asdf: NPR, current events Options

[FORSAKENR320]

bring on the apocalypse!

[Dogmeat]

It was illegal.
They made unconstitutional acts "legal" via codification in legal jargon.

It is now "legal," though now it acts as a precedence to slide on down the slippery slope of NEO-CON AMMMMUUURICAN FREEDOM/infringements of civil liberties and rights.
Come on January 20th.

So what did they make legal that was illegal?

I mean seriously, there was nothing that they did that even remotley surprised me because the CIA had already been doing it for years.

They just figured they were going to use it against a lot more people now was all therefore the chances of it going public were far greater so they were trying to cover their own asses...

I dunno, I've never, not once in my life, had any reason to think anything I've ever put into a computer or over a phone or anything wasn't being datamined. I knew this was happening BEFORE the internet.

It just all came to a head after 9/11 ...

Call it legal, illegal, it doesn't matter, they were still doing the same things they are now, albeit perhaps a lot more aggressivley now.

I mean what is your primary argument here, Guantanamo or the domestic spying? The domestic spying is a moot point ..

If you wanna talk about holding ... what was the term ... persons of interest indefinatley ... without proper cause, well, that is an argument .... the domestic spying thing I just laugh at because there was NOTHING new about this going on.

[Psykopath]

So what did they make legal that was illegal?

I mean seriously, there was nothing that they did that even remotley surprised me because the CIA had already been doing it for years.

They just figured they were going to use it against a lot more people now was all therefore the chances of it going public were far greater so they were trying to cover their own asses...

I dunno, I've never, not once in my life, had any reason to think anything I've ever put into a computer or over a phone or anything wasn't being datamined. I knew this was happening BEFORE the internet.

It just all came to a head after 9/11 ...

Call it legal, illegal, it doesn't matter, they were still doing the same things they are now, albeit perhaps a lot more aggressivley now.

I mean what is your primary argument here, Guantanamo or the domestic spying? The domestic spying is a moot point ..

If you wanna talk about holding ... what was the term ... persons of interest indefinatley ... without proper cause, well, that is an argument .... the domestic spying thing I just laugh at because there was NOTHING new about this going on.

I think we're arguing two different, albeit similar, things here...

I AGREE with you that yes, this was being done beforehand (wiretaps, detentions, etc.).
What I'm saying is that those tactics were either illegal (such as indefinite detentions w/o trial) and/or infringed severely on citizen rights (warrant-less wiretaps, designated free-speech zones, etc.), and what the Bush Administration did was codify into law these acts.

IN EITHER CASE, whether these actions are given free reign by a signed piece of legislation of the cloak of shadow, I'm saying I disagree with them.

Next time you're in Lubbock let's discuss this in person, instead of just getting shitfaced and hitting a tit-bar. The internet sucks for legitimate discussions.

[FORSAKENR320]

i believe zach's arguement (or at least, the reason i agree with him) is that this is just a small step. right now, they have legalised wire taps.... since wiretaps are legal in certain instances, such as suspicion of terrorisim... lets redefine what we consider to be terrorists into a broader spectrum... well, since terrorism covers such a broad area, why don't we simplify the red tape, and make all wire taps legal..... since all wire taps are now legal, maybe we should pass laws that allow us to check peoples mail...

it's a spiral. every little bit they nibble away from you, they aso use as a stepping stone later to nibble some more.

[Dogmeat]

Well, in the sense that the government is completley overstepping it's boundaries poking into everyone's private lives, I agree.

In the same sense however, I think American society as a whole has given them free reign to do so, and unfortunatley I have to admit I'm as guilty as anyone.

When was the last time you paid cash for something? Privacy ceased to exist the moment credit cards went mainstream ... now it's even worse

I would like to think that the people they hold without cause ... so to speak ... they have cause, perhaps not concrete proof.

I don't know ... it's scary however, because anyone, for any reason, can fall victim to this.

[THECHICKEN]

Supreme Court recognized the US's right to hold enemy combatants (fighting under no country's flag) just as we have held nazi, british, etc. soldiers DURING WAR. We didn't charge mere nazi soldiers with crimes just because we found them fighting against us. The gitmo soldiers are a little more of a problem because they weren't fighting in uniform (which would get you executed in WWII) so people think that its a violation of laws to hold them. The supreme court disagreed. All Obama is going to be doing is sending soldiers back to the battlefield to fight against our soldiers.

As for wire tapping, we already have a system in place that a tap can be taken, and then the probable cause filed AFTER the tap. As for "mass wiretaps" my understaning was that only "what number was calling what other number overseas" was used... aka no actual voice taps, just information about who was called from where. How does that infringe rights if only used for national security reasons (which no evidence used otherwise)?

The whole "bush infringed on my rights" is pretty stupid every time i hear it. What "rights" have you lost exactly? Rights are naturally given or taken with every law passed, thats the nature of LAWS. If you don't like the laws fine... i didn't like laws under every administration, but don't act like they where "amurrricunnn opresion@@!!" Because that is just stupid and left propaganda

[Psykopath]

Supreme Court recognized the US's right to hold enemy combatants (fighting under no country's flag) just as we have held nazi, british, etc. soldiers DURING WAR. We didn't charge mere nazi soldiers with crimes just because we found them fighting against us. The gitmo soldiers are a little more of a problem because they weren't fighting in uniform (which would get you executed in WWII) so people think that its a violation of laws to hold them. The supreme court disagreed. All Obama is going to be doing is sending soldiers back to the battlefield to fight against our soldiers.

As for wire tapping, we already have a system in place that a tap can be taken, and then the probable cause filed AFTER the tap. As for "mass wiretaps" my understaning was that only "what number was calling what other number overseas" was used... aka no actual voice taps, just information about who was called from where. How does that infringe rights if only used for national security reasons (which no evidence used otherwise)?

The whole "bush infringed on my rights" is pretty stupid every time i hear it. What "rights" have you lost exactly? Rights are naturally given or taken with every law passed, thats the nature of LAWS. If you don't like the laws fine... i didn't like laws under every administration, but don't act like they where "amurrricunnn opresion@@!!" Because that is just stupid and left propaganda

'Indefinite detention without legal recourse' scares the shit out of me. I understand holding a goddamned Bin Laden disciple for his crimes against all humanity, but given the nature of other laws in this massively expansive "War on an Emotion....errm, Terror," it just again seems like a slippery slope that may very well fuck over truly innocent people and leave them trapped with absolutely no possible way to plead their case.

The warrantless wire-tapping program (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which allowed the granting of a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER beginning surveillance, was trumped by a Bush post 9/11 Executive Order) monitors all electronic/voice/data traffic. Emails, phone conversations, web browsing, text messaging, etc.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Nov 23 2008, 02:06 PM

[THECHICKEN]

'Indefinite detention without legal recourse' scares the shit out of me. I understand holding a goddamned Bin Laden disciple for his crimes against all humanity, but given the nature of other laws in this massively expansive "War on an Emotion....errm, Terror," it just again seems like a slippery slope that may very well fuck over truly innocent people and leave them trapped with absolutely no possible way to plead their case.

The warrantless wire-tapping program (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which allowed the granting of a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER beginning surveillance, was trumped by a Bush post 9/11 Executive Order) monitors all electronic/voice/data traffic. Emails, phone conversations, web browsing, text messaging, etc.

If you think its a war against "emotion" you are an idiot... sorry but thats the nicest i can say it.

And i would like to see your source on what the warrantless wiretapping stuff covered. I've only heard mindless bitching in the past but haven't been able to find out what exactly it covered (from a reputable source). So if you have stuff already i'd appreciate it, if not, no big deal because we live in america where when people overstep their bounds (see: truman and steel companies) they aren't evil, they are just put back to where they should be by the checks and balances (see supreme court/ elections...etc.). Of course every person should be weary of thier government, but acting like the sky is falling because laws are passed is ignorant

[Psykopath]

If you think its a war against "emotion" you are an idiot... sorry but thats the nicest i can say it.

And i would like to see your source on what the warrantless wiretapping stuff covered. I've only heard mindless bitching in the past but haven't been able to find out what exactly it covered (from a reputable source). So if you have stuff already i'd appreciate it, if not, no big deal because we live in america where when people overstep their bounds (see: truman and steel companies) they aren't evil, they are just put back to where they should be by the checks and balances (see supreme court/ elections...etc.). Of course every person should be weary of thier government, but acting like the sky is falling because laws are passed is ignorant

LOL at keyboard toughness!




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_...01----000-.html
1801.h.04
That's for the FISA of 1978.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927:
Protect America Act of 2007
Thankfully it expired February 17th. (sunset provision)

So I guess we were arguing, in part, about a "dead" law.
Oh well, killed a little bit of my day.

[Mommy]

The FBI has followed people for years. Think MLK Jr.

[THECHICKEN]

LOL at keyboard toughness!




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_...01----000-.html
1801.h.04
That's for the FISA of 1978.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927:
Protect America Act of 2007
Thankfully it expired February 17th. (sunset provision)

So I guess we were arguing, in part, about a "dead" law.
Oh well, killed a little bit of my day.

Im gonna kick your idiot ass.... thats keyboard toughness smart guy ... anyway:

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Protect America Act of 2007 - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG), for periods up to one year, to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons outside the United States if the DNI and AG determine that: (1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that such acquisition concerns persons outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court); (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; (3) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communication service provider or other person who has access to communications; (4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and (5) the minimization procedures (procedures to ensure the smallest level of privacy intrusion while obtaining such information) to be used meet the definition of minimization procedures under FISA. Requires such determination to be certified and submitted to the Court.

Requires the AG to report to: (1) the Court the procedures by which the government determines that such acquisitions do not constitute electronic surveillance; and (2) the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees semiannually concerning acquisitions made during the previous six-month period.

Show me how that violates YOUR RIGHTS? Show me where it:

monitors all electronic/voice/data traffic. Emails, phone conversations, web browsing, text messaging, etc.

Thanks

[nickluto]

[Mommy]

Nickluto: That is an AWESOME quote in your sig. I'm stealing it for my facebook profile.

[nickluto]

Nickluto: That is an AWESOME quote in your sig. I'm stealing it for my facebook profile.

Yeah, Jesus just didn't give a flying fuck about pain.


Or are you referring to the Thomas Jefferson's quote?

[Psykopath]

Im gonna kick your idiot ass.... thats keyboard toughness smart guy ... anyway:



Show me how that violates YOUR RIGHTS? Show me where it:

Thanks

interpretation of the law by the Bush Admin and the CIA has been one of the key criticisms...not to mention its review by this sham "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The issue here is that the law removed the warrant requirement for surveillance of targets "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
Vague terminology ++

And how does it affect me directly?
I have friends that live outside of the US, with whom I speak to regularly via phone, email, and IM. I would kindly like the government to stay the fuck out of my conversations.