praise jebus Dick & W are keeping us safe from PB&J (1495 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.91 on 120 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by loki (View user info) at 2006-01-24 11:59:43 EST
I've been doing some reading to try to understand all this bad noise about so called illegal wire tapping and surveillance and I think that I get it now. I'm not too big to admit that perhaps I've been a bit hasty in criticizing the actions of the W administration.
Let's just look at the situation here, sure there is a court that is supposed to oversee the wiretapping program but let's be honest here, courts are run by pussies and as the administration has explained over and over, we're living in a post 9/11 world.
Hey, if you once met someone who met someone who once traveled somewhere and had a chance encounter with someone who knows someone who hates America then you SHOULD be under surveillance.
I also think it's vital to keep anyone under surveillance who criticizes the administration for wanting to keep someone who met someone who once traveled somewhere and had a chance encounter with someone who knows someone who hates America under surveillance.
If the courts won't allow it then perhaps we should just dismantle the court system and establish a system of regents to act as judge, jury, and executioner on behalf of the state. At the very least, we should keep anyone working anywhere in the justice system under surveillance.
Every day I wake up thanking jebus for TALON, the program implemented by Rummy that keeps tabs on subversive groups such as PETA, Greenpeace, the Quakers, and the other four dozen or so groups that TALON is working tirelessly to protect us from.
Take these Quakers, now I know that everyone thinks they have something to do with motor oil and are all harmless and anti-violent but I don't buy it. I know that my 5th grade history book had a picture of what they call a "Friends Meeting" where someone was getting smacked on the head with a small rubber ball for the egregious offence of falling asleep in the meeting.
Unacceptable, these people are clearly dangerous and I'm just glad that my tax money is going to keep an eye on them instead of it being squandered on such frivolities as health care and education.
Now there is this peanut butter and jelly thing.
To be honest, I debated myself on how much detail of this new terror tactic to bring to the über public. I don't want to be responsible for setting off rampant panic, so if anyone has any trouble sleeping because of this I apologize.
What TALON has learned is that there are terrorist groups out there posing as peace activists protesting the sacred US institution of Halliburton by (steady now) handing out free peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to passers-by up to and including employees of the institution itself.
That's right, see these misguided souls have been brainwashed into thinking that it is somehow improper for Halliburton to overcharge the US for a food contract in Iraq.
Well not on TALON's watch.
Where could this possibly lead? I have heard rumors that there are young girls dressed in some type of green uniform canvassing the country selling and distributing small boxes of cookies. What's worse is that they have a program by which a free citizen can purchase these "cookies" and have them delivered to the US Troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly this is somehow connected to "operation PB&J" and TALON will investigate further.
I also completely agree that people standing outside of a recruiting office holding "Bush Lied" signs should not only be kept under surveillance but maybe even flown off to Egypt for further questioning.
The voice of dissent should be crushed once and for all.
It is absolutely vital that everyone keep in mind AT ALL TIMES that we are living in a post 9/11 world. That fact alone justifies any and every action on the part of those who are given the thankless task of protecting us - even if it means protecting us from ourselves, in fact particularly when it means protecting us from ourselves.
To this end, I call for all free citizens of the United States of America to head outside to the closest public street each day at exactly 12:00 EST to shout messages of solidarity. These hate sessions will not only send a clear message to the terrorists, but also allow TALON to closely scrutinize the participants and make lists of those who do not appear to be fully embroiled and of course place them under surveillance.
There is more, but look at the time. I have to go outside and shout my love of the state and hatred of the enemy lest I be detained for questioning.
User Reviews
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-01-26 13:43:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure the governemnt's fucking us. Wouldn't be America if they weren't.
I just want somebody to negotiate for the safe release and return of the Bill of Rights.
I remember something being in there about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense was mentioned, as well.
I could be wrong though...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-26 13:07:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
seasofseems, you just don't get it like all bleeding-heart idiots cannot comprehend.
I take care of myself and don't give a fuck what happens to you and your bullshit cause. I'm not "giving up" but rather living the life I want by doing the things I want to. I don't have to try to tie myself to a gas pump to protest oil companies, I drive an economy car that gets good gas mileage. I have beaten the system by doing exactly what they don't want me to. I don't fall into the "I've got to have that!" crowd rushing out to buy whatever I must have according to some company. Why do I care? I live how I want to and the only people who usually pass laws that impede on my personal life is democrats and their bullshit regulatory crap that only drives up prices and/or limits some bullshit that really doesn't matter. This only usually helps big business anyway... they are all suckers.
So one day you'll realize all your efforts have failed and perhaps you should have spent more time living life than complaining about something you can never change.
So basically, go fuck yourself.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-26 10:45:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Someone leaked the existence of this program to the press, but no one knows just who is being wire tapped. If we knew that or if the super secret court that is supposed to monitor this knew then this wouldn't be an issue.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-26 10:33:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-26 10:26:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
How can there be complaints about something that no one knows about?
-----------------------
Where did the complaints about wiretappings start? Someone talked about it? If what they were using it to simply spy on political threats, don't you think that would be leaked to?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-26 10:26:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How can there be complaints about something that no one knows about?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-26 10:18:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-01-26 02:57:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
The reality of the situation is that no Al-Qaeda operative is going to be making a phone call to his counterpart in the US using a line the government could tap. If he is, that's the guy that dropped out of the first day at terrorist school. "Dude, I told you to use a pay phone!"
---------------------
They can tap pay phones.
I don't think this is some big indepth scheme to listen to political rivals, if it was you would be getting a lot more complaints then you have been from the people responsibl;e for these taps.
I am more inclined to believe that a lot of times they are grasping at straws and listening to whatever they can in hopes of finding something.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-01-26 02:57:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The reality of the situation is that no Al-Qaeda operative is going to be making a phone call to his counterpart in the US using a line the government could tap. If he is, that's the guy that dropped out of the first day at terrorist school. "Dude, I told you to use a pay phone!"
The purpose of warrantless wiretaps is to obtain information to use against political enemies within the United States. For those who have forgotten, go look up "Watergate" or "J. Edgar Hoover" or "Joseph McCarthy". They all had buzzword enemies at their disposal to name drop any time someone questioned their actions. Naturally, those who question the acts are then immediately suspected of being associated with buzzword enemy.
Sure, the federal government says they are monitoring "terrorist suspects". If there's no judicial oversight, it doesn't matter what they say because there's no proof of anything either way and their word is shit.
Anyone who believes a word the federal government says is an idiot.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 19:52:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:01:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
handing out PB&J sandwiches <> blocking access
holding up signs <> blocking access
blocking access = blocking access
----------------
I love it how smartasses who think they're being clever try to confuse the issue in a debate by twisting your words into something you never even said. Don't you, Loki?
It just makes my day to know there are people out there who can take an issue and distort it so much that eventually people just go "fuck it, you win", then if they don't you're being either 'whiny' or any number of other childish things. The bottom line is, they don't have a leg to stand on in a real debate that focuses on the facts so they'd rather try to catch you in a SEEMING contradiction that really just stems from their own misunderstanding of what you said, of their lack of ability to read or listen to what you plainly said in the first place.
It's beautiful.
Keep shooting them down. They're like the ducks in Duck Hunt...all "quack quack" and nothing really to say.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:22:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
think W spelled iran wrong and attacked the wrong country?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How 'bout a new topic? This one has seemed to drift into no-mans land(rightfully named, since no-man has any say in whether a baby is aborted or not). But I don't like that subject, so lets get back to the original topic, or start a new one, like, say, Iran for instance.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 17:01:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
handing out PB&J sandwiches <> blocking access
holding up signs <> blocking access
blocking access = blocking access
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:54:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:43:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
There are still plenty of crazies out protesting a women's right to exert control over her own reproductive system. I see it all the time. What they cannot do is block access.
If people were blocking access to Halliburton, no doubt they would be arrested.
thanks for playing though
______________________________________
You're welcome.
Listen to yourself.
"What they cannot do is block access." (Meaning: If they do, they will be arrested.)
"If people were blocking access to Halliburton, no doubt they would be arrested."
<sputter, sputter>
It's the FUCKING SAME THING.
Submitted by COMountain (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:49:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you wanna know how I know the world is about to end?
1. The most popular rapper is white.
2. The best golfer is black.
3. The tallest dude in the NBA is Chinese.
4. Reality TV
5. The world's super power is run by a Bush, Dick and Colon
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:43:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There are still plenty of crazies out protesting a women's right to exert control over her own reproductive system. I see it all the time. What they cannot do is block access.
If people were blocking access to Halliburton, no doubt they would be arrested.
thanks for playing though
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:30:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Apple, this is Orange. Orange, Apple.
This is what I fucking love about you Loki.
One the one hand you have poor little kids holding up "Bush Lied" posters, on the other you have militant thugs barring acces to abortion clinics. Oh. I'm sorry, "women's health facilities."
The proper comparison to your poor kids with their "Bush Lied" signs WOULD NOT be little old ladies holding up "Abortion Stops A Beating Heart" signs and praying the rosary, oh hell no.
Who needs credibility when you have hyperbole?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 16:21:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference is between one of the protection of free speech versus violation of the freedom of access to clinic entrance act of 1994.
Holding up a sign that says "Bush Lied" is both true and protected free speech.
Physically preventing a women from seeking medical care is a extortion and if it is something that I see happening, dangerous.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:30:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:15:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice try, but there is a difference between a peaceful protest and the use of violence to prevent someone from seeking medical care.
----------------------
What?
Abortion protestors have strict rules about where they can protest around abortion clinics. In some places (due to building layout and surrounding area) they can't be seen by people entering abortion clinics. the people there are trying to send a message to individuals entering, and they are prevented, or at least extremely hampered from doing so.
Protestors at political rallies or speeches are very rarely trying to influence individuals. Who cares if anti-republicans at the RNC had to be a block away, they were still on TV, if anything there message got more attention.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:24:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Impeach Bush: http://www.ubersite.com/m/82890
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 15:15:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice try, but there is a difference between a peaceful protest and the use of violence to prevent someone from seeking medical care.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 14:22:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 14:07:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe that RICO laws are the ones actually used to protect women's clinics.
-----------------------------
Looks like you are right, but isn't the effect the same?
At the end of the day it is limiting where people can protest in public.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 14:21:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:55:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
teeph, proud to be an american?
why?
An accident of birth?
one can have pride in ones achievments, in ones children etc but pride in where they were born?
madness.
_________________________________________________
"Madness." I love it.
The Eurotrash is just a sloppily hyperbolic with their language as the dirty hippies are.
I can be proud of my own achievements you say? I can be proud of my children?
Great. Now extrapolate that backwards. Can I be proud of my parents? Of their achievements? Can I be proud of the fact that the "accident" of my birth was no accident at all? How about THEIR parents, and THEIR parents, amd THEIR parents? If so, then it SEEMS to follow that I CAN be proud to be an American. It stems from pride in the people who got the DNA from where it's been to where it is now.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 14:07:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe that RICO laws are the ones actually used to protect women's clinics.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-25 14:04:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Funny how apollo bashes America, but...
WHERE IS HE RIGHT NOW?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:55:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
teeph, proud to be an american?
why?
An accident of birth?
one can have pride in ones achievments, in ones children etc but pride in where they were born?
madness.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:47:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 09:29:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
3. This combined with the "free speech zones"
--------------------------------
Aren't free speech zones used primarily to protect abortion clinics?
Slight change of topic, but this is the onlyinteresting post here.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:41:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:17:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
most heated...+2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:16:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Keep in mind that "we" don't know who is being wiretapped. No one does because they have decided that they are above the laws requiring oversight.
_______________________
Aw, come on Loki! Don't fear the unknown! That's what simpletons like me are supposed to be guilty of!
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:17:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
most heated...+2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:16:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Keep in mind that "we" don't know who is being wiretapped. No one does because they have decided that they are above the laws requiring oversight.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-25 13:01:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:41:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Condescention is so fetching. Yes. I trust Bush.
"Am I willing to allow anyone sitting in the Oval office the same latitude?" you ask. Honestly? It depends. Since I tend to be rather "hawkish," I'm willing to bet that in a time of war, when Congress has expanded the President's powers to protect the country, I would. If Hillary was acting in a hawkish manner, then I'm pretty sure that I would be on board.
But in the spirit of honesty, let's admit that it is unlikely that the issue will come up. WHEN the pendulum swings back, I will most likely BITCH up a storm if the Dem-in-chief tries to cut and run in Iraq, tries to negotiate with Iran, tries to dismantle the military or tries to impose limitations on our intelligence abilities.
I'm a war-monger, that's how I roll.
I will also bitch when they try to raise my taxes and expand government benefits or protection to ANYONE except children. (And before you smell blood and try to attack, no, I'm not happy about Bush's NON-war spending.)
And while I admire your patriotic ferver to stop even your own mother from skirting around the checks and balances put in place to control abuses of power, the thing is, these "abuses of power" really just aren't. Even before the Patriot Act, there have been warrantless wiretaps in the past (Carter, Clinton). There has been information gathering on protesters in the past (pretty much EVERY President ever). And (this is where I leave the world of the concrete "things I have seen reported") I believe that there have even been super secret black ops prisons in the past. I believe there has been torture in the past, even since the implimentation of the Geneva Convention.
The thing is, I've ALWAYS assumed that there have been. Maybe that's why I simply cannot feel the outrage you do.
And finally, I don't KNOW anything about ghost prisoners or people dying during interogations, and I wonder if you do. I've heard rumors, but I tend to maintain a healthy skepticism about such things, or at least about the degree of knowledge of the people feigning outrage over them for political purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Abso-fuckung-lutely agree with this...Americans all have the uncanny ability to forget history. If anybody thinks that all this stuff hasn't been done before, they're foolish. The only difference nowadays is that the media has more swaying power than it used too. This can be a good and bad thing. For instance, read the transcript to OBL's last taped message. He sights several issues that the media has been pandering to recently, and uses them to his behalf....WHAT?! Osama Bin Ladin is using OUR media to help HIS cause? I'm all for news agencies reporting what they think to be truths,(and many of them are). But, not when the world's most wanted man, who has expressed many times his intent to kill all infedels, is using these reports. The media needs to wake up and see that all their attempts to make Bush look bad are helping our enemy.
STOP THE BIPARTISAN BULLSHIT AND START WORKING TOGETHER TO FIX SHIT, NOT GROW FURTHER APART.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:52:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by El_Jeffe (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:38:48 (#)
Ranking: 1
What you should be wondering is why the fuck it didn't in the first place. This story was held back by the NY Times from 2003. Gee, I wonder why.
_______________________________________________________________
Uh? Because James Risen didn't want to hurt his book sales?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743270665/qid=1138211393/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5326158-7362403?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
He was the guy who broke the story, ya know.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:46:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by El_Jeffe (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:38:48 (#)
Ranking: 1
What you should be wondering is why the fuck it didn't in the first place. This story was held back by the NY Times from 2003. Gee, I wonder why. Election coming up awful close, wasn't it? It's taken two fucking years to get the story about illegal motherfucking wiretapping on such groups as PETA (which does deserved to be wiretapped, I admit), the fucking Quakers, and a good 80% of Muslim synagogues in America.
----------------------------
I may be wrong, but I think you are mixing up your stories. The "illegal" wiretaps (it is still debateable if it is illegal if one of the parties is outside the US) had nothing to do with PETA or the Quakers. Meetings and protests from groups like PETA and some antiwar movements had files kept on them. There is no proof of wiretapping specifically on PETA or the Quakers. I would not be suprised to learn that Muslim mosques (synagogues are jewish) have been wiretapped more often, because they probably call to more questionable places overseas.
They waited 2 years because it is bullshit to run a big story like this without concrete proof, and the guy who broke it was writing a book about it.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:44:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
good 80% of Muslim synagogues in America.
Muslims go to Mosques, Jews go to Synagogues. However, Muslims blow up both.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:41:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Condescention is so fetching. Yes. I trust Bush.
"Am I willing to allow anyone sitting in the Oval office the same latitude?" you ask. Honestly? It depends. Since I tend to be rather "hawkish," I'm willing to bet that in a time of war, when Congress has expanded the President's powers to protect the country, I would. If Hillary was acting in a hawkish manner, then I'm pretty sure that I would be on board.
But in the spirit of honesty, let's admit that it is unlikely that the issue will come up. WHEN the pendulum swings back, I will most likely BITCH up a storm if the Dem-in-chief tries to cut and run in Iraq, tries to negotiate with Iran, tries to dismantle the military or tries to impose limitations on our intelligence abilities.
I'm a war-monger, that's how I roll.
I will also bitch when they try to raise my taxes and expand government benefits or protection to ANYONE except children. (And before you smell blood and try to attack, no, I'm not happy about Bush's NON-war spending.)
And while I admire your patriotic ferver to stop even your own mother from skirting around the checks and balances put in place to control abuses of power, the thing is, these "abuses of power" really just aren't. Even before the Patriot Act, there have been warrantless wiretaps in the past (Carter, Clinton). There has been information gathering on protesters in the past (pretty much EVERY President ever). And (this is where I leave the world of the concrete "things I have seen reported") I believe that there have even been super secret black ops prisons in the past. I believe there has been torture in the past, even since the implimentation of the Geneva Convention.
The thing is, I've ALWAYS assumed that there have been. Maybe that's why I simply cannot feel the outrage you do.
And finally, I don't KNOW anything about ghost prisoners or people dying during interogations, and I wonder if you do. I've heard rumors, but I tend to maintain a healthy skepticism about such things, or at least about the degree of knowledge of the people feigning outrage over them for political purposes.
Submitted by El_Jeffe (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:38:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:26:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:54:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
So shall we return to the original question? Why did they avoid getting warrants when they knew that expediency was not an issue?
could it be
because they have expanded the program to include people who "look at W funny"?
---------------------
Yep that is it. They are recording everyone who says anything against W and throwing them in jail, no actually just killing them. And the news isn't covering it because they don't want to lose favor with Bush (even though they reported the wiretap story).
Do you think a wiretap that doesn't have a warrant will ever be used against a US citizen?
Do you think they aren't getting warrants after the fact because they got nothing so they aren't going to use it so it isn't worth the time? It makes more sense then your conspiracy theory.
If you really believe that the CIA are kidnapping people in the US and kidnapping, if you believe that Bush is really doing this to hurt people that speak out against him, how was this story ever broke? Why is it in every newspaper?
=====
What you should be wondering is why the fuck it didn't in the first place. This story was held back by the NY Times from 2003. Gee, I wonder why. Election coming up awful close, wasn't it? It's taken two fucking years to get the story about illegal motherfucking wiretapping on such groups as PETA (which does deserved to be wiretapped, I admit), the fucking Quakers, and a good 80% of Muslim synagogues in America.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:37:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:09:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
You trust Bush? Really, that's so cute.
Tell me, are you willing to allow anyone sitting in the Oval office this same latitude?
You and I both know that at some point the pendulum is going to swing back to the left and you'll be screaming until you are blue in the fact that Hilary or whoever should not be allowed to conduct warrantless wiretaps without oversight.
will to see that happen?
Because I am not. I don't care if my own mother were the President of the United States I would not want her circumventing the checks and balances put in place to control abuses of power.
And don't tell me you haven't heard of the CIA's ghost prisoners and/or people dying while being interrogated - please.
-------------------------------
I don't have to trust Bush. Where is he using this info against US citizens?
If warentless wiretaps are used to get convictions on domestic matters, then yes I will scream, but it hasn't happened, and I don't think it will.
I have heard of the Ghost prisons in eastern Europe, but nobody has presented a shred of proof. If it is happeneing it has happened since the cold war and has nothing to do with wiretaps.
How many people have died while being interrogated? The last guy I heard of died from a heart attack. It should be stressful, it should be painful, not a fucking day care. I have heard of guards beating people and them dying of injuries, but how many times have guards been attacked, and how many people die in prison in the US? And what does that have to do with wiretaps?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:35:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
nice slippery slope you are sailing down there indoninja
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:26:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:54:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
So shall we return to the original question? Why did they avoid getting warrants when they knew that expediency was not an issue?
could it be
because they have expanded the program to include people who "look at W funny"?
---------------------
Yep that is it. They are recording everyone who says anything against W and throwing them in jail, no actually just killing them. And the news isn't covering it because they don't want to lose favor with Bush (even though they reported the wiretap story).
Do you think a wiretap that doesn't have a warrant will ever be used against a US citizen?
Do you think they aren't getting warrants after the fact because they got nothing so they aren't going to use it so it isn't worth the time? It makes more sense then your conspiracy theory.
If you really believe that the CIA are kidnapping people in the US and kidnapping, if you believe that Bush is really doing this to hurt people that speak out against him, how was this story ever broke? Why is it in every newspaper?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 12:09:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You trust Bush? Really, that's so cute.
Tell me, are you willing to allow anyone sitting in the Oval office this same latitude?
You and I both know that at some point the pendulum is going to swing back to the left and you'll be screaming until you are blue in the fact that Hilary or whoever should not be allowed to conduct warrantless wiretaps without oversight.
will to see that happen?
Because I am not. I don't care if my own mother were the President of the United States I would not want her circumventing the checks and balances put in place to control abuses of power.
And don't tell me you haven't heard of the CIA's ghost prisoners and/or people dying while being interrogated - please.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-01-25 11:53:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I found a wire tap in my pancakes this morning. Should I be worried?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 11:40:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In response:
1. You don't have to trust Bush. In fact, it is probably a good thing that you don't. They say that dissent is good for the country and all that. (Although I suspect they could give you reasons to trust him all day long to no effect due to his a) political; and b) religious persuasion - but those aren't really the issue here.)
The avoidance of the appearance of impropriety? Was this aimed at me or at Bush, because as far as I know he's not holdng any sort of professional licenses whereas I am.
Anyway, while the smell test for abuse of power IS highly respected, I am fairly confident that the powers delegated to the President BY CONGRESS after 9/11 and before entering Iraq give him a bit of discretion with the "witch hunts" he can conduct. If I need to, I can track down the language, because you can bet your ass that Bush has a bona fide legal argument in favor of (and historical Presidential precedent for) his actions.
As for whether or not every bit of information collected has to be used in court . . . that is a valid argument. Abuses of power COULD happen in this way, until the first phone call to the press. But this is a valid area of concern. It is reasonable to worry about this, but I don't because I DO trust the President. So this is just a matter where we will have a simple matter of opinion.
Concerning the assertion that "who W considers a threat to the United States of America is a very wide net," would seem to segue into your Point # 2. I am inclined to try to argue this one and ask for PROOF of how wide the net is, ask you how YOU know how wide the net is, but I can see where it is semi-reasonable (to a suspicious mind) to imply that from the "Quaker" *cough*Truth Project*cough* investigations, etc. But even so . . .
2. I absolutely do not believe that you can validly say "this other secret program where activist groups are being monitored appears to be an effort on the part of the administration to intimidate such groups in order to squelch dissent." This is because the only way those groups even knew they were being monitored was when the internal spreadsheet we were orignially talking about was released. Members of these groups were "shocked to find" that information about their activities had been collected. If these were not aware of the surrveilance prior to the story being leaked by a whistleblower (and that it appears that the information was concerned with protests, etc.) HOW IS THIS INTIMIDATING OR SQUELCHING DISSENT?
And again, I do not believe that it is unreasonable to believe that people who go to PETA rallys may be the same people who may be involved in the ELF. So I don't think it is unreasonable to see who shows up to the PETA rally.
3. "free speech zones" - if you have a problem with this, contact the Supreme Court who has repeatedly determined that restrictions on the time and place where "free speech" can take place are permissible.
reluctance to pass a ban on torture - This doesn't bother me either, for several reasons. First because I see you throwing out a charged word like "torture" without any hint as to how that word is defined. Also, call me pragmatic, but in a war against people who are known to behead their captives, I don't want to tie my country's hands.
mysterious deaths of people in US custody - Who, when, where?
questionable intelligence that lead us to war - the same questionable intelligence that nearly every other credible intelligence source agreed with at the time.
energy policies written by energy companies - speculation. By the way, who writes the tax code?
this whole lobby thing - where Democratic lobbyists are pissed that they can't find jobs because no one thinks they can effectively lobby the Republican majority in Congress (like they'd be able to if the Dems were in control)? Or the one where Abramov was bribing everybody on the Hill?
But yeah. I am proud to be an American.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 10:49:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, I watched The Motorcycle Diaries last night.
Despite the fact that I despise subtitles, it was a great movie.
Fuck the CIA and fuck the US government.
Bush should be impeached or, barring that, assassinated. Cheney too.
Suck on THAT, NSA! FUCK YOU!
Here I am. Come get me.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-25 10:45:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki, I agree with everything you just said.
This is just like 1984.
You've even got media intimidated. If a media station were to start reporting more in depth on the things it sees, they lose favor with Washington. Right now, though, the media is party to the problem.
Media, news, all that is a political game that has more to do with money and agenda than it does with reporting what's going on to the masses. We have corporate lobbyists to thank for that among other things.
They are also the reason we are still running our vehicles on gasoline. But instead, we're bound and determined to find out the hard way.
Wait till this summer and this coming fall.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-25 10:42:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Arguing semantics?!"
<fume>
Look, why don't you go balance a checkbook or something.
Why doesn't Kandisnski just go slap some paint on a canvas?
Philistine.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-25 09:29:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shall we beg the original question here or are we still arguing semantics?
Here is the situation as I see it.
1. No, I'm sorry but I do not trust W. There is certainly no reason for me to.
W wants to issue wire taps on people he perceives as a threat to the United States of America. Fine, lovely enjoy your witch hunt. Doing so without obtaining warrants from the double super secret court designed for this very purpose smells like abuse of power.
This is the very avoidance of the appearance of impropriety (or lack thereof) that anyone holding any sort of professional license is warned about.
This information they are obtaining may be inadmissible in court, but not every bit of data has to be used in court in order to be useful.
By that I mean, who W considers a threat to the United States of America is a very wide net.
2. This other secret program where activists groups are being monitored appears to be an effort on the part of the administration to intimidate such groups in order to squelch dissent. There are certain groups like ELF who should be monitored, those guys are class a fuckjobs, but infiltrating Quakers and investigating kids who are holding up "Bush Lied" posters is jumping scope and smacks of intimidation.
3. This combined with the "free speech zones", reluctance to pass a ban on torture, shadow CIA prisons where people disappear, mysterious deaths of people in US custody, questionable intelligence that lead us to war, energy policies written by energy companies, and this whole lobby thing paints a lovely picture that just has to make you proud to be an American doesn't it.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:29:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
seaofsemen is learning the hard way about arguing with teeph.
he'll do it all day with attention to detail.
Which is why his made up ADD is bullshit.
-----------------------
Don't count me out. He's wrong.
Stubborn as fuck...
But wrong.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:40:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:20:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Chill ETS. Breathe.
And please refrain from calling me an idiot.
Why don't you try offering some sort of proof. At least Loki sited news articles.
Stop telling me what Bush has "sold" poor little selfish and non-lateral-thinking me on and try giving me a REASON to see things differently that I can't defeat.
Not that the claims you've pulled out of the air so far aren't convincing at all, especially the parts where you insult my intelligence.
-----------------------
I'm guessing you're talking to me here.
Look, retard...let me make this very very simple...
A: George W. Bush authorized wiretapping program which allowed for the gathering of information without a warrant.
B: That is illegal.
C: The President of the United States is not a King or a God, and he is not above the law of the land.
D: He should be impeached.
As for your sorry attempt at exploiting some loophole in my words so as to draw attention away from the fact that you have absolutely no fucking argument, I ask you why Bush would say "I'm spying on you and I'll continue to spy on you" if he wasn't doing it? To assume that this statement was a lie doesn't make logical sense because he would merely be drawing undo heat upon himself at a time when his approval ratings were already in the fucking gutter, not to mention the knowledge that, if subsequent hearings found him to be guilty of breaking the law, he could be impeached. It's a simple deduction derived from a cursory examination of positives and negatives and their relation to human motivation.
Try again.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:34:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE ANY FUCKING COURT PROCEEDINGS! THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PICKED UP AND DETAINED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT A TRIAL WHILE THEY ARE TORTURED IN GUANTANAMO BAY OR TAKEN TO SOME EUROPEAN FACILITY! EITHER THAT OR THEY WILL BE KILLED AND NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
But, again...you don't give a shit. They are just 'terrorists' right? You're all for it because the Bush administration has sold you on the idea that bypassing human rights and the Geneva convention is A-OK so long as they can easily fall under the ever-widening umbrella of 'terrorist'.
-------
You're goddamn fucking right I'm all for it.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:29:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
seaofsemen is learning the hard way about arguing with teeph.
he'll do it all day with attention to detail.
Which is why his made up ADD is bullshit.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:28:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And now I have to go home.
G'night all.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:26:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:18:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:11:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Consistency's a bitch.
----------------------------
You're not getting off on a technicality here, because even if I'm wrong about MY assumption of the truth of a Bush statement, my point still stands because I'm asserting he's a fucking liar while yours crumbles.
Besides, the best lies are gilded with a layer of truth.
______________________________________________
Actually, you may be wrong there. See, what *I've* done is used the words you've actually typed with your own hands to show that you are inconsisant. You're not being academically honest. You will try to say that everything Bush says is a lie on the one hand and yet take whatever few quotes you can find to serve your purpose and say that THOSE are true.
You are biased as a motherfucker and don't give a shit about whatever truth may be out there. YOUR OWN WORDS show this.
Hell, you don't even deny that you ARE inconsistent. You only try to skirt the issue by saying anecdotally that "the best lies are gilded with a layer of truth."
Yeah, well, I guess maybe you'd know.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:20:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Chill ETS. Breathe.
And please refrain from calling me an idiot.
Why don't you try offering some sort of proof. At least Loki sited news articles.
Stop telling me what Bush has "sold" poor little selfish and non-lateral-thinking me on and try giving me a REASON to see things differently that I can't defeat.
Not that the claims you've pulled out of the air so far aren't convincing at all, especially the parts where you insult my intelligence.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:18:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:11:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd say that when Bush himself stood up in front of TV cameras and said point blank, "I am spying on you without a warrant, and I'll continue to do so" is ANYTHING but a 'maybe'.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:03:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
First: You really take what the Bush Administration says at face value? They tap people's phones secretly and WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT or warrants (which are REQUIRED BY LAW), and you are putting faith in ANYTHING they say? If so, I'm sorry, but you're a fucking dumbass!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Consistency's a bitch.
----------------------------
You're not getting off on a technicality here, because even if I'm wrong about MY assumption of the truth of a Bush statement, my point still stands because I'm asserting he's a fucking liar while yours crumbles.
Besides, the best lies are gilded with a layer of truth.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:17:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:16:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I did indeed. And I'm elated that you caught it.
You younger-than-me bastard!
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:15:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:17:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
So follow it through, "if the courts that were designed to provide a check and balance on unchecked power grabbing by the President denied the request, the wire tap would be removed and the information so gathered would be inadmissible."
Exactly.
And the evidence so gathered will STILL be inadmissible if they don't have a warrant. So, if they think they HAVE something from a wiretap they did without a warrant, they are STILL going to have to GET the warrant if they want to use anything they gained from it in a prosecution. IF they don't get anything they can use, then what's the point of jumping through the hoop? The result will be inadmissible evidence for a case no one even wants to prosecute.
-------------------------------
Your idiocy and complete fucking lack of knowledge of what's going on here astounds me.
OF COURSE it wouldn't be admissible in a court proceeding...BUT
THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE ANY FUCKING COURT PROCEEDINGS! THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PICKED UP AND DETAINED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT A TRIAL WHILE THEY ARE TORTURED IN GUANTANAMO BAY OR TAKEN TO SOME EUROPEAN FACILITY! EITHER THAT OR THEY WILL BE KILLED AND NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
But, again...you don't give a shit. They are just 'terrorists' right? You're all for it because the Bush administration has sold you on the idea that bypassing human rights and the Geneva convention is A-OK so long as they can easily fall under the ever-widening umbrella of 'terrorist'.
There won't BE a trial.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:12:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, regarding wookie's previous comments:
. . .
Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.
Make a little birdhouse in your soul.
Bastard. You did that on purpose.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:11:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Courts supervising wiretaps = Wiretapping of enemies of America.
Bush supervising wiretaps = Wiretapping enemies of the Republican party.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:11:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd say that when Bush himself stood up in front of TV cameras and said point blank, "I am spying on you without a warrant, and I'll continue to do so" is ANYTHING but a 'maybe'.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:03:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
First: You really take what the Bush Administration says at face value? They tap people's phones secretly and WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT or warrants (which are REQUIRED BY LAW), and you are putting faith in ANYTHING they say? If so, I'm sorry, but you're a fucking dumbass!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Consistency's a bitch.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:06:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck you wookie, you older than me bastard, don't mess with me when I'm on a roll.
But yes. I meant FISA, not ERISA.
F not ER.
I got the ISA part right though.
And that's liek, 65-75%. Good enough for a C. Maybe C-.
And the real point here is that (WITH the notable exception you pointed out) I am right and Loki is wrong. That's because I'm a man. A man who built the Eiffel Tower out of steel and brawn. She's just a woman. With a brain 1/3 the size of us. It's science.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 18:03:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:33:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
He did not say he was spying on ME. He said he was listening in on the phone calls of PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING CALLS FROM KNOWN AL QUEIDA OPERATIVES. I don't have a problem with that.
----------------------------
That's classic. And, at the same time, sad.
First: You really take what the Bush Administration says at face value? They tap people's phones secretly and WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT or warrants (which are REQUIRED BY LAW), and you are putting faith in ANYTHING they say? If so, I'm sorry, but you're a fucking dumbass!
Besides, it's not just Al Queida operatives they are spying on. They are spying on American citizens as well as anyone even remotely linked by proxy to people who may or may not be threats to national security. It is also my firm belief that they are most likely also spying on anyone they consider political enemies. This means gathering ANYTHING (not necessarily info about illegal activities) they can use as political ammunition against those that might oppose them to embarrass them and plant stories about them in the media. If you don't think this shit goes on, then you are being naive.
Second: I understand that it's human nature not to give a shit about things that seem to have no bearing on you or your immediate realm of concern. Your selfishness is self-evident, but so is your lack of lateral thinking.
If you can't see that it's fucked up for a president to blatantly break the law just because he thinks 'this is a special case' or because he thinks he has the inherent authority as president, or if this is just something he feels like doing (WHATEVER HIS STATED REASON), then you are part of the problem.
Of course, you'll pull out the same bullshit excuse that I've seen repeatedly on this fucking website since I got here that since this stuff has always gone on, in other words since it's pretty much the status quo, that Bush shouldn't be held accountable or fucking impeached for his blatant disrespect for the American judicial system and American civil liberties as laid out in the Constitution he, himself, swore to protect when taking office.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:53:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:17:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
So follow it through, "if the courts that were designed to provide a check and balance on unchecked power grabbing by the President denied the request, the wire tap would be removed and the information so gathered would be inadmissible."
Exactly.
And the evidence so gathered will STILL be inadmissible if they don't have a warrant. So, if they think they HAVE something from a wiretap they did without a warrant, they are STILL going to have to GET the warrant if they want to use anything they gained from it in a prosecution. IF they don't get anything they can use, then what's the point of jumping through the hoop? The result will be inadmissible evidence for a case no one even wants to prosecute.
But now you're arguing about the admisibility of the evidence gathered rather than the horrible offense of having the civil rights of the wiretapee violated.
If it's the violation of the civil rights that bothers you, then all this talk about the admisibility of evidence is only a red herring, because it doesn't matter if the evidence is good or NOT, it's the infringement of the person's rights which needs to be addressed.
But sadly, the infringement of the person's civil rights will never be addressed anyway, due to the secretive nature of the ERISA courts and the activities over which they are supposed to preside.
Odd that I find "protecting US Citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures a 'pointless hoop'?" Well, aside from the tone of this, please explain to me what part of any of the searches and seizures YOU are aware of would I consider "unreasonable?" Even if you can't find any, feel free to insinuate that I'm a fascist as much as you need to in order to feel morally superior.
And then, there you go again with an either baseless or just wildly untargeted attack on the Justices of the Supreme Court (but that's okay, we'll assume you're talking about Souter).
So returning to the original question, you get the original answer, for the original reasons.
As for whether or not they have expanded the program to include "people who look at W funny," I suppose they COULD have. They could have also expanded it to include space aliens from the planet Gybledurbach. There's about as much proof either way.
=================================================================
Not to put too fine a point on it or anything...but, uh, what in the heck are the ERISA courts. I thought this dealt with FISA--the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. Isn't ERISA some type of employment or retirement benefits legislation?
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:33:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:53:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Stabkill -
"Do I think their stunt will change anything? Nope. It is the sad reality of the "little guy"."
As long as people give up like you seem to be doing and say "I accept it because it's the way things are" you're right, it's the sad reality of the little guy. Nothing will ever change unless people stand up to make that change. I don't know you from Adam, but from my vantage point, you're just laying down, and unfortunately, you happen to be laying down in the middle of the road where other people try to march toward change...or at the very least, awareness. You think people who go out and protest aren't helping a damned thing...that's debatable. However, the fact that people who subscribe to your attitude aren't helping a damned thing is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something called "REALITY" and it is very far removed from your belief that one person can change a god damn thing against a large corporation. Sure, we have whisteblowers and terrorists/murderers which can sometimes accomplish something. But the auto industry and oil industry are perfect examples of being able to do NOTHING about as one individual. All you can do is not purchase their crap and hope for others to do the same... outside of that, it is a dream world to believe they'd listen to what you have to say and change things.
------------------------
Then by your own admission, you're nothing but a pushover and a bitch to the powers that be.
Talking about these issues on this website or in physical life is not about butting heads with the large corporations. It's about making as many people as possible engaged and aware of the fact that they are fucking us. There is power in numbers, but not if you continue with a defeatist attitude.
Any change that happens in the world starts with individuals who aren't afraid to say something about the injustice they see in the world, and who aren't willing to lie down and give up in the face of overwhelming odds.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:17:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So follow it through, "if the courts that were designed to provide a check and balance on unchecked power grabbing by the President denied the request, the wire tap would be removed and the information so gathered would be inadmissible."
Exactly.
And the evidence so gathered will STILL be inadmissible if they don't have a warrant. So, if they think they HAVE something from a wiretap they did without a warrant, they are STILL going to have to GET the warrant if they want to use anything they gained from it in a prosecution. IF they don't get anything they can use, then what's the point of jumping through the hoop? The result will be inadmissible evidence for a case no one even wants to prosecute.
But now you're arguing about the admisibility of the evidence gathered rather than the horrible offense of having the civil rights of the wiretapee violated.
If it's the violation of the civil rights that bothers you, then all this talk about the admisibility of evidence is only a red herring, because it doesn't matter if the evidence is good or NOT, it's the infringement of the person's rights which needs to be addressed.
But sadly, the infringement of the person's civil rights will never be addressed anyway, due to the secretive nature of the ERISA courts and the activities over which they are supposed to preside.
Odd that I find "protecting US Citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures a 'pointless hoop'?" Well, aside from the tone of this, please explain to me what part of any of the searches and seizures YOU are aware of would I consider "unreasonable?" Even if you can't find any, feel free to insinuate that I'm a fascist as much as you need to in order to feel morally superior.
And then, there you go again with an either baseless or just wildly untargeted attack on the Justices of the Supreme Court (but that's okay, we'll assume you're talking about Souter).
So returning to the original question, you get the original answer, for the original reasons.
As for whether or not they have expanded the program to include "people who look at W funny," I suppose they COULD have. They could have also expanded it to include space aliens from the planet Gybledurbach. There's about as much proof either way.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-24 17:13:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Because, if they are doing as they say they are, they don't need a warrant. It's not the same as a police officer searching your home, etc. The patriot act layed out a lot of exceptions that allow the gov't. to do this without a warrant.
But before you go crazy with the omigods, the exceptions specificaly have to do with "Acts of Terrorism", not any other crimes. This explains why the gov't. is keeping an eye on groups like PETA, Green Peace, the ALF, the ELF, etc. (I'm not familiar with the Quaker situation, so I'm staying away from that). These groups have traditionally expressed their views through the use of terrorist tactics, so therfore will be seen as terrorist orginizations. Not the seriously dangerous al Qaeda-Hamas type groups, but terrorists none the less.
I'm done here, time to read something else.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:55:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Aaaahh, how I miss the Bill of Rights.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:54:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thank you and yes I did know that they could get the wire tap after the fact. I imagine that if the courts that were designed to provide a check and balance on unchecked power grabbing by the President denied the request, the wire tap would be removed and the information so gathered would be inadmissible.
which is a catch-22 because if they had evidence in order for it to be inadmissible then the wire tap would not be denied
Odd that you consider protecting US Citizens from unreasonable search and seizure a "pointless hoop". It wasn't Constitutional Law that you specialized in was it? Oh well from the sounds of things you can still hold this attitude and end up on the Supreme Court.
So shall we return to the original question? Why did they avoid getting warrants when they knew that expediency was not an issue?
could it be
because they have expanded the program to include people who "look at W funny"?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:47:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:00:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
ok Teephphah then why just one reason why they did not go to the court for authorization for the wire taps?
expediency? not buying it, how long does it take to get one of these secret judges on the phone especially considering who they are
___________________________________________________
Expediency is the answer. In fact, the problems with getting warrants for wiretaps in emergent situations is something that is freely aknowledged. Do you know how we know this?
We know this because the Administration is permitted to get warrants for a wire-tap up to 72 hours AFTER they have actually DONE the tap in the first place. The way I see it, THAT is why you should be pissed. They can even get the warrants after the fact. But you know what? What kind of bullshit is that?
Go ahead, do the wiretap, then come and ask the ERISA court to bless it. This seems to make that blessing of the wiretap by the ERISA court completely pointless (and a vain formality only used to waste time and taxpayer money) because if they don't bless it, what then?
They can't "take it back" and make it as if the violation of Akmed's civil rights never happened and they sure as hell aren't going to tell anyone about it anyway, that's sort of WHY they are a "secret" court in the first place, isn't it?
So, yeah. Expediency and the bullshit nature of jumping through a pointless hoop to get a job done.
You don't have to like it, and I'm sure you're all pissed off about it, but that's the way it works and I still can't get myself worked up about it.
So,
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:40:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because I think this post bashes hippies im not really sure.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:27:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Halliburton is or is not a private company?
The US Military is or is not charged with protecting private companies within the US borders?
say it with me, why because it's fun
posse comitatus
say it three times fast
posse comitatus
posse comitatus
posse comitatus
kinda fun isn't it
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:11:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:55:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
**To [the scared pussies working as] U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. **
**A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection.**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said Haliburton was being protected from critisism. Now maybe I missed something but I thought they were allowed to have their protest. If you mean they are different because they are being protected (not that you would call "keeping tabs" on a peace protest in front of their office real protection) you only have to look at how they are tied into supporting operations in Iraq to see how they would be a good target for a terrorist. They are a big evil corporation getting rich off of soilders, they have ties to the military, but aren't the military, if I wanted to strike out and have support of people I would go after them.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 16:00:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ok Teephphah then why just one reason why they did not go to the court for authorization for the wire taps?
expediency? not buying it, how long does it take to get one of these secret judges on the phone especially considering who they are
because they didn't think they needed to? then why is it that there was talk inside the administration of changing the law
because the judges of the secret court can't be trusted? actually it would be really funny if they came out with that as a defense
because they knew that what they were doing was illegal and didn't think it would get leaked to the press? ding ding ding we have a winner
Hey, if they don't have anything to hide then why are they hiding?
remember kids: blow jobs are bad and lead to impeachment because sex is dirty and easily understood whereas illegally spying on US Citizens and using the Military to keep tabs on peace groups is complicated so we don't understand it.
now please can't we all just return to planning hate week
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:55:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:12:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:58:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is a hint, one of these companies is apparently being protected from criticism by the US Government and the rest are not.
--------------------------
Where is halliburton being protected by critisism?
=======================
**To [the scared pussies working as] U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. **
**A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection.**
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:37:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
here's what i see:
republicans: I HATE DEMOCRATS! LEFTY LIBRAL RETARDS! MICHAEL MOORE!
democrats: I HATE REPUBLICANS! CRAZY RIGHT WING CROONIE LOVING EXXON MOBIL WALMART!
-----
i don't know how anyone can make a big deal out of this "privacy" thing. do you really think your phones haven't been tapped for the past 50+ years? are you that concerned that some intelligence dude is going to quaker meetings, that you're spending that much money on that, when a plane costs 50 billion dollars?
how anyone can not make a big deal out of the gas company thing, i don't know.
anyone who's a fanatic either way is just silly.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:33:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Teephphah -
"All of these stories have lots of words and don't say anything. They say that the government "might" be "close" to crossing lines established after incidents during the Vietnam war. It is fucking speculation. They got a copy of an internal spreadsheet that listed things that DoD investigators were supposed to check out. Whoa. Proves to me that my civil liberties are all illusory now."
I'd say that when Bush himself stood up in front of TV cameras and said point blank, "I am spying on you without a warrant, and I'll continue to do so" is ANYTHING but a 'maybe'. What the hell is this site? Are 90% of you really this fucking hard-headed and/or blind?
______________________________________________________________________
He did not say he was spying on ME. He said he was listening in on the phone calls of PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING CALLS FROM KNOWN AL QUEIDA OPERATIVES. I don't have a problem with that.
But be that as it may, I was referring to the two stories that Loki has provided to support this little rant. We all know that we can't trust each other, so I have to go to the articles themselves and MY contention is that Loki is GROSSLY mischaracterizing and overstating what the articles actually say in an attempt to make people care about what most perceive as a non-issue. Just look at what she just said below . . . Haliburton is "protected from criticism" because there were secret agents collecting information ABOUT THE PROTEST, you know WHERE THE CRITICISM WAS HAPPENING.
Now maybe I am hard-headed I'm certainly not the only one guilty of that on this'ere thread.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:13:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why all the Bush bashing? You all act like Dubya is the only president that has listened to people's phone calls. Ever heard of Project Echelon? It was set up by the beloved William Jefferson Clinton,(shit I just puked all over my keyboard from that last part). Jimmy Carter also had wire taps. The difference between then and now you ask? Clinton and Carter didn't have a specific thing they were listening for, Bush does.
Another thing, do any of you actually think that the NSA has PEOPLE listening to the conversations? HELL NO! they have computers do it and, the computers only record when a "key" word or phrase is mentioned.
I have my own problems with this administration, but I'm sick and tired of all this "Bush did it", "Bush lied", "He's spying on me" garbage. All it seems that the Dems can do nowadays is compalin. Where are their ideas to fight terrorism? Where are their ideas for health care? Where are their ideas to end the war in Iraq(other than cut and run)? All you here is a bunch of screaming from Howard Dean and Nancy, my face is faker than MJ's, Pellosi.
sorry I'll finish after lunch.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-24 15:12:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:58:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is a hint, one of these companies is apparently being protected from criticism by the US Government and the rest are not.
--------------------------
Where is halliburton being protected by critisism?
Loki I know you are mad at the Gov for keeping a list, but you can't be mad at them for keeping it for more then 90 days, and mad at them for destroying it so it can't get out. That was what I was refering to when I said you had to pick one.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:58:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabby quick, what is the difference between Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, Wal-mart, and Nike?
one of these things is not like the other
one of these things just does not belong...
figured it out yet?
Here is a hint, one of these companies is apparently being protected from criticism by the US Government and the rest are not.
wonder why that is
and hey, if they don't have anything to hide then I suppose there fine with letting us all see the records
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:54:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
AND what do you mean by "wrong"?
protesting the government is "wrong"?
questioning our motives for going to war is "wrong"?
voting for a democrat is "wrong"?
--------
no, the 'exploding a duffle bag full of plastic explosives and nails at the Super Bowl', that kind of "wrong".
Anything else you need explained to you, just ask, sunny jim.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:53:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Stabkill -
"Do I think their stunt will change anything? Nope. It is the sad reality of the "little guy"."
As long as people give up like you seem to be doing and say "I accept it because it's the way things are" you're right, it's the sad reality of the little guy. Nothing will ever change unless people stand up to make that change. I don't know you from Adam, but from my vantage point, you're just laying down, and unfortunately, you happen to be laying down in the middle of the road where other people try to march toward change...or at the very least, awareness. You think people who go out and protest aren't helping a damned thing...that's debatable. However, the fact that people who subscribe to your attitude aren't helping a damned thing is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something called "REALITY" and it is very far removed from your belief that one person can change a god damn thing against a large corporation. Sure, we have whisteblowers and terrorists/murderers which can sometimes accomplish something. But the auto industry and oil industry are perfect examples of being able to do NOTHING about as one individual. All you can do is not purchase their crap and hope for others to do the same... outside of that, it is a dream world to believe they'd listen to what you have to say and change things.
Submitted by seasofseems (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:50:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Stabkill -
"Do I think their stunt will change anything? Nope. It is the sad reality of the "little guy"."
As long as people give up like you seem to be doing and say "I accept it because it's the way things are" you're right, it's the sad reality of the little guy. Nothing will ever change unless people stand up to make that change. I don't know you from Adam, but from my vantage point, you're just laying down, and unfortunately, you happen to be laying down in the middle of the road where other people try to march toward change...or at the very least, awareness. You think people who go out and protest aren't helping a damned thing...that's debatable. However, the fact that people who subscribe to your attitude aren't helping a damned thing is not.
Teephphah -
"All of these stories have lots of words and don't say anything. They say that the government "might" be "close" to crossing lines established after incidents during the Vietnam war. It is fucking speculation. They got a copy of an internal spreadsheet that listed things that DoD investigators were supposed to check out. Whoa. Proves to me that my civil liberties are all illusory now."
I'd say that when Bush himself stood up in front of TV cameras and said point blank, "I am spying on you without a warrant, and I'll continue to do so" is ANYTHING but a 'maybe'. What the hell is this site? Are 90% of you really this fucking hard-headed and/or blind?
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:35:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:15:45 (#)
Ranking: -2
PS. You don't have anything to worry about wire taps unless you're doing something wrong....keep that in mind
---------------------------------------------------
Wow. That's pretty much part of the dictionary definition of Anti-Americanism.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:32:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"PS. You don't have anything to worry about wire taps unless you're doing something wrong....keep that in mind"
AWESOME argument and pray tell, why is it that I a private citizen am being told to just shut up and if I'm not doing anything wrong I don't have anything to worry about and yet the W administration, the most secretive administration in US history works tirelessly to keep we the people from finding out their business.
Oh hell it's not even we the people, they don't want to let a secret court know their business
but I am supposed to have a completely open life
AND what do you mean by "wrong"?
protesting the government is "wrong"?
questioning our motives for going to war is "wrong"?
voting for a democrat is "wrong"?
Like I said, if there is one theme that runs throughout US history it is disdain for shit disturbers.
There is nothing contradictory about my claim that they are destroying records to keep us from finding out who they are spying on. I do not think this information should have been gathered at all much less retained for 90 days.
oops forgot myself must go outside for another hate session in order to keep from getting picked up for questioning
My loyalty to W and his cronies is unshakable.
war is peace
privacy is public
Ah much better now.
HAHA just think for a second there I almost accused you of being sheep and claiming that if you had been born in the 1700's we would still be flying the Union Jack.
whew that was close
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:26:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care don't care
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:15:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 12:14:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't make me add you to the list.
overblown crap?
really?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/
That article was written by Michael Isikoff. The same Michael Isikoff that wrote an article last year saying that Korans were being flushed down toilets at Abu Grahb(sp). You'll remember that this false accusation set off riots in the middle east that killed hundreds of people. As far as I'm concerned, this shit fucker fell into the ranks of Dan Rather and Michael Moore with that article...not worth the crap I flushed this morning.
PS. You don't have anything to worry about wire taps unless you're doing something wrong....keep that in mind
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:05:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not going to start a W fan club or anything, but I'm fairly certain that he is not Satan and Cheney is not Beelzebub.
I've been wrong about stuff before though.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:03:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki you have to pick one.
People were complaining because they kept the records too long, but they are only deleting them because they don't want them public??
I wonder why there was no outcry when undercover cops went to pro-life meetings.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 14:02:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:34:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 12:26:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-01-24 12:15:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
The US Government keeps tabs on the QUAKERS?! What the fuck FOR?!
___________________________________________________________
The US Government observed a protest that was held in a Quaker meeting hall. That is distinctly different from "keeping tabs on the Quakers" as Loki would have you believe.
For God's sake, read the freaking article she provided. Yes, it uses words like "spy" but what it really means is "surf the internet."
Yes, Loki, it's overblown crap. This sort of thing is why no one gives the Democratic party one shred of credibility anymore. Hysteria don't sell no more. It's kind of a chicken little/girl who cried wolf thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hysteria don't sell no more?! How the fuck do you think W got elected? All he did was say "the terrorists are going to get us" and waved the flag and accused people of being unpatriotic if they didn't support him. Fuck you! Hysteria is all you assholes are about!
____________________________________________________________________________
Good point.
I'll give you the fact that hysteria does still sell, and that GWB and the Republicans used it BETTER than John Kerry did to get elected. What I won't give you is that:
A) I am an asshole.
B) THIS kind of "Bush is the devil rhetoric" sells outside a VERY limited ultra-liberal base.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:54:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I saw something about this on tv a while back. Unfortunately I can't find it now and the details of it are sketchy but I distinctly recall one of the members of this group saying that a guy who joined their group and came to a few meetings was later seen by one of them with the po-lice. At the time I thought it was just some rogue cop trying to impress the brass but it seems more widespread than that.
Good to know that my money is going to keep an eye on the Quakers, dangerous folk about you just can't be too careful.
I'm sure that this issue of going through their database to destroy records is just because keeping them too long was just an oversight and not in any way an attempt to keep the list of just who they are watching from becoming public.
positive of it
because I am a good citizen and believe everything W says
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:52:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck it, you actually did a half decent post. Guess I'll have to +2 it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:49:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:02:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Where are my manners, I assume that everyone is following this whole story and not just the most recent allegations: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
"A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period."
----------------------------------
Loki, I have been following it. It isn't a 400 page report on Quakers, and I have yet to read anything that would make me believe someone is going to quaker meetings and pretending to be one (which to be honest wouldn't really bother me, other then the wasted tax money). It is a report on suspiscious incidents. I wouldn't be suprised if they are looking at quakers too just so they don't get flack for looking too closely at muslim groups.
Once again, unless someone loses a job, gets prosecuted, persecuted, or hurt because of this I am not too concerned. The fact that it is making the news because some names are being kept on file too long should tell you something.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:38:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because I think handing out foodstuffs at Halliburton isn't a great idea doesn't mean I don't think Halliburton is a shit company. Do I think their stunt will change anything? Nope. It is the sad reality of the "little guy".
Mobile-Exxon is evil, no doubt, and make billions every year and have INCREASED profits while fuel costs go through the roof.
Nike is a terrible company and anyone with a shred of decency won't ever buy nike branded items... How well do they cash in yearly?
Some people throw Wal-Mart in the same batch... and certainly they have some practices that are not very good. But the unions that try to break Wal-Mart are equally corrupt and full of shit.
These things concern me much more than Bush & Co. does. There must be at least a half-dozen companies that have too much power on what effects our personal lives much more than some random wiretap on a phone call made to Pakistan.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:38:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh for the love of zeus: http://www.mrbreakfast.com/display.asp?categoryid=1&subcategoryid=15&recipeid=148#
** Milk Toast
(2 servings)
• 4 slices of toast
• 4 pats of butter
• 1 tsp cinnamon and sugar
• 1/2 cup milk
Heat milk on low.
Butter toast as you usually would and sprinkle each piece with cinnamon and sugar. Tear the toast into bite-sized pieces and place in two cereal bowls.
Pour hot milk over toast pieces.
In the early 1900s, Milk Toast was popular fare for children and the ailing. It is still popular today among poor families and singles.**
Teephphah "they" won't tell "us" what they are really doing. It's for our own good really, it's best that we not pay any attention to those silly anti-war protesters. They're nothing more than shit disturbers and if there is one common theme throughout US history it is spite for shit disturbers.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:34:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 12:26:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-01-24 12:15:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
The US Government keeps tabs on the QUAKERS?! What the fuck FOR?!
___________________________________________________________
The US Government observed a protest that was held in a Quaker meeting hall. That is distinctly different from "keeping tabs on the Quakers" as Loki would have you believe.
For God's sake, read the freaking article she provided. Yes, it uses words like "spy" but what it really means is "surf the internet."
Yes, Loki, it's overblown crap. This sort of thing is why no one gives the Democratic party one shred of credibility anymore. Hysteria don't sell no more. It's kind of a chicken little/girl who cried wolf thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hysteria don't sell no more?! How the fuck do you think W got elected? All he did was say "the terrorists are going to get us" and waved the flag and accused people of being unpatriotic if they didn't support him. Fuck you! Hysteria is all you assholes are about!
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-24 13:33:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, where is my overriding hysteria? I forget that guilt by association is okay, sometimes. What's funny is, you can call The Truth P