What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.184 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -29/+105The idiots voted Bush.
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -17/+84I voted the guy in and I still think he shouldn't be pardoned.
It's called being responsible for your actions. If our leaders aren't then we're screwed.
EDIT: However, I'm not going to participate in anything moveon.org does. I'll have to call my senator myself. - grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56@ myhappyclam
None of us really knows what was targeted and what was done. We only have what we've been told by the current administration. We have to trust them on what they've done. Based on their track record, I have no trust that they didn't overstep the boundaries. But, I'll give them the slight benefit of the doubt that they mainly followed the law.
I really hope you are not as vicious as your posting would seem. To wish people to be killed just because they don't agree with your point of view is a really sad place to view the world from. That state of mind would put you in the same viewpoint of the terrorists that you believe are trying to kill you. From a mental point of view, you are a terrorist. - evazan, on 10/12/2007, -23/+61It never ends.
What has happened to America? - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Recent history has shown that U.S. presidents have automatic get out of jail, free cards. Not a single lawbreaking president has ever been incarcerated, and impeachments don't stick. The justice system is completely broken when you get above a certain level in government. Contrary to popular belief, the laws rarely are made to apply to the people whose job it is to make laws. It is an illusion. Laws are really only applied to middle class and poor people who cannot afford a good lawyer, and/or who do not have strong connections in the right places.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39Keep believing all your told and fed by FoxNews, clam. Now ***** off.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Because supporting the illegal acts your government commits is the only way to be a patriot, questioning them makes you a terrorist too, right?
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Do you know what a Warrent is? How about FISA courts....
They can still tap phones, but they can break the law doing it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Pokez you sound just like Sean Hannity and just as un-*****-American as he is.
- kapsar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I care more about my freedoms than my safety. Who is keeping us safe from our government? did you miss this on digg yesterday? http://digg.com/world_news/Concentration_Camps_For_American_Citizens
our own government is turning into a "rogue" nation, and you'd let them. There's a saying from world war II that has to do with not speaking out when the nazis started to round up people, and the narrator at the end wondered why no one spoke out when they came for him. Bush has broken the law so many times, and if this bill passes i hope it get struck down as unconstitutional, because it is. - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19You know, I still don't think I've heard a valid reason for why they need warrantless wiretaps.
The complaint is "we can't wait for the paperwork when terrorists might attack"
The FISA courts allow officials to get warrants 72 hours AFTER THE WIRETAP. So *why* is this broken? Nobody has answered this question. - mfey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28When is this administration going to admit fault? What he's doing is ILLEGAL. I live overseas and call the U.S. often. I always wonder if someone else is on the other line. Of course I hate Bush so I constantly make remarks about him and the administration. Maybe people listen maybe people don't but I feel like I should have the freedom to say what I want. I mean I left the U.S. for a reason.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15why is this not all over the news?
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@grendelboogie
Excellent post. Whenever people wish death, stay clear of them. - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@illynova
While I tend to agree with you in part, your comment oversimplifies the problem too much. The failure of the justice system and our current dismal situation goes well beyond Bush. The justice system in this country needs to be fundamentally overhauled. Unfortunately the system in place to affect such a change is in the hands of the very people that would be made to face charges. Therefore as long as those people remain in power, the system will never change. The corruption and lawlessness in our top lawmakers will only continue to fester.
The U.S. government branches need a coup d'etat to effect real reform. Until we make that happen, we will continue to see "business as usual". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@pokez
For the record, I accidentally dugg your last post up, but I had no intention of doing so because you're a piece of *****, and your posts refelct that. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Very good. Compare legal presidential pardons to a senate who is pardoning a president for illegally wiretapping US Citizens.
Don't give me that "I don't care about the wiretapping" crap, or tell me that they weren't illegal. Just go and read the Foriegn intelligence survalence act (1978).
from wikipedia
"For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).
The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.
The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[5]"
"Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [9]"
1) They didn't report their wiretaps to the FISC, nor admitted that they wiretapped people at all
2) They wiretapped american citizens without warrents
3) The wieretapped forigners without warrents, who had no connection to "foreign powers or agents"
Tell me it was legal! - happyclam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The statements of MyHappyClam do not reflect the sentiments of the general happyclam population.
This happyclam believes in civil liberties. Worrying about terrorists is better than worrying about an abusive government led by a criminal president. - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Aha... I think I hit a nerve with that last post about moveon.org being an illusory hero. People are burying me now. Very amusing. Before burying this post too, please hear me out, because I have, IMO, a very important point to make. While you may not and probably won't agree with me, at least consider my words.
I wish to point out a simple truth in U.S. politics: both the Republican and Democratic parties are two sides of the same coin. While voting in a Democratic majority will help derail Bush and Friends' agendas temporarily (and it's a good start), it will only be a temporary stop-gap on the massive corruption of the U.S. government as a whole. Once the Democrats are established again, they will be soon enough pulling the same dirty tricks as Republicans have enjoyed doing for the last 6 years. The left side of the status quo is, too, above the law, for all intents and purposes.
Since Digg is a largely left-leaning forum, I isn't surprising to see many people regurgitating the Democratic propaganda talking points, just as much as Fox News aficionados vomit out their canned responses to those who oppose Republican views.
Don't you see? You are doing the same thing, just on the opposite side of it. We need to be more critical of EVERYONE who is in power right now--be it Democrat, Republican or otherwise. What the people of the U.S. must do is align themselves together as much as possible AGAINST ALL the power structures in place. This is the only way we will be able to get our country back.
People, do not vote back in your incumbents, no matter how many political stunts they have pulled that happen to favor your views. Vote them ALL out, and let's start this thing over from scratch. The people need to push the reset button on the U.S. government. It can be done. - CableCarrier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8But there's a secret court just for that purpose. You can even get warrants retroactively. Doesn't make sense.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8So we should do whatever idea pops into our heads, just to *do* something? Should we invade Canada? Should we arrest everyone? It would make us much safer if we were all in solitary confinement.
The point is, you are more likely to die of just about anything than terrorism. Yet we don't make people sit in faraday cages to prevent lightning strikes. We don't outlaw driving, or even smoking. We take risks and we need to make responsible decisions about where we put our efforts. Sifting through a mountain of phone records and building up a billion possible leads isn't doing something. It's make-work. It's all pretend. And the only thing it really does is make us less free. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Because they want to go fishing. FISA warrants require a shred of probable cause. For tapping millions of phones at once, or even just building a map of who calls whom, they have no evidence when they start (and probably a mountain of false leads when they finish). So they would be laughed out of court and they know it, which is why it is illegal.
There is the added theory that they may not want a paper trail, which FISA would mandate. If Bush simply promised to have the system audited by the court (preferably a non-governmental responsible body), I'd be marginally happier. As it stands, I see nothing to stop a Nixonian-type political/democratic abuse but the promises of "trust me, we're the good guys." - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I'd pardon you for ignorance. The "But Clinton..." argument shouldn't get a single digg. Bush is an adult. He can stand or fall on his own misunderestimations of the Law, Reality, and the resolve of the American people to hold elected officials to account if they screw up. And he did, big time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12It does matter, because you are putting out ***** up logic like FoxNews does only more blatantly: do NOT question government, anyone who doesn't agree with it is either a terrorist or un-American. Its ignorant. Don't tell us to ***** move to Canada because we don't agree with what the government or President is doing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Its slightly different when the criminal is the President, though. He's supposed to set an example for the American people and the world, while looking out for our best interests as individuals, as groups, and as a country. So far, hes done none of this.
- OaklandNative, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Strange that MyHappyClam wrote the above hateful comments only one hour after he wrote the following:
"I don't understand why anyone from any faith feels the need to kill, maim, hurt any one just because they said something they didn't like or understand? Does what was said change your fundamental believe in your religion? No. Does it do any harm to the tenements of the religion itself? No. Only you can harm your religion and that is by using it in a perverted or extremist way. For a religion that touts itself as a 'religion of peace' it sure doesn't seem to be one."
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Debunking_Pope_Benedict_s_speech_on_Islam_and_Prophet - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@agoodlife4me
Democrats have no solutions because the only solution to our security problem is to stop antagonizing the muslims in their own countries. No one wants to face that reality because, at the moment, it is also in our economic best interest to pull the marionette strings of the Arabic governments who have the oil fields. If we didn't control the despotic governments of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc., they could easily decide to impose oil sanctions against us and we would be driving to work in horse-and-buggies rather quickly.
Oil (and the profits reaped from its distribution) is the root of all corruption in our own government. The sooner we can rid our dependence on it, the better. Unfortunately it will take a number of revolutions in technology and politics to force us to really change.
Here's hoping it happens. - lechatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If nothing else we need to make an example out of Bush as what a President should not do. We can't have his "above the law" actions carry over to other Presidents down the road. Let him finish out his presidency then take him and his cabinet to court. They need to realize there are consequences for breaking the law, even if you are the commander and chief.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This isn't part of the PATRIOT act. You don't have your facts straight. It's something Bush did secretly, apart from all existing law, and there's a reason he did it that way. He couldn't even trust Republicans in Congress not to spoil his little surveillance empire.
What is clear is that there is no evidence that the program even does any good, apart from taking away our liberties. The onus should be on Bush to show the program does anything to stop terrorists. Otherwise, the debate you refer to is pointless -- it's all a big lie. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's not the point *****.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@MyHappyClam
Hoping for terrorist attacks on your fellow citizens due to a difference in political ideology?
You have no patriotism, you are nothing but a party loyalist. Country before party, country before self. - hobotroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@MyHappyClam
While reading your post, I was pissed that people buried you just because you have a contrary opinion. And then I read that last sentence and realized you deserved it. Well done! - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -17/+22Bush happened to America, thats what.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"No one believes democrats have ANY solutions at all."
WARNING: BROAD SWEEPING STATEMENT UP-AHEAD - CableCarrier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Call thy senator. Complain to them, and they'll listen, as you are a constituent.
- finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How come nowhere on the moveon page does it link to the bill that is being voted on?
How about someone, anyone, any group that decides to take or make a side give people the resources to research and make an opinion? Really, I promise that you have a much better chance of me agreeing with your POV if you let me see all sides. - chonky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6People get too caught up in propaganda politics, from both sides, and lose sight of what actually happened. Use your brains people, don't let other people think for you.
- bwd01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8First, the legality of the wiretapping has not been tested in the supreme court, hence calling it "illegal" is jumping the gun. There are several supreme court cases in which the president's power to wiretap/seize without a warrant have been upheld. For example, Katz v. U.S., City of Indianaopolis v. Edmond, Hernandez v. Ickes, and In Re Neagle. The Prize Cases has upheld the notion that the president has inherent Article II powers to take any action to pre-emptively thwart any threat against the Republic, even absent any Congressional approval. Second, the AUMF passed by both houses gave the president the power to take any action necessary to prevent terror attacks.
Second, the president cannot be prosecuted anyway since the legality of his actions are still in question and the nature of the dispute is inherently political and not criminal. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Bush and his cronies could easily stop the source of international terror...simply by resigning, and admitting to all their crimes!
- ReportAbuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3************ ABUSE ALERT ************
The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : http://digg.com/tos .
Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.
If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.
People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.
Thank you. - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10The final resort of the Bush-fans is to point out how corrupt and bad Clinton was.
SO WHAT?
If both halves of your so-called democracy are rotten, throw them both out. - Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Helchose -
I completely agree with the vast majority of what you've said. Both sides are, indeed, just fighting for the best position on a quickly-sinking ship. This is absolutely the time to do something about it, as well. Our government's training for its future fight against American citizens as we speak, in everything from it's 'above-the-law' executive strategy to the urban arenas of Iraq, to the 'cyber-terrorist training' (which you'll recall included 'misinformation' from bloggers) of CyberStorm. This may, indeed, be the bottleneck, wherein control over what we think dear - and what is, indeed, necessary to mobilize the civilian population - is making its final (albiet quiet) stand.
The only question is where we go from here. An all-out, forced restructuring of our country would cause chaos in a population uncomfortable with insecurity, but there's no way they're going to let us "change things out" on Capital Hill through democratic methods. The only reason to vote Democrat is, admittedly, to muddy the waters between tis particular -set- of oligarchs and their eventual goals, but what else can we call for? If we 'take to the streets' with anything LESS than absolute, nationwide fervency, it'll be broken up in no time.
That's kind of the problem with where we're at now. Our optimism may be slowly deteriorating from the heady days of the 80's and early 90's, but there's no way that the majority of the country is ready for the trials of restructuring. It won't be until things get bad - and then worse, and then unbearable - that people will be ready to risk their necks for the promise of something better, and by then the control and omnipotence of the U.S. government will be such that grassroots movements will be (pun somewhat intended) nipped in the bud. This is the meeting point of technology and tyranny. Even as things stand now, this very conversation is...well, not quite dangerous, but only because our government is used to letting armchair revolutionaries have their say and move on, satiated.
Hence, the focus on 'with us or against us' mentality. While we have the Constitution backing our right to demand more from our government - and to displace them if we feel it necessary - that's not a right we'll ever be allowed to use. We'll be branded as terrorists (don't think THAT term's going out of style anytime soon) long before we even come up with a catchy slogan. And the mainstream media will portray it as a victory for America. Even more amazingly, people will feel a little safer - if only for a night.
Sure, there have been worse situations in the past, but in terms of the all-out potential for civilian control...we're writing the book.
I appologize to everyone for the length of this post, but I just wanted to know - is anyone making any real headway in this issue? Both parties are faulty, but is turning them against each other and slowing their progress with bureaucracy the only answer? It's worked in the past, but things are snowballing now. If we have a President with a minority in the House and Senate, he can't get ANYthing done. But if he's got a majority, he runs wild. Proportional representation is good, but has its own set of complex partisan issues (such as the Neo-Nazis having gotten representation recently). So what's next? - Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9If you were REALLY a TRUE American, then you would not wish a terrorist attack against your fellow countrymen.
You seem more like someone willing to cut and run. - HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I could say something, but I'll leave it to the pretty pictures:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Special note: I've tried to digg this vid (available on google, and probably youtube). I have NOT linked to my digg of this video. I'm not seeking promo in any sense. I only hope people will watch and think.
Thanks for listening, and I hope you bother to explore. - TheKingInYellow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4if bush is pardoned then everyone else who did something illegal should be pardoned as well. it will be chaos.
let the punishment fit the crime. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Did you get this upset about echelon?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think this idiot impersonating me is literally mentally retarded. His IQ certainly can't be much more than 60 or so, and he's one of those ***** Malkin-scum.
- Jedimonkey27, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Those who choose safety over liberty deserve neither."
Ben Franklin - ReportAbuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3************ ABUSE ALERT ************
The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : http://digg.com/tos .
Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.
If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.
People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.
Thank you. - bwd01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Horseshoe:
Please read that case more closely. Outside the scope of ordinary law enforcement, the need for a warrant is not always necessary. The decision and facts of the case are not applicable to the president's situation, but much of the dicta in that case is.
"A warrant is unnecessary... (as long as) surveillance is reasonable..." -
Show 51 - 100 of 182 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