What is Digg?123 Comments
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -13/+136A plane flew into it.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -6/+95Whatever happened to the the 4th amendment..
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -10/+85We should be having impeachment hearings, not creating new laws so the administration can continue unfettered.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -8/+81> radu79 wrote: "Whatever happened to the the 4th amendment."
To quote our president...
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
And before anyone claims that the president DIDN'T say this, please note that even the website "The Conservative Voice" avoided trying to claim that the president said no such thing. Instead they attacked the motivations of the person who was at the meeting with the president when, presumably, these words were spoken. Oh, and "The Conservative Voice" writer was seemingly more concerned about the president taking the Lord's name in vain then they were about what he said about the Constitution. Go figure.
reference: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10789.html - herodian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42This is probably getting old, but this is exactly what Orwell was talking about. That is ridiculous that somebody would actually consider this a good idea, making a law that completely violates the 4th amendment. This is insane!
- Klaus1250, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41In 50 years people will scratch their head when they read in their history books that 19 religious maniacs got 280 million people to deprive themselves of their own freedom and liberties.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40If the president has the power to urinate over the constitution in the name of "protection from the terrorists", then I am afraid US loses the claim to be a free country.
I happen to come from a country where there was a dictature (Romania, Ceausescu) and even though I was young at that time, I was smart enough to know that the glorious leader can and will get away with anything.
The Founding Fathers of the US preempted such abuse, which is why they separated the powers in the state, to prevent one person from becoming the supreme entity. It would seem that those protections are constantly being eroded, which is not good at all. - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36It is illegal because it violates the Fourth, and FISA.
"...the AP story says the government broke a law, when no court has ruled it illegal. "
It is hard to rule something as illegal, when the government won't even let a case be heard. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21The United States America has not declared War since 1942. The Constitution does not give the President the power to suspend our rights, even the ones not granted by the Constitution, during a war even if one had been declared in 2001.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21> broomrape wrote: "No, really. Do you have ANY non-kook sources confirming that "goddamn piece of paper" quote, or do you get all your news from Rense.com?"
I'll assume that your comment was directed at me.
First of all, I don't know what "Rense.com" is. I've never been there and I've never before now heard of it. So I guess I can answer part of your question by stating that not only do I NOT get "all (my) news from Rense.com" but I don't get any of my news from "Rense.com."
Perhaps you didn't read my entire comment or you'd know that I sited the very right-wing "The Conservative Voice" as a source. I leave it to you to decide if such a conservative organization has an anti-Bush agenda and as such (from your point of view) should be considered as a "non-kook source."
Additionally, I've heard and read this bit of information from other sources as well but for obvious reasons it is "The Conservative Voice" reference that stuck in my mind. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." -- Cardinal Richelieu
(consider yourself a candidate) - Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21There is no slippery slope but there is a clear course toward total surveillance that I don't like. This administration has attempted to legislate morality and now is trying to make warrant-less surveillance legal. If that is not a sinister combination I don't know what is. First they tell you what is right or wrong and then they make sure you agree. That isn't freedom at all, not even remotely.
EVERYONE has something to hide, that's why we have doors and window shades. I don't trust these people with this power. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29The above post did not accept the 2nd half of the message and the Digg edit function wasn't working again (though it is now).
2nd half of the message:
-bush CONTROL- -surveillance BACKSLASH- - freedom DELETE- - raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The US has yet to declare war (Iraq and Afganistan were "military operations", not war).... Several reasons they didn't declare war:
- If there was another attack and it was "war", insurance companies don't have to pay out
- Most treaties (including the geneva conventions as interpeted by the US) apply only in times of war.
The US will most likely *never* declare war again, even in a WWII sized operation, it just won't happen. Congress won't do it, there's no clear advantage to the US. The only time a declaration has a benefit is it gives the president more power to operate without Congressional oversight... as long as Congress and the President agree on things, no need for it. - tallin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I have no idea how feasible it would be, and I don't feel like doing any research right now because I'm at work, but if I had Warren Buffett's money, rather than give 85% to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I would use it to start a new country where ***** like this won't happen for at least another 230 years.
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I agree: no one wants the media to use spin tactics. By reading the article, I come away with the sense that a change is indeed on the horizon (as several senators, Cheney, and Bush seem to all be on board). The title says "Warranties Surveillance Program to Become Legal", and no word in that title has been spun. The program is indeed warrantless, and there is indeed talk to make it legal.
Judging by the Presidential Powers argument, people have made the case that the program is ALREADY legal. I disagree with this, and I urge someone here to please cite the law which gives the President the powers to spy on citizens during wartime. Not that we are at war with anyone--officially. War usually requires some kind of concrete enemy, not an everlasting idea such as terrorism.
^_^ - megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"I don't trust these people with this power."
Nor should you. It matters not what country you live in: institutional power-seekers are the worst kind of people--greedy megalomaniacal control freaks. They'd have us all in a giant gulag if they could get away with it. Yet, thanks to the magic of bread and circuses, the American "school system," and fear, they appear to be succeeding in this ongoing social restructuring program.
Unfortunately, we Americans are neither vigilant nor assertive when it comes to dealing with domestic enemies. We have developed this conditioned response to grovel before men in fancy suits and accept as holy writ whatever they decide to do with us. We act like peasants. - gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Can somebody say dictatorship?
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15radu79: "The Founding Fathers of the US preempted such abuse, which is why they separated the powers in the state, to prevent one person from becoming the supreme entity. It would seem that those protections are constantly being eroded, which is not good at all."
the thought of our freedom as Americans being eroded has been a cause of some of my depression and anxiety. i try to educate more people about what's going on. the only way to help make things better is if the masses take action. i am but one person, and my impact on the masses is quite minimal, unfortunately. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13you have no idea. i think this false sense of security is the reason they're able to get away with stuff like this.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
edit: weird.. my comment didn't go through the first time.. i wonder if it has anything to do with you editing the comment i was replying to.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Havent we always been at war. I am retty sure we are at war with east asian with our allies eurasia, or is it the other way arround? I always confuse the two. No matter some government offical will set me straight.
- bitswapper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14A couple of other sources report that GWB did in fact say, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
http://www.thosebastards.com/archives/1299/
If you google it, there are many hits. Capitol hill blue seems to be the one many others are refering to. However, what's curious is the lack of any action on the part of the GWB administration. If the story were patently false, I would think it to be at the very least liable. Silence is an interesting reply. - kruykaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Dude how's immigration in Canada?
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11people are scared. The government wants them that way. If you fear for your life enough, you'll let them do anything they say will keep you safe, no matter how illegal or unethical it is. If you're an idiot that is, fortunately there are still some people who are smart enough to see through their ***** and attempt to stop them before the American freedoms that are envied around the world become just a distant memory.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Being opposed to the government makes you a hippy? Oh wait, I realize now it's easier to straw man an argument then address it with logic. In case you're too "slow" to know what I mean by straw man here's a wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Try to read the whole thing, I know its hard but you can do it. - saumanahaii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Do war powers apply when we aren't at war? If I remember, Bush declared an end to the war quite a while ago, even if he keeps referring to it as a war after the case. What also of congress? I thought that there has to be a declaration of war for a war to take place. Sure, recent changes allow the president to move troops and attack while they have not declared war, but I would think the emergency powers act would only be applicable under an official declaration of war. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17@Klaus1250
Were three of the 19 religious maniacs named Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You are right, they can't legally call it a war, because it takes a war declaration. In Afganistan, it is understandable because that country didn't have a government to declare war to. But Iraq did.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Ah well, we'll be 'safe' in a police state eh?
- Tocc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9reading 1984 should be mandatory in school.
- evilware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Might as well just get rid of all are freedoms cause thats what it's turning into. We are about ready to become the book 1984.
- koguma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The "other side's" points are moot since the US never declared war on Iraq. It's a military action, same as 'nam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Therefore, the "other side's" arguments are hot air. - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To quote invader: "i try to educate more people about what's going on. the only way to help make things better is if the masses take action. i am but one person, and my impact on the masses is quite minimal, unfortunately."
I know how you feel. You just have to remember, that all it takes is one person to change the course of history. Hell, look at Bush. Whenever you get discouraged, just remember: the power of change is vested not in those who seek to control and maintain, but in the minds and hearts of disaffected individuals.
Alone, your thoughts are mere daydreams. But joined with others, your endeavors will lead to the birth of a new, accepted ideal. And ideals, good sir, are unstoppable.
I'm right there with you. ^_^ - Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"We act like peasants"
At your throat or at your feet...
Americans need to question authority, especially in times of crisis, that's when it really matters. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Dude, don't bother coming up here. Our Prime Minister is going to sell entire nation to the U.S. at the first opportunity (if it hasn't already been done).
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@BloodJunkie It has already been done
"North American Union to Replace USA?"
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965
It basically is the first step towards merging all of Canda, USA and Mexico into a North American Union a' la the EU.
See the official government plans at http://www.spp.gov/ - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you know i always was one of those people who thought those privacy advocates always took it a little far...but there is NO WAY this can be good.
- Neumahn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9We no longer live in a nation of laws. We have a leader who changes the laws to match the needs of his puppet masters, uses terrorism as a crutch to grab power and has no regard for the ideals of our founding fathers. What is worse, we have a populace that is trained but ill educated, distracted with entertainment and convenience and has grown complacent and cynical preferring to read news about the latest gadgets and while away the hours in front of World or Warcraft while less fortunate of our young men are shipped home everyday in pine boxes hidden from view in our "free" and "open" society to settle a family score.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It isn't even valid for that long. Judicial review does not make a law invalid. Unconsititutional laws are invalid all along.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"nearing an agreement" and "to become legal" mean the same thing to me: that warrantless surveillance is headed towards becoming legal. I understand how some people might see a difference though. I apologize if you feel this is misleading in any way, but I think this story is still pretty important.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What did you do to prevent it? Enilighten us oh great cynic.
- skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ANY suspicious activity these days can get you on a watch list. Don't believe me? Try taking photographs of a popular bridge.
- Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Newsflash: They're already spying on people randomly, whether they are suspected of terrorism or not. They've been doing it for a while now. The terrorism bit is just a sales pitch.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If the point of this bill is to make warrantless wiretaps legal doesn't that implicitly confirm that they were illegal at the time the president authorized them? So if this bill passes it in effect declares publicly that we have a criminal sitting in the Oval Office.
Please, somebody give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him! - chingchingrice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The world of Deus Ex doesn't seem to far fetched to me anymore. I remember when I first played it I though it was a very ridiculous view of of the future, but after just replaying it recently I don't hold that mindset anymore.
- morcheeba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>These people want to be elected again, remember.
Incumbents have a 98% re-election chance. They don't have to try. Thank you, crazy election districts. - megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Result: Rebublicrat incumbant wins, no matter what.
- mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The U.S. Congress has not issued a Declaration of War since mid-WWII. The president has never had the power to declare war, if he did, then he would be addressed as "Your Majesty" rather than "Mr. President".
He does, however, have the power to initiate military actions against belligerents, but unless a Declaration of War has been issued by Congress, then these campaigns must be renewed every 60 days.
Please see - Title 50, Chapter 33 "War Powers Resolution" of the United States Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Personally, I'm hoping for this comprimise bill. Because if the courts get involved again, then most people are satisified."
There is no one in the administration saying anything about going back to the courts. They didn't go to FISA courts in the first place; why would they now?
Also, courts are not involved in making laws; thus, they will not be involved in any 'compromise bill.' - oodja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"But, my lord, is that legal?"
"I will make it legal!"
When a quote from the worst Star Wars movie ever made perfectly sums up the real world, it's time to drink heavily. -
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is