What is Digg?92 Comments
- jurnei, on 02/29/2008, -2/+57Stop the White House from spying on Americans. Call members of Congress and tell them to hold fast.
- Kent4jmj, on 02/29/2008, -5/+40You're not going far enough. Why do we have FISA? Terrrorism right? Want to know what the real scare tactic is? turning a goup of ill equiped, ill trained, small numbered zealots into a Global power that can threaten the USA.
And don't say 9/11 to me because that was more our fault than there's because we did nothing about the intelligence we had that warned us it was coming. They are not a global super power and never will be. All of the presidential legislation, homeland security, patriot act, etc. is being used to turn us into a police state. It does not have anything to do with terrorism thats for sure. - TrevaLVF, on 02/29/2008, -2/+28I feel terrorized by the enemies of free speech and privacy rights! The Bush Cabel, which includes, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc...
- writerwriter, on 02/29/2008, -3/+29Good grief. Has No one in the US read Animal Farm and 1984?
Does no one in the US remember East Germany or the USSR?
History repeats, right before your eyes, in the country that talks the most about freedom but allows less and less of it for its citizens. - Daedalus81, on 02/29/2008, -2/+20No, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't care for someone to be peeking either. Say, since you seem like an open fellow can I see your credit card statements for last year? And can I put a camera in your house? You don't have anything to hide, right?
With increased power comes increased chance for abuse. It doesn't have to be Bush that uses these tools against someone. It could be a govt employee that is disgruntled with an exgirlfriend. A politician that wants dirt on an opponent. You get the idea...or do you? - zeusthemoose, on 02/29/2008, -1/+14"When 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 the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
-Martin Niemöller - PhantomRogue, on 02/29/2008, -2/+14Yesterday, during the 6PM news in Pittsburgh, I saw some ad that said our House of Representatives are SUPPORTING TERRORISTS by not voting on this stupid bill.
I about ***** myself... The kind of crap they are resorting to in order to push this kind of crap on us... - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+12As an American Citizen, I have RIGHTS that I was born with. These actions are unconstitutional.
You're no better than the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Cubans you so vehemently hate. - seanstuart, on 02/29/2008, -2/+13Colonel,
I see your preferred system of government is the Trust Dear Leader model. No checks and balances, no oversight, no law for the powerful. They just say "booga-booga-booga!" and you are so afraid that you give up your rights. You are a coward. You are willing to give up your freedom in the face of terror. Liberals are not. That's the difference between us and you. We're not willing to give up our freedoms because of terrorists. You want to surrender immediately.
If Bush wants to spy an an American, then why should he not get a warrant. Because it's inconvenient? Because he feels like he doesn't has to? The Forefathers would weep at your cowardice. - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -2/+13You are free to waive your rights. You can't waive mine. Now sit down and shut up.
- mranderson86, on 02/29/2008, -1/+12Here come the fascist government loving, all knowing, it doesn't exist kooks who believe government doesn't give a damn about what you search.
STFU and give us your rank and serial number... - ubitendo, on 02/29/2008, -1/+11I have to agree with ColonelJessup because he is someone that doesn't have any curtains on his windows because he's got nothing to hide. ColonelJessup doesn't believe in confidentiality agreements because he knows anyone involved in those are hiding something -- all of his medical, legal and financial records are publicly accessible. However, ColonelJessup really proves he has nothing to hide because ColonelJessup is actually his christened name and not some sort of online alias.
- omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 02/29/2008, -2/+10If the illegal surveillance program enacted before 9/11 was truly designed to prevent terrorism, it would have prevented 9/11. The administration knows this and are doing everything possible to avoid any sort of liability for 9/11, which includes gross criminal negligence. Furthermore, they've gone on a rampage the last 7 years to distract people from this very fact. We need impeachment hearings so we actually have a rule of law in the future.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -2/+9That ad actually made me feel sick to my stomach, these scumbags care for nothing but complete and utter control over every American. America is crashing hard, and they deserve it. You are all cowards, yellow-bellied, spineless cowards.
If you allow the Republicans to do such a ridiculous task, then quite frankly, you deserve to wallow in your own filth as your Nation implodes. - chiefbttlwshr, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8Here come the: "I don't have anything to hide so I take my ***** on public streets in the middle of the day, because why go in to a secluded place and close the door, I have nothing to hide" people.
Privacy in life is expected even if no law is broken.
Stop being a mouth piece for Emperor Bush. - Travelsonic, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8"You don't have anything to hide, do you?"
Yes I do, it's called a private life.
Whats it to you, *****? - novenator, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7OK, open up your home for random, any-hour inspections by the police then. You dont have anything to hide, do you?
- oldgal, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Donors that hide behind this type of activity should be held to the highest level of ridicule. The website for defenseofdemocracies.org does not list the donors. My guess is it is not America they are anonymously defending.
- Idgit, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Just saw this ad the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDg19STeVqs
I live in Tom Delay's old district where we elected a democrat a few years ago, so hes definitely one of those vulnerable democrats. - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7It's sad that this so-blantantly unConstitutional of an issue is even worthy of debate.
Don't forget that 68 Senators brazenly voted for the Phone Companies already. (Like this bill is really about the wiretaps!) Bushie already can spy without a warrant, they just want to protect the illagal activity of the phone companies (other than Qwest, remember, which refused the illegal orders from the Bushies). - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Rudy? I thought you went home?
- 98psuAE, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7"Unless you are breaking the law, you really don't have anything to worry about. You don't have anything to hide, do you?"
If we are at risk like Bush says we are then why won't Bush accept an extension that doesn't include immunity for the telecom companies involved. Bush said he will veto any bill that doesn't include immunity for the telecom companies which means that immunity for the telecom companies is more important than American lives. So I refer back to ColonelJessup's quote above, if the telecom companies didn't do anything illegal, then why do they need immunity? - 3tcp, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5As far as I'm concerned one of the best things that could happen this election would neo-cons provoking democrats into making opposition to domestic surveillance one of their flagship issues. With republicans abandoning the libertarian wing of their party, the best chance of ending it before people stop caring is if it becomes a partisan issue.
- NewGTGuy, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6How is this even a debate? This is so sad. We have lost our country.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Quick question: Why can't the Bush administration obey the law and get a warrant to spy on US citizens? That's the subject, remember?
- jeremyduffy, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Dugg, dugg, and double dugg. Hell yes everyone needs to know about this. I was peeing my pants the other day when the cowardly Senate passed the resolution giving immunity to the telco's for cooperating with the government. Good thing the House blocked it.
- feckineejit, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7The WAR in Iraq is creating more terrorists every day because Blackwater kills anyone that gets in their way, the friends and family of those who are killed fight back against the occupying force (Blackwater & the US army).
The white house wants the FISA bill so that they can combat 'homegrown' terrorism - which plainly translated from white house talk means, you and me speaking out against the white house. - OrigamiRonin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I wouldn't really classify this as a strictly liberal/conservative thing, but beyond that I think you are spot on.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4"Tin foil hat"? Anybody who doesn't see what's going on in this country must be the ones wearing tin-foil BLINDERS. Wake up, Colonel Sheepup!
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4No, he's trying to make the extension of WARRANTLESS domestic wiretaps PERMANENT, as well as burying TELECOM IMMUNITY into the bill. The House has courageously, thus far, refused to bend to Bush's lies that Telecom Immunity is crucial. The real issue is letting the phone companies out of their lawsuits for having violated your rights already. Bush wants them to be freed of this liability!!!
- spyd3rweb, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I don't understand why they can't just take the time to get a warrant and this whole thing wouldn't be an issue.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4"This is specifically in the context of surveillance originating at foreign endpoints"
According to the same people who broke the law in the first place....
and told us Iraq needed to be invaded because of their WMD... - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Can you tell me when and where the Democrats did that pandering? I missed it.
Love,
the Left - Daedalus81, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3His name and avatar are from the character in "A Few Good Men".
- gernblansted, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4"So for almost the last two weeks, one foreign jihadist could make a 30 second sat phone call ... our intelligence agencies would have to get a court order to be able to act on this 30 second phone call."
Yes, sometime several weeks after intercepting the call someone would have to send a quick request for an after-the-fact warrant, which they would get without hesitation. The idea that they couldn't intercept the call and act on it legally is pure fiction. The idea that staying within the law would somehow make it less likely that we would actually intercept that call is also fiction.
Bush wants immunity for the telecoms not just because the administration and it's allies intercept domestic communications and internet records without good reason and against Federal laws, but because a court battle would expose that fact and make them potentially liable too. Since a court battle is the only way we are going to know the extent of their illegal activity - not against terrorists but against many innocent Americans (political foes, likely), they don't want a court battle. When AT&T engineers come out and say they are intercepting everything - absolutely everything - I believe them over Bush who I cannot remember saying anything recently which doesn't have at least some deceptive angle. - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3That's step ONE, dirdum. Do you trust them to have warrantless wiretapping power in the future?? The Executive has already proven that they can't handle power in an American way. They're thugs. And a future thug could misuse the power, and without warrants, where's the oversight???
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3"Who wants to pass laws that mandate light bulb use or toilet paper purchases?"
Yes, the commies are going to take your toilet paper. You should head for your backyard fallout shelter now. Take your tin-foil helmet. - GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3"tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter seeing, all knowing, conspiracy theory kooks"
From now on I am just going to equate those terms with bigotry against intellectualism. I am so sick of arguing with people who insult and degrade people who are observant and intelligent. So I'm drawing a line in the sand. If you use those terms you are bigoted against intellectualism. Period. - ChildofKnight, on 03/01/2008, -1/+3I want to hear Nancy Pelosi say "Telecom Immunity is off the table".
- ScienceDoc, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4They are frickin Nazis.
- Memitim, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Terrorists do not and cannot present a threat to the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the United States of America. They can kill Americans, of that there is no question, but they pose no significant threat to the country as a whole. In point of fact, the only entity that can realistically present a threat to the rights and freedoms of the American people is the United States government. This administration that is pressing so hard to bypass the protections specifically put in place to safeguard freedom has shown itself time and again to be self-serving and unworthy of trust. So if it's all the same, I'll continue to remain diligent against the threat to my nation that is larger than even a small band of murderous criminals.
- Arcueid01, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Yeah I emailed my Senator in Michigan about it and check this out! She lied to me! Debbie Stabenaw emailed me and said that she voted no on Feb 12 because the Amended FISA would help the Bush Administration spy on Americans! The issue statement directly from the Senate's website was "to strike the provisions granting immunity to telecom corps". Well, once I figured out that little lying job I emailed her and asked her to explain. Well that never happened again. I am not going to forget this one. She is definitely not going to get my vote when election comes around again in like 4 years. I swear man these elected officials are absolute maniacs. We are really pissing away our civil liberties. Give it 10 years and we will be in 1984. *****, 5 years at this rate! I literally had my rep in Senate lie to me and she won't reply to explain herself. How ***** is that?
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Quick Question: If that suspected terrorist is talking on the phone overseas to an American citizen, does the CIA agent need to get a FISA warrant prior to conducting surveillance?
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3There's already a giant national health-care database. And they can already see that with a warrant, and they probably look at it without warrants, anytime they want to.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Q And if you needed that new directive -- the FISA court would always still be available, right, in typical court order route?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Okay, excellent. The answer is, no. And this question, if I may rephrase a little bit is, well, you could just use the FISA court. We've seen that debate out there -- you just go to the FISA court and get an order. Remember what [my colleague] described: Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we have to go to the FISA court and make a number of showings. One of those is a probable cause showing, under the Fourth Amendment.
These are not things that are done quickly, necessarily. This kind of gets back to the debate of last summer, before the Protect America Act expired, which was, do we take our operators, our linguists, our analysts -- we're always asked, do you have enough people who speak the right languages; do you have people who understand the cultures -- should I pull them off of their mission to write a thick application, court application, making this probable cause showing, and then go to court for individual surveillances on foreign targets abroad? We simply cannot do that as an intelligence community. Certainly that was part of the huge problem last summer, where we were caught where the law had not been updated.
Second, should we have to make that probable cause showing? If you're going to make that -- if you're going to import the probable cause showing that applies here in the United States, and require us to have that same level of information that we use to wiretap somebody here in the United States, or do a physical search of a U.S. citizen, that is not a minor thing to do. So if you're going to apply that to our foreign targets abroad, that's a huge shift in what we do as a community, and you're changing the level of intelligence information that I need to initiate surveillance on somebody abroad. You're essentially applying something derived from the Fourth Amendment to our foreign mission.
From a press conference 2 days ago. More can be found here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019 ...
Frankly, I'll defer this issue to intelligence experts and not to pandering politicians and fear-mongering ACLU lawyers.
The reason I didn't reply to your other post is because your premise is flawed. This act isn't about spying on Sally Sue in Wichita, no matter how much you say it is. This is specifically in the context of surveillance originating at foreign endpoints. - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2But they are unable to control your healthcare choices based on that info. Now if they check it and see how fat you are they can only say "He's fat". When they control healthcare and see how fat you are they can be like Britain and say "You can't get treatment until you lose some weight".
Be careful about being so dismissive.
BTW, what "giant national health-care database"? - seanstuart, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2You're right. I shouldn't have claimed that it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's more of a democrat (small "d") vs. authoritarian thing. It was just a knee-jerk reaction because all these Bush supporters love to accuse liberals of being cowards and wanting to "surrender" to terrorists and all this crap, when it's them who have allowed fear to compromise their principles.
- inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"EVERYONE thought Iraq's WMD program was more of a threat"
"Everyone" didn't order an invasion that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And millions of us never believed that Iraq was a threat. We marched in the streets all across the country on Feb 15, 2003. Look it up. - inactive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1@chico
Thats your prerogative to live your life believing these "evil government" conspiracies. I happen to remember the 90's and how EVERYONE thought Iraq's WMD program was more of a threat than it turned out to be. - Infidelcastr0, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2As much as I despise and fear what the neocon-fascists are trying to perpetrate upon the American people, I almost have to laugh when I think of them being tortured, spied upon and held without cause, all the while believing it's for the greater good.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is