Santorum says....
 

I got this email today;
I'm voting against him in November. :eyebrow:

Wow...there's a newsflash. :-) Did you ever vote for him before?

Seriously, he is an asshole. But not because he voted against S.2611.

Well apparently he's an asshole who doesn't like his views to be questioned.

Now I don't know what the publicity hack overheard to order the eviction, but:

a) It wasn't her or Santorum's bookstore. If anything, only a store employee should have been able to order their eviction.

b) Don't advertise a discussion if you're not going to accept opposing views.

If the woman heard that they planned to be disruptive, she should have spoken to a store manager. If she just got the impression that they were going to ask difficult questions, she should be sued. In general, before evicting someone it is better to wait until they are disruptive. If everyone who just seemed suspicious was automatically ejected from stores (insert racial profiling joke here).

I love the backpedaling here. Apparently, noone was responsible. Not Santorum, not the bookstore, not the 'family institute'.

In general, bookstores and libraries take the first amendment pretty seriously, considering that is the basis for their existence. I am surprised the store went along with this. I actually shop at that Barnes and Noble and after reading this I will stop in and register my disapproval.

Again..I carry no brief for Santorum. But a "booksigning and discussion" is a private retailing event to promote book sales, not a town hall forum. I suspect someone planning to use a booksigning for "It Takes A Village" as a platform to advertise their opposition would have recieved the same treatment at the hands of the bookseller.

In fact when Gwennie worked at Borders I seem to recall something very similar going on at a booksigning for Terrell Owens.

I wonder if he was afraid to hold it in Pennsylvania?:eyebrow:

The publisher is based in Wilmington, although the suit was filed by ACLU of PA. With this having actually happened in August 2005 I have to think the timing is motivated by the election, although Santorum isn't being sued, the cop hired by his publisher and a Jane Doe are the defendants. The crowd that was dispersed was high-school kids; Galpernin and Rocek were 18 and 19. Complaint here (PDF)

And again I will reiterate that it wasn't his property to make that decision. And I would like to hear about any conservative hecklers who were denied entrance to a 'liberal' event 'before' they started causing trouble.

So far the vast majority of people in 'free speech' zones and ejected from events have been those confronting conservatives.

Maybe not as many conservatives think heckling is a useful tactic.

In any event, the event was run by the publisher, and it's their employees are who's being sued, not Santorum.

I wonder what would have happened if some Pink Pistols had showed up? I understand at least one of the kids was wearing a pink triangle.

Karl Rove does. :eyebrow:

I think that is a function of which outfit is running the government and which outfit is pissed off. We should remember that Clinton started this nonsense.

Bruce seems to have a lot of trouble remembering Clintonian nonsense. "What's a Clipper Chip?" :-)

"Clintonian nonsense" doesn't compare to Bush oppression. :rolleyes:

Well, if you can't remeber it, I guess not.

Oh, this is one of those "If you don't know why I'm mad, I'm certainly not going to tell you" games, isn't it?

I hate those.

No, I specifically referred to the Clipper Chip--since folks are citing interception of overseas calls to terrorist suspects and mass-procssing of CDR data as evidence of the impending imposition of a police state by the Bush administraion over in this thread.

Those who do not remeber history may not be condemned to repeat it, but they can certainly be sentenced to look it up.

Well, since I take sentencings seriously, I scampered off and looked it up. After all, I thought, MaggieL certainly couldn't be excusing the behavior of an administration that's been eavesdropping on anyone who's suspected of having any connection with terrorism without easily-obtainable warrants, that's been coercing telcos into gathering data on all U.S. phone calls in order to build an enormous database with which to track us, by comparing it to a defunct proposal by a previous administration that didn't end up tapping a single phone call warrantlessly, could she?

But, as it turns out, that's exactly the case. The Clipper Chip was a failed proposal to encourage manufacturers to include encryption devices in their telecommunications products while giving the cipher keys to the government to hold 'in escrow' in order to be able to intercept calls when necessary. Nothing was said about doing so without warrants. I suppose they wanted to leave that for the next guys.

The end result? Widely available free cryptography like PGP made the Clipper Chip irrelevant. Nothing was produced using it, the idea was bad to start with, and within three years of the proposal being introduced, it was history.

This was an attempt at making sure that the government had the means to tap people's phone calls as needed, using the then-popular warranted search methods, which never tapped a single phone call.

This compares to or excuses, the Bush administrations actions in what way, exactly?

So a failure at implementation excuses bad intentions? The point was that the Clinton administration was every bit as anxious to preserve their technical ability to wiretap all phones.

I do agree that we all owe a debt to PGP inventor Phil Zimmerman. Phil made sure that strong crypto was available to everyone by defiying the Clinton adminsitration's "munitions export" prosceution...but PGP predated the Clipper Chip by several years; you can't call it "the end result" of the Clipper Chip.

The notion at the time was that they would make PGP illegal, in order for Clipper to make any sense at all -- since there was no reason whatsoever for the government to require an expensive circuit with their own back door if stuff could be encrypted cheaply with a free algorithm.

So a pervasive program of warrantless wiretapping is excused by the bad intentions of a previous administration?

The Clipper chip was a way for people to use encryption AND for government to only break that encryption with judicial review. As I recall, the codes to use that Clipper chip back door were to be held by two separate groups. Both codes were necessary to use the back door. Both codes could only be obtained under court order.

Meanwhile, George Jr promoted bugging anyone - unrestricted use of electronic information - especially without judicial review. That is the difference. Whereas Clinton's administration worried about individual rights, instead, the George Jr administration is about more power- America be damned. It is even why they had no problem outrightly lying when they knew full well that the van was not for biological weapons. When they knew - no doubt what so ever - that those aluminum tubes were not for WMDs. When they invented the entire Niger uranium story. When they have no regrets about international kidnapping and torture.

The Clipper chip was about national security with strong judicial review. Unrestricted wiretapping is only about more power to the White House - American rights are irrelevant and should be trampled as necessary. Major difference. George Jr's administration is about violations of American principles for the greater glory of his administration. BTW, that was also an underlying principle of Nixon's administration.

Reason an implementation fails is because intentions were bad. The strategic objective was flawed. Therefore attempts to implement that strategic objective were also flawed. A principle found in Vietnam and Misson Accomplished wars as well as in technical solutions such as the Clipper chip and Sony's spyware. Just another example of why 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Support for this assertion, please?

A previous post quoted from the Wall Street Journal on the 904th. Unrestricted bugging of international calls. These are only some their actions only because patriotic Americans leaked that reality. What has echelon been doing lately? Why is the European Parliament getting into a war with the George Jr administration over privacy and human rights? Do you remember Nixon? Same principles promoted by his AG and other top administration people with same total disrespect for American privacy and constitutional protections.

Show me any other presidency - other than Nixon's - that would even invade nations on lies. Even lie about the lies. That would torture and kidnap all over the world and lie about that. This administration has no respect for fundamental American rights. That fact is not even debateable.

Which returns to a previous and simple question. How do we differ in what should be purpose of government?

When he claimed that the President has the inherent authority to waive even the minimal warrant requirements of the FISA courts?

No warrants == can bug anyone.

Warrants are supposed to be the check that ensures a legitimate basis for surveilance.

"Subject to FISA courts" != "anyone"

The F stands for "Foreign". This is the kind of "overreaching" stuff I'm talking about...intercepting overseas calls to foriegn nationals who are terrorism suspects is not "bugging anyone".

No warrants == nobody to check that the target is foreign.

As you well know, the George Jr administration considered FISA courts too restrictive - or was it that the courts could not be trusted with national secrets? George Jr's administration was bugging without FISA authorization - without any judicial review. When patriots blew the whistle on another Nixonian act, then George Jr took displeasure not with the illegal bugging. That would be too pro-American and too anti-neocon. George Jr took displeasure with what patriots did in defense of everyone in The Cellar.

There is no way you can defend the mental midget on this one. Doing so suggests you believe facts as selectively as a Rush Limbaugh disciple. George Jr wiretaps without judicial review, tortures people, kidnaps, denies prisioners their constitution rights, and does not even read his memos. And then he even lies about all this. How could anyone with decency for one minute defend such an anti-American?

Well you pretend he is not wiretapping without judical review. You ignore repeated references to the 904th. Anything to not call him what he really is. Logic says he is, at minimum, a mental midget.

But then as Katrina was attacking New Orleans, George Jr was off collecting campaign funds in CA. He could not even bother to respond to Brownie's desperate pleas for assistance. What’s a little wiretapping without judicial review among friends. All other Americans are only terrorists - or dumb enough to believe Rush Limbaugh.

What did Rush say about wiretapping once reality was leaked? Rush Limbaugh parroted the company line. We have no expectation of privacy. Everyone who is not a neo-con is the enemy? Apparently.

No, I'm just ignoring you.

IOW again you made statements you cannot defend. Maggie. You've got to think through things before posting. Otherwise some will take you seriously.

Meanwile I am truly curious how we differ on the purpose of government. I suspect it is less than some assume.