh *****, I nearly missed that line. Fantastic. I really don't remember them asking me, but if you say it's my fault then it must be so. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@straxus
It's called 'dissent'. It's also one of the only tools we have available to effect political change..." And the reason why it is the only tool is because YOU allowed them to take away all of the weapons available - i.e. Gun Control.
What is taking place today is exactly what took place in the 1770's and why we had a revolution and why the BILL OF RIGHTS was created. This is the very reason why WE THE PEOPLE need to Bear Arms and in the process let the men and women who are "in power" know - we are not going to take this anymore. So stop crying in your Starbucks lati, get off your ass and start shooting. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Did you even read the article? FBI agents were failing to follow policies for getting "after the fact" approval for records obtained using false pretenses to force companies to divulge private information. This is known because of the paper trail, but now they can get the records on a verbal request, thus freeing them from doing the tedious paperwork that they just never could get around to in the first place. They've admitted to getting this information under false pretenses, saying there was an emergency when there wasn't, and yet you think this new policy is a good thing? But of course we shouldn't worry now because this policy will only be used in the most dire of emergencies. All this new policy does is remove the proof of their illegal activities and make it virtually impossible to discover what they're doing.
- smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I seen a great bumper sticker that said," I'm not afraid of terrorism, So please don't create a police state on my account."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you clearly do not know what a social engineer is.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@marmanukem
Very well said. - mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"in good faith"
f**k them - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You should really learn to use the reply function properly. I nearly never saw your response.
There's a big difference between now and 200 years ago. 200 years ago, the people had the same arms and firepower as the government. The government they were fighting to be free from was also half a world away. There were no automatic weapons, tanks, jets, helicopters, missiles, chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. If the second amendment was intended to provide us with the tools to overthrow our own government, then it failed. We the people have no hope of fighting a government armed to the teeth for modern warfare.
Oh, and I can't stand coffee. - chatty82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's legal to listen in in every Communist country!
We want to the exact opposite of the 4th amendment because the Blue Laws of New England have been abandoned. Witchcraft, inhabiting another person's body, and "blouse houses" with clothes people confiscated from others were all against the law. Also, cloning fluid to possess others thru witchcraft was a controlled substance only available to doctors and hospitals. Brainwashing drugs were the province of Russians who wanted people to "forget" their bourgeois background and not demand payment for forced TV or political appearances.
Also, in Communist countries, the official "clothes and possessions list" on file with the Moscow gov't is used to place people in jobs instead of an interview, where the person might be carrying weapons. What's next, making the "law of the collective" official, where the Commiunists detain or "hold down" a member of the familial or "societal unit and see if the crime goes down"?
Accepting the Communist law mentioned in the Patriot Act might lead to other weird Communist methods, such as taking a brother or a father a hostage to a foreign work camp to "see if a mass murderer in the family stops their crime." They have an agency in Russia called the MVD where the employees used to do mass murder for the czar. This happens because "children" in the Soviet Union live with their family until age 60, and then women are allowed to have a job..
I think the Patriot Act ought to be suspended because accepting it might to lead to other Communist abuses and practices, such as I mentioned.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1catcherinthewhy:
the problem is that it is a slippery slope. Sure, if you simply say that anyone would want people to read your phone records if it could prevent another 9/11.. few would argue. But what about that local cop who thinks that pot poses the biggest threat to his community, so he routinely takes kids in his cruiser and drives them around making them look like a snitch? Of course its not (directly) his fault that his school mates beat him up after school, right?
And to your point that no mere dissenters have been taken to Guantanamo Bay, you're simply wrong. The initial roundups in particular were built from guilt by association. Many of those people are still imprisoned without constitutional protections and due process.
Lastly, regarding if "...reasonable people think it's necessary or even merely beneficial as a law enforcement strategy, then I don't understand what the problem is." wow. do you remember the number of 'reasonable people' who decided that going to war was a good idea? based on politically motivated information?
The damage done to privacy, and the degradation of constitutional protections scares me more than anything. I find it offensive that these people do so in my name. - messquire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While this is reprehensible, this is not an actual due process violation. It's an invasion of privacy, which is just as unconstitutional. It's a 4th amendment violation, not a 5th, unless that information obtained is later used to deprive somebody of life, liberty, or property. Just my 2 cents as a law nerd.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I's perfect for social engineers!! The FBI used to require form letters, or maybe a phone call followed by a letter... now they're instructing agents to "only" use verbal instructions.... with NO intention of documenting the phone call at all!!!
That's a prime target for "pretexting" attacks by anyone against anyone!! All it takes is knowing the "secret phone number" of the inside man at the phone company and you have records!!! I'm sure there's some "secret handshake" so they know who the "real" FBI agents are, but details "leak"... The best part is that if you claim to be agent Smith, the FBI's own instruction is not to question Mr. Smith about his requests... you think they'll break the "blue line" over stolen credit card numbers or phone records for normal citizens?? - warox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But you care enough to post? Or just enough to make fun of people who do care?
I encourage disagreement, debate, and I appreciate good points made by anyone. I enjoy talking with people who care, even if they disagree with me, but I have no patience for apathy, and I get furious at ignorant ***** like you who can't even fathom forming an opinion. If you don't care, the shut the ***** up and go back to your cave. The world around you will change regardless of how much you don't care. - licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You apparently are desperate to attempt to debate this if you choose to berate me when you could simply increase my negative digg. I mean, be true to yourself and put your opinion there rather than a stream of uneducated drivel. My alleged non-comment should have been enough of a clue for someone like yourself who is quite possibly the most attuned individual on the planet. I offered up sarcasm which should point out exactly what my opinion is on this.
I came to digg for tech info. Now, I just screw around in the political crap for fun as that is all digg is anymore.
Wake me up when you "unsuckle" yourself from the anti-Bush digg nipple. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I found this as a definition: Social engineering is a collection of techniques used to manipulate people into performing actions or divulging confidential information.
Although the FBI are not hackers, they are using questionable methods of obtaining confidential information from telecommunications companies. Under the guise of security and imminent threat, which the target companies don't know are false, the FBI gets the data it wants, and then does not follow its own procedures to provide the proof to justify the data request. And this new policy removes the agent from the require paperwork. Now it'll all be verbal. - implied, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Thanks for helping me socially engineer the phone companies
- bazuleaka1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think I'm gonna vote for that one
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Normally I'd be upset at such a comment but then what if they were lesbian books?
- RealisticnGreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Desperate times call for desperate measures. Exactly who has been outed and taken advantage of because of the new methods of dealing with terrorism? It was AFTER ALL one of the panel suggestions.
- GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Abolish the FBI
- CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2if you could stop a terrorist threat by looking into phone records i think you, and any sane person, would. I don't think you really disagree with the FBI in that you think there's not a real threat. Calling people "cowerds" doesn't work on any side of the discussion.
no mere political dissenters have been taken to Gitmo and no one has established any improper use of information in an investigation, they're just uncomfortable with things in the abstract, and while that doesn't make in irrelevant, it is something to consider. Is it right for the FBI to wiretap extremist groups within the US? I'm not sure but if reasonable people think it's necessary or even merely beneficial as a law enforcement strategy, then I don't understand what the problem is.
I am much more worried about the expansion of eminent domain then I am about privacy issues. -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is