Gov't Eavesdropping Ruled Unconstitutional

[DC_DEEP]

Ooh, pick me!

I just read it again, it was a very detailed littany of complaints against US foreign policy in the first part. I was impressed with the language and wondered how many people got together to produce it, it was fairly amazing.

The second part was a demand the the US immediately adopt Islam as the law of the land, as is required by their religion. While I read it, I couldn't help but think the fundies of our own nation demand the very same things. No wonder this well written letter was never addressed- what could we really say?

close, babe, but you get a dickcicle instead of a lolli.

binLaden was furious with the Saudi king for allowing US troops to trample all over what he considered to be holy ground, during a "military action." He has held a grudge against the US since then (remember he's crazy; the king, after all, did give permission, so his primary quarrel and jihad should be against the Saudi nation) and has used distorted parts of the religion to garner support among the disenfranchised he can find in that part of the world. He still sees the imperialists forcing their infidel ways on parts of the world that don't want it (I can't disagree there).

 

[Lex]

The Devil is in the details, guys.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The Devil is in the details, guys.

It certainly is, Lex, it really is.

Instead of dismantling the Constitution, and spending billions of dollars on foreign war, and billions more on super-inflating the Department of Fatherland Security, howsabout we START with a close examination and restructuring of US foreign policy?

 

[madame_zora]

It certainly is, Lex, it really is.

Instead of dismantling the Constitution, and spending billions of dollars on foreign war, and billions more on super-inflating the Department of Fatherland Security, howsabout we START with a close examination and restructuring of US foreign policy?

*in Homer Simpson voice* Doh!

I was referring to the list of demands he presented to the US a year after 9/11- wrong speech.

You are right about him using religous zealotry to inflame his people and rally support, and also that the reasons for much of their anger is justified.

 

[jeremyA]

Ah well when I want to communicate my master plan to take over the world to my underlings,henchmen and number two or just order some new sharks with lasers on their heads I always use encrypted email using pgp.Now if the fact that I sometimes use encrypted emails doesnt attract the attention of those who are looking for such things I dont know what will,although if you search for 'echelon trigger words' in google some people have compiled a list of words which trigger the automatic scanners to look more closely at your email messages.
Basically you blah write blah blah gold bullion blah blah nerve gas,blah blah world domination etc and it causes no end of fun

 

[DC_DEEP]

*in Homer Simpson voice* Doh!

I was referring to the list of demands he presented to the US a year after 9/11- wrong speech.

You are right about him using religous zealotry to inflame his people and rally support, and also that the reasons for much of their anger is justified.

Right, the speech to which I referred was years and years before 9/11. And yes, some of their reasons actually are justified, even if misplaced.

"After Iraq invades Kuwait, Laden, newly returned to Saudi Arabia, offers the Saudi government the use of his thousands of mujahedeen fighters to defend the country in case Iraq attacks it. The Saudi government turns him down, allowing 300,000 US soldiers on Saudi soil instead. Bin Laden is incensed, and immediately goes from ally to enemy of the Saudis"

And so it began. His indignance is understandable; his focus on the US instead of Saudi royalty is misplaced; his fervor is psychotic and psychopathic; his terroristic tactics are deplorable, blasphemous, and abhorrant to real muslims. However, US response, and continuation of current policy, do nothing more than toss napalm on the conflagration.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

And so it began. His indignance is understandable; his focus on the US instead of Saudi royalty is misplaced; his fervor is psychotic and psychopathic; his terroristic tactics are deplorable, blasphemous, and abhorrant to real muslims. However, US response, and continuation of current policy, do nothing more than toss napalm on the conflagration.

Any chance that you've ever been eavesdropped, DC?

 

[Freddie53]

What pisses me off to no end is that there are peope some on this forum who are opposed to the basic rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights of our Consitution. These are time honored rights. Rights that in school we were taught to cherish

Now we have people who would trash this rights and depend on a benevolent dictator. This is absolutely dumb, stupid and crazy. To which one person do we give all this rights to?

It desturbs me to know end that we have a government that broke the law and then have peole who are defending that.

Take away the basic freedoms we have and we are no better off tan the peole in Cuba, some parts of the Middle East, and some of the other third world countries.

The government is using its power not to track down terrorists but to keep an eye on the citizens of the United Sates. The present administration wants to control everything including what I read, write, see and think.

It is a total mockery of our government. It is an insult to the men and women who gave their lives in the Revolutionary War to gain the rights. Then the millions who fought to see that blacks also were citizens and then World War I and World War II.

Brnjamen Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would be extremely grieved over how our federal government wants to intrude on the lives of its citizens in our age.

It is a national tragedy. A tragedy that we may not really realize how bad it is until it is too late.

As for me, a teacher who taught government and the high ideals of democracy for so many years and taught the children to cherish what the founders of our country fought for and set up in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I feel I have been cheated. I have taught my children a lie.

This is a dark day for America. A very dark day.

Thank God we had a judge who had the courage to see what was happening and made this ruling. Let us pray that the Bush Supreme Court won't overturn this rulling.

But I wouldn't bet the ranch that this ruling will be aloud to stand.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Any chance that you've ever been eavesdropped, DC?

I would be damned surprised if I have not, at some point, been the subject of some form of surveillance. No, not conceit, nor paranoia. The simple fact that I am very vocal, politically active (LOL I've spent the equivalent of the GNP of Liechtenstein on postage to my reps) and at times, controversial. I've never been confronted, though, so either they are just building a dossier, or they realize that a few keywords do not a terrorist make. In fact, they probably realize that I'm one of those annoying, inconvenient patriots.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

In fact, they probably realize that I'm one of those annoying, inconvenient patriots.

A patriot? By all means. Annoying and inconvenient? Only to a few. There's a lot of Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry in your posts. So far at least no one has squelched the right to dissent.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
It desturbs me to know end that we have a government that broke the law and then have peole who are defending that.

Ah Freddie, there you have it. If it was a broken law by lying in the blowjob investigation, that's an outrage. If a law was broken by lying about wiretaps and national security, it's fine and dandy. I think you know why.

Take away the basic freedoms we have and we are no better off tan the peole in Cuba, some parts of the Middle East, and some of the other third world countries.

Guantanamo (imprison a US citizen with no charges, no legal counsel, incommunicado?) Abu Ghraib (torture?)Ah, well, that's much different than the human rights abuses that the horrible, evil China perpetrate. Soviet Union/KGB (wiretaps? It's "war on terror" and national security if we do it, it's espionage and international terrorism if they do it). Geneva Convention? That only applies to other countries, not to the good ole USofA.

The government is using its power not to track down terrorists but to keep an eye on the citizens of the United Sates. The present administration wants to control everything including what I read, write, see and think.

You are such a hysterical conspiracy-theorist left-wing communist anarchist. Uh, by the way, if you want a library card or the privilege of buying food or the right to vote, I'll need your social security number.

It is a total mockery of our government. It is an insult to the men and women who gave their lives in the Revolutionary War to gain the rights. Then the millions who fought to see that blacks also were citizens and then World War I and World War II.

Please don't forget those of us who have put our lives on the line in military service since WWII. We are patriots, too.

It is a national tragedy. A tragedy that we may not really realize how bad it is until it is too late.

Some of us do recognize that tragedy and outrage already, though, Freddie. The neo-cons refer to us as "liberal democrats", even though many of us have no political affiliation, and actually find the two-party system offensive.

<...>
I feel I have been cheated. I have taught my children a lie.

you have been cheated, but it's not your fault you taught your children a lie. You taught them right.

<...>
Thank God we had a judge who had the courage to see what was happening and made this ruling. Let us pray that the Bush Supreme Court won't overturn this rulling.

Courage? If she was actually showing courage, she would not have agreed to allow her ruling to have no effect. She basically said "You broke the law, but we don't really care, you may continue to do so at your own discretion." Sounds pretty spineless to me.

 

[dolf250]

rights are temporary gifts and the oddest thing about gifts is that they are temporary (hence the term temporary gifts)

I am beginning to see how you view the world. I am the complete opposite. I do not consider my freedom of association, my freedom to religion, my freedom of speech and my right to privacy as temporary gifts bestowed upon me by a benevolent government. I consider them rights and not something that they can/should tamper with. Many countries have taken away freedoms in the past and it has NEVER ended well. Even in this country, when taking away freedom (the example of Japanese Canadians has already been cited) it was a failure. We took their land and livelihoods and locked them up out of fear. Now, decades later we admit that it likely did not do a thing to help security, and we are saying &#8220;oops, sorry.&#8221;

All rights are temporary. There are no guarentees in life and to decide that you are permanently entitled to a gift is ignorant bliss (or blissful ignorance if you'd prefer). We have been given certain things and they are ours for now, however they can be taken away at a moments notice... but, it is quite another to be willing to lay down ones own life to retain them. Are you willing to go that far?

First off, they can be taken away, but not without one hell of a fight. Second, and to answer your question- YES.

You have never once addressed what you think about the Constitution, or what position you see it playing in our government.

To be fair, he has stated them. It seems that he is willing to concede the rights granted by the constitution for security (I do not mean to put word onto your mouth MMM, but that is my reading of it.)

I would beg to differ on this and say that in the long run it is going to serve to strengthen the country and further I am not looking to sacrifice your freedoms, I am looking to make your true freedoms more secure.

I disagree with your premise that it will strengthen the country, but am more interested in the last sentence. I am going to ask point blank: What are the true freedoms that you think will be made more secure by taking away our&#8221; temporary &#8220;rights?

 

[dolf250]

Now on topic: The people you have asserted want security most have never said they want security. That is YOUR desire. Do not project it onto them. They, like me cherish freedom. And freedom is the farthest thing from security. Anyone who loves freedom- really adores it- knows that. You, on the other hand, would sacrifice freedom, and the blood of our forefathers for a measly peice of temporary, flimsy, insufficient security. People like you are ruining my country.

They had no pwer other than the power they took. They were rebels- criminals against the king. They wanted to overthrow the gov't. The power came later, the man who wrote this was our third president. I wish he could leave his grave and slap somebody sometimes. I wear a t-shirt with his words on the front. I have them memorized, but too many have forgotten.

I think I am in love. I have had my sig line for many years now. Shortly after 9/11 when the Canadian government followed the lead of the U.S and started restricting freedoms in the name of security I have kept the words close to my heart. A man who wrote them nearly a century ago knew how precious freedom was as he had lived without it under the British. Now in an age when we have known freedom our whole lives (unless we immigrated) we consider it disposable and temporary.

They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -B. Franklin

 

[rob_just_rob]

A) First off, I have read this that and the other thing secondly, I have every right to respond here whenever and wherever I damned well please

But of course. But if you aren't informed, nobody is going to take you seriously.

B)Well then you just go right on ahead and trust your neighbor...even as they blow up your house.

Governments are far more likely to do this than terrorists. Read the news more.

C)You made my point when you indicated GOVERNMENTS hisory of... as I stated, (although you were possibly too stupid to see it) this is not a one sided matter...government in general is dishonest, although, at times with the intent of the well being of its citizens.

Another nice try at forestalling argument. See my first point above, about not taking you seriously.

Anyway, the main goal of governments is to find additional means by which to justify their aggrandizement. Sometimes the well being of its citizens is considered incidentally, but only if the citizens force that on the government. We are doing a lousy job of standing up for ourselves... meanwhile, you are advocating doing an even worse job, by abdicating everyone's civil rights.

D)I am not trying to forestall anything , I was stating my views which as much as it may scare you and shock you is allowed here.

Scare and shock? I'm long past being scared or shocked by people who have drunk the Kool-Aid. You have you head in the sand, or perhaps somewhere less neutrally scented. And you did it again, incidentally. Do you even know how to debate, or do you just call people names?

Discussions are not necessarily one sided with all involved agreeing with one particular take on a matter. A discussion often involves MANY different and opposing viewpoints. If you do not allow that, or do not want that, then you are no better in your behavior on matters than the people you are claiming to be against.

I'm still waiting for you to join the discussion.

 

[JustAsking]

I am more than willing to cede any of my current rights if it is for the safety and protection of my country and even the entire planet.

As to the person who should make this decision; the fact is that we as a people (even a narrow majority that it was) decided that George Bush was the person who would be given both the right and the power to make many of these critical decisions.

No this is totally wrong. What we did was elect the President to defend the Consititution. That is the one oath he took when he took office. The President is a public servant and he serves at the behest of the people. This is where the worlds "of the people, by the people, for the people" come from.

 

[JustAsking]

And yet, no one on either side is addressing the real issue, which is: why are terrorists targeting (primarily) the United States and (almost as vigorously) the UK and Spain? I promise you, it has nothing to do with "them" being "jealous" of our western way of life. It has everything to do with imperialist foreign policy. OK, class, can anyone give me a paraphrased summary of Osama bin-laden's very first anti-American speech? A gold star and a lollipop to the first correct answer.

Isn't it amazing that none of the popular media has ever uttered a word about what Bin Laden writes in his treatises. You would think that we would be curious about the assertions and positions of the guy who is wreaking havoc on us. I find this amazing until I remember that the gap between Bin Laden's true concerns and the popular fairy tale about them "hating us for our freedoms" is a hugely inconvenient truth. It just doesn't play well in Peoria.

I am not saying that I am sympathetic of the guy. I am saying that we are stupid for not trying to figure out the enemy, but instead, make up fairy tales about him. What kind of idiotic war on terrorism is that?

 

[JustAsking]

The Devil is in the details, guys.

Verily!

 

[SpeedoGuy]

SpeeoGuy-I could go back through the annals of history and show how many politicians from both sides of the aisle have screwed around with laws for their own benefit; but, you would most likely be unable to understand that.

Past excesses excuse GWB's snooping and Star Chamber mentality?

E)Personal rights as such are merely a temporary gift and if a so-called right is to plan terrorist acts with no fear of being punished, then it is a right which needs to be taken away since people are abusing the gift they were given.

Rights a temporary gift, eh? Ever heard of due process? lol. And nice non-sequitur. 'Nuff said.

 

[JustAsking]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- Presidential Oath of Office, Article II of the Constitution.

​

 

[Hatched69]

Aw, come on! There's some fun to be had with this, and I'm surprised Pecker, Alex8 or Stronzo hasn't thought of this:

Call up a friend (local call so there's no long distance charges) and play porn video sound through the phone all day long back and forth. Just put the DVD on repeat, crank up the volume and let 'er rip. That'll get Big Ears scratching his head.....:smile: