Warrantless Wiretapping Program Brought Under FISA Court
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Demiurge said:
The problem is: You'll never know.
You'll never know if your mail is being intercepted. They've even said that snail mail is fair game. You'll never know when someone gets "disappeared", because it'll be (shhhh) a "secret". You'll never know if your phones are being tapped, or you've been targeted.
You'll never know.
Trisha
Member
. . . and it'll all be with the legal patent of a secret court.
Oh, goody.
Oh, goody.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Hey, at least you get the secret court. Before this, you didn't even get that much protection... the same agency that requested your wiretap also decided whether it was appropriate to wiretap you.
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
For those who think the .gov should be able to wiretap when it's unwarranted, without any oversight-- maybe you should move to England, where you can be "safe beneath the watchful eyes". Washington would have had you tarred and feathered for a traitor. May posterity forget that you were our contrymen.
As far as ceetee's comment that you'll never know... that's the way that game is played. to give an extreme example, I've met HUNDREDS of people who lived under the Stalin Regime, and thought, even after glasnost, it was complete tinfoil-hat-nonsense when they heard people say that Stalin had millions of people killed. They would have challenged you to provide a single example of a komrad whose rights were violated, and if you did, they'd give a reason why that one time, it was okay. The reason you do a thing secretly, is because you don't intend others to know about it.
As far as ceetee's comment that you'll never know... that's the way that game is played. to give an extreme example, I've met HUNDREDS of people who lived under the Stalin Regime, and thought, even after glasnost, it was complete tinfoil-hat-nonsense when they heard people say that Stalin had millions of people killed. They would have challenged you to provide a single example of a komrad whose rights were violated, and if you did, they'd give a reason why that one time, it was okay. The reason you do a thing secretly, is because you don't intend others to know about it.
Glockfan.45
member
Yup I would much rather continue to trade off my rights as opposed to facing the possibility of another terror attack, heck I want to turn in my guns too while were at it may prevent another murder
. Security starts at the border and who we allow into the country not spying on citizens, and holding secret courts. Conservatives going soft I always thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government. It would seem to me that this so called "conservative government" that we had has created the largest government this country has ever seen. While I cringed when I heard we were going to have a majority Dem congress headed by Pelosi 
, perhaps some good (like getting the Patriot Act repealed) may come from it. As far as Bush saying he will end domestic wiretapping bull****. I am sure that program is only over till he issues himself another signing statement and trys to keep it a better secret this time.The Real Hawkeye
member
Yes, in fact, I believe the common names for this arrangement are "Kangaroo Court" and "Star Chamber."
Aguila Blanca
Member
I'm sorry I don't remember his name, but how about the American Muslim-convert attorney in Washington state (or was it Oregon) who was tossed in the clink for several months because the authorities insisted that his fingerprints were on a piece of luggage implicated in the Spanish rail bombing. The problem being that the Spanish authorities told our FBI that it wasn't his fingerprint, and our FBI went ahead and locked him up anyway ... and proceeded to deny him all sorts of fundamental, Constitutional rights "because he's a terrorist."Demiurge said:
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
I would. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.
Tactically, strategically, there is a real need for secrecy. There's also a need for legality. The court judges are sworn to secrecy out of a strategic need.
"Secret" doesn't mean "illegal". I'd much rather have this "secret" court keeping our intelligence agencies' actions legal than no one. Especially since the only other alternative is to just hope that our government will always act in strict accordance with the law of the land...
The BoR is a listing of citizens' rights and govt's limitations. It does not state that the standard to be met is one of perfection, as strict adherence to the BoR by gov't would still lead to false positives.Derby FALs said:
The only way to manage no false positives is to never engage in such activities.
I would put forward that this is an unreasonable standard for counter-espionage and law-enforcement in general. Also, that the benefit (no false-positives) is not worth the cost (no counter-espionage or law-enforcement activity).
Push for utopia long & hard enough and you will find yourself in the exact opposite place.
QuestionEverything
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 178
WHAT?
Personal attack removed. Please see the Forum Rules. Keep in mind it was Dubya and his friends who passed some of the most statist policies in the nation's history.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Real Hawkeye
member
This fact is not inconsistent with my position. Bush is at the power end, not the voting end, of my theory. Naturally, once a voting block exists which is predisposed to favor security to liberty, there will emerge hoards of politicians eager to appeal to this predisposition for personal gain.
Last edited by a moderator:
QuestionEverything
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 178
Do you feel, then, that women should be disenfranchised? Are you remotely aware of what a vile, anti-democratic position that is?
The Real Hawkeye
member
Well, since the Founders were antidemocratic too, I guess that puts me in good company, vile or not, and no, I don't propose the impossible. I said we are doomed by what has already happened. I did not propose any solutions. There likely aren't any. Once the voting franchise has escaped the exclusive possession of propertied males, all is pretty much lost for any republic. Now we get to be the observers and recorders of the inevitable decline and destruction of our society.
Since I became a property owner, I have favored limiting voting rights to property owners.
Seriously, though, a lot about my voting habits and my attention to politics changed radically, once I started paying property taxes, and once I started having a genuine vested interest in the future of my community and my state. I know that I am a far better-informed and more committed citizen.
Would a public company extend voting rights to people who weren't shareholders? Not a chance!
Should people without property be allowed full rights to dictate what others can do with theirs? Why should someone who does not own a house -- or a college student who hasn't ever even earned a living -- have a say in how much I am taxed for my home, for example? It's that old "taxation without representation", working the opposite direction.
Bear in mind that something like 70% of Americans now own their own homes. We're not talking about eliminating a huge number of the population, just those who don't have a vested interest in the community. If you have nothing to lose, you should not be allowed to make decisions for those who do.
I would extend selective disenfranchisement to anyone who receives a government entitlement. By that, I mean that they could only vote only certain issues and offices. Furthermore, I think that those who work in or contract to the public sector should be excluded from voting on certain issues, too, particularly bonds and taxes to fund public works. That would include me.
Seriously, though, a lot about my voting habits and my attention to politics changed radically, once I started paying property taxes, and once I started having a genuine vested interest in the future of my community and my state. I know that I am a far better-informed and more committed citizen.
Would a public company extend voting rights to people who weren't shareholders? Not a chance!
Should people without property be allowed full rights to dictate what others can do with theirs? Why should someone who does not own a house -- or a college student who hasn't ever even earned a living -- have a say in how much I am taxed for my home, for example? It's that old "taxation without representation", working the opposite direction.
Bear in mind that something like 70% of Americans now own their own homes. We're not talking about eliminating a huge number of the population, just those who don't have a vested interest in the community. If you have nothing to lose, you should not be allowed to make decisions for those who do.
I would extend selective disenfranchisement to anyone who receives a government entitlement. By that, I mean that they could only vote only certain issues and offices. Furthermore, I think that those who work in or contract to the public sector should be excluded from voting on certain issues, too, particularly bonds and taxes to fund public works. That would include me.
Demiurge
Member
I believe it was Karl Marx who said the downfall of Capitalism would come when they started giving voting rights to people who didn't own anything [property].
QuestionEverything
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 178
Propertied white males. Skin color was another deciding factor, remember? Do you rue the day the 13th Amendment was ratified? I don't know if you've ever railed against "Islamofascism," but if you view women as subhumans who are incapable of responsibly participating in government, you're not far from the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.
As for selective disenfranchisement, I thought the whole point of voting was so that people could promote changes that reflect their interests. Should residents of a subdivision be barred from voting to fix potholes in their area? Should cops be barred from voting on crime crackdown initiatives? Should gun owners be barred from voting on RKBA referenda? This idea is hilariously absurd if you consider its full implications.
Rumble
Member
Absurdity aside, it would be impossible to accurately "selectively disenfranchise" people according to what issues they were stakeholders in. As a college student happily renting my apartment, why shouldn't I have some input into property taxes? After all, it affects the rent. And if I was a family in that apartment--those taxes affect my kids' schools.
How does one define who has an interest? Is it left up to the propertied males to do so? What interest, would propertied males have in, say, gay marriage amendments (unless the males were gay, in which case, I'd say they had quite an interest?).
How does one define who has an interest? Is it left up to the propertied males to do so? What interest, would propertied males have in, say, gay marriage amendments (unless the males were gay, in which case, I'd say they had quite an interest?).
The Real Hawkeye
member
Unless I'm mistaken, in the days of the Founders, there were Negro males who were themselves property owners, and could thus vote.
I rue the actions taken by Union forces which lead up to, and made possible, the ratification of the 13th Amendment. All of these considered as one phenomenon essentially reversed the principles on which this nation was founded, setting us on a path to universal slavery. Is universal slavery any better than race slavery? I don't know. I will have to think about that.
I view women as females of the species man. Since all members, male and female, of that species are human, females also are human. As for their being incapable of responsibly participating, I've already stated that many are. I merely point out the reality, as I see it, that when they do participate in large numbers, their influence leads inevitably, in my view, to socialism and police statism. I've already explained why I hold that opinion.
As for Islam, I cannot control what Islam holds regarding women. If you find parallels between their views on women and those of the Founders, so be it. I do not see any strong parallels, however, apart from those relating to the voting franchise, though I don't believe that any women are eligible to vote under Islamic rule, while the Founders and I would extend the voting franchise to propertied emancipated single women and propertied widows.
Thin Black Line
Member
Somehow Able Danger was able to do what it did tracking the 9-11
terrorists, but somewhere above it the plug was pulled while the op was
in progress. Then we had 9-11....hmmm......
I agree. It would be great if we knew about all the foiled plots using good
old fashioned humint allowed under FISA approval.
It might reinforce for people that there can be a thorough investigation under
proper oversight, while still having an administration that can be accountable
if an American's rights are violated in the process.
We get the best of both worlds, or at least somewhat more of a balance
between Liberty and Security. Surely, no one here wants to trade away
their liberty? After all, that might come back and affect your ability to own
guns in a distant future!
- Status
