Discussion:
Dem victory could kill country
(too old to reply)
Crescentius Vespasianus
2006-05-12 18:29:00 UTC
Permalink
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago. Leftist extremists have taken over the party since then, and
their agenda when they take power in November will reflect that new
extremism. Impeachment, Black reparations, immigrant amnesty, and surrender
in Iraq are the items at the top of their list. The Democrat run Congress
will be the most divisive since 1860, which proceeded the Civil War. But
before you vote Democrat, because you think President Bush is listening in
on your conversation with your crack dealer, you should consider what the
public reaction will be to this extemist Democrat agenda. It could end the
Democrat party, and a reversal of all social legislation since FDR.
Amanda Williams
2006-05-12 18:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago. Leftist extremists have taken over the party since then,
and their agenda when they take power in November will reflect that
new extremism. Impeachment, Black reparations, immigrant amnesty, and
surrender in Iraq are the items at the top of their list. The
Democrat run Congress will be the most divisive since 1860, which
proceeded the Civil War. But before you vote Democrat, because you
think President Bush is listening in on your conversation with your
crack dealer, you should consider what the public reaction will be to
this extemist Democrat agenda. It could end the Democrat party, and a
reversal of all social legislation since FDR.
rotfl......

KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....
KOOK-KOO.... KOOK-KOO....

"hand-job" has finally lost it... rotfl...

--
AW

<small but dangerous>
eldorado
2006-05-12 19:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda Williams
"hand-job" has finally lost it... rotfl...
Finally? He lost it long ago.
--
Randomly generated signature --
It takes courage to be happy
jps
2006-05-12 19:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago. Leftist extremists have taken over the party since then, and
their agenda when they take power in November will reflect that new
extremism. Impeachment, Black reparations, immigrant amnesty, and surrender
in Iraq are the items at the top of their list. The Democrat run Congress
will be the most divisive since 1860, which proceeded the Civil War. But
before you vote Democrat, because you think President Bush is listening in
on your conversation with your crack dealer, you should consider what the
public reaction will be to this extemist Democrat agenda. It could end the
Democrat party, and a reversal of all social legislation since FDR.
Your Chicken Little routine would be far better if focused on the
current administration that's already committed America to digging out
of a endless pit of debt and political misery as a result of poorly
formed and executed wet dreams of neocon world domination.

Republicans have proven they're far better at running elections than the
country. They can't keep their grubby hands out of the till or off the
trigger.

jps
Crescentius Vespasianus
2006-05-12 22:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jps
Your Chicken Little routine
------------
Chicken Little as in, you think President Bush is listening to your
phone conversations too?
C***@KNICKLAS.COM
2006-05-13 00:09:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 May 2006 22:46:07 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Post by jps
Your Chicken Little routine
------------
Chicken Little as in, you think President Bush is listening to your
phone conversations too?
Dunnor about anyone else, but your "conversations" are
muffled by whatever rightwing asshole you have your
head stuck in, HAND-JOB.
Corky K
2006-05-12 21:50:11 UTC
Permalink
After some prolonged rumbling, "Crescentius Vespasianus"
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago. Leftist extremists have taken over the party since then, and
their agenda when they take power in November will reflect that new
extremism. Impeachment, Black reparations, immigrant amnesty, and surrender
in Iraq are the items at the top of their list. The Democrat run Congress
will be the most divisive since 1860, which proceeded the Civil War. But
before you vote Democrat, because you think President Bush is listening in
on your conversation with your crack dealer, you should consider what the
public reaction will be to this extemist Democrat agenda. It could end the
Democrat party, and a reversal of all social legislation since FDR.
Hey, if Ali Baba Bush and his 40 thieves couldn't kill the country after trying
continually, a couple of liberal Repulicans can't possibly hurt. But seriously,
is either party what it used to be?


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
C***@KNICKLAS.COM
2006-05-13 00:08:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago.
You stupid cocksucker, HANDJOB

It's "not the same party" after we supported Civil
rights, women's rights, handicapped rights, and all the
conservatives left to "change" the Republican party to
a party of racist, homophobic, bigots and greedy
assholes.

And that was LONG before "12 years ago"
Yeah_Right
2006-05-13 20:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@KNICKLAS.COM
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago.
You stupid cocksucker, HANDJOB
It's "not the same party" after we supported Civil
rights, women's rights, handicapped rights, and all the
conservatives left to "change" the Republican party to
a party of racist, homophobic, bigots and greedy
assholes.
And that was LONG before "12 years ago"
Actually the Dems were across the board against any civil rights for
Blacks back in the day.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats
opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By
contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96
percent of the votes.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had
a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

It's true. Look it up. But I know that some "Lib" will just call me a
stupid White conservative Or something worse because that is all they
know how to do. When presented with actual verifiable FACTS that are
against what they have been Brainwashed to believe they get angry,
Lash out and call names.

Have a nice day!
eldorado
2006-05-13 20:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yeah_Right
Post by C***@KNICKLAS.COM
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
The Democrat party is not the same party it was, when it lost power 12
years ago.
You stupid cocksucker, HANDJOB
It's "not the same party" after we supported Civil
rights, women's rights, handicapped rights, and all the
conservatives left to "change" the Republican party to
a party of racist, homophobic, bigots and greedy
assholes.
And that was LONG before "12 years ago"
Actually the Dems were across the board against any civil rights for
Blacks back in the day.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats
opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By
contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96
percent of the votes.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had
a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
It's true. Look it up. But I know that some "Lib" will just call me a
stupid White conservative Or something worse because that is all they
know how to do. When presented with actual verifiable FACTS that are
against what they have been Brainwashed to believe they get angry,
Lash out and call names.
Have a nice day!
1933? Yeah, you might be correct - I really don't care to look up stats
that far back. It wasn't until the nixon administration that the
republicans came upon the 'southern strategy'.

Not sure why any "lib" would get upset over ancient history.
--
Randomly generated signature --
Marijuana, pornography and illegal labor account for 10% of the American economy.
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-13 00:52:50 UTC
Permalink
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.

If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
ray
2006-05-13 01:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-13 07:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
ray
2006-05-13 11:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-13 17:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
ray
2006-05-13 18:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-15 21:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
First of all: You weren't being addressed. You responded to my post.

Second of all: I happen to believe that the US is well on the way to
being a police state, and might even qualify, given the recent news
that the NSA is looking at the phone records of the press. If you want
to discuss this issue with me, please offer a criticism, rather than a
fallacious ad hominem argument.

The fact remains that the Republican President is a lawless ideologue,
the Republican congress doesn't wish to upset him, and the American
system of government is currently being ruined absolutely by
Republicans.

If you wish to ask me what specifics I'm talking about, now would be a
good time. If you don't, then please continue to act like a child.
ray
2006-05-15 23:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks
to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican
Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the
erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the
world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other
nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's
the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
First of all: You weren't being addressed. You responded to my post.
Second of all: I happen to believe that the US is well on the way to
being a police state, and might even qualify, given the recent news
that the NSA is looking at the phone records of the press. If you want
to discuss this issue with me, please offer a criticism, rather than a
fallacious ad hominem argument.
The fact remains that the Republican President is a lawless ideologue,
the Republican congress doesn't wish to upset him, and the American
system of government is currently being ruined absolutely by
Republicans.
If you wish to ask me what specifics I'm talking about, now would be a
good time. If you don't, then please continue to act like a child.
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.

What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.

But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers. At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 00:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks
to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican
Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the
erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws
and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the
foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the
world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other
nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's
the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
First of all: You weren't being addressed. You responded to my post.
Second of all: I happen to believe that the US is well on the way to
being a police state, and might even qualify, given the recent news
that the NSA is looking at the phone records of the press. If you want
to discuss this issue with me, please offer a criticism, rather than a
fallacious ad hominem argument.
The fact remains that the Republican President is a lawless ideologue,
the Republican congress doesn't wish to upset him, and the American
system of government is currently being ruined absolutely by
Republicans.
If you wish to ask me what specifics I'm talking about, now would be a
good time. If you don't, then please continue to act like a child.
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.

Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
ray
2006-05-16 00:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
In article
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack,
thanks
to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican
Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded
the
erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important
laws
and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the
foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to
the
world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of
other
nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause,
it's
the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really
did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than
the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
First of all: You weren't being addressed. You responded to my post.
Second of all: I happen to believe that the US is well on the way to
being a police state, and might even qualify, given the recent news
that the NSA is looking at the phone records of the press. If you want
to discuss this issue with me, please offer a criticism, rather than a
fallacious ad hominem argument.
The fact remains that the Republican President is a lawless ideologue,
the Republican congress doesn't wish to upset him, and the American
system of government is currently being ruined absolutely by
Republicans.
If you wish to ask me what specifics I'm talking about, now would be a
good time. If you don't, then please continue to act like a child.
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
To be able to recognize patterns in phone conversations with terrorists.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Not at all. You don't need a court order to follow people around and
note where they have been. Private Detectives do it all the time with
no court order.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all. Keep in mind, the Government
cannot press charges against anybody or anything if they did not
previously have a warrant for any activity they used to gain evidence.
If they did try to bring charges against anybody and it went to court,
it would be thrown out in two minutes.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 01:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
In article
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack,
thanks
to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican
Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded
the
erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important
laws
and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the
foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to
the
world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of
other
nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause,
it's
the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really
did a
number on you, didn't they?
What is your specific criticism of what I have written? Please
criticise a point of fact. Offer a rational argument, rather than
the
ad hominem you've presented.
Oh, you mean be as specific as you?
If you have a specific criticism, please offer it. I will address it
specifically. I realize that it can be a shock to realize that you
voted in a police state to oppress yourself, but you're going to have
to come to terms with it so we can all work together and end it.
So deal with facts. Ask me what I mean, rather than gawking like a
three-year-old.
I'm only responding in the way I was addressed. If you make such a
blanket accusation, don't be too surprised on getting a blanket
response. In no way did your post include any specifics.
First of all: You weren't being addressed. You responded to my post.
Second of all: I happen to believe that the US is well on the way to
being a police state, and might even qualify, given the recent news
that the NSA is looking at the phone records of the press. If you want
to discuss this issue with me, please offer a criticism, rather than a
fallacious ad hominem argument.
The fact remains that the Republican President is a lawless ideologue,
the Republican congress doesn't wish to upset him, and the American
system of government is currently being ruined absolutely by
Republicans.
If you wish to ask me what specifics I'm talking about, now would be a
good time. If you don't, then please continue to act like a child.
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
Wrong. It is illegal FOR THE COMPANY to provide that information.
Telecom companies are forbidden from providing phone records without
court order of some kind. It's not illegal to ask, but it's illegal for
the companies to comply.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
To be able to recognize patterns in phone conversations with terrorists.
...in which you said no one is targeted, but now you say terrorists are
targeted. Make up your mind.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Not at all. You don't need a court order to follow people around and
note where they have been. Private Detectives do it all the time with
no court order.
The topic is wiretapping. A warrant is required.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all.
Are you really that stupid? Monitoring happens *for a reason.* Without
a system of checks and balances, the reason for the monitoring might be
illegal or abusive. It turns out the administration has abused this
power already.
Post by ray
Keep in mind, the Government
cannot press charges against anybody or anything if they did not
previously have a warrant for any activity they used to gain evidence.
If they did try to bring charges against anybody and it went to court,
it would be thrown out in two minutes.
The same government which says that warrantless wiretaps are legal has
also stated that the President can declare US citizens to be enemy
combatants or terrorists and have them locked up for years. This has
already happened.

Which leads me back to my original post: The Republican-led government
has transformed our democratic republic into a police state.

What are you going to do about it?
ray
2006-05-16 02:28:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul Mitchum" <***@mile23.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
Wrong. It is illegal FOR THE COMPANY to provide that information.
Telecom companies are forbidden from providing phone records without
court order of some kind. It's not illegal to ask, but it's illegal for
the companies to comply.
Not really. If you remember not too long ago, they were considering
selling cell phone numbers to phone solicitors. In fact, making
printouts of names and numbers. There was no illegality there but the
cell phone companies became concerned of losing customers if they
participated.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
To be able to recognize patterns in phone conversations with terrorists.
...in which you said no one is targeted, but now you say terrorists are
targeted. Make up your mind.
And I stand behind that. These records are to surface patterns of
callers and no one person in mind. Now if they find something
suspicious, they may proceed to the next step but so far, that hasn't
happened.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Not at all. You don't need a court order to follow people around and
note where they have been. Private Detectives do it all the time with
no court order.
The topic is wiretapping. A warrant is required.
And I responded to your comment about police needing a warrant to
conduct surveillance of a drug house.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all.
Are you really that stupid? Monitoring happens *for a reason.* Without
a system of checks and balances, the reason for the monitoring might be
illegal or abusive. It turns out the administration has abused this
power already.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I don't think this President
nor anybody else would dare make a legal move against a person not
associated with the terrorists using this information. Instead of
creating what, ifs and buts, why don't we wait until that happens before
we take that step?
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Keep in mind, the Government
cannot press charges against anybody or anything if they did not
previously have a warrant for any activity they used to gain evidence.
If they did try to bring charges against anybody and it went to court,
it would be thrown out in two minutes.
The same government which says that warrantless wiretaps are legal has
also stated that the President can declare US citizens to be enemy
combatants or terrorists and have them locked up for years. This has
already happened.
Which leads me back to my original post: The Republican-led government
has transformed our democratic republic into a police state.
What are you going to do about it?
I don't know. But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do about it, and
that is help the terrorists conduct activity within our borders simply
because by some chance, I may be one of the 300 million people in this
country this administration plans to monitor. And don't "Republican"
this or that, the next President just may be a Democrat and that is
something I took into consideration before taking this stance.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 03:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
Wrong. It is illegal FOR THE COMPANY to provide that information.
Telecom companies are forbidden from providing phone records without
court order of some kind. It's not illegal to ask, but it's illegal for
the companies to comply.
Not really.
Yes, really. <http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html#s2703>
Post by ray
If you remember not too long ago, they were considering
selling cell phone numbers to phone solicitors. In fact, making
printouts of names and numbers. There was no illegality there but the
cell phone companies became concerned of losing customers if they
participated.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. So why'd you
bring it up?
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
To be able to recognize patterns in phone conversations with terrorists.
...in which you said no one is targeted, but now you say terrorists are
targeted. Make up your mind.
And I stand behind that.
<chortle>
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Not at all. You don't need a court order to follow people around and
note where they have been. Private Detectives do it all the time with
no court order.
The topic is wiretapping. A warrant is required.
And I responded to your comment about police needing a warrant to
conduct surveillance of a drug house.
My response was within the context of wiretapping.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all.
Are you really that stupid? Monitoring happens *for a reason.* Without
a system of checks and balances, the reason for the monitoring might be
illegal or abusive. It turns out the administration has abused this
power already.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I don't think this President
nor anybody else would dare make a legal move against a person not
associated with the terrorists using this information.
That's not my worry, which you well know.
Post by ray
Instead of
creating what, ifs and buts, why don't we wait until that happens before
we take that step?
Maybe you don't read the news, but the Bush administration has been
keeping track of the callling records of journalists.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Keep in mind, the Government
cannot press charges against anybody or anything if they did not
previously have a warrant for any activity they used to gain evidence.
If they did try to bring charges against anybody and it went to court,
it would be thrown out in two minutes.
The same government which says that warrantless wiretaps are legal has
also stated that the President can declare US citizens to be enemy
combatants or terrorists and have them locked up for years. This has
already happened.
Which leads me back to my original post: The Republican-led government
has transformed our democratic republic into a police state.
What are you going to do about it?
I don't know. But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do about it, and
that is help the terrorists conduct activity within our borders simply
because by some chance, I may be one of the 300 million people in this
country this administration plans to monitor. And don't "Republican"
this or that, the next President just may be a Democrat and that is
something I took into consideration before taking this stance.
REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THIS. Democrats are powerless. Republicans are
creating, and might well already have created a police state.
ray
2006-05-17 00:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police
state
is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
Wrong. It is illegal FOR THE COMPANY to provide that information.
Telecom companies are forbidden from providing phone records without
court order of some kind. It's not illegal to ask, but it's illegal for
the companies to comply.
Not really.
Yes, really. <http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html#s2703>
Well, as far as I have read, there is no law that states the Government
"must" get a warrant or court order first. The words they use are
"can." But besides that, according to this site, the Government may
request records older than 180 days or more. According to the reports
in the media, most of the communication companies complied with the
request. This of course means they were not forced to release such
records by court order. One company denied this access to their
records.

I think what is pointed out in these regulations is what the Government
has to do to confiscate such records because there is nothing in these
rules that prohibit the providers to release these records without a
court order.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If you remember not too long ago, they were considering
selling cell phone numbers to phone solicitors. In fact, making
printouts of names and numbers. There was no illegality there but the
cell phone companies became concerned of losing customers if they
participated.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. So why'd you
bring it up?
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls. At this time, nobody is
targeted for any reason.
Let's assume that what you say is true, OK? If 'nobody is targeted,'
then WHY IS ANYONE COLLECTING ANYTHING?
To be able to recognize patterns in phone conversations with terrorists.
...in which you said no one is targeted, but now you say terrorists are
targeted. Make up your mind.
And I stand behind that.
<chortle>
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
...WITH A COURT ORDER AND/OR WARRANT.
Not at all. You don't need a court order to follow people around and
note where they have been. Private Detectives do it all the time with
no court order.
The topic is wiretapping. A warrant is required.
And I responded to your comment about police needing a warrant to
conduct surveillance of a drug house.
My response was within the context of wiretapping.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
At times,
they spend several months and even over a year to monitor activity of a
Crack House to find the king pin in the whole organization. They
identify the people who visit the house whether or not they are buying
or selling drugs.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all.
Are you really that stupid? Monitoring happens *for a reason.* Without
a system of checks and balances, the reason for the monitoring might be
illegal or abusive. It turns out the administration has abused this
power already.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I don't think this President
nor anybody else would dare make a legal move against a person not
associated with the terrorists using this information.
That's not my worry, which you well know.
Well if this isn't your worry, what is?
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Instead of
creating what, ifs and buts, why don't we wait until that happens before
we take that step?
Maybe you don't read the news, but the Bush administration has been
keeping track of the callling records of journalists.
And your problem with that is???? After all, with all the crap that
came out about our military prisons, the NSA surveillance and even this
record collections tells you that the press is getting their information
from somebody or somewhere. After all, if it were anybody else but the
press releasing this information, they would be brought up on treason
charges. The only reason the media can get away with it is because of
Freedom of the Press, but that doesn't make it any less damaging to this
country.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Keep in mind, the Government
cannot press charges against anybody or anything if they did not
previously have a warrant for any activity they used to gain evidence.
If they did try to bring charges against anybody and it went to court,
it would be thrown out in two minutes.
The same government which says that warrantless wiretaps are legal has
also stated that the President can declare US citizens to be enemy
combatants or terrorists and have them locked up for years. This has
already happened.
Which leads me back to my original post: The Republican-led government
has transformed our democratic republic into a police state.
What are you going to do about it?
I don't know. But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do about it, and
that is help the terrorists conduct activity within our borders simply
because by some chance, I may be one of the 300 million people in this
country this administration plans to monitor. And don't "Republican"
this or that, the next President just may be a Democrat and that is
something I took into consideration before taking this stance.
REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THIS. Democrats are powerless. Republicans are
creating, and might well already have created a police state.
And you suspect that if a Democrat gets in in 08, this surveillance may
be put to a halt? I certainly don't expect that, why should you? As
far as I'm concerned, if the President (Republican or Democrat) is
conducting these activities for the sole purpose of locating terrorists
or terrorists plots, God love them. I have no problem with this.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-17 06:52:10 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
I certainly don't see anything wrong with our Government doing the
same
to track terrorists in our very own country.
It's interesting that you think anyone is against that.
Actually, it's not interesting at all. It's simply stupid for you to
believe anyone is against that.
But these two situations are very similar if not exact. The Government
is monitoring activity and that's all.
Are you really that stupid? Monitoring happens *for a reason.* Without
a system of checks and balances, the reason for the monitoring might be
illegal or abusive. It turns out the administration has abused this
power already.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I don't think this President
nor anybody else would dare make a legal move against a person not
associated with the terrorists using this information.
That's not my worry, which you well know.
Well if this isn't your worry, what is?
I want you to re-read the above-quoted material in order to find the
answer to that.

If you were interested in having a discussion about this issue, you'd
keep straight what you're responding to.
Clave
2006-05-17 08:05:58 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Mitchum" <***@mile23.com> wrote in message news:***@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<...>
Post by Paul Mitchum
If you were interested in having a discussion about this issue, you'd
keep straight what you're responding to.
He's not alone.

It's flail and distract all over lately. Gosh, I wonder why.

The polls, falling wages, increasing wealth disparity, record gas prices
coupled with record oil company profits (the two are *not* related, you
fools -- trust us), Iraq (fudged casualty numbers, UNTALLIED "collateral
damage" numbers, Abu Ghraib, secret fly-ins, turkee, permanent bases...),
the Rove indictment, the Libby indictment, the Cunningham conviction,
Tom "I've never done anything for personal gain" DeLay stepping down
to spare his constituents a "negative campaign" (again with reality's
liberal bias), Hookergate, even what few relatively clean GOP
congresscritters there are scurrying away from Bush like hell won't have
it, Telcos and the gubmint in a circle-jerk giving government all the
phone records it wants in exchange for control of teh internets, the
President saying RIGHT OUT LOUD that he doesn't have to obey the law...

It's all spun their collective cognitive dissonance up to the point
where the bearings themselves (that baffling, unshakable, so-fucking-far-
out-of-the-mainstream 25%) are making really unpleasant choking noises in
spite of themselves.

That's just what's been going on *lately*, and that's just off the top
of my head.

If you're a True Believer, that's a pretty big Bucket o'Shit to carry and
deny you're carrying all at the same time.


Anyone got a list of the Bush administration's *positive*
accomplishments?

Bonus points for lists that:

1) You're actually proud of

2) Don't contain easily-disproven lies or semantic obfuscation

3) Contain *anything* to do with the environment not excluded by 1)
and 2)

4) Don't refer to a post-9/11 lack of terrorist attacks in the US
more easily explained by a Bush/bin Laden collusion

5) Don't refer to the tax cuts that so far have lifted all yachts.

6) Don't misrepresent what's going on in Iraq

6a) Don't pretend that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11

6b) Don't pretend that invading Iraq had anything to do with
the so-called "war on terror"

6c) Don't pretend that Bush isn't establishing a permanent
military presence there (unless you want to argue that
it's already a done deal)

6d) Exception made and special bonus points awarded for anyone
with the balls to admit that they *like* the lawless money
drain Bush has made of Iraq

The usual But-Clinton and But-Kennedy disqualifications apply.

Jim
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-17 08:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Clave wrote:
[..]
Post by Clave
Anyone got a list of the Bush administration's *positive*
accomplishments?
1) You're actually proud of
[..]
Post by Clave
Jim
The US is a nation that has not found a leader. That's our real crisis.
There should be a Department of Homeland Leadership, though fuckin'-A I
hope they don't call it that.
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 04:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Wrong. It is illegal FOR THE COMPANY to provide that information.
Telecom companies are forbidden from providing phone records without
court order of some kind. It's not illegal to ask, but it's illegal for
the companies to comply.
Not really.
Yes, really.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > § 2702 Prev | Next

§ 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Prohibitions.- Except as provided in subsection (b)-
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the
public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public
shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any
communication which is carried or maintained on that service-
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or
created by means of computer processing of communications received by means
of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing
services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized
to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing
any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication
service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not
including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to
any governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions for disclosure of communications.- A provider described in
subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication-
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent
of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511 (2)(a), or 2703 of this
title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended
recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote
computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to
forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the
protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(6) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in connection
with a report submitted thereto under section 227 of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13032);
(7) to a law enforcement agency-
(A) if the contents-
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
[(B) Repealed. Pub. L. 108-21, title V, § 508(b)(1)(A), Apr. 30, 2003, 117
Stat. 684]
(8) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in
good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious
physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of
communications relating to the emergency.
(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.- A provider described in
subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))-
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the
protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an
emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to
any person justifies disclosure of the information;
(5) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in connection
with a report submitted thereto under section 227 of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13032); or
(6) to any person other than a governmental entity.



U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2703 Required disclosure of customer
communications or records


Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic
Storage. - A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a
provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in
an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days
or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures
described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court
with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or
equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the
disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of
the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in
electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more
than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under
subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote
Computing Service. - (1) A governmental entity may require a
provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of
any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is
made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection -
without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if
the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the
procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation
or equivalent State warrant; or
(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the
subscriber or customer if the governmental entity -
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal
or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial
subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under
subsection (d) of this section;
except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705
of this title.
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or
electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service
-
on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of
communications received by means of electronic transmission
from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service;
and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
communications for purposes of providing any services other than
storage or computer processing.
(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote
Computing Service. - (1) A governmental entity may require a
provider of electronic communication service or remote computing
service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the
contents of communications) only when the governmental entity -
obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with
jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent
State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection
(d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such
disclosure; or (FOOTNOTE 1)
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. The word ''or'' probably should
not appear.
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law
enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the
name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer
of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in
telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this
title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote
computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the -
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or
records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of
service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number
or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address;
and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any
credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the
governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a
Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial
subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under
this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber
or customer.
(d) Requirements for Court Order. - A court order for disclosure
under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a
court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the
governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, or the records or other
information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing
criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental
authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the
law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this
section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may
quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested
are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order
otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.
(e) No Cause of Action Against a Provider Disclosing Information
Under This Chapter. - No cause of action shall lie in any court
against any provider of wire or electronic communication service,
its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for
providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with
the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory
authorization, or certification under this chapter.
(f) Requirement To Preserve Evidence. -
(1) In general. - A provider of wire or electronic
communication services or a remote computing service, upon the
request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps
to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending
the issuance of a court order or other process.
(2) Period of retention. - Records referred to in paragraph (1)
shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be
extended for an additional 90-day period upon a renewed request
by the governmental entity.
(g) Presence of Officer Not Required. - Notwithstanding section
3105 of this title, the presence of an officer shall not be
required for service or execution of a search warrant issued in
accordance with this chapter requiring disclosure by a provider of
electronic communications service or remote computing service of
the contents of communications or records or other information
pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2703
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 02:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
It is illegal for phone companies to provide their records to the
government without a court order.
No, it isn't. All they need is the cooperation of the provider as they
did.
False. In fact the law specifically prohibits the telcos from providing
that information to any government entity without proper legal process:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > § 2702 Prev | Next

§ 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Prohibitions.- Except as provided in subsection (b)-
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the
public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public
shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any
communication which is carried or maintained on that service-
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or
created by means of computer processing of communications received by means
of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing
services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized
to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing
any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication
service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not
including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to
any governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions for disclosure of communications.- A provider described in
subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication-
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent
of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511 (2)(a), or 2703 of this
title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended
recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote
computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to
forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the
protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(6) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in connection
with a report submitted thereto under section 227 of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13032);
(7) to a law enforcement agency-
(A) if the contents-
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
[(B) Repealed. Pub. L. 108-21, title V, § 508(b)(1)(A), Apr. 30, 2003, 117
Stat. 684]
(8) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in
good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious
physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of
communications relating to the emergency.
(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.- A provider described in
subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))-
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the
protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an
emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to
any person justifies disclosure of the information;
(5) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in connection
with a report submitted thereto under section 227 of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13032); or
(6) to any person other than a governmental entity.



U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2703 Required disclosure of customer
communications or records


Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic
Storage. - A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a
provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in
an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days
or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures
described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court
with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or
equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the
disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of
the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in
electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more
than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under
subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote
Computing Service. - (1) A governmental entity may require a
provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of
any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is
made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection -
without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if
the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the
procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation
or equivalent State warrant; or
(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the
subscriber or customer if the governmental entity -
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal
or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial
subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under
subsection (d) of this section;
except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705
of this title.
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or
electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service
-
on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of
communications received by means of electronic transmission
from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service;
and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
communications for purposes of providing any services other than
storage or computer processing.
(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote
Computing Service. - (1) A governmental entity may require a
provider of electronic communication service or remote computing
service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the
contents of communications) only when the governmental entity -
obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with
jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent
State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection
(d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such
disclosure; or (FOOTNOTE 1)
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. The word ''or'' probably should
not appear.
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law
enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the
name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer
of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in
telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this
title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote
computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the -
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or
records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of
service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number
or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address;
and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any
credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the
governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a
Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial
subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under
this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber
or customer.
(d) Requirements for Court Order. - A court order for disclosure
under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a
court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the
governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, or the records or other
information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing
criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental
authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the
law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this
section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may
quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested
are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order
otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.
(e) No Cause of Action Against a Provider Disclosing Information
Under This Chapter. - No cause of action shall lie in any court
against any provider of wire or electronic communication service,
its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for
providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with
the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory
authorization, or certification under this chapter.
(f) Requirement To Preserve Evidence. -
(1) In general. - A provider of wire or electronic
communication services or a remote computing service, upon the
request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps
to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending
the issuance of a court order or other process.
(2) Period of retention. - Records referred to in paragraph (1)
shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be
extended for an additional 90-day period upon a renewed request
by the governmental entity.
(g) Presence of Officer Not Required. - Notwithstanding section
3105 of this title, the presence of an officer shall not be
required for service or execution of a search warrant issued in
accordance with this chapter requiring disclosure by a provider of
electronic communications service or remote computing service of
the contents of communications or records or other information
pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2703
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 02:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
I think the first thing you should understand is what a police state is.
Next I think you should understand that collecting phone records harms
nobody. For crying out loud, your phone company has such records and
keeps these records for a period of time.
You do realize that the phone company is not the United States government,
right?

Damn, you're stupid.
Post by ray
What the agency is doing is surveillance of phone calls. They don't
know who these callers are nor what they are talking about, they simply
know of the call times and frequency of calls.
Bullshit.
Post by ray
But even if they did, it's not a uncommon practice. The police often
use surveillance to get a list of drug pushers and buyers.
No, they don't.
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
expanding the powers of the federal government to intrude into the lives of
private citizens?

I miss those days.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
unklbob
2006-05-13 18:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
A "police state" exists where the executive can exercise police power
without oversight from the other branches of government. It doesn't
have to be a Gestapo or GRU-level degree of control--it is a police
state nevertheless. A '69 Beetle is not a Ferrari, but they are both
cars.

Perhaps the most egregious erosion of civil rights occured during the
warrantless wiretaps which were in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The
process was there to obtain a secret warrant through FISA, and the Bush
government chose to circumvent those.

The only "number" that was done was done by the Bush government to the
Constitution.
ray
2006-05-13 19:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by unklbob
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
A "police state" exists where the executive can exercise police power
without oversight from the other branches of government. It doesn't
have to be a Gestapo or GRU-level degree of control--it is a police
state nevertheless. A '69 Beetle is not a Ferrari, but they are both
cars.
Perhaps the most egregious erosion of civil rights occured during the
warrantless wiretaps which were in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The
process was there to obtain a secret warrant through FISA, and the Bush
government chose to circumvent those.
The only "number" that was done was done by the Bush government to the
Constitution.
The Forth Amendment does not deal with spying or eavesdropping. What it
deals with is the forbidding the Government from coming to your home,
lifting up the floorboards or digging up holes in your yard to find
evidence of a crime. What NSA is doing today is nothing more than
intercepting communications between people in effort to collect
information from our enemies. The Forth does not deal with this matter.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
m***@aol.com
2006-05-14 03:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by unklbob
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
A "police state" exists where the executive can exercise police power
without oversight from the other branches of government. It doesn't
have to be a Gestapo or GRU-level degree of control--it is a police
state nevertheless. A '69 Beetle is not a Ferrari, but they are both
cars.
Perhaps the most egregious erosion of civil rights occured during the
warrantless wiretaps which were in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The
process was there to obtain a secret warrant through FISA, and the Bush
government chose to circumvent those.
The only "number" that was done was done by the Bush government to the
Constitution.
The Forth Amendment does not deal with spying or eavesdropping. What it
deals with is the forbidding the Government from coming to your home,
lifting up the floorboards or digging up holes in your yard to find
evidence of a crime. What NSA is doing today is nothing more than
intercepting communications between people in effort to collect
information from our enemies. The Forth does not deal with this matter.
Of course it does. The Fourth Amendment clearly applies to wiretaps,
and USSC has delivered countless opinions to that effect. You really
don't know what you are talking about. Since it will probably take 5
or 6 years for any current cases to make it to the Supreme Court, you
won't know how wrong you are until then.

But please continue to talk out of your ass since it illuminates the
invalidity of all your opinions.
ray
2006-05-14 12:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
Post by unklbob
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
A "police state" exists where the executive can exercise police power
without oversight from the other branches of government. It doesn't
have to be a Gestapo or GRU-level degree of control--it is a police
state nevertheless. A '69 Beetle is not a Ferrari, but they are both
cars.
Perhaps the most egregious erosion of civil rights occured during the
warrantless wiretaps which were in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The
process was there to obtain a secret warrant through FISA, and the Bush
government chose to circumvent those.
The only "number" that was done was done by the Bush government to the
Constitution.
The Forth Amendment does not deal with spying or eavesdropping. What it
deals with is the forbidding the Government from coming to your home,
lifting up the floorboards or digging up holes in your yard to find
evidence of a crime. What NSA is doing today is nothing more than
intercepting communications between people in effort to collect
information from our enemies. The Forth does not deal with this matter.
Of course it does. The Fourth Amendment clearly applies to wiretaps,
and USSC has delivered countless opinions to that effect. You really
don't know what you are talking about. Since it will probably take 5
or 6 years for any current cases to make it to the Supreme Court, you
won't know how wrong you are until then.
But please continue to talk out of your ass since it illuminates the
invalidity of all your opinions.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Eminent Domain applies to large
organizations wanting to kick people out of their homes so they can put
up malls and developments. Or do you agree with this as well simply
because the Supreme Court said so? The Supreme Court is no longer a
fair court, it is politicized and biased.

Now if you can point to me one single word in the Fourth Amendment that
even implies to spying, I'll agree with you. Search and Seizure means
the physical sorting through personal artifacts for the sake of
collecting evidence of criminal activity. While it was impossible to
imagine wireless communications and massive computers intercepting
messages at the time, eavesdropping was not a new concept during the
writing of our Constitution.

The ruling in 1976 against wiretapping was made in the post Nixon era.
It was purely a political and reactionary move. But even then, they
were making reference to the Government climbing up on a telephone poll
and taping conversations of single individuals which is certainly not
the case today.

You don't have to be a lawyer or a Judge to understand the English
language. We have dictionaries for this purpose. And the Fourth
Amendment does not deal with spying. But the Constitution does state
that it's the obligation of the President to protect this country.

Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional? Why are you people so
motivated with helping our enemies who want us all dead? Because you
hate Bush? Better yet, how delighted will you be if this activity is
halted and it leads to another terrorist attack killing millions of
Americans right here in our country?
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
m***@aol.com
2006-05-14 16:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
Post by unklbob
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
Police state? Erosion of Civil Rights? My lord, they really did a
number on you, didn't they?
--
A "police state" exists where the executive can exercise police power
without oversight from the other branches of government. It doesn't
have to be a Gestapo or GRU-level degree of control--it is a police
state nevertheless. A '69 Beetle is not a Ferrari, but they are both
cars.
Perhaps the most egregious erosion of civil rights occured during the
warrantless wiretaps which were in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The
process was there to obtain a secret warrant through FISA, and the Bush
government chose to circumvent those.
The only "number" that was done was done by the Bush government to the
Constitution.
The Forth Amendment does not deal with spying or eavesdropping. What it
deals with is the forbidding the Government from coming to your home,
lifting up the floorboards or digging up holes in your yard to find
evidence of a crime. What NSA is doing today is nothing more than
intercepting communications between people in effort to collect
information from our enemies. The Forth does not deal with this matter.
Of course it does. The Fourth Amendment clearly applies to wiretaps,
and USSC has delivered countless opinions to that effect. You really
don't know what you are talking about. Since it will probably take 5
or 6 years for any current cases to make it to the Supreme Court, you
won't know how wrong you are until then.
But please continue to talk out of your ass since it illuminates the
invalidity of all your opinions.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Eminent Domain applies to large
organizations wanting to kick people out of their homes so they can put
up malls and developments. Or do you agree with this as well simply
because the Supreme Court said so? The Supreme Court is no longer a
fair court, it is politicized and biased.
Neither my nor your "agreeing" with Supreme Court rulings makes it any
more or less the law of the land.
Post by ray
Now if you can point to me one single word in the Fourth Amendment that
even implies to spying, I'll agree with you. Search and Seizure means
the physical sorting through personal artifacts for the sake of
collecting evidence of criminal activity.
That was true a long time ago, but that has changed.
The Olmstead Case .--With the invention of the microphone, the
telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to
''eavesdrop'' with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the
use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in
1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence
gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. On a
five-to- four vote, the Court held that wiretapping was not within the
confines of the Fourth Amendment. 131 Chief Justice Taft, writing the
opinion of the Court, relied on two lines of argument for the
conclusion. First, inasmuch as the Amendment was designed to protect
one's property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as
there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a
defendant. Second, all the evidence obtained had been secured by
hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a
seizure, for the Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible
items. Furthermore, the violation of state law did not render the
evidence excludible, since the exclusionary rule operated only on
evidence seized in violation of the Constitution. 132

But see Berger:

The Berger and Katz Cases .--In Berger v. New York, 140 the Court
confirmed the obsolesence of the alternative holding in Olmstead that
conversations could not be seized in the Fourth Amendment sense. 141
Berger held unconstitutional on its face a state eavesdropping statute
under which judges were authorized to issue warrants permitting police
officers to trespass on private premises to install listening devices.
The warrants were to be issued upon a showing of ''reasonable ground to
believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly
describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or
discussions are to be overheard or recorded.'' For the five-Justice
majority, Justice Clark discerned several constitutional defects in the
law. ''First, . . . eavesdropping is authorized without requiring
belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor
that the 'property' sought, the conversations, be particularly
described.



While it was impossible to
Post by ray
imagine wireless communications and massive computers intercepting
messages at the time, eavesdropping was not a new concept during the
writing of our Constitution.
There is a *big* difference between spying and eavesdropping, at least
in respect to US citizens and foreigners.

This is from an earlier post I made:

Wiretapping those who are protected by the US constitution (read
citizens) requires a warrant, and the law allows secret warrants to be
issued by the FISA court.


Unwarranted searches (including wiretapping) of those not protected by
the US consitution (read non-citizens, typically) is a proper function
of the executive through intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA,
etc.


The question is whether a US citizen who is having a conversation with
a foreign terror suspect is protected, and the answer is yes, if the
wiretap is on his end of the conversation.


The whole point is that the FISA court put a second set of eyes on the
parameters of the search to make sure that there is no hanky panky
going on; the executive might *claim* that they are only conducting the

warrantless searches against terror suspects, while actually keeping
tabs on their political opponents, etc.


So since there is a completely secret method of conducting the searches

legally, why is the Bush govt conducting them illegally? What do they
have to hide?
Post by ray
The ruling in 1976 against wiretapping was made in the post Nixon era.
It was purely a political and reactionary move. But even then, they
were making reference to the Government climbing up on a telephone poll
and taping conversations of single individuals which is certainly not
the case today.
Your use of the "Nixon" case is inapplicable here; that involved
whether or not Nixon's executive privilege precluded Congress from
getting the Watergate tapes.

Here are the applicable cases:

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz
v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future
case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic
surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney
General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The
Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in
two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion
and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority
on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme
Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a
''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth
Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of
domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant
provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a
search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a
question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause;
except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only
those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The
Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override
the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its
citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to
support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153
This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases''
than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as
the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its
policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First
Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument
that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in
the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is
required. 155


The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if
any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however,
providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for
electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and
permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to
acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the
communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign
powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States
person'' will be overheard. 157

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#1
Post by ray
You don't have to be a lawyer or a Judge to understand the English
language. We have dictionaries for this purpose. And the Fourth
Amendment does not deal with spying. But the Constitution does state
that it's the obligation of the President to protect this country.
Article 3 gives the court the right of judicial review, and since no
common law history provides for "dictionary definitions", it allows the
judiciary to interpret the laws as was the custom at the time the
Constitution was written. It further allows the Court the right to
adjust those definitions as usage, technology and society changed.
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional? Why are you people so
motivated with helping our enemies who want us all dead? Because you
hate Bush? Better yet, how delighted will you be if this activity is
halted and it leads to another terrorist attack killing millions of
Americans right here in our country?
--
Nothing I have ever posted suggests that I support terrorists, nor do I
wish the deaths of US citizens or soldiers. However, I would point out
that during the Cold War, when there was a threat of Soviet nuclear
attack, our Government did not need to violate the US Constitution to
protect its citizens. (At least do so and get away with it)
r***@comcast.net
2006-05-14 16:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
You don't have to be a lawyer or a Judge to understand the English
language. We have dictionaries for this purpose. And the Fourth
Amendment does not deal with spying. But the Constitution does state
that it's the obligation of the President to protect this country.
Gawd, but it is pathetic the lengths to which you PARTY hacks will go
to defend clearly illegal unAmerican acts.

Your twisted take on the fourth amendment and wiretaps is appalling
and ends oriented only to support THE PARTY and your LEADER.

The COnstitution says only Bush is commander in chief. That puts him
in charge of the military. It does not give him the power to neuter
COngress, disobey the laws, ignore the fourth amendment and invade
take military like control of the domestic sphere. Explain why you
think the commander in chief clause gives Bush a right to monitor
domestic communications?

(Especially after your twisted "original intent" BS on wiretaps.
(Using your logic the COnstitution says Bush is commander in chief of
the army and navy - not the Air Force.)
____

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
ray
2006-05-14 19:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by ray
You don't have to be a lawyer or a Judge to understand the English
language. We have dictionaries for this purpose. And the Fourth
Amendment does not deal with spying. But the Constitution does state
that it's the obligation of the President to protect this country.
Gawd, but it is pathetic the lengths to which you PARTY hacks will go
to defend clearly illegal unAmerican acts.
Your twisted take on the fourth amendment and wiretaps is appalling
and ends oriented only to support THE PARTY and your LEADER.
The COnstitution says only Bush is commander in chief. That puts him
in charge of the military. It does not give him the power to neuter
COngress, disobey the laws, ignore the fourth amendment and invade
take military like control of the domestic sphere. Explain why you
think the commander in chief clause gives Bush a right to monitor
domestic communications?
Because these domestic communications you are talking about here are
communications that may be between people who are planning an attack in
this country. Talk about Party Hacks, there is no evidence that this
administration listened to anybody outside of the messages between our
enemies; this is just something they put in your head.

This war on terror is going to go on for a long time, and if a Democrat
wins the Presidency next term, wait and see just how he or she abides to
these laws. Because they will only have two choices in this matter,
enable our enemies to communicate and attack this country or use every
available method to prevent attacks.

I only agree with this President on half of the issues he rules on, but
this one is certainly a measure I can easily side with him. Politics is
politics and I understand that, but when it gets to the point of
strengthening our foes and possibly endangering our citizens here or our
military abroad, politics went to far in my opinion.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-15 21:50:43 UTC
Permalink
ray wrote:
[..]
Post by ray
Post by r***@comcast.net
take military like control of the domestic sphere. Explain why you
think the commander in chief clause gives Bush a right to monitor
domestic communications?
Because these domestic communications you are talking about here are
communications that may be between people who are planning an attack in
this country.
There's this process, called 'due process,' whereby JUDGES get to make
that distinction. It's built into the LAWFUL SYSTEM we know as FISA.

Your concern has already been addressed by the LEGISLATURE, yet another
branch of government.

You really don't understand what's at stake here.
ray
2006-05-16 00:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Post by r***@comcast.net
take military like control of the domestic sphere. Explain why you
think the commander in chief clause gives Bush a right to monitor
domestic communications?
Because these domestic communications you are talking about here are
communications that may be between people who are planning an attack in
this country.
There's this process, called 'due process,' whereby JUDGES get to make
that distinction. It's built into the LAWFUL SYSTEM we know as FISA.
Your concern has already been addressed by the LEGISLATURE, yet another
branch of government.
You really don't understand what's at stake here.
No, I don't think you understand. After 911, Americans were outraged to
learn that these terrorists were communicating with cell phones and
e-mail; communications right under our noses. The US military invented
the Internet and our American wireless companies provide the cells in
which these terrorists communicated.

Now had we been using the current systems in place for monitoring these
communications before the terrorist attack, it's believed by many that
911 would have never happened. That being said, if we are to handcuff
ourselves by our very own rules and regulations and adapt them to this
more technological system we are using today, we only empower the enemy
and weaken our defense.

So think how stupid we look to other countries. We the American
people--the strongest nation on earth, allowed a bunch of cave people to
cross our American borders, discuss the attacks with our American
communication systems and then allowed them to use our American planes
for weapons against us. FISA even denied our Government a warrant for
one of those hijackers.

Of course, the intelligent thing to do is to learn from our mistakes,
but do we? Hell no. We have people bitching at the airport, millions
of illegal immigrants, open borders for anybody to cross and people
whining about GW listening to their phone conversation with their
Grandmother.

About two months ago, Howard Stern interviewed G Gordon Liddy and his
son who wrote a book about terrorism. The theme of his book was that
every single citizen needs to participate in the defense of this
country; that we are too complacent with our Government handling the
terrorist situation. I agree with him. So if NSA monitoring my
telephone calls help them track our enemy, then as in George Bushs very
own words, "Bring it on." Because I'm more than happy to do my
part--especially if it does not change one single thing in my life.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 02:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Now had we been using the current systems in place for monitoring these
communications before the terrorist attack, it's believed by many that
911 would have never happened.
Who are these "many", exactly?
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
ray
2006-05-14 18:19:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
***@aol.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
Post by m***@aol.com
Of course it does. The Fourth Amendment clearly applies to wiretaps,
and USSC has delivered countless opinions to that effect. You really
don't know what you are talking about. Since it will probably take 5
or 6 years for any current cases to make it to the Supreme Court, you
won't know how wrong you are until then.
But please continue to talk out of your ass since it illuminates the
invalidity of all your opinions.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Eminent Domain applies to large
organizations wanting to kick people out of their homes so they can put
up malls and developments. Or do you agree with this as well simply
because the Supreme Court said so? The Supreme Court is no longer a
fair court, it is politicized and biased.
Neither my nor your "agreeing" with Supreme Court rulings makes it any
more or less the law of the land.
This is very true, but the point here is not whether the Courts have
control of the law, but if what they rule makes it proper.
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
Now if you can point to me one single word in the Fourth Amendment that
even implies to spying, I'll agree with you. Search and Seizure means
the physical sorting through personal artifacts for the sake of
collecting evidence of criminal activity.
That was true a long time ago, but that has changed.
The Olmstead Case .--With the invention of the microphone, the
telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to
''eavesdrop'' with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the
use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in
1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence
gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. On a
five-to- four vote, the Court held that wiretapping was not within the
confines of the Fourth Amendment. 131 Chief Justice Taft, writing the
opinion of the Court, relied on two lines of argument for the
conclusion. First, inasmuch as the Amendment was designed to protect
one's property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as
there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a
defendant. Second, all the evidence obtained had been secured by
hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a
seizure, for the Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible
items. Furthermore, the violation of state law did not render the
evidence excludible, since the exclusionary rule operated only on
evidence seized in violation of the Constitution. 132
The Berger and Katz Cases .--In Berger v. New York, 140 the Court
confirmed the obsolesence of the alternative holding in Olmstead that
conversations could not be seized in the Fourth Amendment sense. 141
Berger held unconstitutional on its face a state eavesdropping statute
under which judges were authorized to issue warrants permitting police
officers to trespass on private premises to install listening devices.
The warrants were to be issued upon a showing of ''reasonable ground to
believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly
describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or
discussions are to be overheard or recorded.'' For the five-Justice
majority, Justice Clark discerned several constitutional defects in the
law. ''First, . . . eavesdropping is authorized without requiring
belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor
that the 'property' sought, the conversations, be particularly
described.
First off, the Constitution is not a living document. It does not
change automatically as times change. If it did, there would be no need
for Amendments and the document would be worthless.

Now this case you are talking about has nothing to do with the events
taking place today. There is a difference between Government agencies
attaching a physical device on your private phone line and intercepting
radio waves. What the NSA is doing is monitoring millions of
frequencies per hour to locate possible terrorist communications. They
are not using any of these conversations for evidence. They are simply
trying to learn of any plans to attack this country in the future.
Post by m***@aol.com
While it was impossible to
Post by ray
imagine wireless communications and massive computers intercepting
messages at the time, eavesdropping was not a new concept during the
writing of our Constitution.
There is a *big* difference between spying and eavesdropping, at least
in respect to US citizens and foreigners.
Wiretapping those who are protected by the US constitution (read
citizens) requires a warrant, and the law allows secret warrants to be
issued by the FISA court.
Unwarranted searches (including wiretapping) of those not protected by
the US consitution (read non-citizens, typically) is a proper function
of the executive through intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA,
etc.
The question is whether a US citizen who is having a conversation with
a foreign terror suspect is protected, and the answer is yes, if the
wiretap is on his end of the conversation.
The whole point is that the FISA court put a second set of eyes on the
parameters of the search to make sure that there is no hanky panky
going on; the executive might *claim* that they are only conducting the
warrantless searches against terror suspects, while actually keeping
tabs on their political opponents, etc.
So since there is a completely secret method of conducting the searches
legally, why is the Bush govt conducting them illegally? What do they
have to hide?
The reason is that the terrorists and sleeper cells in our country
frequently change communication devices. This isn't 1960 where the only
way to communicate is a pay-phone, home phone or the US mail. For
crying out loud, we have disposable cell phones where people can remain
anonymous all they like.

In many cases, the NSA does not even know who they are listening to and
it would be impossible to get such a warrant that would cover all
communication devices of any certain individual. When they do
communicate, at times they only utter a few words or sentences of a
possible plot and then perhaps e-mail another few words. Then they
would pick up a different cell phone and continue where they left off in
the e-mail.

What these Super Computers do is scan frequencies for key words or
names. It works like a search engine on a the Internet. When the
computer presents the matches, the NSA monitors the conversation for a
while to see if it is legitimate. If it is, they look for other
messages to see if they can put the pieces of the puzzle together and
create the big picture. This simply can't be done any other way.

You yourself know how easy it is to change your e-mail address, purchase
a new phone or even change your screen name for chat rooms. You can't
get a warrant from FISA to monitor a nameless person or persons.
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
The ruling in 1976 against wiretapping was made in the post Nixon era.
It was purely a political and reactionary move. But even then, they
were making reference to the Government climbing up on a telephone poll
and taping conversations of single individuals which is certainly not
the case today.
Your use of the "Nixon" case is inapplicable here; that involved
whether or not Nixon's executive privilege precluded Congress from
getting the Watergate tapes.
Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz
v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future
case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic
surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney
General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The
Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in
two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion
and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority
on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme
Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a
''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth
Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of
domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant
provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a
search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a
question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause;
except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only
those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The
Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override
the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its
citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to
support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153
This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases''
than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as
the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its
policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First
Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument
that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in
the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is
required. 155
The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if
any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however,
providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for
electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and
permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to
acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the
communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign
powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States
person'' will be overheard. 157
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#1
We don't know, but I'm going to assume that the terrorists of 911 had
some sort of electronic communications between themselves within the
borders of our country before the attack. Now, if our Government
suspected such an attack but didn't know who, where or how, then they
wouldn't be able to use this method within our country because of some
sort of out of date ruling. And if I remember correctly, FISA did turn
down a request for a warrant of one of those hijackers.

So the question is, are we going to cut off our nose to spite our face?
Because if it is written in stone that the Government can't use
surveillance within our borders, it only furthers the advantage these
terrorists have in the future.
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
You don't have to be a lawyer or a Judge to understand the English
language. We have dictionaries for this purpose. And the Fourth
Amendment does not deal with spying. But the Constitution does state
that it's the obligation of the President to protect this country.
Article 3 gives the court the right of judicial review, and since no
common law history provides for "dictionary definitions", it allows the
judiciary to interpret the laws as was the custom at the time the
Constitution was written. It further allows the Court the right to
adjust those definitions as usage, technology and society changed.
Yes, this is true and it's part of the problem we have in this country.
But, I use the dictionary reference to make the point that the founders
had an intent when they wrote the Constitution. It was probably thought
(at the time) that such a court would not have a political bias nor the
hunger of power. They assumed that the highest court would rule based
on these words in the Constitution and not based on political agenda.

If it is allowed for the Supreme Court to misconstrue any words or
sentences of the Constitution to promote personal or political goals,
then we are at the threshold of judicial legislation. And this is a
very dangerous place to be in a Republic such as ours.
Post by m***@aol.com
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional? Why are you people so
motivated with helping our enemies who want us all dead? Because you
hate Bush? Better yet, how delighted will you be if this activity is
halted and it leads to another terrorist attack killing millions of
Americans right here in our country?
--
Nothing I have ever posted suggests that I support terrorists, nor do I
wish the deaths of US citizens or soldiers. However, I would point out
that during the Cold War, when there was a threat of Soviet nuclear
attack, our Government did not need to violate the US Constitution to
protect its citizens. (At least do so and get away with it)
Keep in mind two things here. One is the fact that no Democrat ever
demanded that this activity be halted; they just simply bitch about it
to make the President look bad. Secondly, the very same people crying
about Constitution protection are the very same who tapped the cell
phone call of Newt Gangrich. Not only did they illegally tap his phone,
but taped the conversation as well and submitted it to the newspaper.
The fall guy (a retired school teacher) was only fined for violating FCC
rules of not being allowed to monitor frequencies above 900 Mhz. No
investigation as to how he monitored these frequencies and no mention of
Constitutional rights, surveillance court rulings or the fact he was
talking with another American right in our borders. This is all about
politics.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-15 21:47:21 UTC
Permalink
ray wrote:
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.

There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
ray
2006-05-15 23:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter. Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify. Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 00:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Post by ray
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify.
But you can get a warrant from a FISA court retroactively.
Post by ray
Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
Please provide a concrete example of the signals being intercepted.
*Then,* once you've done that, you can start talking about what is or
isn't being done with the information.
ray
2006-05-16 00:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify.
But you can get a warrant from a FISA court retroactively.
Yes, if you do so 48 hours after you begin collecting evidence. In most
of these cases, it takes weeks before they even put together the
communications to form something.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
Please provide a concrete example of the signals being intercepted.
*Then,* once you've done that, you can start talking about what is or
isn't being done with the information.
Well here's an interesting interview where the matter is discussed:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/29825/

Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 01:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a king.
You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you say
the Constitution is irrelevant.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify.
But you can get a warrant from a FISA court retroactively.
Yes, if you do so 48 hours after you begin collecting evidence. In most
of these cases, it takes weeks before they even put together the
communications to form something.
Please cite this evidence. Show a concrete example, not a simple
declaration of 'most of these cases.'
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
Please provide a concrete example of the signals being intercepted.
*Then,* once you've done that, you can start talking about what is or
isn't being done with the information.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/29825/
So no concrete examples.
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.

The President is breaking the law, and violating the civil rights of
millions of Americans, and you're saying it's A-OK.
ray
2006-05-16 02:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years; it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the
S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a king.
You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you say
the Constitution is irrelevant.
Just because the NSA is sifting through millions of communications per
hour only hoping they can find something on terrorists plots does not a
autocracy make. If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law, the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority. And speaking of
Republican majority, there are members of the GOP that sided against
Bush on many matters so I don't think it would be hard to sway some of
them against Bush if he were doing something illegal. The reason this
is a controversial issue is because it's not clear if he is doing
anything illegal.

And I don't complain about the language of the Constitution, I complain
about the Judges who misconstrue this language. To me, the language is
clear and cut in most cases.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify.
But you can get a warrant from a FISA court retroactively.
Yes, if you do so 48 hours after you begin collecting evidence. In most
of these cases, it takes weeks before they even put together the
communications to form something.
Please cite this evidence. Show a concrete example, not a simple
declaration of 'most of these cases.'
The site I posted discusses this. The suspected terrorists encrypt
messages within conversations. They are patient people who send small
messages at a time and not in one lump. They switch communication
devices frequently and often use anonymous devices such as pre-paid cell
phones or pay phones where they don't have to be known. It takes some
time for the NSA to put these messages together in order to create
anything that makes sense. Then they have to identify this person in
order to gain warrants.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Many of these signals intercepted are anonymous to the
agencies involved and they are only interested in learning plans about
those wanting to attack this country or our military overseas.
Please provide a concrete example of the signals being intercepted.
*Then,* once you've done that, you can start talking about what is or
isn't being done with the information.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/29825/
So no concrete examples.
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror? Courts who
have no knowledge or experience on combating enemies? This is who you
trust? Well take this into consideration, the media are the people who
found out about NSA and this latest phone list issue. How did they get
this information? And you want to open another link by using courts?
Let me explain something here, if the media brings all of these issues
to our attention, don't you think the terrorists have the same
information?
Post by Paul Mitchum
The President is breaking the law, and violating the civil rights of
millions of Americans, and you're saying it's A-OK.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 04:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years;
it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the
S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a king.
You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you say
the Constitution is irrelevant.
Just because the NSA is sifting through millions of communications per
hour only hoping they can find something on terrorists plots does not a
autocracy make.
Ah, so you're moving away from your bogus constitutional argument.
Good.

However, the problem with your current line of rhetoric is that you
really don't know the full extent of what's being done with this
information you're so glad to give away.
Post by ray
If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law,
What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
so.
Post by ray
the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
is innocent of all charges. What a tool!

[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.

BTW: Why'd you change your name from whit?
ray
2006-05-17 00:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six
years;
it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if
the
S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some
circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as
those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal,
because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you
believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws
then
you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great
disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a king.
You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you say
the Constitution is irrelevant.
Just because the NSA is sifting through millions of communications per
hour only hoping they can find something on terrorists plots does not a
autocracy make.
Ah, so you're moving away from your bogus constitutional argument.
Good.
However, the problem with your current line of rhetoric is that you
really don't know the full extent of what's being done with this
information you're so glad to give away.
Of course I'm not, I'm glad nobody knows. But, it would be revealed if
somebody is brought up on charges because of this activity. That's when
we need to look into the matter a little more. Until that time comes,
I'm not going to cast guilt on anybody.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law,
What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
so.
Yes, and he also said it was discussed in detail with his legal team who
assured him he was in full compliance with all laws and Constitution.
And this is where the "if" part comes in. His rivals are saying just
the opposite, that he is in violation with law and Constitution. This
is why the matter is controversial; it's not clear-cut. It's one
groups opinion over another.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
is innocent of all charges. What a tool!
No, what I'm saying is that they are not so certain themselves, and in
fact, are probably using this situation to make Bush out to be the bad
guy. All they have to do is make the accusation and as far as the media
is concerned, whatever the Democrats say is Gospel.

Now if it were a clear-cut case with no doubt about it, the Democrats
would have already swung into action because they win either way. If
the Democrats proceed with action and win, they give a black eye to this
President. If they lose, they would do so because of the Republican
majority and that too would be to their advantage. The only way for
them to look bad is if they proceed and it is ruled that the President
is within all legal rights. And although I'm not sure, I believe this
is the reason they remain on the sidelines instead of getting in the
game.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
BTW: Why'd you change your name from whit?
Whit?

By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge. If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge. Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-17 09:10:05 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law,
What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
so.
Yes, and he also said it was discussed in detail with his legal team who
assured him he was in full compliance with all laws and Constitution.
And this is where the "if" part comes in. His rivals are saying just
the opposite, that he is in violation with law and Constitution. This
is why the matter is controversial; it's not clear-cut. It's one
groups opinion over another.
Wrong. It's absolutely clear-cut. Nixon tried to peddle the same shit
you're selling, and it didn't work for him.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
is innocent of all charges. What a tool!
No, what I'm saying is that they are not so certain themselves, and in
fact, are probably using this situation to make Bush out to be the bad
guy. All they have to do is make the accusation and as far as the media
is concerned, whatever the Democrats say is Gospel.
As far as the media is concerend, whatever the Democrats say is
ignored.
Post by ray
Now if it were a clear-cut case with no doubt about it, the Democrats
would have already swung into action because they win either way. [..]
D00d. Simply restating your position is not the same thing as
addressing my criticism of it. You're saying that non-action by
Democrats is proof of Bush's golden-god-hood.

And that makes you a tool.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
Post by ray
If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge.
When has that happened? You'll recall that the US intelligence
apparatus warned the Bush administration that an attack was imminent
shortly before 9/11 occurred, and, as far as we know, none of that
intel was taken from American citizens without a warrant.

The machine works, ray, and there's no need for any of them to break
the law. None at all.
Post by ray
Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
Yeah, because if you were, you couldn't WAVE YOUR HANDS AND SAY OH MY!
THINGS ARE SO BAD! WE MUST GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A
MOTHERFUCKING MONARCH!

When did you first decide that you hated America? How long after 9/11
did your irrational fear of international terrorism cause you to
develop this hatred of the American way of life? Were there other
side-effects such as adult-onset bed-wetting?

Seriously. Why do you hate America so much that you want to permanently
alter its system of government to be more like a banana republic?
ray
2006-05-17 21:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law,
What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
so.
Yes, and he also said it was discussed in detail with his legal team who
assured him he was in full compliance with all laws and Constitution.
And this is where the "if" part comes in. His rivals are saying just
the opposite, that he is in violation with law and Constitution. This
is why the matter is controversial; it's not clear-cut. It's one
groups opinion over another.
Wrong. It's absolutely clear-cut. Nixon tried to peddle the same shit
you're selling, and it didn't work for him.
I'm not selling anything. I'm telling you what has been said.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
is innocent of all charges. What a tool!
No, what I'm saying is that they are not so certain themselves, and in
fact, are probably using this situation to make Bush out to be the bad
guy. All they have to do is make the accusation and as far as the media
is concerned, whatever the Democrats say is Gospel.
As far as the media is concerend, whatever the Democrats say is
ignored.
Post by ray
Now if it were a clear-cut case with no doubt about it, the Democrats
would have already swung into action because they win either way. [..]
D00d. Simply restating your position is not the same thing as
addressing my criticism of it. You're saying that non-action by
Democrats is proof of Bush's golden-god-hood.
And that makes you a tool.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but
what
we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge.
When has that happened? You'll recall that the US intelligence
apparatus warned the Bush administration that an attack was imminent
shortly before 9/11 occurred, and, as far as we know, none of that
intel was taken from American citizens without a warrant.
The machine works, ray, and there's no need for any of them to break
the law. None at all.
And you state this law has been broken with no proof. Again, this is
yet to be decided and certainly not by you or I. And it doesn't work.
This is why FISA denied a warrant for one of the hijackers. When the
NSA story came out, Bush stated that they were on to something by the
terrorists but they aborted communications once the story came out.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
Yeah, because if you were, you couldn't WAVE YOUR HANDS AND SAY OH MY!
THINGS ARE SO BAD! WE MUST GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A
MOTHERFUCKING MONARCH!
When did you first decide that you hated America? How long after 9/11
did your irrational fear of international terrorism cause you to
develop this hatred of the American way of life? Were there other
side-effects such as adult-onset bed-wetting?
Seriously. Why do you hate America so much that you want to permanently
alter its system of government to be more like a banana republic?
Why do you hate America so much that you would rather chance another
terrorist attack in this country just so you can be insured that nobody
is listening to your conversation with your mother on a cordless phone?
I'm willing to sacrifice some possible privacy interruptions in my life
for these boys overseas and our citizens here. It is YOU that would
rather risk tragedy just so you can exist in comfort, not I.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-18 02:13:00 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but
what
we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing
with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine
now prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge.
When has that happened? You'll recall that the US intelligence
apparatus warned the Bush administration that an attack was imminent
shortly before 9/11 occurred, and, as far as we know, none of that
intel was taken from American citizens without a warrant.
The machine works, ray, and there's no need for any of them to break
the law. None at all.
And you state this law has been broken with no proof.
Other than the President's admission.

[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
Yeah, because if you were, you couldn't WAVE YOUR HANDS AND SAY OH MY!
THINGS ARE SO BAD! WE MUST GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A
MOTHERFUCKING MONARCH!
When did you first decide that you hated America? How long after 9/11
did your irrational fear of international terrorism cause you to
develop this hatred of the American way of life? Were there other
side-effects such as adult-onset bed-wetting?
Seriously. Why do you hate America so much that you want to permanently
alter its system of government to be more like a banana republic?
Why do you hate America so much that you would rather chance another
terrorist attack in this country just so you can be insured that nobody
is listening to your conversation with your mother on a cordless phone?
I'm willing to sacrifice some possible privacy interruptions in my life
for these boys overseas and our citizens here. It is YOU that would
rather risk tragedy just so you can exist in comfort, not I.
I don't believe it's a choice. If you'd quit peeing your pants in
abject terror, you'd also see that it's not.

So go make some chamomille tea or something and put on a Yanni CD and
chill out, d00d.
ray
2006-05-18 02:31:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul Mitchum" <***@mile23.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
So what harm can tracking journalists do? What do they have to hide?
And since this is the first I have heard of this journalist thing, do
you have a credible site? Last I heard, there were over 10,000 numbers
being tracked. So it would be so unusual that one of them happen to be
a journalist?

And there is no evidence that FISA has brought no harm to America? Did
you ever hear of 911? But besides that, what would you say if the
Democrats put a halt to this activity and it did indeed pave the way for
another attack--an attack that would make 911 look like a warm-up? Then
would you be so complacent?
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge.
When has that happened? You'll recall that the US intelligence
apparatus warned the Bush administration that an attack was imminent
shortly before 9/11 occurred, and, as far as we know, none of that
intel was taken from American citizens without a warrant.
The machine works, ray, and there's no need for any of them to break
the law. None at all.
And you state this law has been broken with no proof.
Other than the President's admission.
[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
Yeah, because if you were, you couldn't WAVE YOUR HANDS AND SAY OH MY!
THINGS ARE SO BAD! WE MUST GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A
MOTHERFUCKING MONARCH!
When did you first decide that you hated America? How long after 9/11
did your irrational fear of international terrorism cause you to
develop this hatred of the American way of life? Were there other
side-effects such as adult-onset bed-wetting?
Seriously. Why do you hate America so much that you want to permanently
alter its system of government to be more like a banana republic?
Why do you hate America so much that you would rather chance another
terrorist attack in this country just so you can be insured that nobody
is listening to your conversation with your mother on a cordless phone?
I'm willing to sacrifice some possible privacy interruptions in my life
for these boys overseas and our citizens here. It is YOU that would
rather risk tragedy just so you can exist in comfort, not I.
I don't believe it's a choice. If you'd quit peeing your pants in
abject terror, you'd also see that it's not.
So go make some chamomille tea or something and put on a Yanni CD and
chill out, d00d.
And that's exactly what the terrorist are hoping every American does.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-18 03:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
So what harm can tracking journalists do?
Jeezuz Fukkin' Keerist. The question here isn't whether you're ignorant
of history, but how ignorant you are.
Post by ray
What do they have to hide?
And since this is the first I have heard of this journalist thing, do
you have a credible site? Last I heard, there were over 10,000 numbers
being tracked. So it would be so unusual that one of them happen to be
a journalist?
I linked you to the story already.
Post by ray
And there is no evidence that FISA has brought no harm to America? Did
you ever hear of 911?
Are you seriously tryiing to say that 9/11 happened as a result of
someone obeying FISA laws?

Seriously?
ray
2006-05-18 03:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just
said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
So what harm can tracking journalists do?
Jeezuz Fukkin' Keerist. The question here isn't whether you're ignorant
of history, but how ignorant you are.
Ignorant of what? You are the person who failed to answer the question.
Instead, you lash out with name calling.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What do they have to hide?
And since this is the first I have heard of this journalist thing, do
you have a credible site? Last I heard, there were over 10,000 numbers
being tracked. So it would be so unusual that one of them happen to be
a journalist?
I linked you to the story already.
Post by ray
And there is no evidence that FISA has brought no harm to America? Did
you ever hear of 911?
Are you seriously tryiing to say that 9/11 happened as a result of
someone obeying FISA laws?
Seriously?
Nobody knows for sure if it would have prevented this attack. But one
thing is clear, and that is the FISA courts DID interfere with our
Government trying to gather information about this terrorist and perhaps
the attack. They failed. But now you want to leave it up to them once
more. I think once is quite enough, don't you?
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Joseph Welch
2006-05-18 05:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Are you seriously tryiing to say that 9/11 happened as a result of
someone obeying FISA laws?
Seriously?
Nobody knows for sure if it would have prevented this attack.
Nobody has even offered a theory as to how it would have helped to be able
to circuvent FISA.

Nobody.
Post by ray
But one thing is clear, and that is the FISA courts DID interfere with
our
Government trying to gather information about this terrorist and perhaps
the attack.
"Clear"? To whom? On what basis?

Sheesh you right-wingers are some desperate fucks.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-18 06:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our
rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just
said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for,
you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
So what harm can tracking journalists do?
Jeezuz Fukkin' Keerist. The question here isn't whether you're ignorant
of history, but how ignorant you are.
Ignorant of what? You are the person who failed to answer the question.
Instead, you lash out with name calling.
You ask, with a straight face, 'What harm can tracking journalists do?'
as if the answer weren't completely obvious.

Maybe you're too young to be aware of it, but there was this little
scandal called 'Watergate'...
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What do they have to hide?
And since this is the first I have heard of this journalist thing, do
you have a credible site? Last I heard, there were over 10,000 numbers
being tracked. So it would be so unusual that one of them happen to be
a journalist?
I linked you to the story already.
Post by ray
And there is no evidence that FISA has brought no harm to America? Did
you ever hear of 911?
Are you seriously tryiing to say that 9/11 happened as a result of
someone obeying FISA laws?
Seriously?
Nobody knows for sure if it would have prevented this attack.
Then why, in heaven's name, are you acting as if what I want
(accountability) will bring on another 9/11?
Post by ray
But one
thing is clear, and that is the FISA courts DID interfere with our
Government trying to gather information about this terrorist and perhaps
the attack.
What the fuck are you talking about? You just said no one knows for
sure, and now you say it's clear.
Post by ray
They failed. But now you want to leave it up to them once
more. I think once is quite enough, don't you?
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ben
2006-07-10 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
<snip>
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our
rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you
just
said.
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants
for,
you
are placing them in charge.
Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I
stated,
and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
I'm very interested in the legal harm that would come to an
administrator who abused his power of surveillance and general
god-hood. Yes, very interested in that. I also believe that there is no
national security harm which could come from obeying the FISA laws.
There is no evidence that obeying the FISA laws has led to any harm,
and there is no evidence that ignoring them has resulted in any benefit
to anyone except government agencies tracking journalists.
So what harm can tracking journalists do?
Jeezuz Fukkin' Keerist. The question here isn't whether you're ignorant
of history, but how ignorant you are.
Ignorant of what? You are the person who failed to answer the question.
Instead, you lash out with name calling.
You ask, with a straight face, 'What harm can tracking journalists do?'
as if the answer weren't completely obvious.
Maybe you're too young to be aware of it, but there was this little
scandal called 'Watergate'...
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
What do they have to hide?
And since this is the first I have heard of this journalist thing, do
you have a credible site? Last I heard, there were over 10,000 numbers
being tracked. So it would be so unusual that one of them happen to be
a journalist?
I linked you to the story already.
Post by ray
And there is no evidence that FISA has brought no harm to America? Did
you ever hear of 911?
Are you seriously tryiing to say that 9/11 happened as a result of
someone obeying FISA laws?
Seriously?
Nobody knows for sure if it would have prevented this attack.
Then why, in heaven's name, are you acting as if what I want
(accountability) will bring on another 9/11?
Post by ray
But one
thing is clear, and that is the FISA courts DID interfere with our
Government trying to gather information about this terrorist and perhaps
the attack.
What the fuck are you talking about? You just said no one knows for
sure, and now you say it's clear.
Post by ray
They failed. But now you want to leave it up to them once
more. I think once is quite enough, don't you?
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
Seems to me that the republicans have much better smoke than the
democrats. Why don't you guys tell us all where you get your shit.
Maybe the bill of rights were printed on hemp paper.
They are smoking the bill of rights. (literally and figuratively)
Now I get it hemp.politics)
ef_hutterite
2006-07-10 19:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Maybe the bill of rights were printed on hemp paper.
You need to read something more edifying than the Zig Zag papers
carton.

Joseph Welch
2006-05-18 05:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
So go make some chamomille tea or something and put on a Yanni CD and
chill out, d00d.
And that's exactly what the terrorist are hoping every American does.
No, they're hoping that enough dipshits continue to support Bush so that our
freedoms will continue to erode and our treasuries drain without them having
to lift another finger.

Bush and his supporters are giving the 9/11 mass murderers more mileage out
of their act of terrorism than they could ever have dreamed of.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 04:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
[..]
Post by ray
Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or six years;
it
will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to say if the
S.C.
rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it is
constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some circumstances,
wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a warrant
satisfies constitutionality. Under other circumstances, such as those
perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is illegal, because
those taps violated the due process which would have satisfied
constitutionality.
There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be performed
while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If you believe
that the administration should be allowed to break these laws then you,
yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great disdain
for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Any law written or even
discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are fighting.
...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even aware how
stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological contortionism
because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a king.
You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you say
the Constitution is irrelevant.
Just because the NSA is sifting through millions of communications per
hour only hoping they can find something on terrorists plots does not a
autocracy make.
Ah, so you're moving away from your bogus constitutional argument.
Good.

However, the problem with your current line of rhetoric is that you
really don't know the full extent of what's being done with this
information you're so glad to give away.
Post by ray
If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
violation of the law,
What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
so.
Post by ray
the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
is innocent of all charges. What a tool!

[..]
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by ray
Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but what we
do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing with
this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine now
prevalent.
So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.

BTW: Why'd you change your name from whit?
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 02:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Paul Mitchum
Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of these
words in the Constitution.
Nor can you point out where it says that the government can't pass a law
against naming your child "Ray".

Damn, you're stupid.
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
expanding the powers of the federal government to intrude into the private
lives of ordinary Americans?

I miss those days.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 02:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Also nothing about the Republican Party being legal.

Damn, you're stupid.
Post by ray
You can't get a warrant for somebody whom you don't know or can't
identify.
Or for that matter, don't even suspect.

You ever figure there might be a REASON for that?

Sheesh.
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
the expansion of federal government powers to intrude in the lives of
American citizens?

I miss those days.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
ray
2006-05-16 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Also nothing about the Republican Party being legal.
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person? Go out and find people
of your own intellectual status, perhaps like rodeo clown or something.
I don't continue discussions with people who start off with personal
insults. This is a political Newsgroup and not a teen chat room.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Clave
2006-05-16 03:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about wiretapping,
surveillance or spying for that matter.
Also nothing about the Republican Party being legal.
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person? Go out and find people
of your own intellectual status, perhaps like rodeo clown or something.
I don't continue discussions with people who start off with personal
insults.
You just did, dumbass.

Jim
Joseph Welch
2006-05-16 04:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Post by Joseph Welch
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person?
Because your kind of stupidity is dangerous. Your willingness to give MY
rights away means that ignoring you is tantamount to encouraging you. I
prefer to engage in proactive condemnation.
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
giving more power to the federal government to intrude into the personal
lives of ordinary Americans?

I miss those days.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underming American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.

***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 07:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
Post by Joseph Welch
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person?
Because your kind of stupidity is dangerous. Your willingness to give MY
rights away means that ignoring you is tantamount to encouraging you. I
prefer to engage in proactive condemnation.
If Bush were wiretapping legally, this would be a policy issue. But
because he isn't, and because he thinks no laws apply to him, it's a
civil rights issue.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
giving more power to the federal government to intrude into the personal
lives of ordinary Americans?
I miss those days.
Yeah. All we're left with nowadays is
pee-your-pants-when-the-president-says-boo conservatives. 'Deal with
facts' indeed.
Paul Mitchum
2006-05-16 07:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
Post by Joseph Welch
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person?
Because your kind of stupidity is dangerous. Your willingness to give MY
rights away means that ignoring you is tantamount to encouraging you. I
prefer to engage in proactive condemnation.
If Bush were wiretapping legally, this would be a policy issue. But
because he isn't, and because he thinks no laws apply to him, it's a
civil rights issue.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
giving more power to the federal government to intrude into the personal
lives of ordinary Americans?
I miss those days.
Yeah. All we're left with nowadays is
pee-your-pants-when-the-president-says-boo conservatives. 'Deal with
facts' indeed.
ray
2006-05-17 00:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
Post by Joseph Welch
Damn, you're stupid.
Then why are you responding to a stupid person?
Because your kind of stupidity is dangerous. Your willingness to give MY
rights away means that ignoring you is tantamount to encouraging you. I
prefer to engage in proactive condemnation.
Otherwise known as adolescent behavior.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by ray
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Remember the days when people calling themselves "conservative" were AGAINST
giving more power to the federal government to intrude into the personal
lives of ordinary Americans?
I miss those days.
Bush by most standards is not considered a real Conservative. His
speech last night is evidence of that. The Republicans may be in power
but that does not mean the Conservatives are.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
Clave
2006-05-13 05:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
The Constitutional separation of powers is under attack, thanks to a
lawless President and his co-conspirator Republican Congresscritters.
We live in a police state where Republicans have applauded the erosion
of civil rights while the President breaks very important laws and
spies on us without a warrant. We have no legitimacy in the foreign
theater because Bush and his Republican sycophants lied to the world
about the threat posed by Iraq and wasted the goodwill of other nations
after 9/11.
If the current sorry state of affairs has any single cause, it's the
Republican party's corruption, bigotry, and arrogance.
But Clinton...

Jim
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...