What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
208 Comments
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
- Benjamin Franklin - The_Mule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Let's make sure the terrorists know how we chatch them."
Yes. Because I'm sure those terrorists didn't know the government might be tapping their phone lines. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I still assert that the Administration has a pervasive, full-spectrum eavesdropping program.
I believe that if they had any hope at all of getting warrants from FISA, they would have gotten the warrants rather than ever put themselves into this position in the first place. It's not like it is especially hard to get the warrants, considering the 72 hour after-the-fact window, and especially considering the huge number of warrants that already have been approved and the tiny number that were rejected.
However, if their eavesdropping program is as expansive as I'm asserting, there is no way, absolutely no way, FISA would have or even could have granted a warrant.
Hence, it was executed without warrants.
Just because the Administration asserts, even to Congress, that the program is "just international phone calls" and "much smaller than originally feared" doesn't lend any credibility, sadly, to that testament. Remember, this is the Administration that had their Chief stand in front of the American people to remind them, specifically, that all wiretapping is done with warrants. In front of video cameras.
They are just revealing the tip of the ice berg, and trying to pretend like it stops there, because they think they can get away with it.
Nixon had it all planned out the collaborate with the CIA on the "national security" argument in order to keep the FBI out of the investigations on *his* illegal activity.
The program is much more expansive and diverse than they are letting on. Allow me to remind you that Total Information Awareness, which Congress cut funding for citing privacy concerns, was NOT cancelled but merely moved into a classified program at the NSA.
You don't think there is a connection?
Seriously, think about this critically for a second: Am I the only one that sees the comical paradox in the Administration's main argument? They claim that they only spy on Americans if there is a terrorist on the other end of the line. However, if they have the ability to know who is going to pick up the phone and talk to a terrorist, then they certainly must know enough to get the warrant from FISA up to 72 hours later, and why not even BEFORE the tapping. Think about it.
Unless, of course, the program executes autonomously and automatically. - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yet again, I will reiterate :
The Executive Branch (the President) does NOT have the authority to violate the fourth amendment. Nobody is above the law and the Constitution is still the basis for all law.
Congress can not even give him the right. It would violate the Constitution and the only way to allow for warrantless searches of Americans is to remove the right to reasonable searches and seizures from the Constitution. The Times is not evil for reporting the fact that the government has turned on its citizens. The terrorist groups assume they are being listened to and speak in code anyway. With NSA wiretapping and the fact that TIA never was killed, it is extremely likely that every person had their privacy violated by the government and that is not OK or constitutional. - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Best paper around, bar none."
Nope. It's not soft enough. Too scratchy. - Cruian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Triad- Phone calls may be protected by the 4th Amendment according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Katz v. United States.
- Col_Jessup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As long as we are quoting Ben Franklin...let's do so accurately:
"They who would give up an ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY security, deserve neither liberty or security" - ShadySpace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Best paper around, bar none. Man, journalists have suddenly gotten back their balls (which have been absent since the 70's). With the heckling and justified handling of the Cheney shooting and now this, it seems America's newsmen finally have begun to see that they're job isn't simply reporting a story. It's keeping the government in check.
- tokyopimp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh man... please please please put the political section of digg 3.0 as a sub category of a new section called.
I'm an *****, and I'd like to prove it to you. - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"They don't scream...they whine....it's the Democrat way"
You forget Dr. Dean : http://homepage.mac.com/lileks/.Public/Yeagh.mp3 - antlerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Truth Project meeting, held at the Quaker Meetinghouse, was one of nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests listed on the 400-page document generated by an obscure Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity, according to the report aired Tuesday on NBC's Nightly News.
The database classified the Lake Worth meeting as one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period"
YEAH! GO GET THOSE EVIL TERRORIST QUAKERS!!!
stuff like this is why they want the full report from the pentagon...
i dont blame them. - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Why should the police need a warren?"
Ummm, because they need a place to keep a bunch of rabbits?
Oh, wait....you must have meant "warrant." - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Don't assume they are only spying on terrorist, it's also anyone who doesn't agree with the administration. Check out the story linked below where people protesting Halliburton's war profiteering got snooped.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek - antlerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is why america is going to *****
sitting around arguing extremist politcal views in the comment section of digg
instead of stopping to consider why people have opposing views on this topic
people always think it should be either left or right
when the middle ground is where tit should be - aimless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually the NSA is at Ft. Meade, Maryland. The NYT is suing the Department of the Defense, not the NSA.
Good thing you're part of the "enlightened" bunch, I'd hate to think you were uninformed. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"your the reason why the democrats will win both houses and the presidency in the next election.
Keep it up, you do your party proud!"
My party takes a stand against terrorism. If that will lose both houses this year, then shame on this country. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>> it seems America's newsmen finally have begun to see that they're job
>> isn't simply reporting a story. It's keeping the government in check.
>>
And that, my friends, is where everything goes wrong. There are political watchdog groups that are in place to keep government agencies in check. They in turn clue in the media when appropriate. The job of the "newsmen" (and I use that term loosely) is to present relevant stories in a factual and objective format.
When you succumb to your partisan urges, objectivity is the very first thing to go. - sergio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
That's the first smart thing you've said. Abortion, gay marriage, and a lot of topics should be left to the states. Both parties are guilty of making them federal issues.
The problem with trying to discuss politics on digg is that they eventually devolve into off topic or flames, and more or less, lame. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It would be a miracle if we had a non-partisan discussion over governmental spying. Aren't we supposed to be the intelligent people that put our partisanship aside for the important issues?
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"...denying the existence of global warming..."
More like "questioning the causation of global warming." - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All political discussions on the Internet eventually devolve to abortion (when a human life begins) and/or Nazis (i.e., getting called one/comparing your opponenet to).
true.dat -- Unfortunate - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Abortion? This discussion just jumped the shark."
All political discussions on the Internet eventually devolve to abortion (when a human life begins) and/or Nazis (i.e., getting called one/comparing your opponenet to). - Col_Jessup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Abortion? This discussion just jumped the shark.
- hadees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't tech news
- triad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3the 4th amendment doesnt include phone calls so it is constitutional.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ha, making factually inaccurate statements seems to tickle you.
[not sure what you mean by this, but I was saying that your statement was correct. canada's healthcare system is a total failure.]
The UN was doing it's job,
[not really. the UN has a place, I know, but in this instance, they were not doing their job. Again, we don't need the UN's permission to do anything as a country. That's why we are as great as we are.
During the time the Constitution it was written it was considered acceptable, even respectable, to OWN a human being. The times they are a'changing...
[a living, breathing constitution. C'mon, that's why we have ammendments. If abortion is to be an issue, then let the american ppl vote on it. you can't, because it would never pass, which is why liberals have to rely on the courts to "see" things that are not there.
Holy snap there's a liberal media?
What channel is it on?
CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC
Take your pick. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So of the four members of congress who knew about it, one possibly leaked--and this equates to "congress is full of leakers" to you? Nice try."
So I need to give you every example of every time that a democratic congressman has leaked confidential information to the New York times or the Washington Post, or some other left wing paper? do you even watch the news???
"
And you don't think Russell Tice, former NSA agent, could have leaked it?"
I'm not saying that leaks are limited to congress, I'm just saying that congress, especially democratic senators, seem to leak important information to the press most often. hey, whoever leaked the information needs to go to jail. i'm just saying that I don't see you guys calling for his identity, because you don't think that he did anything wrong.
"You mean these words, right? "I'm not a liberal, you ignorant ***** halfwit.""
no actually, I wasn't going to refer to the profanity that you guys always seem to resort to.
oh, and I saw no response to the fact that your words proved my point. care to rebutt?
"This shouldn't be hard to grasp even for a slack-jawed moron like you."
again with the namecalling.
again, if he's guilty, where's the media. you are just going off hearsay. let the system do it's work and if he's guilty, it will be proven.
"You won't mind if I save that quote for later taunting early next year, will you? :)"
quote me all you want. I have a feeling that when nothing happens, you'll not want to be quoting anyone. - clashbomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on people. Every president since Washington has used electronic survalence on its citizens. Kinda sad that comment actually came from our Attorney General. And yes, this is good news. And no, it doesn't compromise our intellagence programs. (which btw are crap with all the problems they have.)
- Col_Jessup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know what Franklin would say about that. Why don't you ask him. Oh wait..he's dead. I offered no opinion on the quote. You assume a great deal about me from a simple ACCURATE quote.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So once more: care to back up your claim?"
Have you ever been on a hacking website and seen someone ask how to do this or that, and the response is "google it"? Well, I would love to say that right now, but if you want proof, I'll not be long winded, but I will give a just a couple of proofs:
Tom Daschle admits that he knows of many of his congressional colleagues are national security risks because they choose to leak secret information:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012704.html
The house discusses ways to deter the epidemic of congressional leakers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301798.html
"It's been about two years since Sen. Richard Shelby blew one of our most important secrets -- that we were bugging Osama bin Laden's cell phone"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7519
should I go on? is a statement by a democrat supporting my statement enough? how about the other 2 articles? do I need to spend all day ctrl c and ctrl v into this post to prove my point, or are you satisfied?
"I gave the rebuttal to you twice, but here it is again: "I'm not a liberal, you ignorant ***** halfwit.""
ok, here, I'll amend my statement, since you can't get past one word and see the jist of what I'm saying and just rebut the comment with logic and common sense.
@diggnate "because in YOUR mind, breaking the law is a good thing, as long as it means that Bush goes down."
@Legion303 "whoever leaked it is a whistleblower and deserves a medal."
Still proves my point as well as it did in the previous post.
"If the slack jaw fits, wear it."
I'll just quote from another post I made about name calling; and FYI, just replace the word "liberal" with "you" since you can't seem to get past that. the statement still undoubtedly applies to you even though you're not a "liberal":
"Honestly, I have been involved with politics for about 2 years now, and it is undoubtedly unpredictable......... EXCEPT for one thing. I have noticed that conservatives genuinely want to debate the topic. They believe that traditional conservatism, based on the merits, will always win in a debate of logic. of course this is not always the case, but I'm saying that it is a high percentage. However, liberal people seem to almost always resort to "name calling" seemingly always including profanity to make it seem more passionate. I can understand that debates sometimes get to a very heated level and sometimes people on both sides will question the intelligence of the other person, but calling someone a "***** moron" seems like one of those childish tactics used only when reason and logic have failed them, and out come the names. seriously....?"
"Hey, thanks. I'll check out this "friends" function here so I can do that when the time comes."
the one thing you guys are optimistic about, and even it is inherently negative. unbelievable, but hysterical. - varianallen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Misleading title - it's not domestic spying!
- triad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5you do realize they are only monitoring traffic of people talking to known terrorists in other countries. Not one call is domestic to domestic, and all involve known terrorists outside the country.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Seriously, are you retarded?"
posted by Legion303 (0) at 12:08 AM 3/02/06
I don't believe that you ever really gave a rebuttal to the argument. do you disagree that congress has leakers? how do you think that this story broke in the first place? investigative reporting??? riiiight.
by the way, since this program is a confidential military program, whoever it was in congress that leaked the program "broke the law". where are you liberals calling for that person't identity. I'll tell you why. because in a liberals mind, breaking the law is a good thing, as long as it means that Bush goes down. you people continue to show your ignorance and inconsistancy.
by the way, I am a conservative, and if there is any proof that Bush (personally) broke the law, then appropriate action needs to be taken, no doubt. but there has yet to be any proof to that end, unlike the obvious crime of leaking this program to the press. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll take that as a joke, ;) lol
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"now you show man an example of that happening in even the most ***** up arab state?even your so called axis of evil aren't that bad."
not that bad??? another fundamental differnence b/t liberal and conservative.
"Do you honestly think terrorism can ever be destroyed, through ANY means?"
it's called optimism. yes i do believe that we can destroy it. will there always be a terrorist organization doing evil things? yes. But the goal is the same as in the medical field, get definite conrol over it, where it becomes a reasonably small threat.
this is another fundamental difference b/t liberal and conservative. We believe there is hope for a better world through freedom and the, sometimes forceful, opposition to those who threaten the freedom and greatness of america. liberals believe that we cannot win. if you believe that, do you also belive that since that is true, we should not even try to win? - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Diggnate i'll take your bait since typically questions framed such as yours are setups to a punch line, so on behalf of this one and only Liberal I answer your quiz.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
Again, there is no trick here. I just want a liberal to answer fundamental questions concerning the war on terror. Thank you for being honest.
"If Bill or (gasp!) Hillary Clinton was using this domestic spying program (or the "Freedom Fries Listening Network" if calling it what it is offends you) to warrantlessly listen in on conversations I wonder would you be as indignant about defending it?"
actually yes. bill did do it, and we had no problem with it. again, this goes back to the liberal scew on the whole program. your premise is that you assume that this is a domestic spying program. would i have a problem with bill or hill listening in on my convo with my mom or girlfriend....yes of course!! as i would have a problem with GWB doing it. but that is not what this is!!! please understand that. - danlemire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the thousandth time, if you fly from the US to Europe it's called an international flight! If you call from the US to Europe it's called an inter nation call. Therefore, all other issues aside, it's not a domestic spy program, its international!!!
- crazyfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a laughable statement lollerskates, where are these "moderate" muslims that condemn the terrorist attacks, we live in a world right now where we cant even show these harmless cartoons but the Muslim media can publish anti-semetic, anti-ametican, anti-everything cartoons and propoganda.
Where are my rights and where are my feelings? Or have you already accepted your dhimnni status as a infadel, not worthy of rights.
We stand on the brink of World War 3, and you people do not see it, all you see how bad America is and use America as every single type of scapegoat for all the evil of the world calling Bush the biggest terrorist or how about this one, Bush as Hitler.
Where were you when the Taliban exploded the Buddah in Afghan. Sadly only until 911 hit us did people come to their scenes that we have a problem and until its eradicated we wont have true justice and peace. But again sadly you people are forgetting and even calling 911 a Bush ploy or how it wasnt Taliban or Al Queda but another country, scapegoats galore.
Damn - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Anything to destroy President Bush. And when they've trashed our ability to intercept terrorist messages coming into the States, and we miss the clue that would have prevented a terrorist strike, the Old Grey Whore will blame President Bush for not protecting us. Piss on them."
Amen! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"this is another fundamental difference b/t liberal and conservative. We believe there is hope for a better world through freedom and the, sometimes forceful, opposition to those who threaten the freedom and greatness of america. liberals believe that we cannot win. if you believe that, do you also belive that since that is true, we should not even try to win?"
This is a foolish take which betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism. Your little 'war on terror' has, much like it's counterpart; the 'war on drugs' has seen a huge jump in drug use during its lifetime, has caused a mean increase in the amount of terrorist activity worldwide.
Terrorism is nothing new. The utter arrogance with which America conducts itself forces you to consider 9/11 a landmark event.
Maybe it was, but only in the sense that it marks the nation WAKING THE ***** UP.
Innocent people have been being murdered in similar fashion for centuries, hell millenia even. The fact that the people killed then were Americans means nothing more than the civilians being killed in Iraq.
Fighting terrorism is as futile as fighting fear, anger or ignorance.
The ONLY thing that will help the problem is learning. Propaganda is the most powerful tool at their disposal, and George Bush is doing nothing if not giving them fodder.
- nolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Can't we keep politics off digg? we see it everwhere else. I am not saying don't report political news. but this isn't news this is just politics.
- beta1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't care! The NY Times SUCKS!!!!!!
- mgalovic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no digg... worthless political dribble
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great video relating to the subject
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.mov - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They refuse any kind of oversight."
not necessarily true. they just refues CONGRESSIONAL oversight because they know that congress is full or leakers and it would only be a matter of time before the whole world knew how we conducted the program, including the terrorists. - antlerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
its funny how you can turn that quote around to support either political side. - bradyjfrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regardless, it will be interesting -- this type of government secrecy ultimately boasts the same consequence: incompetence is never detected or corrected. By making it public, we can get a glimpse if it really was a violation of our basic rights, or a method to protect our freedom.
My personal opinion questions protecting rights by invading rights. - diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS
this is not a trick question, it's just curiosity. please answer honestly, yes or no.
Do you believe that we as americans have an enemy, namely militant islam?
Do you believe that we were instrumental at causing this enemy to attack us (aka, was it all our fault?)
In your opinion, is there any way to stop terrorism other than militarily?
Please just answer if you are a liberal, and do not comment, just put a yes or no. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What if you list among your hobbies (guzzling Chivas and then) drowning secretaries in your Oldsmobile? What would a hobby like that get you? A senate seat for life and all the "waitress sandwiches" you and Chris Dodd can make?"
Well, not sure about that, but I DO know that you've a shot at the First Lady's position... - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jedi_2:
First, this is friggin' hilarious - your link turns up a 404 error, at least for me.
WHAT HAVE YOU PEOPLE DONE WITH OUR CONSTITUTION?! :)
Second, I admit you may *think* it's wrong, as it is an opinion piece. That's fine, but the piece as a whole is convincing to me.
Last, your comment: "please take the constitution literally" - Well, Ok. There goes a woman's right to choose, disappearing in a cloud of emanations and penumbras.
" and stop this partisan *****" - agreed. -
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is