|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-15-2006, 05:49 PM | #31 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
05-15-2006, 05:58 PM | #32 | |
King Of Wishful Thinking
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
|
Quote:
And why is it that everyone recognizes the 'slippery slope' when it deals with guns and abortion, but noone recognizes it on fundamental issues like privacy. Using the database for anything except terrorists should at a minimum require the signature of a judge.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama |
|
05-15-2006, 09:58 PM | #33 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
COLLECTING the database should require the signature of a judge, possibly one per customer.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
05-15-2006, 10:00 PM | #34 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Each listen, each recording, needs a specific warrant.
|
05-15-2006, 10:54 PM | #35 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
the followup
...suggests that it wasn't the NSA or CIA, who fail to make a reappearance here. Now it was the FBI, but again they fail to directly connect any dots. ...pulls back, on the basis of a fresh take from this anonymous senior government official, on the whole concept of the calls being "tracked". ('more like "backtracked"', now says official.) ...then weighs in with the utterly weak "But FBI officials did not deny", and a ridiculously loose conjecture on how the FBI might operate in an investigation. |
05-16-2006, 01:38 AM | #36 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I vote for you as board mod. |
|
05-16-2006, 01:42 AM | #37 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
05-16-2006, 02:03 AM | #38 | |||||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Don't fool yourself for one minute. This administration is not about the law. Like another administration that also hid behind "We enforce the law" to subvert the United States, George Jr administration has been doing same. That means bugging other nation's diplomatic communications to force Security Council approval for 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq. That means bugging and listening to international calls - without any judicial approval - only because they want to. That means extraordinary rendition and torture because they could not find mythical WMD and mythical terrorist cells in the US.
So like in Nixon's time, patriots had to leak truth to the press. Like the crook Nixon, George Jr's administration demands loyalty first; principles of America secondary. Anything that would stop whistle blowers is essential to this administration. And programs that would expose patriots - the whistle blowers - are best for a draconian and dictatorial administration. But we can trust George Jr people to build databases on everyone's phone records - just like we can trust them to uncover who exposed a CIA agent for political purposes. Phone records that once required court orders are now acceptable in 'honest' administration hands? Same people who have no guilt about kidnapping and torturing people .... and lying about it? So how large is this program? Are you so anti-American (which means as dumb as a mental midget) to believe phone records are all they are collecting? From the Wall Street Journal of 27 April 2006: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you file income taxes using a tax service? Did you file electronically via some service? Why do some companies offer free tax filing software? Because they can sell your income tax information; this administration has that much regard for your privacy - and identity protection. You don't need identity protection? Good. Then you don't need your phone records protected by judicial review. As a White House mouthpiece once declared and this is an exact quote, "You have no expectation of privacy." Are you 'Deep Throat' desperately trying to protect the United States from a widespread and corrupt administration? Today, you are traceable because who you talk to is no longer secret - does not even require Judicial review. This is a radical departure from America of 10 years ago. And this is not just limited to collecting your phone records. If a machine does collecting, then the DoD is only receiving (not collecting) information? Quote:
Why do we need Fatherland Security? Why do we need a military compiling dossiers on each of us? Because if any one finds corruption at the highest level of government, he cannot even go to the press. No wonder a president who demands 'total loyalty' is so upset that we might know about the 902nd MIG, that he is bugging phones without judicial review, and that private information can be sold to others without your knowledge. Once the military was not permitted information on your tax returns. Hello. Once we were worried about no government effort to protect you from identity theft. Now they must know even who you talk to; even if you dial a wrong number. J Edgar Hoover wished he had this much power; this much information. Did you learn enough about history to appreciate how scary that is? J Edgar Hoover wishes he had this much information. J Edgar Hoover blackmail was legendary. But we can trust George Jr to be honest - just like those other Christians in Dover PA? What was necessary to start a Spanish Inquisition? Cardinal Fag? It was not started by a cushy pillow. Last edited by tw; 05-16-2006 at 02:18 AM. |
|||||
05-16-2006, 07:12 PM | #39 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/..._responds.html
Statement by the FBI: The impression left by the ABC News report is misleading. In specific cases, after receiving a referral from the Department of Justice, the FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information. In such cases, investigators may examine the telephone records of government agencies. In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process. |
05-16-2006, 07:18 PM | #40 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
And the FBI wouldn't lie.....ever.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
05-17-2006, 02:37 AM | #41 | ||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Quote:
Same reasoning was used by Nixon to justify the plumbers. Nixon would not lie either. |
||
05-17-2006, 08:54 AM | #42 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
OK, we're in favor of leakers this week. I just want to be sure we're clear on that.
|
05-17-2006, 11:51 AM | #44 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Let's start with ANY unconstitutional activity EVER, by ANY branch, regardless of what they think of their fantasy status.
|
05-17-2006, 03:04 PM | #45 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Typically we don't know what was leaked and in this case we have no idea whatsoever.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|