What is Digg?275 Comments
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -11/+131About damn time!!!!
- WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -24/+144Can we get the ball rolling on impeachment proceedings?
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+80@markg
What, do you think Franklin lived in a happy go lucky time where pixies flew about with magic wands granting wishes?
The man once had to hide in a down comforter one of his servants was making to avoid capture by British soldiers who were intent on his capture and torture.
What he faced was an active, organized military that was out for his blood. Not just any military was after him and his cronies. The most powerful military on the planet was out to kill him.
The USA has rolled over and turned into a nation of hand wringing pansies after one really bad day.
That quote gets used so often, because people who've actually cracked open a history book and read about the revolutionary war know damn well that Franklin would look at the current nation of cowards with disgust and disdain.
He was part of a movement that used the slogan "Live Free or Die," and they meant it.
Get off your high horse and realize that the terrorists are NOT the greatest threat we face. The erosion of our liberties is the threat, and to be blunt, if you're such a pathetic coward that the threat of a terrorist attack is enough for you to gladly hand over your civil liberties, then you don;t deserve to call yourself an American. Get your self centered, "No one has suffered as much as we have!" ass out and leave the nation to the people who actually give a damn about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
How about this quote:
Live Free or Die. - RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+85Checks and balances, bitches!
- JeffT1545, on 10/12/2007, -11/+66"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
- adamal, on 10/12/2007, -12/+66@tidu
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
-Benjamin Franklin - newspimp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+53@ tidu
Ya know, strangely enough, the government had the information about 9/11 prior to 9/11, without illegal phone/internet taps, and simply failed to communicate and act upon their own internal information.
I repeat this for those who keep saying that this program was for national security: 9/11 WAS NOT CAUSED BY LACK OF INFORMATION. The TSP would not have prevented 9/11, had it been in place. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+53I just hope now that the Supreme Court doesn't come back and override this. This is in direct violation of the constitution. If they are so needed to fight terror, then go through the proper procedures to either make it legal, or to get warrants. This is just another case of our arrogant administration thinking they are above the law and they don't have to answer to anyone.
well now you've got to answer, bitches! - Namco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48Wow. Now the NSA has to go out and do some actual work now. That's what spies are for bitches, now get out there and find some terrorists. Preferably in a casino whilst wearing a tuxedo.
- Powder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Go Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. Yes that's is apparently her correct name, how freakin sweet is that.
- Exotria, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42Take THAT you AT&T scumbags!
*insert quote on people choosing security over freedom deserving neither* - rampage3000, on 10/12/2007, -15/+49How about the war crime trials for Bush?
He knows somthing?
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Proposes_War_Crimes_Amendment - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38@markgl: You think we're the only generation to have ever faced challenges, dangers or even enemies who want to kill us? The reason there are future generations in this society is because we have a constitution that holds our permanent ideals as more important than our temporary panic-induced solutions.
- UnixSkunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Corporate70, you are incorrect. You get a warrant for a wire tap by going to a judge and saying, "We need a wiretap on this individual because of this corroborating evidence." Things like Credit card records of purchases of bomb components, flight itineraries to known terrorist countries, e-mails that have been tracked to their IP addresses, or e-mail addresses, phone-calls(phone number list only) to known terrorist numbers or states(NOT listening to the call at first), tips from informers that say these people have links, information from your own spies, and informants saying they have seen this person interacting at a known terrorist hang-out, etc. There are MANY sources of evidence to support requesting a warrant for a wire-tap. Our government was just being lazy. I fully support wire-tapping...as long as it is done through proper legal, controlled channels.
- underpope, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Hey, if you can convince anyone exactly why this so-called "War on Terror" is anything like, say, the Civil War (where hundreds of thousands of Americans died, most by each others' hands, at a cost far deadlier than any terrorist attack has ever been), or World War II (where Americans were dying by the thousands overseas defeating a genuine nation of evil), or the Revolution (where our forefathers engaged in precisely the sort of tactics that today's Islamic jihadists are using -- not that I support the jihadists, just making a point), then I'll accept your argument. Until then, I'll just keep on pointing out that the "War on Terror" is a political tool manufactured by the current Administration to justify a scheme of governance which disregards the Constitution to bring about a Presidency far more powerful than the Founders ever intended.
I'd say this is a nail pulled out of America's coffin. - mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30To all you bitches that are arguing the quote, I think you missed one key aspect...the right against illegal search and seizures IS an essential right. In 1776 that was to protect your writtings and correspondence, now it should cover your emails, IMs, etc.
The last thing we need is big-brother looking over our sholder.
Oh, and here is an idea. Instead of removing my rights for your safty, how about you stop mettling in foreign matters that do not concern you. Let those ***** in the middle east kill themselves off. - mjohnson2112, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34My concern right now is what happens when it gets bumped up the Supreme Court. Someone's been stacking that particular deck for about 6 years now.
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Actual quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - GravitySpec, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@adamal
That quote speaks a great truth. Many people (not all) that live in America as it is today are so quick to exchange a small amount of personal freedom. I think that it is because that many don't exercise their freedoms or know so little of them that they don't feel like they are losing something. "I never do anything wrong, I'll be safe from harm so long as I follow the law". The problem with this mentality is that when you believe that, you allow the law to shape your life instead of you actively shaping the law. The court system exists so that when the pubic at large is confronted with a problem, "The People" (the moral majority) are the ones who have to consider what is right and what is wrong. That in turn shapes the law, but people are slowly giving up this right to shape the law so that they can gain the illusion of a safer world to live in. The world will always be chaotic. Paradise can not be found, it's where you make it.
I hope my first post to Digg has been meaningful ;) - Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Wow that is just awesome. I'd love to send this judge an e-mail even though she may not read it. Just to let her know that she's making me proud as an American.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29"I am sick of your relevant, insightful quote! Please choose another!"
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24not really, the administration's hands are not bound as tightly as they would like you to think. FISA law allows for warrants to spy to be issued up to 72 hours ex post facto, so they can get the intelligence they need and then obtain the warrant to use it in court. Surveillance on terrorists will not be slowed in the least, but being forced to obtain warrants will prevent the abuse of presidential powers, win win.
- maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Why does Anna Taylor hate America?
(sarcasm) - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26What? You guys don't want the government to be able to wiretap terrorists?!
( ^^ This straw-man argument will undoubtedly be used against this judge all over the media. Don't fall for it!) - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22FISA NEVER needed to be circumvented. It was designed from the start to be lenient. It is ***** fearmongering in an effort to make a power grab that said otherwise. Thankfully, the courts are finally realizing they are almost completely iced out of their 1/3 of the power in this country, and have stepped back up and retaken it.
"If we change our way of life, the terrorists have won" President George W. Bush
By his own words, they have won, look how much our country has changed. This is a step back towards healthy. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24corporate70,
They're getting dugg down because the "points" and "enlightenments" you guys make are wrong and illogical. Take your comment for instance, you sound like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to try anyway to justify your stance on this ruling. Come on, "Well if they are not allowed to listen in the first place how do they know what to put on a warrent?" is perhaps the most retardd thing you could have said. Do you have any god damn clue what a "warrant" is?
I think you sir, are clueless. - underpope, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Damn Constitution, getting in the way of the government doing its job! Why, it's worse than gay marriage, Janet Jackson, evolution, and flag burners combined! Someone ought to get rid of that thing before everything America stands for is defeated.
- oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Right, and we're being asked to relinquish essential freedoms (freedom of speech, no warrantless invasion of abode, etc) for a little temporary security from bogeymen.
Seriously. What do you want security from? Do you truly believe the Brazil-esque claims of terrorists around every corner? What was the last successful attack on the US?
There has been ONE. 2001/9/11. Since then it's a self-fulfilling strategy. No attacks? The restrictive measures are working, but we may need more! Attacks? Need more! - syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Uhm, not only were we attacked at home before 9/11, but this wasn't even their first attempt on the WTC. Were you born in 1994 or something?
- Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Even if the 6th Circuit overturns the ruling, it'd still make its way to the Supreme Court, which has a history of favoring civil liberties over national security.
+1 for American Citizens - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20It's a convenient line of reasoning though, isn't it? They say it's legal, and they could prove it, but the proof is a classified state secret. Not only can you invoke the "state secrets" doctrine to circumvent any challenges to something that seems unconstitutional, the use of claiming "state secrets" can't be challenged either for the same reason.
Thankfully this judge saw through that *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Just because a judge said so doesn't mean that anything will change. That's the nature of the checks and balances. It assumes that the other parties want to play together.
If Bush doesn't want to follow the ruling, tough. He might get impeached, but I doubt it. That would take commitment (not something the US population is known for). - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Unless cigars and interns are involved.
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16corporate70,
the government is allowed to wiretap for a full 72 hours before going to the fisa court. furthermore, the fisa court has denied almost zero warrants since the program began. this is about essential aspects of our everyday liberty. the governmnet still has lots of power when it comes to spying. - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Too bad only the judicial branch seems to believe in that right now. Here's hoping things will get better in Congress after November.
In the meantime, layeth the smackdown, judges! - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19That's a good idea. Why don't you call an Al Qaeda member? It might spare us your comments on Digg.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an asterisk that says:
*Except in time of war. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18kdhoffman,
did you know the Chinese people have a bill of rights too? Yes, they all have civil rights. However, the Chinese government feels they reserve the right to censor, ban, or remove anything they deam inappropriate or critical of the government. They do this because they claim it's to preserve "national security". So, do you still want America to turn into a government like China?
Our forefathers fought and died so we would never have to live under a government that oppresses its people for its own benefit. - escheppa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@ underpope2 That same building was attacked in 1993
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19@markgl
Somwthing horrible is crawling in your basement? - mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@corporate70
Oh, since you put it that way, here, wiretap my phone. And while I am giving up my rights, how about I let you censor what I say and ass-rape me too on a periodic basis.
If the law is broken, fix it you dumb *****. Circumventing the law is not a right the government has. Put it up for debate, vote on it, and make it law. - SpencerMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@gettophilosophr
That was Hobbes theory of social contract (ie, that it is an agreement between citizens to give up liberties). Locke, on the other hand, thought the social contract was between the government and the governed. "Government cannot exist without the consent of the governed", as I recall. - Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19"I hear criticism all day long, but if you were in the White House, what would you *do*?"
I'd follow the law and not break my oath of office. - Moosebern, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20What "state secrets" could possibly reveal why this is constitutional? That's ridiculous.
I hope this signals an end to the "compromises national security" argument. - rampage3000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17We will die fighting for freedom.
And then we are supposed to give away to the rich ,like sheep.
The terrorists win when people like you blindly give freedom away.
I for one rather die free.
Bush just wants to steal the world resources instead of thinking of a better solution. - cbbspike, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Could this really be true? Could there really still exist freedom in the US?
- mjohnson2112, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15What is America? What does it stand for?
Is it the country that creates secret prison camps? That sends its prisoners to foriegn nations to be tortured? That spies on its citizens? That shoots first, asks questions maybe? That poors propaganda upon it's own citizens?
That sounds like the former Soviet Union to me.
If a nation cannot survive without shoving foriegn objects into the rectums of prisoners to find out if they actually know something, does that nation deserve to continue?
It sounds like the type of nation that My America fought against in the Cold War, in World War 2. My America doesn't resort to sanctioned torture except in the most extreme of cases. My America respects the rights of its citizens, and promotes those rights throughout the world.
What's your America like? - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Really? Are you a medium? Do you talk to the dead? Do you know for sure Franklin wouldn't have said that? Study your history better. I firmly believe most of our forefathers would be standing in the front of the line shouting for impeachment.
- escheppa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Here is some info for you no email just phone and mail http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1919001_1
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Distrust and caution are the parents of security. --Benjamin Franklin
ok so this one is better :)
Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin -
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is