What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
108 Comments
- evazan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48Shameful. The argument we keep hearing from the white house is that they need to be able to tap conversations as if they couldn't do that already. Pure lies. They already have the ability to do this if they get warrants.... they want do wiretap without anyone knowing who, what or why they are doing it. What a shameful dishonest invasion of our privacy. Big government wins again.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42this is what I don't get... if it was legal (as Bush has always said) then why does congress need to pass any bills making it legal?! doesn't the mere fact that they are having to pass a bill making it legal mean that it's currently illegal and the president has been lying to us this entire time!?
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40I wanna take this moment to give a big shout out to the NSA.
Go ***** yourselves. - jasoneisen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+35Critical thinking is not one of America's strong points.
- cuddleparty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23it's been said before, but i'll say it again. if the terrorists hate our freedoms, they must be pissing themselves with joy over what these twits are doing to our country.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21It always amazes me how a failure of government can lead to calls for yet more government. When that fails, there's always someone who calls for yet more and more government.
Or even more interesting, Democrats and Republicans _still_ get votes by promising what everyone knows they cannot deliver. Like, an improving economy _and_ an expanded war effort.
Is there any way I can vote for the platform that FDR ran on in the 1932 election? Yes, by voting _Libertarian_. Shows how far the mighty have fallen! - dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Exactly. They need these laws to ensure they cannot be held criminally accountable when classified information detailing their illegal activities (see secret CIA prisons, torture, etc.) is leaked or declassified. This is pure CYA legislation ... and the true beginning of the fascist state if passed (see Germany 1933) - give them this power and we'll only be able to take it back with force.
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18It's kind of ironic that the greatest threat to our constitution is the very government who swore to protect it. It's amazing what Americans will put up with.
Maybe we should take a note from our Canadian neighbours. When their government was caught with its hand in the cookie jar, they recalled every damn one of them and held new elections. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21How can the shameless neo-cons defend bush on this one I wonder....
DO YOU WANT YOUR HEAD CUT OFF BY A ISLAMO-FASCIST?
NO? THEN GIVE ME YOUR PRIVACY. - cuddleparty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15the really funny thing is how bin laden was our boy during the 80's.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Funny thing about it is that BinLaden and friends were never, ever quiet about their purpose and motivations.
The entire "they hate our freedom" is a Big Lie. People believe it solely because it has been repeated often enough. - dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11RTA. "Congress's Republican leadership yesterday threw its weight behind two of President Bush's most controversial national security programs, warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial military tribunals."
- crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I just want to say to everyone LISTENING or WATCHING right now, that I support the government and am not an agitator or a person of interest. Nothing to see here, nope, that guy who posetd above me is much more interesting......
- bigboy101011, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7just pick up your phone, they should hear it no matter who you call
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Our good Christian soldiers will be proud to suffer and die at the hands of heathen infidels, like Jesus did for them. And when they do, the ghettos our Godly nation will churn replacements out as fast as our fearless, upstanding leaders can use them anyway.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"But the logic still stands."
Then you don't understand why Bamford is relevant: because _his logic still stands_.
What he detailed was how it was already _being done_ at the time. If you want to know how to do something, look where it is already being done.
It's like the people here talking about can a wiretap be legal when it's an American citizen. Bamford outlines how, using overseas bases and foreign personell, American citizens could be granted the minimal protections of the Constitution and still get wiretapped because it wasn't literally the US government doing it. The US just got passed the intercepts by the foreign personell, which is perfectly legal once the intercept is made.
Etc.
Really, dismissing Bamford so quickly is not wise. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's interesting, because a google search for "nsa att packets" came up with this as its top entry:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/
"Earlier today we found out that the EFF had sued AT&T over their secret work with the NSA on surveillance of millions of US citizens without wiretaps. We learned that paragraph 65 of this complaint shows EFF is trying to turn it into a nationwide Class Action suit covering all current and former customers (any after 9/2001) of AT&T. And we learned that a retired AT&T technician had stepped forward and disclosed the installation of secret NSA spy equipment in the San Francisco trunk facility. As well as the belief that similar equipment is in place in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego."
So, a quick trek over to the EFF...
http://www.eff.org/flag
Now you have two direct references, the Bamford book and the EFF.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Bamford. Just because a book is 20 years old doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Heck, I know people who depend daily on a book written more than a thousand years ago! - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8My question is what kind of effect will this military tribunal thing have when it's our troops who are captured by another country. If we're not going to hold real court proceedings what is going to stop other countries from torturing and killing our soldiers when they are captured. This whole thing is going to have serious repercussions on everyone in the world. We're about to set a precedent that will ***** everyone over.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Hardly! It's the recognition of the true legacy of all powerful central governments, EMPIRE!
All hail Caesar George Bush!
...why is anyone acting surprised? It's not like republic hasn't devolved into empire before, or that we weren't given lots of warning. Personally, I think the last nail in the coffin was in 1933 with the enacting of the New Deal, but it hardly matters if it was then, or with the creation of the Federal Reserve, or even with Lincoln's complete abrogation of State's Rights...
Alexander Tyler, ~1789:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage " - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Or just speak into your smoke detectors
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When 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. - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Whenever there seems to be a shred of hope for our country it gets pissed away by some partisan agenda. I was proud to be an American last millennium, I was even proud to be one into this millennium....not anymore. America has passed it's zenith.
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ah, but it's always the quiet ones, now, isn't it; those trying so hard to seem normal...
Didn't your connection just go down for a few seconds? Probably just a glitch, nothing to worry about I'm sure. Certainly nothing illegal. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"That bill, which could come before the Senate next week, is considered by many to be a ratification of the administration's current surveillance program, which monitors the overseas phone calls and e-mails of some Americans when one party is suspected of links to terrorism. The program has been attacked by Democrats and civil liberties advocates as an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy."
How are they "monitoring" this stuff? (Actual Question) - duffyace, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Agree with a few above... Instead of standing as a beacon for the freedoms that everyone should enjoy, we will merely become a symbol of blatant hypocrisy if we allow our freedoms to be curtailed, for torture to become acceptable.
Anyone purporting to "support our troops" should really think what this would mean for them when they are captured. How about those who have been beheaded and tortured with drills in Iraq? True, we may not go that far, but allowing torture will bring us a few shades closer. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@TubaTechno,
"How are the monitoring this stuff?"
Bamford, James. The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America's Most Secret Agency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982. 465 pages.
http://www.namebase.org/sources/BY.html
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Why do we keep calling it "warrantless" when it's clearly "unwarranted?""
Because "warranted" does not mean just having a piece of paper, it can just as well mean "justified" or "reasonable".
The issue is not whether or not the conversations being recorded are actually terrorists plotting terrible things. Recording such conversations would certainly be justified and reasonable, even under present law, *if* it was known before hand that a crime was in the process of being committed.
But the fact is that these recordings are being done on speculation, a condition specifically requiring a paper "warrant". Therefore, they are "warrantless", being without that paper warrant, even if they are indeed "warranted".
"Can't they point to a single success story?"
The history of wiretapping has been one of massive expenditure with limited success. Why should this be any different? - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ diggscreenname,
Have you _read_ the 1932 Democratic party platform?
Repeal of the Hoover price controls and subsidies, restrictions on the actions of the Federal Reserve, and so on. FDR _VIOLATED_ the party platform and everything he had said he stood for the day he took office.
Compare what he did in office with the 1932 Socialist Party platform, it would seem he was running for their party rather than the Democrats.
It wasn't until Wilson that the Democrats became the party of "big government". Prior to that, and in fact ever since their founding, it is the Republicans who have always fought for larger, more intrusive government.
The finest President the US has ever had, was a Democrat: Martin van Buren. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"When will you guys stand up and say enough is enough?"
Too late. Maybe, around 1995, if the "Constitutional Militia" movement had succeeded, there might have been some progress back to republic from empire, but the entire movement was crushed by a combination of agents provacature and saturation propaganda.
Now the government has both the majority of public opinion and the legislation in place to eliminate any instance of civil revolt no matter how small or even how wide spread.
It's over. Get used to it. America is lost. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But what I'm trying to point out is that you cannot simply say beyond a shadow of doubt that since the technology exists they MUST be using it in a specific manner."
Then I, too, am not being clear.
The laws and technology have been specifically developed in order to process massive quantities of information, sifting automatically for "key words and phrases".
It's not the usage that has followed the technology, as in your objection. It is that the usage has been the _reason_ to develop the technology. - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes... it was... Carnivore...
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cuddleparty, that or the American funding of Pakistani ISI agents involved with 9/11 terrorists.
- unpopulardude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6J Edgar Hoover never did anything wrong with the information he illegally obtained by wiretapping, right? He never used them for personal power or political gain, right?
Why on earth was illegal wiretapping one of the reasons Nixon was impeached? http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1511599 - circusbred, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"How can moronic liberals blame this on Bush? The article said the bill was approved by the Senate. Last time I checked Bush wasn't a Senator, AND nearly half the Senators are...Democrats! How could that be???"
The bill has NOT been passed. It was approved by the Judicial Committee. Furthermore, no one was blaming Bush for this bill, they were blaming neocons. Many Republicans are trying to appear as 'tough on terror' by rubberstamping these potentially dangerous and most likely illegal acts made by the Bush Administration.
The key is they are doing this WITHOUT a WARRANT. You see, in America, we have this thing called the 4th amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Without probable cause, without a warrant, they have no right.
I would much rather not see so much power concentrated in a single person. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Republicans like McCain oppose it because of the interrogation tactics.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They've already defined what it means to be a terrorist nation. And just because someone speaks in "code" doesn't mean listening to them is useless...
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I can't believe more than 3 dogs and a parkeet supports this fascist bastard.
- Schwab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is crazy. In any other country that is based like ours there would have already been several attempts at assassination on the ole country boy. Not that I am saying that is a good thing, but if we just allow laws that (in some point of view) have already been broken to be changed to save people, what is the point of having the law in the first place?
I just don't understand why so many people back down because of this administration. I mean hell I'm a 20 year old college student that almost signed up for the military and now I'm sure as hell glad I chose college. Between the wiretapping on U.S. citizens in the U.S., the CIA confiscating our online web searches, and a president that uses "These people want to kill you and your family" to put fear in the people, I'm thinking I should run for some kind of political position that way at least somebody that isn't ***** delusional isn't making all the decisions.
Until that happens, we might as well get ready for the senate to vote on extending his term to fight on through the war, then vote him in as emperor, and follow that up while all of us Jedi run away to the edge of the galaxy to avoid being slaughtered.
Lucas saw this coming. Digg Down, I don't know what the hell I just wrote. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bs101
Why do you hate the constitution so much?
Also, you obviously didn't read this, so I'll quote it again:
"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 me,
there was no one left to speak out." - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4But you are still protected on this end. So if the U.S. could only listen to one side of the conversation (foreign side), then i guess it could be legal.
- steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can I just bitch slap one ***** Republican right now??? Thanks a ***** lot for the mess you got us in! A lady today tried to say that "Bush can wiretap me, he's the president so he can do whatever he wants" ***** HER AND THE KIDS SHE'S BREEDING!! After I tried to explain that we live in a democracy, and he is not King George, she still didn't get it. I have to live with the ***** Up these people voted in?? She didn't understand that we have a judicial, a legaslative, and executive branch. She shouldn't be allowed to vote if she can't even explain how our government works. Bush is OUR Employee, I'm HIS boss damnit!! He has wiretapped around 350,000 Americans, if he can say PETA is a domestic terrorist than what the hell am I? So go ahead and check my credit cards, tap my phone, tap into my computer, I'll still hate that mother ***** and tell him to rot in hell. Hope that bitch Bush and his cronies read this!! Hope they come over so I can tell him up close that Jesus gave me a message for him.You don't lie, you don't steal from the poor to enhance the pockets of the rich, you DO NOT start wars without just cause, and you don't break the laws of your own government! We went through this with NIXON, why the hell do people think FISA was created. Why is there only one man making decisions for NSA????
- joshlrogers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@CurtHowland
You my friend are my hero, I agree completely
Those who do not learn from their past are doomed to repeat it....and here we go! - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"The Republicans like McCain oppose it because of the interrogation tactics."
No, they oppose it because they think doing so will gain them VOTES. - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got so pissed that I screwed up my entry, but you get it.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison-framer of constitution, and 4th president - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2big government/big business (not that there is any longer any distinction)
- evazan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even the Republicans aren't buying into Bush's bullcrap anymore.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Tuba,
Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
If you were asking an honest question above, then I have given you a specific reference to find the information you requested.
If what you want is for me to do all the work for you, and present you with a 3-minute CNN Headline style sound bite story to give you all the digested facts that *I* think are relevant for you to know, then you're going to be disappointed. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So they don't mean to die? How many thousands will die, then, before they realize the mistake and bring them back? So far, several thousand. And counting.
Then my hat is off to McCain Jr. I respect someone who will fight for what they believe in, not someone that sends other people to fight, kill and die. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Until he directly calls for pulling the troops back and getting out of Iraq _now_, he's still just a blood sucking politician."
So thats YOUR qualification of a "blood sucking" politician? Even if General Clarke wants to put in MORE troops? - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And he's right, the washintonpost says the survellience net yeilds few suspects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373_pf.html
"Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause." -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is