NSA "spying" on Americans: Another Demosocialist witch hunt
- Thread starter progunner1957
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm sorry but I tend to be an absolutist about the BOR. So many gun nuts rant about what part of blah, blah don't you understand.
But when it comes to other rights like a free press or search - that goes out the window - but give me a Class III gun. What hypocrisy.
Let's say in 2008, Hillary becomes president. She gets through Congress a new and tighter version of the AWB. All semi auto rifles that can accept a high cap mag are banned. Turn in yours for fair compensation.
A set of Tim McVeig types attack several federal buildings and some other sites said to be liberal. Thus with the power to protect the state from all enemies domestic and foreign and with a bill passed by Congress allowing the President extend his or her powers to domestic terrorists - any member of this forum, member of the NRA, etc. are wire tapped.
Everyone who posted a 'let's fight' or 'will you fight' thread gets an exciting no knock / nor warrant visit (that will show you who's a tough guy).
Either you stand by the Constitution or you don't.
Torture is ok
Denial of free speech is ok
Warrantless wire taps and searches
Don't forget, Bush would have signed the AWB.
How many amendments can the guy go for?
Not to hijack but he would probably go for a theocracy or at least a state endorsement of his reliigion.
It's all to protect us - the cry of the totalitiarian. Unfortunately, we see a subset of Americans who think that it is better to give up the fundamentals of our society for this current 'war'.
I am all for defending this country. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support incompetents or the violations of our rights.
But when it comes to other rights like a free press or search - that goes out the window - but give me a Class III gun. What hypocrisy.
Let's say in 2008, Hillary becomes president. She gets through Congress a new and tighter version of the AWB. All semi auto rifles that can accept a high cap mag are banned. Turn in yours for fair compensation.
A set of Tim McVeig types attack several federal buildings and some other sites said to be liberal. Thus with the power to protect the state from all enemies domestic and foreign and with a bill passed by Congress allowing the President extend his or her powers to domestic terrorists - any member of this forum, member of the NRA, etc. are wire tapped.
Everyone who posted a 'let's fight' or 'will you fight' thread gets an exciting no knock / nor warrant visit (that will show you who's a tough guy).
Either you stand by the Constitution or you don't.
Torture is ok
Denial of free speech is ok
Warrantless wire taps and searches
Don't forget, Bush would have signed the AWB.
How many amendments can the guy go for?
Not to hijack but he would probably go for a theocracy or at least a state endorsement of his reliigion.
It's all to protect us - the cry of the totalitiarian. Unfortunately, we see a subset of Americans who think that it is better to give up the fundamentals of our society for this current 'war'.
I am all for defending this country. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support incompetents or the violations of our rights.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Can't believe we're still debating this on a Civil Liberties Board. I really can't. Bottom Line in regards to the case:
- US Citizens were (apparently) targeted
- Depending on where the taps were conducted, the actions may have been illegal encroachments on those citizens inalienable rights
- Had the Govt gone thru a **retroactive** application to a **secret** FISA Court, there would be nothing to talk about here. No "hobbling" of their efforts to "save Americans" from "impending attack"; no issues to make the press.
Yet, still, we have avowed Civil Libertarians arguing that the actions were necessary, prudent and reasonable.
Where else have we seen an attitude where people would like to Pick-and-Choose from the Bill of Rights when it comes to ***Other Americans***? Oh, that's right....last seen in logic coming out of The Brady Center. They're all for "reasonable" measures to "protect Americans" despite Constitutional guarantees also.
Rich
- US Citizens were (apparently) targeted
- Depending on where the taps were conducted, the actions may have been illegal encroachments on those citizens inalienable rights
- Had the Govt gone thru a **retroactive** application to a **secret** FISA Court, there would be nothing to talk about here. No "hobbling" of their efforts to "save Americans" from "impending attack"; no issues to make the press.
Yet, still, we have avowed Civil Libertarians arguing that the actions were necessary, prudent and reasonable.
Where else have we seen an attitude where people would like to Pick-and-Choose from the Bill of Rights when it comes to ***Other Americans***? Oh, that's right....last seen in logic coming out of The Brady Center. They're all for "reasonable" measures to "protect Americans" despite Constitutional guarantees also.
Rich
Breaking news today indicates that the Bush admin apparently did MUCHO MORE surveillance than they've previously indicated.
Apparently they were hijacking full data streams from both telephone and internet communications that were both inside and outside the U.S. Maybe they're monitoring (gulp) us?
The press is calling it the largest data mining operation ever conducted.
And like Rich, I can't believe that there are some who would support this madness.
Apparently they were hijacking full data streams from both telephone and internet communications that were both inside and outside the U.S. Maybe they're monitoring (gulp) us?
The press is calling it the largest data mining operation ever conducted.
And like Rich, I can't believe that there are some who would support this madness.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
We'll never be not at war again. If you support suspension of your civil liberties in "wartime", you've surrendered them for good. The War on Terror will be fought for as long as any of us are alive, and you can take that to the bank.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Rob-
Massive, huh? Now THAT would make sense, given GW's insistence that he's done nothing wrong and intends to continue the practice. Given the FISA willingness to work with the Administration, I just couldn't understand why they didn't seek those warrants. If it was a few hundred cases, only arrogance would keep you from doing the paperwork.
But mass intercepts? Say in the tens of thousands? That would certainly raise some flags in the Court and in the Senate. Having made the decision to go forward, you could hardly take all those cases to a FISA Court.
If the reports you reference are true, America is in more trouble than I thought. The 500 lb Gorrilla would be in our living rooms and the Administration would be forced into a full court press to insist that all this is necessary, not only yesterday, but tomorrow. It would only remain to be seen how many in America would say, "That's OK by me. We're at War". Judging from the reaction right here on TFL, I'm not at all certain the rest of us wouldn't be the equivalent of a lone voice in the wilderness.
Rich
Massive, huh? Now THAT would make sense, given GW's insistence that he's done nothing wrong and intends to continue the practice. Given the FISA willingness to work with the Administration, I just couldn't understand why they didn't seek those warrants. If it was a few hundred cases, only arrogance would keep you from doing the paperwork.
But mass intercepts? Say in the tens of thousands? That would certainly raise some flags in the Court and in the Senate. Having made the decision to go forward, you could hardly take all those cases to a FISA Court.
If the reports you reference are true, America is in more trouble than I thought. The 500 lb Gorrilla would be in our living rooms and the Administration would be forced into a full court press to insist that all this is necessary, not only yesterday, but tomorrow. It would only remain to be seen how many in America would say, "That's OK by me. We're at War". Judging from the reaction right here on TFL, I'm not at all certain the rest of us wouldn't be the equivalent of a lone voice in the wilderness.
Rich
Rich, it's another NYT article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/p...=1135400400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/p...=1135400400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The NSA was authorized to monitor persons within the USA who were known to be in contact with Al-Qaeda terrorists outside the USA, plain and simple."
Maybe I'm tired and overly full from a day of holiday festivities, but how was it known that these people in the United States were in contact with AQ terrorists outside of the USA in the first place?
Maybe I'm tired and overly full from a day of holiday festivities, but how was it known that these people in the United States were in contact with AQ terrorists outside of the USA in the first place?
We have agents of enemy foreign powers operating on our soil, plotting attacks against our citizens. This is not theoretical or hypothetical, it is actual fact. All this hand-waving about "we will never not be at war" is just so much rhetorical bushwah.
War is not fought with warrants and subpoenas, it is fought by identifying and taking out the enemy. The enemy:
Lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta was a naturalized US citizen. Iyman Faris, now in jail for his involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge, is also.
The lack of major attacks in the US since 9/11 is not symptomatic of a shortcoming of the enemy's will or desire, it represents a victory of our defensive force.
If it is revealed that there has been extensive espionage undertaken not for purposes of military and foreign intelligence, but rather for the sake of cupidity and political advantage as was done under the Clinton administration, if there has been random, baseless monitoring of targets not even tangentially related to those aims, then I may be moved to reconsider.
And perhaps it's true that the FISA Court should have been used more extensively to rubber-stamp ongoing surveillance operations against enemy agents, but I don't believe that a failure to do so in weilding Article II War Powers by the executive under the aegis of Congressional authorization represents a "high crime or misdemeanor."
War is not fought with warrants and subpoenas, it is fought by identifying and taking out the enemy. The enemy:
Lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta was a naturalized US citizen. Iyman Faris, now in jail for his involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge, is also.
The lack of major attacks in the US since 9/11 is not symptomatic of a shortcoming of the enemy's will or desire, it represents a victory of our defensive force.
Publius said:
If it is revealed that there has been extensive espionage undertaken not for purposes of military and foreign intelligence, but rather for the sake of cupidity and political advantage as was done under the Clinton administration, if there has been random, baseless monitoring of targets not even tangentially related to those aims, then I may be moved to reconsider.
And perhaps it's true that the FISA Court should have been used more extensively to rubber-stamp ongoing surveillance operations against enemy agents, but I don't believe that a failure to do so in weilding Article II War Powers by the executive under the aegis of Congressional authorization represents a "high crime or misdemeanor."
The capture of al-Zarqawi's laptop computer in Iraq yeilded a trove of telephone numbers and other contact information for the organization, which were used to establish the surveillance and identify enemy agents living in the US and elsewhere.Mike Irwin said:
When the cops did a drug bust on a neighbor's apartment back in my college days, they cleared out the black & whites from the parking lot after hauling off the dealers, and left a team waiting in the apartment through the rest of the night to apprehend the steady stream of drug buyers as well. Same basic idea.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
"rhetorical bushwah" would be showing pictures of American Jetliners crashing into American buildings and inferring that the only preventive is to allow the Executive Branch to do "anything necessary" to keep us safe; no need for Fourth Amendment guarantees.
"rhetorical bushwah" would be to show statistics of children killed by firearms and infer that the only preventive is to allow the Legislative Branch to do "anything necessary" to keep us safe; no need for Second Amendment guarantees.
Be careful what you ask for....others are applying your own logic to their own ends. Once your countrymen buy into your logic, they will certainly buy into others' ends.
Rich
"rhetorical bushwah" would be to show statistics of children killed by firearms and infer that the only preventive is to allow the Legislative Branch to do "anything necessary" to keep us safe; no need for Second Amendment guarantees.
Be careful what you ask for....others are applying your own logic to their own ends. Once your countrymen buy into your logic, they will certainly buy into others' ends.
From your lips to God's Ear.
Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Oh, and ps....
I don't know how extensive this monitoring has been. But some reports would indicate that it wasn't limited to a "phone list from a terrorist computer". Rather, it was a broad brush, data mining op.
So, let's ask ourselves a question:
If American Citizens were to be targeted due to faulty "analysis" or misleading "evidence", who would they most likely be? I mean, of all the telephony and internet traffic between the US and Iraq or Afghanistan, who are the most likely callers?
If you replied "American Soldiers on the front lines in their private conversations with their families", you'd be right about on the money.
http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/pages/1/index.htm
Pretty ugly thought on a Christmas Eve, huh?
Rich
I don't know how extensive this monitoring has been. But some reports would indicate that it wasn't limited to a "phone list from a terrorist computer". Rather, it was a broad brush, data mining op.
So, let's ask ourselves a question:
If American Citizens were to be targeted due to faulty "analysis" or misleading "evidence", who would they most likely be? I mean, of all the telephony and internet traffic between the US and Iraq or Afghanistan, who are the most likely callers?
If you replied "American Soldiers on the front lines in their private conversations with their families", you'd be right about on the money.
http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/pages/1/index.htm
Pretty ugly thought on a Christmas Eve, huh?
Rich
Guy B. Meredith
New member
That "mucho more" monitoring appears to be a check of where calls were going, study of patterns that would indicate individuals likely to be communicating with bad guys offshore. Basically a search of telephone bills.
Frankly, I can't get excited about that. No content exposed, nada. The people who are supposed to do a job need the tools. I would be interested in how anyone who has an issue with faulty pre September 11, 2001 intelligence and is in a row now would suggest the intelligence be collected. Clarvoyance? Naw, that would probably be illegal, too.
Frankly, I can't get excited about that. No content exposed, nada. The people who are supposed to do a job need the tools. I would be interested in how anyone who has an issue with faulty pre September 11, 2001 intelligence and is in a row now would suggest the intelligence be collected. Clarvoyance? Naw, that would probably be illegal, too.
The United States Supreme Court has allowed law enforcement a list of exception to the 4th Amendment that is as long as your arm. Every item on the list is many times more intrusive than anything the NSA has, or is doing.
As a matter of fact, the NSA has been monitoring electronic communications for years, under many different Presidents and Congresses. Anyone with the right equipment can do similar monitoring. If a communication is detected that possibly requires action, that is when the court comes into play. The only reason this is now an issue is because it suits the purpose of the liberal, socialist, traitorous Democrat Party. And that purpose is to discredit a President who vowed to do everything in his power to prevent another 9/11. If that constitutes a violation of someones civil rights sensitivities, I guess they can run for office and try to change things.
As a matter of fact, the NSA has been monitoring electronic communications for years, under many different Presidents and Congresses. Anyone with the right equipment can do similar monitoring. If a communication is detected that possibly requires action, that is when the court comes into play. The only reason this is now an issue is because it suits the purpose of the liberal, socialist, traitorous Democrat Party. And that purpose is to discredit a President who vowed to do everything in his power to prevent another 9/11. If that constitutes a violation of someones civil rights sensitivities, I guess they can run for office and try to change things.
A COUPLE OF APPROPRIATE QUOTES FROM OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONALIST.
"First they arrested the communist --- but I was not a commie so I did nothing--then they arrested the trade unionist -- and I did nothing because I was not one---then they came and arreste the socialist democrates, but I was not one so I did nothing. And then they came for the jews and catholics but I was neither jew or catholic and I did nothing. At lastd they came and arrested me--and there was no one left to do anything about it." Rev. Martin Niemoller; Survivor Nazi Prison Camp
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the quise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
"That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only umpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonabel to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt
gwb swore, on the bible, not once but twice to "uphold the constitution of the United States" not to "protect the citizens of the United states."
"First they arrested the communist --- but I was not a commie so I did nothing--then they arrested the trade unionist -- and I did nothing because I was not one---then they came and arreste the socialist democrates, but I was not one so I did nothing. And then they came for the jews and catholics but I was neither jew or catholic and I did nothing. At lastd they came and arrested me--and there was no one left to do anything about it." Rev. Martin Niemoller; Survivor Nazi Prison Camp
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the quise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
"That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only umpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonabel to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt
gwb swore, on the bible, not once but twice to "uphold the constitution of the United States" not to "protect the citizens of the United states."
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Some of you could be walked into slavery, I'm afraid..."
+25 with a bullet
+25 with a bullet
magooch:
yeah how dare the traitorous, liberals stick up for our rights.
maybe you should look around some more, I believe this has been upsetting people on both sides of the isle.
furthermore, to all of you who think bush is doing this great job "protecting" us, using any means necessary(i.e. illegal stuff). why are the borders open? can you answer me that? I am pretty sure protecting the borders would be legal. why is this not done, and something that is questionably legal is done instead? There are more mistakes being made but that one is a glaring example.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm sorry to say that for a set of 'gun' advocates, the only right they really care about is to play 'gun' boy. They are perfectly happy to have an authoritarian government impose restrictions on civil liberties and personal behavior as long as those restrictions match their personal authoritarian hangups.
Their response has no philosophical depth beyond cursing about 'liberals' in a manner similar to the way the term 'Jews' was used in Nazi Germany. There is no consideration of the points made that losing liberty is a greater long term risk to our freedoms than a terrorist attack.
Nor can they conceive that those powers may be used against them. Remember, you are the folks demanding the right to possess very lethal weapons. You post that you will fight!! That's a clear threat to the state.
We are seeing a clear split in the 'conservative' movement between those who understand liberty and those who are purely authoritarians and would relish a tough guy who would kick the butt of those who don't agree. Who cares about the Constitution?
I was watching Fox (all hail the Leader) news, Fred Barnes was interviewing some Bush apologist. Fred sez to the lackey - "Some people seem to have a fetish about civil liberties" - a great quote in his denouciation of the criticism of this activity. That sums it up. Fred, Ann, etc. are totalitarians at heart - the leader is all and suppression of those who don't fit their social conservative agenda is fine and dandy.
We are seeing now whether America needs a homegrown, grounded in 'God' variant of the Taliban as the ideal conservative or a movement grounded in principles that respect liberties and understand the Constitution.
Their response has no philosophical depth beyond cursing about 'liberals' in a manner similar to the way the term 'Jews' was used in Nazi Germany. There is no consideration of the points made that losing liberty is a greater long term risk to our freedoms than a terrorist attack.
Nor can they conceive that those powers may be used against them. Remember, you are the folks demanding the right to possess very lethal weapons. You post that you will fight!! That's a clear threat to the state.
We are seeing a clear split in the 'conservative' movement between those who understand liberty and those who are purely authoritarians and would relish a tough guy who would kick the butt of those who don't agree. Who cares about the Constitution?
I was watching Fox (all hail the Leader) news, Fred Barnes was interviewing some Bush apologist. Fred sez to the lackey - "Some people seem to have a fetish about civil liberties" - a great quote in his denouciation of the criticism of this activity. That sums it up. Fred, Ann, etc. are totalitarians at heart - the leader is all and suppression of those who don't fit their social conservative agenda is fine and dandy.
We are seeing now whether America needs a homegrown, grounded in 'God' variant of the Taliban as the ideal conservative or a movement grounded in principles that respect liberties and understand the Constitution.