Big Brother is watching: U.S citizens rights continue to degrade.

[MobBoss]

on another page, I'm sorry I insulted you; your very right, and it was wrong of me too do- one goal, different views on how to obtain it, one might say.

Apology accepted.

Lets just say where we disagree is when should action be taken. You think earlier is better, I say wait until an actual violation has been commited. Personally, I view the law as a line in the sand...you can approach that line..even come very close to it, but there is definition to that line and if you cross it then you are wrong.

If it becomes apparent that what was done certainly crossed that line, I will be right with you to ensure those that did are punished accordingly. I cant put it any better than that.

 

[FredLC]

Lets just say where we disagree is when should action be taken. You think earlier is better, I say wait until an actual violation has been commited.

I had opted out of this discussion since minds are pretty much already made, but felt that one objective thing needed to be pointed out in this particular argument:

You said that you feel that measures should be taken regarding the military surveillance only after an actual violation is commited, correct?

However, you are defending from scratch the military acting in regard of the pacifist groups is ok before any violation is commited by them, on the grounds of prevention of possible future damaging/ilegal behaviour... the very thing people here fears will possibly come out of this unusual military surveillance.

I ask you, than, this: How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed positions?

Regards .

 

[MobBoss]

I had opted out of this discussion since minds are pretty much already made, but felt that one objective thing needed to be pointed out in this particular argument:

You said that you feel that measures should be taken regarding the military surveillance only after an actual violation is commited, correct?

However, you are defending from scratch the military acting in regard of the pacifist groups is ok before any violation is commited by them, on the grounds of prevention of possible future damaging/ilegal behaviour... the very thing people here fears will possibly come out of this unusual military surveillance.

I ask you, than, this: How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed positions?

Regards .

Let me clarify then. Until actual charges are filed, I will give what they are doing the benefit of the doubt, espcially since we are in a time of war. Neither of us knows each and every law, so either of us could be wrong at the onset. I did a bit more research during this thread and modified my position once I knew there was a difference between active and passive intelligence gathering, for example. If what they have done has broken the law, I would wish the perpetrators to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Did that help make my stance a bit more clear?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

[sarcasm]It's terrible, man? Where did they lock you? Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo bay?[/sarcasm]

No I think it was a gulag in Siberia.

That said, well, it's obvious that te majority of the US people is not being victimized, or is being victimized slightely, by the weird behavior of a few US authorities. Still, it seens pretty clear that quite a few people in US have a weird notion of what democracy and freedom means. Just look as DBear argument - "If you dares to sympathize with terrorist, prepare to be 'treated accordingly' (a.k.a. 'loose rights')" - detail: being against recruitments in school equals "sympathize to terrorism", and also, since when an opinion, even an idiotic one as liking terrorists, is a crime?

I think that we are all victimized to some point, rmsharpe more than others apparently.

 

[Kayak]

Let me clarify then. Until actual charges are filed, I will give what they are doing the benefit of the doubt, espcially since we are in a time of war. Neither of us knows each and every law, so either of us could be wrong at the onset. I did a bit more research during this thread and modified my position once I knew there was a difference between active and passive intelligence gathering, for example. If what they have done has broken the law, I would wish the perpetrators to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Did that help make my stance a bit more clear?

But if something does not pass the "Smell Test" as it were why do it? Especially if it leads you onto the slippery slope. The negative public relations can't outweigh the benefits here.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's also some value in preventing government agencies the opportunity to be corrupt. In Alberta, our securities exchange commission members are allowed to trade shares on the Alberta Exchange - the very place they're supposed to be monitoring. It didn't smell right when we found out, and it smelled worse when we found they were profiting off of information that had access to because of their positions. If they'd been forbidden from trading in the first place, it's unlikely the abuse would have occurred.

If the DOD is just prohibited from being tempted, then it's unlikely they'll fall and do something wrong.

It's different when dealing with agencies or corporations (vs. people) - they need strictures to prevent corruption ahead of time, because rooting out a problem is a lot tougher than arresting a person who took advantage of his freedom.

 

[MobBoss]

But if something does not pass the "Smell Test" as it were why do it? Especially if it leads you onto the slippery slope. The negative public relations can't outweigh the benefits here.

I tend to agree with you here Kayak...just because a thing is legal doesnt always make it the right thing to do in a certain situation. Obviously, in this case, some staffer thought it was important enough. BUT, I dont have a lot of faith in that either....I have seen a lot of college educated officers make big league common sense mistakes. Often, especially in the military, officers are looking for something to "get them on the map" as it were. If they can pull something like this off legally and it bears fruit, then that puts them ahead of their peers at the feeding trough of promotions and assignments.

Bottom line, do I think there are groups of anti-war activists that need to be watched. I most certainly do. Do I think the Quakers need to be watched? meh...no.

 

[Kayak]

BUT, I dont have a lot of faith in that either....I have seen a lot of college educated officers make big league common sense mistakes.

Thats why the 1st LTs and Ensigns have SGTs and Chiefs isn't it?

 

[MobBoss]

Thats why the 1st LTs and Ensigns have SGTs and Chiefs isn't it?

Posted for Kayaks pleasure:

Eleven people were dangling below a helicopter on a rope. There were ten Officers and one Sergeant.
Since the rope was not strong enough to hold all the eleven, they decided that one of them had to let go to save all the others

They could not decide who should be the volunteer. Finally the Sergeant said he would let go of the rope since Sergeants are used to doing everything for the good of the Service. They forsake their family, don’t claim all of their expenses and do a lot of overtime without getting anything in return.

When he finished his moving speech all the Officers began to clap…

As Stan Lee would say...'nuff said.

 

[Kayak]

Ok. Here is a new one for us all. This one may indeed portions of the Patriot Act.

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?th&emc=th

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Doug Mills/Associated Press
In 2002, President Bush toured the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md., with Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence.

A Half-Century of Surveillance (December 16, 2005)
In the Blogs: Reaction to Relaxed Restrictions on Domestic Spying (December 16, 2005)

Forum: National Security
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

NOTE: Article is much longer. Give it a read.

 

[IglooDame]

Posted for Kayaks pleasure:

Eleven people were dangling below a helicopter on a rope. There were ten Officers and one Sergeant.
Since the rope was not strong enough to hold all the eleven, they decided that one of them had to let go to save all the others

They could not decide who should be the volunteer. Finally the Sergeant said he would let go of the rope since Sergeants are used to doing everything for the good of the Service. They forsake their family, don’t claim all of their expenses and do a lot of overtime without getting anything in return.

When he finished his moving speech all the Officers began to clap…

As Stan Lee would say...'nuff said.

I was going to raise my hand and offer an opposing viewpoint, but then I thought back some, and... let's just say I'm changing my plea to 'no contest'.

:shakehead

 

[MobBoss]

Ok. Here is a new one for us all. This one may indeed portions of the Patriot Act.

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?th&emc=th



NOTE: Article is much longer. Give it a read.

Couple of things on this one. First of all it was done via presidential order, not the patriot act per se. And it only covered international calls, domestic calls were not screened in any way. Also, it would seems the story gave the effort some credit as well, as it resulted in the arrest and conviction of persons who would aid and work with the terrorists here in the USA.

Plus, there is this to go with it as well: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

Anytime something like this is held for a long period of time, then released just before a book comes out on it I am suspect of it.

 

[Kayak]

Couple of things on this one. First of all it was done via presidential order, not the patriot act per se. And it only covered international calls, domestic calls were not screened in any way. Also, it would seems the story gave the effort some credit as well, as it resulted in the arrest and conviction of persons who would aid and work with the terrorists here in the USA.

The artical is pretty evenhanded. But think of it this way. The President can not change laws by decree. He went opinion shopping (to the very same lawyers that gave us justifications for torture BTW) and if the SCOTUS does not agree he will have his a$$ handed to him. Not very many experts agree with the legal opinion either. This could be very big. At the very least it will give us another round of debates on the Patriot Act provisions. It is just one more bungle amount many IMO.

 

[MobBoss]

The artical is pretty evenhanded. But think of it this way. The President can not change laws by decree. He went opinion shopping (to the very same lawyers that gave us justifications for torture BTW) and if the SCOTUS does not agree he will have his a$$ handed to him. Not very many experts agree with the legal opinion either. This could be very big. At the very least it will give us another round of debates on the Patriot Act provisions. It is just one more bungle amount many IMO.

So you automatically assume wrongdoing, despite the subsequent book release to go along with it? Come on, your cynicism should cut both ways. And the president isnt changing law by decree. Presidential orders happen all the time.

Here is a brief description:

According to the Federal Register, "Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government."

George W. Bush has signed a number of executive orders that have far reaching implications for civil liberties, intellectual freedom, and freedom of information. For example, Executive order 13233, "Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act", restricts access to the records of past presidents.

So, an executive order wouldnt change the law per se, but it would give direction to elements within the federal government on procedure on actions permitted by the law. Example: if he chose to, he could rescind the executive order which bars the US from assassinating people. Its not the law that prevents us from actively doing this, its a executive order.