What is Digg?28 Comments
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33@BullyJack-
While you never saw it on the "liberal media," The dems have a decent plan for allowing surveillance of terrorists by wrapping it into FISA. It will be done; but, in a way that does not give the current or future presidents a blank check. Oversight is OK, really.
Please repeat 20 times: "oversight is good for the country" - AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Nothing is wrong at all with them listening to terrorists. But why can't they get a warrant to do it? The law currently allows them *72 HOURS* to warrantlessly listen in on conversations before having to obtain one, thus negating the ridiculously stupid argument that the terrorist might find out about the warrant.
If we give up our civil liberties, the terrorists have already won, *****. - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@BullyJack and @pabster
Both of you seem to be basing your arguements off of the assumption that this program has made even a small dent in terrorist activities. Since you're proposing I lose my civil liberties, I ask WHERES YOUR PROOF?
Supporting freedom does not equate to supporting terrorism, no matter how the math is done. While | don't doubt that sooner or later they'll catch someone doing something (thats why they call it a fishing expedition, cast a broad net and see who you reel in), this is not the way to go about it. Otherwise, we should arrest everyone who owns a gun to stop murder, arrest everyone who owns a car because they may drive drunk.
You may say warrantless wiretaps are far from arresting people, but it is really just one more type of civil liberty violation, and one that I'm not willing to tolerate from our government. Do you notice I used the term 'our'. The government is there to serve us, not suppress us. - YumYumKittyLoaf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Good, is this still the old congress or the new one? Either way, that's good, we don't need to move towards more domestic spying, even if it will stop the unlikey but devistating threat of another terrorist attack. People die all the time, just when it's centralized, people take notice.
But this quote still pisses me off:
"The Bush administration has a backup plan. In speeches over the next few weeks, the Justice Department will launch a new campaign for the legislation by casting the choice as one between supporting the program or dropping it altogether and appearing soft on al-Qaida."
Horrible, can't wait for 08. ... Hah-hah! it rymed... - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8umm, wiretaps are not being stopped. Just the illegal program of warrant less wiretaps, and no oversight. The people who brought you the CIA and NSA are happy to be the "Big Brother" and make sure we are all "good citizens".
I ask you, what makes a good American Citizen? Is it someone who questions the government, asks why a law is good, and makes the government account for its actions?
Or is a good American someone who sits back and waits for the government to tell them what to do, what to read, and what to listen to?
If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally protected rights, no one else will do it for you. - dschrute, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think people forget that everyone who works for our government, including the president, are just people. They're no different than any of us, other than the fact that that they were either born rich, went to a great college, or happen to be incredibly confident. That still doesn't give them the right to personally decide who they're going to spy on and who they're not WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE COURTS. There was a reason for the bill of rights, and that shouldn't change because there was an attack on the WTC. Don't let Rush's ***** let you forget the fact that you're much more likely to die of a heart attack (as he will) or cancer.
I personally may never call someone outside of this country, but if I do I certainly don't need some idiot at a government desk job deciding whether to listen in or not. At least not without a WARRANT. Plenty of government workers have had that power in the past, but they were wearing a swastika ribbon on their sleeve.
My grandfather landed on 7 beachheads in Africa and Italy to make sure we didn't have to deal with that here. - tooslickvan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, the current congress is the lame duck. They're still in office but won't be when the new term starts next year.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@bullyjack
I have told you about my tiger repelling rock, right? - fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FISA was amended by the Patriot Act in ways that were subject to serious opposition prior to September 11 from a coalition of privacy advocates, computer users, and elements of high-tech industry. Sections 203, 206, 213, 216, 217, and 218 of the Patriot Act to allow government agencies to effectively ‘tap’ new technologies (cell phone and internet) but also give sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that such powers were not abused.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/podesta.html
The Bush administration already has more powers then they need to spy on Americans. So I don’t know why they are pushing for this legislation at all.
Actually, that’s a lie. I do know. There is something that this so called ‘liberal’ news media outlet neglected to mention about the bills currently before congress. The bill already passed by the House and in at least one of the three bills currently before the Senate include legislation that effectively quashes all legal challenges occurring between Sept. 11, 2001, and a point 60 days after the bill's enactment, if those challenges relate to any alleged communications intelligence program aimed at staving off terrorist attacks.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/fisabills/
If these bills are really about thwarting future terror attacks as the Bush administration says they are, then why do they include language that will protect Bush and people in the NSA from being prosecuted for past violations of FISA before they modified it. I argue these bills have little to do with terrorism and more to do with halting litigation against the current administration and their friends in the NSA and even AT&T.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php#004843
And go the link below to see if your representative is one of the key people who can stop these bills, and call them now
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=267&pg=makeACall - goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Your an idiot pabster, you like that propaganda from mainstream news don't you? Terrorists have never threatened me. I'm soft on them because they don't directly effect me. I could give a ***** less what they do, as long as they don't ***** with me. Which they haven't :). American can claim they hate us with a passion all they want, I'm sure they are more worried about their own land, and how to get America out of it. We cant put our way of government on people with a totally different culture. It will never work, and you if cant understand that, well your a waste. Good thing 90% of the population are ***** stupid sheep, otherwise it would be heard for governments to control the cattle.
mooooo///baaaaaaahhaah - rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No one is trying to halt wiretapping, jesus. It's about the executive bypassing FISA courts.
I think you know that too. I have yet to hear anyone defend this program successfully. - juicygossip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The sick thing about this is that if they suspect you of being a terrorist then they will have the right to tap your phone. They say freedom of speech is a right, but they are not going to allow the free people to speak. We all need to stand up for this.
- ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The president should be able to wiretap anyone he wants too whenever he suspects anyone of doing anything that sees as a threat because our dear leader is infallible.
No seriously tho, the reason Bush always talks about Al-Qaeda wiretaps, is for support. But we all know that unchecked power can be abused right? Right? - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Did you ever read the P2OG documents? They pretty clearly outline from 2002 what the military planned for Iraq and the middle east. They have no intention of winning, they just want civil war. With civil war it makes it that much easier to take over a country. What do you think happened with Russia and Afghanistan? There are so many other examples of the CIA creating conflict to better destroy a country. This goes throughout history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_and_Preemptive_Operations_Group
"...would carry out 'secret operations' aimed at 'stimulating reactions' among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, i.e., prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces."
Our military isn't going into these places for the reasons stated to the American People, which is really the beef I have with them. There is all this coordination with the CIA and these secretive plans for world domination that I have a problem with.
Here is an interesting news article going over the PNAC and plans for world domination.
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
"The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'."
With these guiding principles making their way into our military and governmental leaders it is no wonder we are in the situation we are in now. Maybe somebody can explain to me why nobody reads history and goes "heh wait a minute, this has happened before".
I just want to raise my kids, and have a great life, but if the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed then lets bring out the patriots and tyrants. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"If we give up our civil liberties, the terrorists have already won, *****."
FISA is a perfect example of giving up our civil liberties.
Tapping phones without a warrant is clear violation of the intent of the constitution. FISA allows tapping without a warrant. The ridiculous premise that they might not issue the warrant after the fact still doesn't change the fact that your phone was tapped, your privacy invaded and your rights violated.
What Bush did was skip FISA; but FISA itself is just big brother style rationalization.
More legislation and more civil rights violations are the wrong answer to terrorism. There may not be a right answer. The threat, in realistic terms, is tiny, but if we must respond in a knee jerk fashion, responding by further curtailing the liberties of American citizens is definitely not the way to go.
And I reiterate: FISA is exactly that. It should be illegal; if you read the constitution, it is beyond understanding how any such "court" could possibly exist. - cheesehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Perhaps if regular Amercians could get control of their government and the corporate plunderers who actually direct it, (like in a democracy) , you wouldn't have a terrorism problem
- Bushlied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe there are people who would justify a program that could bring us great harm especially in the wrong hands. Such as our illustrious leader. Screw you! You have no idea what sacrifices had to be made to keep those constitutional rights. How many men and women had to die over it? And you want to implement a program that goes against everything the died for?
Go stand a post. Till then you will never know what freedom is about, and what sacrifices need to be made to keep ***** such as Bush, from destroying what this great nation is truly about. Screw your insecurities.
If you can't protect America without taking away our freedoms, then you shouldn't be in a position that demands great leadership.
It unbelievable how many ignorant Americans reside in a country built on the Constitution and have no clue what it stand for. - trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Godwin's law, thread over.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Do you have evidence to back up your point or are you just making ***** up you would life to believe?
There have been a lot of problems with American foreign policy but this attempt to blame it all on corporations is just silly. Americans have done the same thing every other country with sufficient power has done (democracy or not), intervened in the affairs of other nations to protect their own interests. Unfortunately we are now learning that in this day and age it can come back and bite you in the ass.
Also one should not dismiss the very real fact that many of the terrorists are motivated by a distaste for secular western culture. I mean imagine how medieval Europe would have reacted if MTV had suddenly showed up on the scene.
Ultimately though this has almost nothing to do with corporate control of the government and everything to do with what the American people want and who they are willing to elect. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm a big opponent of the warrantless wiretapping program (primarily because it was done unlawfully)
However, to be fair the reason they likely cannot use the current 72 hours of warrantless surveillance is that the AG needs to certify that they meet the standards needed to get a warrant. Almost certainly the aim of this program is to surveil people who don't quite meet these standards.
I mean suppose the government discovers that some individual has traveled to Afghanistan a few times, has phone contacts with individuals who themselves have phone contact with people who frequently call terrorists (so 2 degrees removed) and has purchased fiery Islamic sermons on tape. In this case there is likely not probable cause to get a warrant, most people in this situation are just calling a family member. The government wants to be able to monitor this individual's phone calls to determine whether they are or aren't a terrorist.
Frankly, I don't find this justification compelling. I suspect on average gangs cause more deaths than terrorists per year. So if the risk justifies waving the standard warrant process for terrorists why doesn't it do so for people who fit the profile of a gang member?
Still I'm potentially willing to accept the argument that terrorist attacks risk a far greater harm if they go beyond 9/11 and use a nuclear or biological attack. However, such an exception should be quite narrow (the terrorist attack is imminent bit) and have strong safeguards against misuse. Personally I would prefer if the approval of a period of warrantless wiretapping required the secret approval of the house intelligence committee. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Maybe they could retroactively do something about Clinton, Bush I, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon's warrantless wiretapping while they're at it.
Don't forget Carter's brother got busted with a quarter mil of Lybia's money through the same warrantless wiretap program that they want to cruxify Bush for. - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@aliengoods said, "Both of you seem to be basing your arguements off of the assumption that this program has made even a small dent in terrorist activities. Since you're proposing I lose my civil liberties, I ask WHERES YOUR PROOF?"
There haven't been any more terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. Are you high or something? What other proof do you need? - rogerbannister, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Don't blame me. I voted Republican. Now it's my turn to snipe from the sidelines at the way Nancy Pelosi is about to ream our country.
We'll leave Iraq in 6 months. In a year Iraq will be one giant terrorist training camp. Our military credibility will be absolutely destroyed, and we will have an American intifada on our own soil -- just like in France.
Democrats! God bless 'em!! - rogerbannister, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I, for one, welcome our new Democrat terrorist overlords!!
Seriously, chalk this election up to the terrorists, because they won it. Stopping wiretaps is just the first sign of things to come. The slow slide towards Amerabia is beginning. - JigenD, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0It's the president that's a lame duck, not the Congress. Get it right.
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -32/+8"we don't need to move towards more domestic spying, even if it will stop the unlikey but devistating threat of another terrorist attack."
Why don't you offer an alternative plan that will safeguard the country? - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -32/+3Oops: I meant to say 'alternate'...unless of course people leading an 'alternative' lifestyle can help.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -34/+4The Dems have no plan. They never have.
I agree whole heartedly with the proposition that you either support it or you don't; And if you don't, the terrorists win.
What you bleeding heart liberals have against our intelligence agencies listening to terrorists is beyond me.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is