OT: Bush quote

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tom

Joe Barta wrote:
> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>
> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> kinds of lawyers review the process."
>
> That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
>
> Joe Barta

Hey Joe
Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I
included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense eh!!
Your cite is in the 3rd para

Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer
questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news
lately. It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After
the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected
by oceans, I asked people that work for you -- work for me, how best
can we use information to protect the American people? You might
remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the
country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And
I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the
Constitution, to protect the American people. And they came back with a
program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want
people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.

First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's
an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking
about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between
somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and
one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link
or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not
someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making
a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know
why.

This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic
spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a
phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call
into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I
had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the
United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this
program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was
just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I
briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.)

Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority
under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance
against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same
constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case
called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of
military force passed by the Congress in 2001 -- in other words,
Congress passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the
Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to
use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al
Qaeda.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress
gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American
people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the
power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of
the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions
of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different
kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we
need to know why -- to protect you. (Applause.)

And that's the world in which you live. I view it as a chance for an
historic opportunity to make this place better for your children and
your grandchildren -- "this place" being the world. I'm just confident
that if we don't lose our will, and stay strong, and that as that
liberty advances, people may look back at this lecture and other
speeches by people who profess the same devotion to freedom that I've
had, and say, you know, maybe they're just right. Maybe America, that
was founded on natural rights of men and women is a ticket for peace.
Maybe that kind of view -- that every person matters, that there are
such things as human dignity and the basic freedoms that we feel, that
becomes a huge catalyst for change for the better.

Joe Barta wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Joe Barta wrote:
> >> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping
> >> and I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy
> >> to death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
> >>
> >> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I
> >> had all kinds of lawyers review the process."
> >>
> >> That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
> >>
> >> Joe Barta
> >
> > Hey Joe
> > Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I
> > included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense
> > eh!!
>
> No, it made sense all by itself. Just thought the way he worded it was
> kind of amusing.
>
> Joe Barta

OK Joe just try to keep it real. Your OP said he says the dumbest
things and others might be amused

A few things that you may want to look into:

United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment.

"Writs Of Assistance".

"...unreasonable searches and seizures..."

"Entick v. Carrington".

<[email protected]> wrote:
>withholding opinion in the desparate (and probably futile) hope that this
>thread will die....
>I sort of hope it won't. It it keeps the children busy they might not
>start a new one, and it'll be much easier to filter.
Heeehee! Tom

My neighbors Mark and Juanita wrote:>Seems like the administration is
screwed regardless of >what it does
>in certain peoples' minds. True. With good reason, too. Tom

Mark and Juanita wrote:In my neck of the
woods (or cacti as the case may be), a group of do-gooders, using the
force
of law, attempted to revoke the rights of property owners to build on
certain properties because it would ruin the "viewshed" of the area.
Did they win the case? Tom


"If you're going through hell, keep going" Winston Churchill

George wrote:
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> > I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> > death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
> >
> > President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> > kinds of lawyers review the process."
> >
> > That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
> >
>
> As _no_ information gathered from taps without a court order can be used
> against you, I don't think it's too big a danger.

Think further. This is the same President who thinks American citizens
can be incarcerated without trial indefinitely.

Did they win the case? Tom


Only partially. Those lands that were already improved were left
alone,
some land that was not improved fell into the protected category.
This
wasn't court case (yet), but attempting to use the force of law through
the
county commissioners to create these new rules. The opposition to this

attempt pointed out that the time to protect those lands was before it
>became private.
Just wondering, a Mr. C. Huckleberry?

Mark and Juanita wrote: My home fell into level 3.

Ahh, Tucson Mountain Association.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:46:43 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Enoch Root"> wrote
> >> That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
> >> about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
> >> what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
> >> surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
> >> that is illegal.
> >
> >Lemme get this straight.
> >They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making phone
> >calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
> >Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
> >Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather than
> >letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?
> >
>
> Well, let's see, maybe they need to find out who those dangerous people
> in the US are. People in the US receiving and making calls to people
> outside of the US who have ties to Al Queada might perhaps be one
> indication of that, ya think?

You and I do not and should not have access to the information
needed to confirm or deny your speculation above. That is why
there is a FISA court.

> So perhaps by finding out who those folks
> from outside the US are contacting, just maybe they are finding out who and
> where those dangerous people in the US are located so that they can take
> those actions you are advocating (getting them out of the US). Nah, that's
> too simple -- they already know by clairavoyance who the dangerous people
> are and they just want to have the fun of monitoring phone calls so they
> can revel in the thrill of doing something illegal.
>

Or maybe they have some other reason not related to national
security.

--

FF

Don wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita"> wrote
> > the President's legitimate constitutional authority to protect the US
>
> <shred>
>
> Stop right there.
> He does NOT have the authority to protect anyone and to say he does is a
> demonstration of your ignorance of history.

If one makes the assumption that the armed forces exist to
protect the United States then the provison making the President
the Commander-in-Chief of those armed forces would seem
to imply authority to protect the United States.

Regardless, the Constitution grants to the Congress the power
to regulate the armed forces. Plainly, therefor, those regulations
can limit what the CIC may command the armed forces to do.

> Further, where was this protection during 9-11?
> Non-existent, just as it always has been and always will be.
> You better stop acting like a goddamn clowns ass.

Most of Article II addresses how the President is elected. The
sections devoted to his duties and responsibilities are quite small.
It wouldn't hurt to read them.

It probably would take you less that fifteen mintues to read the
whole freakin Constitution from beginning to end. You caould
spend a lifetime studying it, but reading it is a good start.

--

FF

todd wrote:
> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Joe Barta"> wrote
> >> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
> >> beginning to a big thing.
> >
> > Its good to wonder, Joe.
> > When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....
>
> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct cross-border
> surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact all the FISA laws
> they want and they won't mean bupkis.

False. See Article I.

You might find it helpful to read the Constitution before interpreting
it.

--

FF

todd wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > todd wrote:
> >> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Joe Barta"> wrote
> >> >> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
> >> >> beginning to a big thing.
> >> >
> >> > Its good to wonder, Joe.
> >> > When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....
> >>
> >> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
> >> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct
> >> cross-border
> >> surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact all the FISA
> >> laws
> >> they want and they won't mean bupkis.
> >
> > False. See Article I.
> >
> > You might find it helpful to read the Constitution before interpreting
> > it.
>
> I'm not interpreting it. I'm not a constitutional lawyer (somehow, I bet
> you aren't either). I'm saying a case can be made and that case may be
> decided in the courts.

But aren't you at least literate? Can't you at least read the
Constitution to see if the case being made actually has a
factual basis?

--

FF

TEF wrote:

> How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as
> prescribed by law?  Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called
> "war on terrorism" and losing our civil rights.  I'd prefer ten 9/11's
> over living in a police state.

I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're doing it
without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants can even be
obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing that step.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Leon wrote:

>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> TEF wrote:
>>
>> I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're doing
>> it
>> without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants can even be
>> obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing that step.
>
>
> Do you think a terrorist phone call is going to last as long as it
> takes to get a warrant?
>

Read my post again. Do the words "after the fact" have any meaning to
you?


--
It's turtles, all the way down

TEF wrote:

> And another reality is that if left unchecked, governments have
> been known to progressively suspend civil rights due to real or
> perceived external threats.

Or manufactured ones :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Mark & Juanita wrote:

>>Sorry, I can't read it out loud for you from here. You'll just have to
>>find someone closer or remain ignorant.
>
> Here Morris, take my hand, we're both getting muddy.  Time to climb
> out of this wallow.

And another rare occurrence where we all agree :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Don (in [email protected]) said:

| Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
| Whats that?
| Its not in there?
| Shut the fuck up them.
| Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?

Point your browser at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html and
read Section 8 of Article I:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

and further down in that same section:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

TEF wrote:

> Tim,
>
> If you believe everything that the government tells you for the reasons
> stated, then clearly you're the fool. As a retired U.S. diplomat, I can
> tell you that nothing is done by this government (or any other government)
> without an agenda and sometimes these are not as noble as one would like to
> believe. It's a slippery slope when terrorism is suddenly justification for
> illegal domestic spying and torture of prisoners. Yes, we're setting quite
> the example of democracy to our target audience in the Middle East.
>

Irrelevant. You call your nation a police state and argue that "ten more
9/11s" would be preferable. There is a legitimate debate to be had
about security v. civil liberty, but your bellowing isn't even in
the neighborhood. I hope you were a better diplomat than you are an
observer of Reality...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"George" wrote in message

> Lets do a bit of analysis. Joe, exercising his "rights" gives an opinion,
> and then someone for whom the information was not intended jumps on his
case
> calling him a troll, which is the newsgroup equivalent of a subversive.

A post with private "information", "not intended" for everyone, on Usenet?
You know better, George. Forego the "analysis" and look up the Internet
definition of "troll".

> Wouldn't it be better to have a broader base of information upon which to
> make such a decision? Of course, you might have to read a bit more.

An act with which you obviously haven't bothered.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> Do you think a terrorist phone call is going to last as long as it
>> takes to get a warrant?
>>
>
> Read my post again. Do the words "after the fact" have any meaning to
> you?


The results are the same.

If a guy plows into you at a stop sign and said his brakes failed, would it
change the out come if he later has his brakes repaired?

Don wrote:
> Thats the gist of it right there.
> They already know who to listen to.
> But they are hoping to catch some bigger fish, so they put innocent
> americans at risk in order to run their wiretap service.
> They had their chance to prevent 9-11, but they didn't do so, and now they
> are using the threat of another 9-11 to scare some of these silly people
> into surrendering their liberties.
> Its amazing how many ignorant people there are walking around.

Tis true, and ignorant means easy to control. The US scans e-mails and
news groups for trigger words, not difficult to use computers to scan
for spoken key words either. IIRC Menwith Hill runs Echelon and active
intercept scanning (NSA's biggest operational unit) which reports on all
sorts of things. Add to that the Google operation, used by police to
monitor certain activity, and the picture gets even clearer. As one
police officer put it to me recently "we're not the thought police", all
that was missing was the "yet"....

"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>
> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> kinds of lawyers review the process."
>
> That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
>

As _no_ information gathered from taps without a court order can be used
against you, I don't think it's too big a danger. On the other hand, raw
intelligence gathered from seemingly innocent circumlocutions can save
thousands of lives.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Joe Barta" wrote in message
>
>> Yeah, I suppose it casts a bit of a troll-like shadow. But it wasn't
>> meant that way.
>
> That's good ... or would be if it weren't for:
>
>> I did have a feeling the post might generate some
>> strong opinions on the matter, but I figured it was all good.
>
> So I was right the first time.
>

Lets do a bit of analysis. Joe, exercising his "rights" gives an opinion,
and then someone for whom the information was not intended jumps on his case
calling him a troll, which is the newsgroup equivalent of a subversive.

Wouldn't it be better to have a broader base of information upon which to
make such a decision? Of course, you might have to read a bit more.

Wonder if the civil liberties types, after overhearing a conversation in the
next booth at the coffee shop about killing grandma, would sacrifice the old
gal on principle rather than use the information so infamously gathered to
prevent the assassination.

"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If they know he's a terrorist, why don't they arrest him?
> I mean, being a terrorist is against the law isn't it?
>

You as dumb as that makes you sound?

Get back to civics class. That's the whole point of the exercise -
"justice" for the criminal must come _after_ the crime. Criminal gets to
play fast, loose and dangerous, those who would catch him slow, within
narrow legal strictures, and with concern for public safety and "rights."

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct
> cross-border surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact
> all the FISA laws they want and they won't mean bupkis. It might get
> sorted out in the courts, but I don't think the Dems really want it to go
> there.


Hell, a president who really had dictatorial leanings might round up
everyone who even _looked_ like the "enemy" and put 'em in concentration
camps ....

TEF wrote:

> How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as prescribed by
> law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on terrorism"
> and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a police
> state.

You're a fool if you think the US in its current configuration remotely
resembles a police state and an enormous fool if you'd prefer "ten 9/11s"
to what we have in this nation.

Sadly, such events cannot be visited only upon people like yourself who
wish them...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

If you support Bush administration activities, of which eavesdropping on
phone conversations without bothering to get a warrant (i.e. illegal search,
which the Constitution constrains the government to avoid), ask yourself if
you would have supported that same activity by President Clinton. Even
better, looking ahead, would you support that same activity by a future
President Hillary Clinton. If you would not, then you know it is not a
desirable activity. The main purpose of the Constitution is to limit the
government's ability to do just such a thing. It further enumerates a
number of functions and responsibilities, but the FF could not anticipate
every advance in the power of the government to infringe the rights and
freedom of the citizens.

Steve, who passed Civics

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:44:17 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You and I do not and should not have access to the information
>>> needed to confirm or deny your speculation above. That is why
>>> there is a FISA court.
>>
>>Was watching a news conference with some general and this was one of
>>the topics. He was on the recieving end of some pretty aggressive
>>questioning and I came away with the notion that the main reason for
>>bypassing the FISA court is to lower the requirement from "probable"
>>cause to "reasonable" cause. Not sure of the acurracy her... just
>>repeating what I heard.
>>
>>After the general wrapped up the news conference and was leaving,
>>someone shouted out something like "Isn't it true that the Bush
>>administration is using these warrantless wiretaps to eavesdrop on the
>>Democrats?" To which the general just kept going. If we assume it's a
>>load of bunk, then ignoring the question is probably a good way to let
>>it remain a non issue. But there's a part of me that wonders. There's
>>a line from Lawrence of Arabia... "big things have small beginnings".
>>I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>>beginning to a big thing.
>>
>>Joe Barta
>
> Joe, there are so many more things that are "big things" related to
> revoking our freedoms and liberties than the possibility that someone is
> listening to you share Aunt Sally's chile recipe. Which, by the way, is a
> red herring, that is not what is at issue anyway, laws preventing that are
> clearly defined and were not the object of the investigations that were
> illegally leaked to the press. The issue is communications into and out
> of
> this country, even members of the other party have argued for the right of
> the president to eavesdrop when national security is at stake (example,
> Jamie Gurelik arguing this point before Congress). Most of the real
> infringements on our freedoms were and are supported by those who have
> liberal leanings rather than conservative leanings (note to those who are
> going to whine about not knowing what is meant by liberal or conservative
> or that this is too simplistic a dichotomy -- tough. You know what is
> meant here. Clue: Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Souder, and Ginsberg don't qualify
> as conservative and each support some or all of the various infringements
> discussed as follows). Examples include the fact that any one of us could
> have our homes or lands condemned by eminent domain so that a developer
> can
> use that property for a purpose with higher property tax return for the
> community. A farmer loses the right to work his farm because some enviros
> have decided that a supposedly endangered kangaroo rat might be harmed by
> his doing working the land he has purchased and for which he has paid
> taxes. Another example is the alleged use of the IRS by a former
> administration to intimidate its enemies. This is a story the details of
> which we may not fully learn, since the same people in Congress fighting
> for full disclosure of a classified national security program are fighting
> to prevent the full disclosure of a special prosecutor's investigation
> into
> the abuse of IRS powers. Numerous other examples abound -- these are real
> examples that affect real US citizens on a daily basis. *Those* are the
> revocations of liberties and rights we should be fighting to overturn --
> they are much more real and pernicious.
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:31:12 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Joe Barta wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're
>>>doing it without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants
>>>can even be obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing
>>>that step.
>>
>>
>> That's the part I don't understand. If the activities can already be
>> done within FISA, why do they need to bypass it?
>>
>> It's almost as if they made the call to do the surveilances, then got
>> "caught". Then to justify their actions, they claimed that they had
>> the power to do them and that's the story they're sticking to. I don't
>> know if they did... from what I can tell it's a bit of a gray area.
>>
>> At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that it's all that big of deal and
>> it sounds worse than it is, but maybe it's good that it's on the table
>> and people are talking about it.
>
>That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
>that is illegal.
>
>er

I love that. It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness
of the charges.

The sad thing is that our rights are being eroded, and the left focuses
on the wrong problem as usual. The fact that the government is monitoring
calls from countries known to harbor terrorists to the US is hardly an
infringement on civil rights of US citizens, but more likely designed to
make sure that our country survives in order to maintain those rights.
Echelon was a much more serious invasion of privacy than targeted
surveillance under discussion.

You want to talk real infringements of the rights of US citizens? Let's
talk eminent domain -- the fact that someone can have their home or
business taken from them in order to give that property to another citizen,
private or corporate because the tax base will be enhanced -- *that's* real
usurpation of rights and something to which the average citizen has a very
real possibility of being exposed. All brought to you not by the eeeevil
Bush administration or eeeevil conservative judges bent on the destruction
of privacy rights, but by the other side of the court, Ginsberg, Bryer,
Kennedy: all of those paragons of the "privacy rights of Americans". More
infringements? How about a farmer who is arrested for plowing *his* field,
land upon which he has paid taxes and owns, because some rat *might* get in
the way. Or a small business that can be shut down because a bureaucrat
who can come onto that property with no warrant nor warning finds some
situation that he *thinks* may be a safety violation. In my neck of the
woods (or cacti as the case may be), a group of do-gooders, using the force
of law, attempted to revoke the rights of property owners to build on
certain properties because it would ruin the "viewshed" of the area.
*Those* are real infringements upon the civil rights of citizens of this
country, yet those actions are not only not opposed by those screaming like
stuck pigs over the fact that overseas calls may have been monitored after
this country was attacked, but those actions are typically supported by
those same people. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:46:43 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Enoch Root"> wrote
>>> That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>>> about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>>> what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>>> surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
>>> that is illegal.
>>
>>Lemme get this straight.
>>They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making phone
>>calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
>>Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
>>Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather
>>than
>>letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?
>>
>
> Well, let's see, maybe they need to find out who those dangerous people
> in the US are.

I thought they already knew who they were.
If not, then how do they know who to listen in on?

People in the US receiving and making calls to people
> outside of the US who have ties to Al Queada might perhaps be one
> indication of that, ya think?

Exactly.
So if they already know who these folks are, shouldn't they be incarcerating
them before they do further harm?

So perhaps by finding out who those folks
> from outside the US are contacting, just maybe they are finding out who
> and
> where those dangerous people in the US are located so that they can take
> those actions you are advocating (getting them out of the US). Nah,
> that's
> too simple -- they already know by clairavoyance who the dangerous people
> are and they just want to have the fun of monitoring phone calls so they
> can revel in the thrill of doing something illegal.

If there are dangerous people in the US, rather than locating them and THEN
wiretapping them, they should deal with them directly before they actually
harm other people, like you seem to be advocating.

You know, there's a thing going around lately and it seems to address those
that adhere to the right and/or the left leaners.
That is, that they close a blind eye to things outside that which they've
been trained to believe.
Look at Marks little diatribe.
He actually advocates allowing dangerous people to exist in the US, just so
somebody, somewhere can wiretap them.
Further, he finds the whole thing to be some sort of a sick joke.
Maybe *they* should put a wiretap on Mark for oh, say, about 10 years, just
in case he decides to do something nefarious.
Lets see if he can find the joke in that.
See, Mark is the type of person that thinks abuse is OK as long as it
doesn't happen to him.
Obviously this is lack of maturity and logic on his part.
But he won't see it that way, because of the *blindeye* I mentioned above.

"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> don't go trying to make sense of it, it confuses the neo-cons and the
> righties...
>
> John E.
>
> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Enoch Root"> wrote
>> > That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>> > about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>> > what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>> > surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US.
>> > And
>> > that is illegal.
>>
>> Lemme get this straight.
>> They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making
>> phone
>> calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
>> Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
>> Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather
> than
>> letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?
>>
>>
>
>

"TEF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as prescribed
> by
> law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on terrorism"
> and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a
> police
> state.


Then AMF.

"Enoch Root"> wrote
> That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
> about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
> what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
> surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
> that is illegal.

Lemme get this straight.
They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making phone
calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather than
letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?

John Emmons wrote:

> What's not being said is that the listener's can easily conduct their phone
> taps and apply for a warrant after, that provision was specifically included
> in the FISA rules.
>
> It still begs the question of how the NSA knows who to listen to, if they
> already have suspects in question, why not apply for the FISA warrants? If
> they were conducting a fishing expedition as they almost certainly were,
> that would explain their lack of even trying to obtain the legal warrants
> required.

Overseas calls have long been open season for NSA spooks. Presumably
automated recordings of calls to peculiar destinations would be fairly
mundane to eggheads like that.

I don't think the claims being made are against that activity, that's
just what dubya chose as his talking point.

er
--
email not valid

"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Joe Barta"> wrote
>> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>> beginning to a big thing.
>
> Its good to wonder, Joe.
> When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....

There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct cross-border
surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact all the FISA laws
they want and they won't mean bupkis. It might get sorted out in the
courts, but I don't think the Dems really want it to go there.

todd

"Joe Barta" wrote in message

> Yeah, I suppose it casts a bit of a troll-like shadow. But it wasn't
> meant that way.

That's good ... or would be if it weren't for:

> I did have a feeling the post might generate some
> strong opinions on the matter, but I figured it was all good.

So I was right the first time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

On 1/25/2006 12:38 AM Mark & Juanita mumbled something about the following:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:31:12 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Joe Barta wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're
>>>> doing it without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants
>>>> can even be obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing
>>>> that step.
>>>
>>> That's the part I don't understand. If the activities can already be
>>> done within FISA, why do they need to bypass it?
>>>
>>> It's almost as if they made the call to do the surveilances, then got
>>> "caught". Then to justify their actions, they claimed that they had
>>> the power to do them and that's the story they're sticking to. I don't
>>> know if they did... from what I can tell it's a bit of a gray area.
>>>
>>> At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that it's all that big of deal and
>>> it sounds worse than it is, but maybe it's good that it's on the table
>>> and people are talking about it.
>> That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>> about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>> what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>> surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
>> that is illegal.
>>
>> er
>
> I love that. It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness
> of the charges.
>
> The sad thing is that our rights are being eroded, and the left focuses
> on the wrong problem as usual. The fact that the government is monitoring
> calls from countries known to harbor terrorists to the US is hardly an
> infringement on civil rights of US citizens, but more likely designed to
> make sure that our country survives in order to maintain those rights.
> Echelon was a much more serious invasion of privacy than targeted
> surveillance under discussion.
>
> You want to talk real infringements of the rights of US citizens? Let's
> talk eminent domain -- the fact that someone can have their home or
> business taken from them in order to give that property to another citizen,
> private or corporate because the tax base will be enhanced -- *that's* real
> usurpation of rights and something to which the average citizen has a very
> real possibility of being exposed. All brought to you not by the eeeevil
> Bush administration or eeeevil conservative judges bent on the destruction
> of privacy rights, but by the other side of the court, Ginsberg, Bryer,
> Kennedy: all of those paragons of the "privacy rights of Americans". More
> infringements? How about a farmer who is arrested for plowing *his* field,
> land upon which he has paid taxes and owns, because some rat *might* get in
> the way. Or a small business that can be shut down because a bureaucrat
> who can come onto that property with no warrant nor warning finds some
> situation that he *thinks* may be a safety violation. In my neck of the
> woods (or cacti as the case may be), a group of do-gooders, using the force
> of law, attempted to revoke the rights of property owners to build on
> certain properties because it would ruin the "viewshed" of the area.
> *Those* are real infringements upon the civil rights of citizens of this
> country, yet those actions are not only not opposed by those screaming like
> stuck pigs over the fact that overseas calls may have been monitored after
> this country was attacked, but those actions are typically supported by
> those same people. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.
>

Let's see, the ESA was passed by Nixon, eminent domain was upheld by the
supreme court. You might want to check your facts before you start
blaming the left.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 [email protected] to reply

"Joe Barta" wrote in message

> <snip>

A troll by another other name ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

What a dastardly trick. Posting facts. Putting information in context.
How dare you! Have you no compassion or feeling for those who hate Bush? I
implore you to stop confusing the Bush bashers with facts when their heads
are made up.

John
--
You end up as you deserve. In old age you must put up with the face, the
friends, the health and the children you have earned.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Joe Barta wrote:
> > Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> > I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> > death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
> >
> > President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> > kinds of lawyers review the process."
> >
> > That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
> >
> > Joe Barta
>
> Hey Joe
> Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I
> included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense eh!!
> Your cite is in the 3rd para
>
> Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer
> questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news

Deleted text goes here.

"Mark & Juanita"> wrote
> the President's legitimate constitutional authority to protect the US

<shred>

Stop right there.
He does NOT have the authority to protect anyone and to say he does is a
demonstration of your ignorance of history.
Further, where was this protection during 9-11?
Non-existent, just as it always has been and always will be.
You better stop acting like a goddamn clowns ass.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TEF wrote:
>
> I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're doing it
> without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants can even be
> obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing that step.


Do you think a terrorist phone call is going to last as long as it takes to
get a warrant?

"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>
> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> kinds of lawyers review the process."


;~) This is how Texans talk. Proud to be a 51 year old Texan fer 51 years.

Joe Barta wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>
>>I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're
>>doing it without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants
>>can even be obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing
>>that step.
>
>
> That's the part I don't understand. If the activities can already be
> done within FISA, why do they need to bypass it?
>
> It's almost as if they made the call to do the surveilances, then got
> "caught". Then to justify their actions, they claimed that they had
> the power to do them and that's the story they're sticking to. I don't
> know if they did... from what I can tell it's a bit of a gray area.
>
> At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that it's all that big of deal and
> it sounds worse than it is, but maybe it's good that it's on the table
> and people are talking about it.

That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
that is illegal.

er
--
email not valid

"John Emmons"> wrote
> It still begs the question of how the NSA knows who to listen to, if they
> already have suspects in question, why not apply for the FISA warrants? If
> they were conducting a fishing expedition as they almost certainly were,
> that would explain their lack of even trying to obtain the legal warrants
> required.

Thats the gist of it right there.
They already know who to listen to.
But they are hoping to catch some bigger fish, so they put innocent
americans at risk in order to run their wiretap service.
They had their chance to prevent 9-11, but they didn't do so, and now they
are using the threat of another 9-11 to scare some of these silly people
into surrendering their liberties.
Its amazing how many ignorant people there are walking around.

"Keith"> wrote
> Also note that Clinton's administration

I find it hilarious that the only way the bush supporters can justify his
behavior is to compare him to another criminal, jethro klintin.
The criminal nature of american politics these days is just lovely isn't it?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Don wrote:
>> "Mark & Juanita"> wrote
>> > the President's legitimate constitutional authority to protect the US
>>
>> <shred>
>>
>> Stop right there.
>> He does NOT have the authority to protect anyone and to say he does is a
>> demonstration of your ignorance of history.
>
> If one makes the assumption that the armed forces exist to
> protect the United States then the provison making the President
> the Commander-in-Chief of those armed forces would seem
> to imply authority to protect the United States.
>
> Regardless, the Constitution grants to the Congress the power
> to regulate the armed forces. Plainly, therefor, those regulations
> can limit what the CIC may command the armed forces to do.
>
>> Further, where was this protection during 9-11?
>> Non-existent, just as it always has been and always will be.
>> You better stop acting like a goddamn clowns ass.
>
> Most of Article II addresses how the President is elected. The
> sections devoted to his duties and responsibilities are quite small.
> It wouldn't hurt to read them.
>
> It probably would take you less that fifteen mintues to read the
> whole freakin Constitution from beginning to end. You caould
> spend a lifetime studying it, but reading it is a good start.

Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
Whats that?
Its not in there?
Shut the fuck up them.
Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?

Don wrote:

> You better stop acting like a goddamn clowns ass.

Sir,

I believe that's assclown.

er
--
email not valid

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
> | Whats that?
> | Its not in there?
> | Shut the fuck up them.
> | Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?
>
> Point your browser at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html and
> read Section 8 of Article I:
>
> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
> Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
>
> and further down in that same section:
>
> "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
> Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
>
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
>
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
> Forces;
>
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

I'm still waiting.

snip.....

Oh boy.... Here we go.....

withholding opinion in the desparate (and probably futile) hope that this
thread will die....

jc

"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well given that if it's of such short duration as that, unless those
> listening in were already doing so, what's your point?
>
> According to the President's mouthpiece they're monitoring only those
> phone
> calls that are coming in, and yet they claim that had this program been in
> effect they could have theoretically caught some of the 9/11 terrorists
> who
> were allegedly making calls OUT...

Whoa! You've really tripped them up now.

> What's not being said is that the listener's can easily conduct their
> phone
> taps and apply for a warrant after, that provision was specifically
> included
> in the FISA rules.

You assume that the FISA rules are the extent of the authority of the
executive branch. This hasn't been decided, contrary to the shrieking of
the Dems.

> It still begs the question of how the NSA knows who to listen to, if they
> already have suspects in question, why not apply for the FISA warrants? If
> they were conducting a fishing expedition as they almost certainly were,
> that would explain their lack of even trying to obtain the legal warrants
> required.
>
> When the first evidence that the NSA or some other spy agency was also
> collecting intel on one or more of the President's opponents, and it
> almost
> certainly will, the shit will start to roll down hill and Mr. Gonzales and
> Mr. McCullough won't be able to do a damned thing about it.

You should play the lottery with this clairvoyant ability.

> After the midterm elections, if the Democrats can get their shit together
> well enough to retake the House of Reps, start looking for the mass
> resignations from in and around the White House. Any attorney worth their
> salt will be able to name their rates when the impeachment hearings
> start...
>
> John E.

Keep dreaming. I heard James Carville today ripping the Dems because they
can't pick a topic and stay on it long enough to make a cohesive thought. I
thought perhaps I had low blood sugar when James Carville starts to make
sense. The best reason to believe that this whole "domestic spying" thing
is going nowhere is because the Dems believe it is going somewhere. So far,
they're batting 0.000 for the past six years.

todd

Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:

| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:51 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
||
|
| Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?

Well, I was going to respond - then realized that I didn't have
anything good to say about the person being discussed; and so decided
to say nothing as loudly as I could. You did notice that my comment
was all-caps, yes?

Perhaps I should provide some background for my original commentary:
I've posted the text of "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen
United States of America" at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/07041776.html;
and the text of the "Constitution of the United States" at
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html.

I would guess that you, and most of the US citizens (and many of the
others) posting/reading here are at least familiar with both
documents - the second paragraph of the first document as a statement
of the most fundamental principles required for the existence of a
benevolent state - and the entire second document an attempt to define
a government constrained to operate according to the principles set
forth in the first.

My perception is that the object of discussion has no appreciation of
or for those principles; and that he chafes at the constraints
implicit in the Constitution.

He has said in several news conferences that promised in his Oath of
Office to protect the people of the United States (sorry, no cites)
but anyone who's interested in seeing the oath he _actually_ took can
find it at the end of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

wrote:

>
> Joe Barta wrote:
>> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping
>> and I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy
>> to death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>>
>> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I
>> had all kinds of lawyers review the process."
>>
>> That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
>>
>> Joe Barta
>
> Hey Joe
> Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I
> included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense
> eh!!

No, it made sense all by itself. Just thought the way he worded it was
kind of amusing.

Joe Barta

John Flatley wrote:

> What a dastardly trick. Posting facts. Putting information in
> context. How dare you! Have you no compassion or feeling for
> those who hate Bush? I implore you to stop confusing the Bush
> bashers with facts when their heads are made up.

Oh settle down. I'm not a Bush basher, I'm not a Bush hater, I can
help myself to the facts thank you and it's not necessary to see the
quote in context. I have no quarrel with WHAT was said... just in the
WAY it was said. Am I the only one that thought it was funny? Geez.

Joe Barta

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're
> doing it without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants
> can even be obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing
> that step.

That's the part I don't understand. If the activities can already be
done within FISA, why do they need to bypass it?

It's almost as if they made the call to do the surveilances, then got
"caught". Then to justify their actions, they claimed that they had
the power to do them and that's the story they're sticking to. I don't
know if they did... from what I can tell it's a bit of a gray area.

At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that it's all that big of deal and
it sounds worse than it is, but maybe it's good that it's on the table
and people are talking about it.

Joe Barta

Swingman wrote:

> "Joe Barta" wrote in message
>
>> <snip>
>
> A troll by another other name ...
>

Yeah, I suppose it casts a bit of a troll-like shadow. But it wasn't
meant that way. I did have a feeling the post might generate some
strong opinions on the matter, but I figured it was all good.

Interestingly, this group is frequented by some pretty bright and
knowlegable characters that have some very interesting things to say
on off topic matters. Of course, such a post would be more
"appropriate" for any one of a dozen other groups, but unfortunately
those groups are mostly populated by a various assortment of juvenile
delinquents and head cases, most of whose ramblings aren't worth a
warm bucket of spit.

At least here I can learn a little about woodworking AND hear a little
intelligent OT chatter.

Joe Barta

wrote:

> You and I do not and should not have access to the information
> needed to confirm or deny your speculation above. That is why
> there is a FISA court.

Was watching a news conference with some general and this was one of
the topics. He was on the recieving end of some pretty aggressive
questioning and I came away with the notion that the main reason for
bypassing the FISA court is to lower the requirement from "probable"
cause to "reasonable" cause. Not sure of the acurracy her... just
repeating what I heard.

After the general wrapped up the news conference and was leaving,
someone shouted out something like "Isn't it true that the Bush
administration is using these warrantless wiretaps to eavesdrop on the
Democrats?" To which the general just kept going. If we assume it's a
load of bunk, then ignoring the question is probably a good way to let
it remain a non issue. But there's a part of me that wonders. There's
a line from Lawrence of Arabia... "big things have small beginnings".
I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
beginning to a big thing.

Joe Barta

Don wrote:

> Its amazing how many ignorant people there are walking around.

It's an interesting notion... there are a lot of ignorant people
walking around... but we're never one of them. Sort of a variation of
NIMBY. Human nature is a funny thing.

Joe Barta

wrote:

> But aren't you at least literate? Can't you at least read the
> Constitution to see if the case being made actually has a
> factual basis?

I'd say that also into the mix can be thrown 200+ years of precedent
and interpretation. Reading the Constitution in a vacuum might be
enlightening, but it has it's limitations.

Joe Barta

"Mark & Juanita"> wrote
> Joe, there are so many more things that are "big things" related to
> revoking our freedoms and liberties than the possibility that someone is
> listening to you share Aunt Sally's chile recipe.

The above is what one would expect from a silly child, completely uninformed
of what is going on around him.
Thank you, public education.

"Steve Peterson"> wrote
> If you support Bush administration activities, of which eavesdropping on
> phone conversations without bothering to get a warrant (i.e. illegal
> search, which the Constitution constrains the government to avoid), ask
> yourself if you would have supported that same activity by President
> Clinton. Even better, looking ahead, would you support that same activity
> by a future President Hillary Clinton.

You won't get a reply from Mark, for 1/2 of his brain is tied behind his
back.

Well given that if it's of such short duration as that, unless those
listening in were already doing so, what's your point?

According to the President's mouthpiece they're monitoring only those phone
calls that are coming in, and yet they claim that had this program been in
effect they could have theoretically caught some of the 9/11 terrorists who
were allegedly making calls OUT...

What's not being said is that the listener's can easily conduct their phone
taps and apply for a warrant after, that provision was specifically included
in the FISA rules.

It still begs the question of how the NSA knows who to listen to, if they
already have suspects in question, why not apply for the FISA warrants? If
they were conducting a fishing expedition as they almost certainly were,
that would explain their lack of even trying to obtain the legal warrants
required.

When the first evidence that the NSA or some other spy agency was also
collecting intel on one or more of the President's opponents, and it almost
certainly will, the shit will start to roll down hill and Mr. Gonzales and
Mr. McCullough won't be able to do a damned thing about it.

After the midterm elections, if the Democrats can get their shit together
well enough to retake the House of Reps, start looking for the mass
resignations from in and around the White House. Any attorney worth their
salt will be able to name their rates when the impeachment hearings start...

John E.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > TEF wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're doing it
> > without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants can even be
> > obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing that step.
>
>
> Do you think a terrorist phone call is going to last as long as it takes
to
> get a warrant?
>
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
>> I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
>> death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>>
>> President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had
>> all
>> kinds of lawyers review the process."
>
>
> ;~) This is how Texans talk. Proud to be a 51 year old Texan fer 51
> years.

Is that the same thing as "plantation talk?"

--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
>
>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:51:49 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You know, there's a thing going around lately and it seems to address those
>that adhere to the right and/or the left leaners.
>That is, that they close a blind eye to things outside that which they've
>been trained to believe.
>Look at Marks little diatribe.

Is your reading comprehension really so poor, or your logic so weak that
you don't understand what was clearly written? Or perhaps your viewpoints
are simply blinding you to what was so clearly written? You want
diatribe? Let me help you with that. Let me put this down in a more
simple format:

a) Some dangerous people make it into the US, part of a sleeper cell or
otherwise.

b) At the time those people make it into the US, we DON'T KNOW THAT THEY
ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE! They are simply people from outside the US or from
the US who have travelled abroad.

c) 9/11 happens. Afghanistan is implicated and specific provinces in
Afghanistan specifically are known to have active Al Queada groups. At
this time, we know that additional attacks have been threatened and that AQ
has trained many people in Afghanistan.

d) Those people in c) either make calls to those people in the US (THAT WE
DON'T YET KNOW ARE AFFILIATED WITH AQ) or people in the US (THAT WE DON'T
YET KNOW ARE AFFILIATED WITH AQ) to those areas of Afghanistan that harbor
and/or are controlled by Al Queada

e) The NSA has started monitoring phone calls out of, and into those areas
of Afghanistan

f) Because of the NSA monitoring, the origins and destinations of calls
into and out of those areas of Afghanistan are identified.

g) The NSA has now identified those persons in the US communicating with
those areas of Afghanistan known to be controlled by Al Quaeda.

h) g) is certainly sufficient condition now to start checking into those
people in the US communicating with those persons in Afghanistan

i) NOW, we have an idea that those folks are potentially dangerous

In other words, the monitoring of phone calls into and out of areas of the
world known to be hostile to US interests, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PEOPLE
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO THE US!

>He actually advocates allowing dangerous people to exist in the US, just so
>somebody, somewhere can wiretap them.

Reading the above, it appears more that your viewpoint is what is driving
you. The above sentence is so patently absurd, that anyone with an ounce
of reasoning ability would see it for the silliness that it is. Your
statement indicates that you actually believe people are just chomping at
the bit to use any excuse to start wiretapping people.



... snip of remainder of absolute illogic starting from fundamentally
flawed premise.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Joe Barta"> wrote
>>> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>>> beginning to a big thing.
>>
>> Its good to wonder, Joe.
>> When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....
>
> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct
> cross-border surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact
> all the FISA laws they want and they won't mean bupkis. It might get
> sorted out in the courts, but I don't think the Dems really want it to go
> there.

Then bush needs 1 oz of lead in the center of his skall.

Tim,

If you believe everything that the government tells you for the reasons
stated, then clearly you're the fool. As a retired U.S. diplomat, I can
tell you that nothing is done by this government (or any other government)
without an agenda and sometimes these are not as noble as one would like to
believe. It's a slippery slope when terrorism is suddenly justification for
illegal domestic spying and torture of prisoners. Yes, we're setting quite
the example of democracy to our target audience in the Middle East.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TEF wrote:
>
> > How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as
prescribed by
> > law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on
terrorism"
> > and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a
police
> > state.
>
> You're a fool if you think the US in its current configuration remotely
> resembles a police state and an enormous fool if you'd prefer "ten 9/11s"
> to what we have in this nation.
>
> Sadly, such events cannot be visited only upon people like yourself who
> wish them...
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> todd wrote:
>> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Joe Barta"> wrote
>> >> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>> >> beginning to a big thing.
>> >
>> > Its good to wonder, Joe.
>> > When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....
>>
>> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
>> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct
>> cross-border
>> surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact all the FISA
>> laws
>> they want and they won't mean bupkis.
>
> False. See Article I.
>
> You might find it helpful to read the Constitution before interpreting
> it.

I'm not interpreting it. I'm not a constitutional lawyer (somehow, I bet
you aren't either). I'm saying a case can be made and that case may be
decided in the courts.

On 24 Jan 2006 21:55:34 -0800, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark and Juanita wrote:In my neck of the
>woods (or cacti as the case may be), a group of do-gooders, using the
>force
>of law, attempted to revoke the rights of property owners to build on
>certain properties because it would ruin the "viewshed" of the area.
> Did they win the case? Tom
>

Only partially. Those lands that were already improved were left alone,
some land that was not improved fell into the protected category. This
wasn't court case (yet), but attempting to use the force of law through the
county commissioners to create these new rules. The opposition to this
attempt pointed out that the time to protect those lands was before it
became private.



>
> "If you're going through hell, keep going" Winston Churchill


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 25 Jan 2006 19:47:18 -0800, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Did they win the case? Tom
>
>
> Only partially. Those lands that were already improved were left
>alone,
>some land that was not improved fell into the protected category.
>This
>wasn't court case (yet), but attempting to use the force of law through
>the
>county commissioners to create these new rules. The opposition to this
>
>attempt pointed out that the time to protect those lands was before it
>>became private.
>Just wondering, a Mr. C. Huckleberry?

Name rings a bell, but I can't place it. This happened a couple of years
ago, so the names of the principals didn't stick. Commissioners were
Sharon Bronson, Ann Day, Dan Eckstrom, and Ray Carroll. This was organized
by a bunch of "we got to Tucson first and developed our places, we don't
want anybody else to do that to theirs" crowd. It had some feel-good name
like "Citizens to Protect our Mountains" or something of that sort. The
details stuck, one of which was that these people went someplace and
basically, anything they could view from that location as on a hill fell
into the realm of this protection act.

I got surprised one morning driving out my driveway to find a sign at the
end with a notice of proposed zoning change for my property. To say I was
PO'd would be to say that cats and dogs have a small problem with
interracting with one another.

When I say that they only partially one, the commissioners chose to
implement 3 levels of protection:
Level 1, Applied to 23 peaks and ridges and created no build zones.
To grade or build in those areas requires special use permit from the board
of supervisors.
Level 2, applied to 46 peaks and ridges and requires viewshed
mitigation standards (which extends down to the emmissivity of the paint
one can use on one's home or fences).
Level 3 was applied to 31 peaks for which no protection was
extended.

My home fell into level 3.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:51:49 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>You know, there's a thing going around lately and it seems to address
>>those
>>that adhere to the right and/or the left leaners.
>>That is, that they close a blind eye to things outside that which they've
>>been trained to believe.
>>Look at Marks little diatribe.
>
> Is your reading comprehension

<shred>

You're a fool Mark.
And I hope that you become a victim of that which you wish for others.
Its unfortunate that fools such as you exist and I hope they all die the
most horrible deaths, immediately.

Florida continues to show itself as a major problem to freedom and
liberty in the good ole USofA. Now the adminstration has apparently
identified it (Flroida) as a foreign country and Quakers and some
Catholic group as terrorists.

Yessiree.

Renata

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:38:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

-snip-
>
> The sad thing is that our rights are being eroded, and the left focuses
>on the wrong problem as usual. The fact that the government is monitoring
>calls from countries known to harbor terrorists to the US is hardly an
>infringement on civil rights of US citizens,...

-snip-

How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as prescribed by
law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on terrorism"
and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a police
state.


"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
> > I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
> > death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
> >
> > President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
> > kinds of lawyers review the process."
> >
> > That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
> >
>
> As _no_ information gathered from taps without a court order can be used
> against you, I don't think it's too big a danger. On the other hand, raw
> intelligence gathered from seemingly innocent circumlocutions can save
> thousands of lives.
>
>

As for reality, I saw one of the planes strike the Pentagon from my work
place in Virginia on 9/11, but I still don't agree that an administration
should insidiously and illegally undermine civil rights in the name of
terrorism. And another reality is that if left unchecked, governments have
been known to progressively suspend civil rights due to real or perceived
external threats. But then you'd never question any measures the government
might take as you're our reality benchmark.


"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TEF wrote:
>
> > Tim,
> >
> > If you believe everything that the government tells you for the reasons
> > stated, then clearly you're the fool. As a retired U.S. diplomat, I can
> > tell you that nothing is done by this government (or any other
government)
> > without an agenda and sometimes these are not as noble as one would like
to
> > believe. It's a slippery slope when terrorism is suddenly justification
for
> > illegal domestic spying and torture of prisoners. Yes, we're setting
quite
> > the example of democracy to our target audience in the Middle East.
> >
>
> Irrelevant. You call your nation a police state and argue that "ten more
> 9/11s" would be preferable. There is a legitimate debate to be had
> about security v. civil liberty, but your bellowing isn't even in
> the neighborhood. I hope you were a better diplomat than you are an
> observer of Reality...
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Joe Barta"> wrote
> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
> beginning to a big thing.

Its good to wonder, Joe.
When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:44:17 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> You and I do not and should not have access to the information
>> needed to confirm or deny your speculation above. That is why
>> there is a FISA court.
>
>Was watching a news conference with some general and this was one of
>the topics. He was on the recieving end of some pretty aggressive
>questioning and I came away with the notion that the main reason for
>bypassing the FISA court is to lower the requirement from "probable"
>cause to "reasonable" cause. Not sure of the acurracy her... just
>repeating what I heard.
>
>After the general wrapped up the news conference and was leaving,
>someone shouted out something like "Isn't it true that the Bush
>administration is using these warrantless wiretaps to eavesdrop on the
>Democrats?" To which the general just kept going. If we assume it's a
>load of bunk, then ignoring the question is probably a good way to let
>it remain a non issue. But there's a part of me that wonders. There's
>a line from Lawrence of Arabia... "big things have small beginnings".
>I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>beginning to a big thing.
>
>Joe Barta

Joe, there are so many more things that are "big things" related to
revoking our freedoms and liberties than the possibility that someone is
listening to you share Aunt Sally's chile recipe. Which, by the way, is a
red herring, that is not what is at issue anyway, laws preventing that are
clearly defined and were not the object of the investigations that were
illegally leaked to the press. The issue is communications into and out of
this country, even members of the other party have argued for the right of
the president to eavesdrop when national security is at stake (example,
Jamie Gurelik arguing this point before Congress). Most of the real
infringements on our freedoms were and are supported by those who have
liberal leanings rather than conservative leanings (note to those who are
going to whine about not knowing what is meant by liberal or conservative
or that this is too simplistic a dichotomy -- tough. You know what is
meant here. Clue: Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Souder, and Ginsberg don't qualify
as conservative and each support some or all of the various infringements
discussed as follows). Examples include the fact that any one of us could
have our homes or lands condemned by eminent domain so that a developer can
use that property for a purpose with higher property tax return for the
community. A farmer loses the right to work his farm because some enviros
have decided that a supposedly endangered kangaroo rat might be harmed by
his doing working the land he has purchased and for which he has paid
taxes. Another example is the alleged use of the IRS by a former
administration to intimidate its enemies. This is a story the details of
which we may not fully learn, since the same people in Congress fighting
for full disclosure of a classified national security program are fighting
to prevent the full disclosure of a special prosecutor's investigation into
the abuse of IRS powers. Numerous other examples abound -- these are real
examples that affect real US citizens on a daily basis. *Those* are the
revocations of liberties and rights we should be fighting to overturn --
they are much more real and pernicious.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

don't go trying to make sense of it, it confuses the neo-cons and the
righties...

John E.

"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Enoch Root"> wrote
> > That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
> > about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
> > what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
> > surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
> > that is illegal.
>
> Lemme get this straight.
> They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making phone
> calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
> Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
> Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather
than
> letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?
>
>

Your problem is that you're trapped in that silly rep vs dem game.
Leave that goofy stuff behind and you won't appear so ignorant.
Its all about choice.....


"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Well given that if it's of such short duration as that, unless those
>> listening in were already doing so, what's your point?
>>
>> According to the President's mouthpiece they're monitoring only those
>> phone
>> calls that are coming in, and yet they claim that had this program been
>> in
>> effect they could have theoretically caught some of the 9/11 terrorists
>> who
>> were allegedly making calls OUT...
>
> Whoa! You've really tripped them up now.
>
>> What's not being said is that the listener's can easily conduct their
>> phone
>> taps and apply for a warrant after, that provision was specifically
>> included
>> in the FISA rules.
>
> You assume that the FISA rules are the extent of the authority of the
> executive branch. This hasn't been decided, contrary to the shrieking of
> the Dems.
>
>> It still begs the question of how the NSA knows who to listen to, if they
>> already have suspects in question, why not apply for the FISA warrants?
>> If
>> they were conducting a fishing expedition as they almost certainly were,
>> that would explain their lack of even trying to obtain the legal warrants
>> required.
>>
>> When the first evidence that the NSA or some other spy agency was also
>> collecting intel on one or more of the President's opponents, and it
>> almost
>> certainly will, the shit will start to roll down hill and Mr. Gonzales
>> and
>> Mr. McCullough won't be able to do a damned thing about it.
>
> You should play the lottery with this clairvoyant ability.
>
>> After the midterm elections, if the Democrats can get their shit together
>> well enough to retake the House of Reps, start looking for the mass
>> resignations from in and around the White House. Any attorney worth their
>> salt will be able to name their rates when the impeachment hearings
>> start...
>>
>> John E.
>
> Keep dreaming. I heard James Carville today ripping the Dems because they
> can't pick a topic and stay on it long enough to make a cohesive thought.
> I thought perhaps I had low blood sugar when James Carville starts to make
> sense. The best reason to believe that this whole "domestic spying" thing
> is going nowhere is because the Dems believe it is going somewhere. So
> far, they're batting 0.000 for the past six years.
>
> todd
>

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:51 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>

Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:19:16 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
... snip
>>
>> It probably would take you less that fifteen mintues to read the
>> whole freakin Constitution from beginning to end. You caould
>> spend a lifetime studying it, but reading it is a good start.
>
>Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
>Whats that?
>Its not in there?
>Shut the fuck up them.
>Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?
>

Don't know, where are you from?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:46:43 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Enoch Root"> wrote
>> That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>> about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>> what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>> surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
>> that is illegal.
>
>Lemme get this straight.
>They claim there are dangerous people here in the US that are making phone
>calls to other dangerous people outside the US, right?
>Why do they continue to allow the dangerous people to be here?
>Shouldn't they be containing these people, or throwing them out, rather than
>letting them make potentially dangerous phone calls?
>

Well, let's see, maybe they need to find out who those dangerous people
in the US are. People in the US receiving and making calls to people
outside of the US who have ties to Al Queada might perhaps be one
indication of that, ya think? So perhaps by finding out who those folks
from outside the US are contacting, just maybe they are finding out who and
where those dangerous people in the US are located so that they can take
those actions you are advocating (getting them out of the US). Nah, that's
too simple -- they already know by clairavoyance who the dangerous people
are and they just want to have the fun of monitoring phone calls so they
can revel in the thrill of doing something illegal.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Leon"> wrote
> Do you think a terrorist phone call is going to last as long as it takes
> to get a warrant?

If they know he's a terrorist, why don't they arrest him?
I mean, being a terrorist is against the law isn't it?

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:31:12 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Barta wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have no problem with what they're doing except that they're
>>>>doing it without a warrant. Since according to FISA the warrants
>>>>can even be obtained after the fact, I see no need for bypassing
>>>>that step.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's the part I don't understand. If the activities can already be
>>>done within FISA, why do they need to bypass it?
>>>
>>>It's almost as if they made the call to do the surveilances, then got
>>>"caught". Then to justify their actions, they claimed that they had
>>>the power to do them and that's the story they're sticking to. I don't
>>>know if they did... from what I can tell it's a bit of a gray area.
>>>
>>>At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that it's all that big of deal and
>>>it sounds worse than it is, but maybe it's good that it's on the table
>>>and people are talking about it.
>>
>>That's the problem. The Bush apologists, and Bush himself, are talking
>>about listening in on a few overseas telephone calls. But that's not
>>what the charge is. The charge appears to be that a domestic
>>surveillance network has been erected to spy on citizens of the US. And
>>that is illegal.
>>
>>er
>
>
> I love that. It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness
> of the charges.

This is a rank misrepresentation of what I said and the actual issue.
Bush's defenses don't answer to the scope of the charge, and the charge
has been substantiated.

Can't argue with your other concerns, echelon and immenent domain. But
upholding eminent domain (to benefit "friends of the city" under the
guise of "economic benefit") was a judgment by the supreme court, iirc.

> [oh the left the misquided left, snipped]
>
> [eminent domain schtick, also snipped]

er
--
email not valid

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:39:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:44:07 -0500, "TEF" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as prescribed by
>>law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on terrorism"
>>and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a police
>>state.
>>
>
> There is a legitimate debate to be had regarding whether the FISA law
> abrogates some of the President's legitimate constitutional authority to
> protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic and to act as commander
> in Chief, gathering data for the defense of the US. Certainly during the
> golden years of the Clinton administration, the administration, through
> Jamie Gurrelik made that arguement when the even more insidious
> communications satellite program was revealed.
>
> It is certainly questionable that monitoring phone calls from known rogue
> states with ties to terrorist groups to persons in the US would qualify as
> nullifying US citizens' civil rights. Particularly when one examines the
> time frame during which this surveillance occurred. [Hint, it was about
> the same time that a certain female senator was accusingthe administration
> of not connecting the dots and ignoring the danger prior to 9/11,
> screeching out the demand, "What did George Bush know, and when did he know
> it?") Seems like the administration is screwed regardless of what it does
> in certain peoples' minds.

Also note that Clinton's administration had Aldritch Ames' house searched
and him jailed without warrant. This sort of thing certainly isn't unique
to the Bush administration. Now, why *didn't* Clinton get a warrant to
search and sieze Ames' property? Hmm? The answer is pretty obvious;
It's not needed in such circumstances, though failure to do so may
restrict criminal prosecutions based on what's found. Also note that the
"Fourth" has the word "reasonable" in there.

--
Keith

"TEF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As for reality, I saw one of the planes strike the Pentagon from my work
> place in Virginia on 9/11,

And I saw it on TV 100's of times. SO WHAT.


but I still don't agree that an administration
> should insidiously and illegally undermine civil rights in the name of
> terrorism. And another reality is that if left unchecked, governments
> have
> been known to progressively suspend civil rights due to real or perceived
> external threats. But then you'd never question any measures the
> government
> might take as you're our reality benchmark.

It's not the government that is the ptoblem. It's the sit on your butt's
that make it corrupt for their own benefit, think they have the public
fooled and continue to do nothing, and never try to do anything as a team.
Here is a good read for you.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:42:28 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/25/2006 12:38 AM Mark & Juanita mumbled something about the following:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:31:12 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Barta wrote:
>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
... snip
>> Bush administration or eeeevil conservative judges bent on the destruction
>> of privacy rights, but by the other side of the court, Ginsberg, Bryer,
>> Kennedy: all of those paragons of the "privacy rights of Americans". More
>> infringements? How about a farmer who is arrested for plowing *his* field,
>> land upon which he has paid taxes and owns, because some rat *might* get in
>> the way. Or a small business that can be shut down because a bureaucrat
>> who can come onto that property with no warrant nor warning finds some
>> situation that he *thinks* may be a safety violation. In my neck of the
>> woods (or cacti as the case may be), a group of do-gooders, using the force
>> of law, attempted to revoke the rights of property owners to build on
>> certain properties because it would ruin the "viewshed" of the area.
>> *Those* are real infringements upon the civil rights of citizens of this
>> country, yet those actions are not only not opposed by those screaming like
>> stuck pigs over the fact that overseas calls may have been monitored after
>> this country was attacked, but those actions are typically supported by
>> those same people. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.
>>
>
>Let's see, the ESA was passed by Nixon, eminent domain was upheld by the
>supreme court. You might want to check your facts before you start
>blaming the left.

The OSHA act passed and enacted by Nixon hardly qualifies as
conservative. Nixon didn't necessarily quality as a conservative, but was
much closer to a statist. OTOH, he was the lesser of the evils available
at the time. You seem to miss the point that those actions and the EPA
actions are actions that have consistently been supported by the left and
statists. The fact that Nixon appeased the left doesn't make that any less
a leftist cause.

You might want to check your reading comprehension before accusing
others of missing facts. WHO on the supreme court voted in favor of the
eminent domain case? As I indicated above, it was those viewed to be on
the "left" side of the court along with that perenniel fence sitter, Sandra
Day O'Connor. Note again, it was NOT the so-called conservative judges
Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist -- those people accused of chomping at the bit
to take away rights from citizens.

You further miss the point that this whole flap over what is essentially
an activity protecting the country from further attack, monitoring
communications from OUTSIDE the US to persons inside the US from countries
known to harbor terrorists is laughable in terms of the hysteria regarding
the "chilling" effect upon US citizens' civil rights compared to the
activities that I cited.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Tim Daneliuk"> wrote
> There is a legitimate debate to be had
> about security v. civil liberty, but your bellowing isn't even in
> the neighborhood.

No problem, as long as its YOUR security and liberties that are in debate.
You see, neither YOU nor your king bush get to debate mine.

I hope you were a better diplomat than you are an
> observer of Reality...

Likewise, I'm sure.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 00:02:17 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>| news:[email protected]...
>|| Don (in [email protected])
>|| said:
>||
>||| Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
>||| Whats that?
>||| Its not in there?
>||| Shut the fuck up them.
>||| Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?
>||
>|| Point your browser at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html and
>|| read Section 8 of Article I:
>||
>|| "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>|| Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>|| Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
>||
>|| and further down in that same section:
>||
>|| "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
>|| Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
>||
>|| To provide and maintain a Navy;
>||
>|| To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
>|| naval Forces;
>||
>|| To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
>|| Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>||
>|| To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
>|| and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
>|| Service of the United States, reserving to the States
>|| respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
>|| of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
>|| Congress;"
>|
>| I'm still waiting.
>
>Sorry, I can't read it out loud for you from here. You'll just have to
>find someone closer or remain ignorant.

Here Morris, take my hand, we're both getting muddy. Time to climb out
of this wallow.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:44:07 -0500, "TEF" <[email protected]> wrote:

>How about respecting one's civil rights and abiding by FISA as prescribed by
>law? Can't see the advantage of winning this so-called "war on terrorism"
>and losing our civil rights. I'd prefer ten 9/11's over living in a police
>state.
>

There is a legitimate debate to be had regarding whether the FISA law
abrogates some of the President's legitimate constitutional authority to
protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic and to act as commander
in Chief, gathering data for the defense of the US. Certainly during the
golden years of the Clinton administration, the administration, through
Jamie Gurrelik made that arguement when the even more insidious
communications satellite program was revealed.

It is certainly questionable that monitoring phone calls from known rogue
states with ties to terrorist groups to persons in the US would qualify as
nullifying US citizens' civil rights. Particularly when one examines the
time frame during which this surveillance occurred. [Hint, it was about
the same time that a certain female senator was accusingthe administration
of not connecting the dots and ignoring the danger prior to 9/11,
screeching out the demand, "What did George Bush know, and when did he know
it?") Seems like the administration is screwed regardless of what it does
in certain peoples' minds.

>
>"George" <George@least> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Just saw this quote attributed to Bush about the NSA wire tapping and
>> > I thought a few in this group would be amused. I love the guy to
>> > death, but sometimes he says the dumbest things...
>> >
>> > President Bush: "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all
>> > kinds of lawyers review the process."
>> >
>> > That's good George... as long as you've got it covered.
>> >
>>
>> As _no_ information gathered from taps without a court order can be used
>> against you, I don't think it's too big a danger. On the other hand, raw
>> intelligence gathered from seemingly innocent circumlocutions can save
>> thousands of lives.
>>
>>
>


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:11:50 GMT, "noonenparticular"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>withholding opinion in the desparate (and probably futile) hope that this
>thread will die....

I sort of hope it won't. It it keeps the children busy they might not
start a new one, and it'll be much easier to filter.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote
> Don't know, where are you from?

sed the rusty sheriffs badge......

"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Joe Barta"> wrote
>>>> I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small
>>>> beginning to a big thing.
>>>
>>> Its good to wonder, Joe.
>>> When the chief law enforcment officer circumvents the law.....
>>
>> There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the
>> president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct
>> cross-border surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact
>> all the FISA laws they want and they won't mean bupkis. It might get
>> sorted out in the courts, but I don't think the Dems really want it to go
>> there.
>
> Then bush needs 1 oz of lead in the center of his skall.

Well, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and head to
Washington. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

todd

Don (in [email protected]) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| Don (in [email protected])
|| said:
||
||| Show me the part where a standing army is to exist?
||| Whats that?
||| Its not in there?
||| Shut the fuck up them.
||| Jeezis, where do all these morons come from?
||
|| Point your browser at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html and
|| read Section 8 of Article I:
||
|| "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
|| Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
|| Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
||
|| and further down in that same section:
||
|| "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
|| Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
||
|| To provide and maintain a Navy;
||
|| To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
|| naval Forces;
||
|| To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
|| Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
||
|| To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
|| and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
|| Service of the United States, reserving to the States
|| respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
|| of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
|| Congress;"
|
| I'm still waiting.

Sorry, I can't read it out loud for you from here. You'll just have to
find someone closer or remain ignorant.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto