Poindexter?

Noted crazed left-winger Bill Safire (actually he was a Nixon speechwriter and normally a Republican apologist) has some interesting things to say about the collection of your personal information, by Homeland Security. His Op Ed in the NYTimes.


Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

So, Poindexter is the guy in charge of my personal information, at least they picked someone of unimpeachable integrity. There is nothing conservative about the direction this government is going.

So long as the politicians have the power to reward their friends and punish their enemies, corruption is inevitable. - Harry Browne

You have more faith in the system than I do Griff, I think this will be used against political dissent from day one, no matter who the President is or which political party he/she represents.

This is frighteneing to me personally and I'm sure many other share my fears. It reeks of 1930s Nazi Germany. Its crazy that we should have more info collected on the people, we need more info on the government made more available for the people to see and use against them.

I'd move out of the country, if there were only someplace better.

I've been kind of hoping for the "winning the lottery and buying an island" option ...

[FONT=century gothic]Century[/FONT] [COLOR=purple]purple[/COLOR] Of course, what Bill Safire neglects to mention is the fact that all this information on us is already available to the Agencies in the form of separate databases....
"A virtual, centralized grand database" just pulls the information they already have into one streamlined database.
If you think your information was not out there years ago, you are a fool! What? Just because you didn't know that they knew your business made you fearlesss?....C'mon, Our Government doesn't know any more about you than they have known for years,
the difference is in the tracking ability.
However, they still can't track you without a Judges Court Order.
So, all this, "The sky is falling" routine is very
un-necessary and knee-jerk, people.

U.S. watch list has 'taken on life of its own, FBI says

If you think your information was not out there years ago, you are a fool!

Versions of watch list distributed to private sector and can't be corrected or updated by authorities.

Originally posted by slang



You have more faith in the system than I do Griff,

No, I don't. I meant to put the sarcasm tags around that Poindexter endorsement.

Would be fun to be a techie for them.

<Joe> Hey, Bob! You up for some pizza?
<Bob> Mmm...Pizza! Sounds good!
<Joe> Okay! Lemme grab some cash. SELECT CC_Name, CC_Number, CC_Expire FROM bigScaryTable WHERE lastname LIKE, eh...'G%' ORDER BY, say, petName DESC...

--Sk

So, all this, "The sky is falling" routine is very un-necessary and knee-jerk, people.

<h4>I disagree Cairo, I'd like to explain why</h4>

This is based mainly on intuition because I cant find a copy of the complete bill online, but you may be able to relate. If I missed the bus, by all means , tell me, I dont want to believe this is a real big deal. There are some concerns I can't ignore though.

Originally posted by Cairo
[FONT=century gothic]Century[/FONT] [COLOR=purple]purple[/COLOR] Of course, what Bill Safire neglects to mention is the fact that all this information on us is already available to the Agencies in the form of separate databases....

"A virtual, centralized grand database" just pulls the information they already have into one streamlined database.

Having all the data in one database allows the Homeland Security Bureau to create "redflags" for specific activities, locations, etc. A redflag to me would be a list of normal purchases or activities that have lead to a certain crime or activity in the past or that seem "suspicious" to someone. The actual formation of what constitutes a redflag is important. For instance, if you buy a box of garbage bags, and an axe, and some rags, and some heavy duty floor cleaner from a local dept store, that might seem suspicious. If you happened to buy them at 3 am, it might seem all that much more suspicious. Did you just kill your wife and now you're looking to do a little cleanup, or is there another perfectly reasonable explaination for buying these specific things together? What can I expect them to deem suspicious?

Being on a <a href="http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091102/loc_mussarra.shtml"> watchlist </A>doesn't necessarily damage a person or their reputation, but I would lean towards it not helping you. Who exactly would have access to their intell? What penalties are there for sharing that information with an unauthorized entity? What are the realistic chances that a citizen would find effective recourse should there be a breech? Theoretically, can my friend's wife, who works for the BHS, use the information from the bureau against me if I piss them off somehow? Do you doubt this happens now with smaller agencies? I dont, but that's just my opinion. Maybe I've overlooked the details, but I'd like to know. I also think battling this BHS through the legal system for indiscretions would be impossible. In my opinion, it's a bad idea and we need to just clean up the old intrusive agencies instead of making a new enormous one.

Add to that the fact that often law enforcement, particularly Federal, tend to be a bit aggressive and you have potential abuses from the "ground troops". The <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-03.htm">FBI</A>, DEA, and <a href="http://www.flinthills.com/~jalee/batf.html">BATF</a> are well known for being heavy handed, or at least quick to assert their authority without just legal cause. Giving them the political momentum of being a part of this glorious new bureau to save us all won't help. I think it's a bad idea.

I'm specifically curious how the BHS will address the "right wing extremists" that were said to be more dangerous than international terrorists. The resources of the FBI have been<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm"> diverted </a>more into pursuing RWEs, so much so that they may very well have missed warnings of Islamic terrorism that led to the 911 attacks. It can reasonably be said in this case that while the FBI was
<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28400">chasing</A> after those <B>preparing</B> for Armageddon, it completely ignored those attempting to <B>start</B> Armageddon. Many of the RWEs challenge the Federal government and the tax "authorities". I understand they may be threatened by this, but is a tax protester more dangerous than an islamic terrorist wanting to meet his virgins in the afterlife? This whole bill makes me wonder exactly what will be required for someone to be catagorized as being a potential "home grown" right wing terrorist.

[B ]If you think your information was not out there years ago, you are a fool! What? Just because you didn't know that they knew your business made you fearlesss?....C'mon, Our Government doesn't know any more about you than they have known for years, the difference is in the tracking ability.[/B]

True, but now they're on a mission. The defense of the country, individuals be dammned.

However, they still can't track you without a Judges Court Order.

This doesnt give me any comfort. Even if this is done in the beggining of the bureau's creation, it may very well erode as other safeguards have before it. Some great "emergency" will set a precedence and we'll see the same incrimental encroachment we see throughout government. Eventually I wont be able to scratch my ass without having some BHS or other agency taking notes. I don't like it.

<a href="http://hsc.house.gov/legislation/final.asp"> Anyway, here's an official outline of the bill from the US House </A><br>

Hi Nic Name,
The unwillingness of our Agencies to share information is exactly the reason 9/11 was not stopped! The FBI and CIA are notorious for hoarding their "dots" to themselves, hoping to collar alone and recieve all the glory.
Wake up call after 9/11 has taught us that having the "dots" and "connecting the dots" are two different outcome realities, Homeland Security will
"connect the dots", and save American lives....
and the FBI is pissed that they have to share????
They can just pick up their ball, and bite me!

Hey, I'm on your side guys.

Like y'all, I just hope we don't set up a KGB to secure us against UBL.

We just spent half a century resisting that system in the Soviet Union.

I'd suggest that the reason right wing extremist groups were the target of so much FBI scrutiny is twofold: a) we can understand them as they're not of a different culture (maybe a subculture) and b) al Qaeda was not taken as seriously as it should have been. We underestimated their ability to target and carry out missions on our soil. Remember as well that up until 9/11, the largest terrorist attack on our soil was from Timothy McVeigh, who is very much a right wing extremist.

As for the justification for Homeland Security... I don't think it's necessarily correct that we need to create more bureacracy to combat terrorism. I think we need to streamline things. We need to follow a similar approach as terrorists do in organizational and attack structure. Obviously, we cannot allow for autonomous cells inside our government, but you can't fight a network with a monolithic structure. However, I do think that the information sharing strategies can be good for our fight against terrorism. On the other hand, they can be horrific for our privacy.

I'm going to stop here, because I just finished an entirely too long paper, part of which was on this networked approach (netwar). I don't want to get going on this topic and end up on some mindless ramble.

Hey, just think of the potential benefits of hacking into this combined database. Talk about a honeypot for Chinese spies!

Doesn't it really bother you that they seriously want to connect the "dots" between what books you take out of the library or buy on Amazon.com with what country you visit.

All perfectly legal:

*visit your public library
* buy a book about an historical American figure
* shop on amazon.com
* visit our ally in the war on terror

Live your life, go about your business, continue to shop and travel.

Petition your Government openly exercising free speech and seeking justice.

Get on the list.

Be a person of interest.

Hi slang,
I completely understand your concern, I call it
The Post Clinton Traumatic Syndrome...where every
time our Government raises their hand, we flinch!
We were battered and abused.
But, I digress...
As our system is now, after a murder occurs the authorities track databases and find that indeed the perpetrator did buy garbage bags,an axe,rags,
and heavy duty floor cleaner at 3:00 AM....after
the fact. I bet the victim would have been grateful
(albeit maybe even still ALIVE) if authorities had a clue before the murder. And, all information is deemed suspicious,constitutional,relevant,or not
by a Judge....not any Agency.
All of your public information is already public,
I could access it. The private information needs a Judges order, so if you piss off your neighbors, they will need to plead their case to the Judge...
my bet is he says No!
My husband and I were driving home through a neighboring County, he had a warrant outstanding at the time for unpaid traffic tickets in our City, he was stopped for speeding, but because the databases from our City do not communicate with that County, they had no information and we were on our way.
Don't get me wrong, with a 5 month old with us,
I am very, very glad they didn't arrest him. However, I also realize that this also happens to terrorists who want to kill us!
No, the lack of communication between the Agencies is what missed the warnings of 9/11. The dots were never connected and it cost 3,000 lives....now you tell me to give them another chance? At the cost of tens of thousands of American lives? I'm not willing to roll the dice and gamble away human life! You say, just clean up the old intrusive agencies and you think they will connect the dots?
Well, our "old intrusive agencies" are telling you right now that they have connected the dots on what Saddam and terrorists are planning....guess what?
YOU don't believe them! Now that they are working to prevent another 9/11, it's too vague...nobody in their right mind would fly a plane into a building,
it's reaching to think that Saddam would sell nuclear capability to terrorists to bring America to it's knees, etc,etc....Really?

The individuals in this Country will be damned if this Country is not defended!!!!
A Judge decides if the Agency is able to track someone, always been that way, always will....
nothing has changed in that area.

LOL...maybe you scratching your ass IS a terrorist act?....a Judge will decide.

Hi Nic Name,
Does it bother me that for years now, any individual layperson who cares to can access any public information on me if they want to? Not really. Does it bother me that our Agencies are forbidden to do what I, and everybody and their mother....even Agents themselves off duty can do?
Yes, because terrorists use this bureaucratic nonsense to kill us.
The private information on me STILL needs a Judges court order to access.

Cairo,

I think we are discussing two distinct situations.

Poindexter is developing for the DOD a system for scanning aggregated data to flag patterns of behavior and then identify individuals who would be persons of interest.

You are suggesting that there are judicial safeguards for the surveillance of individuals, similar to seeking a search warrant or wire tap.

Of course, you understand that Poindexter's system of surveillance is not going to require judicial authority to run patterns of suspicious activities against the database to determine "persons of interest" and that no judicial order need be sought to keep an eye on such persons by following, enquiring of neighbors and employers, etc.

If wiretapping or other invasion of privacy is deemed desirable by the Agency, the judges who will authorize such will be nameless faceless judges of a secret court, who will not hear any submissions except from the Attorney General, if current practises are any indication.

If a person is arrested he may be held without legal representation or charge at the discretion of the Commander in Chief, as in the case of Padilla. (Is he still alive? Does anyone know or care?)

I'm feeling better already.

Hey Cairo, your posts are formatted very strangely. Is this intentional? How about some nice, neat paragraphs?

Being on a watchlist doesn't necessarily damage a person or their reputation, but I would lean towards it not helping you.

Anyone say Macarthy?

So Ciaro your argument is only terrorists babykillers and evil rapists should fear total destruction of remaining privacy because everyone else has nothing to hide right?

Of course it was a lack of legal powers not one-upmanship and human incompetence that cause an intel failure, of course not.

Hey Cairo, your posts are formatted very strangely. Is this intentional? Whatever happened to nice, neat paragraphs?

I would have thought he would have alligned them to the far right, not the left.

Hermit22

First para - good point, I agree but think they're still too interested in chasing recreational pot smokers and technical violations of gun regs. while flatly ignoring foreign terror evidence.

Second - completely agree, not required, streamline

mindless ramble? Never stopped me :)

Juju
(sharp sarcasm) Come on now.....no one was ever CONVICTED of spying for China

Nic Name

Doesn't it really bother you that they seriously want to connect the "dots" between what books you take out of the library or buy on Amazon

So....all I need to do is set up an alias to buy my next copy of The Catcher in the Rye.

If wiretapping or other invasion of privacy is deemed desirable by the Agency, the judges who will authorize such will be nameless faceless judges of a secret court, who will not hear any submissions except from the Attorney General, if current practises are any indication.

I agree 100%
nice post, not too long (like mine) well layed out.

Cairo

As our system is now, after a murder occurs the authorities track databases and find that indeed the perpetrator did buy garbage bags,an axe,rags, and heavy duty floor cleaner at 3:00 AM....after the fact. I bet the victim would have been grateful (albeit maybe even still ALIVE) if authorities had a clue before the murder.

The answer to all the world's problems is a good defensive handgun.

it's reaching to think that Saddam would sell nuclear capability to terrorists to bring America to it's knees, etc,etc....Really?

I have been unable to provide credible evidence that that may happen but if it does, I'm not sharing my long term storage MREs and disaster survival gear with anyone carrying a Democratic voting card (unless she's got ammo).

I don't feel good about this accountability because of the whole SS number and it's evolution, hope your right about the judges.

Nice to have you here at the cellar Cairo.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. - 1984. George Orwell

Hermit could you post the paper, or the part on netwar? The concept interests me.

There's an entire RAND book about it, and that's probably the best source.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/

Pay special attention to Chapters 1 and 10.

Netwar is especially interesting if you know a bit about computers and networks. The basic idea is that the networked structure exists on the organizational, doctrinal and tactical levels in the most successful modern terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda, for example, is both a "hub and spoke" arrangement, with the cells communicating directly with one central command and a "wheel" arrangement, wherein they can communicate with any other cell in the network directly. Interesting stuff.

You people seem to be missing the big picture -- Our government's purpose is to prevent all crime before it happens. As the Foundering Fathers said, "better 1000 innocent men go to jail than one guilty man be freed." (I believe they said something else, but that's what they meant, hence the 'foundering'.) They didn't have the ability to do this back then, but today our computers are fast enough and large enough to track the info needed to prevent crime. And over time, the database will improve, and fewer innocents will be bagged in the pursuit of each criminal. If you cooperate with the system, then you're less likely to be bagged yourself. But if you are called on to go to jail, it's your duty to 'pay your dues' as it were; that's the cost of freedom.

You can't possibly be serious. Are you joking?

Originally posted by slang
I have been unable to provide credible evidence that that may happen but if it does, I'm not sharing my long term storage MREs and disaster survival gear with anyone carrying a Democratic voting card (unless she's got ammo).

And i always do ... :shotgun:

(i guess you could say i'm a D.I.N.O.)

Check out this list of things the Information Awareness Office says they'd like to implement.

<ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Collaboration and sharing over TCP/IP networks across agency boundaries</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Large, distributed repositories with dynamic schemas that can be changed interactively by users</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Foreign language machine translation and speech recognition</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Biometric signatures of humans</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Real time learning, pattern matching and anomalous pattern detection</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Entity extraction from natural language text</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Human network analysis and behavior model building engines</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Event prediction and capability development model building engines</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Structured argumentation and evidential reasoning</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Story telling, change detection, and truth maintenance</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Business rules sub-systems for access control and process management</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Biologically inspired algorithms for agent control</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Other aids for human cognition and human reasoning</span></li> </ul>

Some of these sound pretty far-fetched to me. What exactly is a biological algorithm? Are they really going to try to perfect speech recognition and natural language translation?

Many, many years ago (approx 1983) I attended a lecture that was given by one of the developers of AI (I think it was Weisman or Weisbrod or something like that ... but I'm getting old and my memory is failing ...)

Anyway, instead of a lecture on the latest in AI, we were treated to a two hour treatise on the coming dangers of the information age ... THIS is the stuff he was talking about ...

It's more than scary to see this kind of thing coming to pass ... and i keep worrying that this will go the rest of the way, to a cashless society so NOTHING is off the database.

Now, as it happens, I'm you're basic, law-abiding citizen, however, i do still wonder if some mail order purchases and magazine subscriptions made in my impetuous youth will someday come back to haunt me ... in the form of the BATF, FBI, and AEC showing up at the door to discuss my reading habits.

The problem of the database lies not solely in its existence but in its ability to red flag certain clusters of behavior. Think of the PK Dick story, and recent movie, "Minority Report". Our system of justice is REacvtive, not PROactive.

I don't think you can be proactive in a free society.

The danger may not be in the government finding out what we've already read. Our children might grow up thinking that there a books that are just not a good idea to read ... nothing good can come of reading this or that ... and "people should watch what they say" following the advice ofAri Fleischer.

"Never use your real name on the Internet" will be understood as a necessary first step to protecting ourselves from having the government know what we're thinking, rather than protecting our children from the risk meeting "evil doers" online.

Don't talk politics on the telephone. Never question the government's actions. It's just not worth the risk.

Sure, we can all buy our books using aliases and get credit cards in our pets' names. No big deal.

I'm sure that our children will figure out how to live their lives away from the prying eyes of the government.

Bitman


Would you point me to some background on the thought that the founding fathers were in favor of convicting 1000 innocent men rather than let one guilty man go free?

That wasn't how I remember that thought being written but I can rarely find the background or quotes that I look for.

The phrase I see with a basic Google search says " better for 100 guilty men to go free than one man be unjustly convicted ". There are many places this is quoted but I cant find the source from the founding fathers.

If your quote is correct , I have another reading assignment as well as another re-evaluation of my opinion.

Originally posted by slang



Would you point me to some background on the thought that the founding fathers were in favor of convicting 1000 innocent men rather than let one guilty man go free?

The only time I've ever heard it phrased that way was in the context of a joke ...

I think Bitman was being sardonic. He's making a point with humor. Don't heckle him.

good, then I havent lost my mind. :)

Originally posted by slang
good, then I havent lost my mind. :)

I wouldn't go so far as to say THAT just yet ... ;)

There's been an increasing level of chatter in the threads taking exception to unorthodox "punctuation' and illogical
paragraph structure,
not to mention vociferous disagreement about how words should be spelt or weather spelling matters atoll.

As the Cellar has grown in membership, it is natural that the community should grow in diversity. However, some have argued that we must all speak the same language to be clearly understood.

There is no debate that such a language should be English (or what passes for English in Philadelphia) as a minimum standard. ;) However, German or Spanish may be attempted in User-hosted Forums or sigs.

It's often difficult to be sure how to express oneself without fear of being whacked with the nearest post if an error becomes evident.

This is not a mute point. I will be heard.

It's not Cellar style to be bound by rules that Strunk in 1918. Free students may follow the Standard of Style from The Free Student, which make sense IMHO... and it's a publication that contains other good articles about politics, as well.

Editor's note: Anyone who is humourously challenged can be assured that I am only pulling your leg.

Hi Nic Name,
Sorry for the delayed response....had to sleep and work.
I never said public information would have judicial boundries, why would it? I can access public information without a Judges approval.
Private information will not be in the database at all. Example: Banking information is private, if the Feds wish to look at your bank accounts, they will have to go to a Judge with evidence or probable cause. Just as they do now...are you implying that the Judges and procedure we follow right now are unconstitutional or cow-tow to the Agencies? See? Nothing will be changed with regards to private information, but everything will be changed with regards to public information.
Example: Professor Sami Al Arian, the old separate databases couldn't track and recognize him until after they had his name, with the streamlined one database flag system he would have been recognized before they knew of him, and a Judges order could have tracked him to other terrorists.
As for Padilla? I know he's not on our streets making and planting dirty bombs!

No, my argument is that I can access anyone's public information and fight terrorism better than the Agencies who's job is to fight terrorism!
Seems to me, your ilk are more fond of Tribal Law(hiding the terrorists) than Democracy(the people's will).

Far Right? I wish!.....I am pro-choice. I believe that the other life in that body should have the choice to live or die. *wink and a smile*

Just remember Cairo...we live in a republic, not a democracy. ;)

Thanks for the welcome slang. This is a very nice place to debate. During the hot and heavy exchanges, can I hold you to that welcome? LOL...

Originally posted by Cairo
Thanks for the welcome slang. This is a very nice place to debate. During the hot and heavy exchanges, can I hold you to that welcome? LOL...

You got a source for the McVeigh Padilla connection? I know I saw that many places and I'll be damned if I can find anything on it now, not even a retraction. I think John Ashcroft is suppressing information again.


You have my welcome so long as you don't break into the electronic files that have the notes of me scatching in "a suspicious way"

Hi wolf,
If our Government is supposed to be REactive to safety and protection issues, we are in BIG trouble! You are advocating that our Government should not do anything until another 3,000 civilians are dead! That's exactly what the terrorists are hoping for, makes their "duty" to kill "the infidel" much easier!

BTW, if Agents take your red flagged reading preferences to a Judge as evidence or probable cause to track you further, they would be laughed out of the courtroom...and the Agents know this!
Having a subscription to "High Times" has never been evidence to a Judge.

Hi slang,
My bad, I meant to type Terry Nichols was married to Lana Padilla, Jose Padilla's sister...
It's a Nichols-Padilla connection.

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/Nov-20-Thu-1997/news/6457168.html

Cairo,

It is noted here that Lana Padilla told the Wall Street Journal that she was not aware of having any relation to Jose Padilla.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final note: Much has been made of the fact that Terry Nichols was married at one point to a woman named Lana Padilla. Lana Padilla acquired that surname — a common name — through a subsequent marriage. There is no known relation between Lana Padilla (who gained the surname by marriage) and Jose Padilla, according to Lana Padilla, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2002.

Cairo, can you please show us where you discovered that Lana Padilla is Jose Padilla's sister?

Originally posted by Nic Name
It's often difficult to be sure how to express oneself without fear of being whacked with the nearest post if an error becomes evident.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, it was just a helpful suggestion. Also, I was thinking, perhaps it's something that only looks bad in 1280x1024 resolution. If that's the case, I can see how you'd think I was being nitpicky.

Cairo: Does the name Macarthy ring a bell?
When patriotism rules the roost you don't need to convict someone to destroy them. Secondly i haven't read the bill myself but if the data is automatically collated therfore a judge's apporval would nto be needed to access it would it?

Originally posted by Nic Name
Cairo, can you please show us where you discovered that Lana Padilla is Jose Padilla's sister?

Hey, is there any chance that either is related to Manuel Padilla? (He played Jai on TV's Tarzan)

Hi Nic Name,
Lana Padilla was paid $20,000.00 to say the things she says, so I wouldn't credit her too much.
To ignore the obvious "dots" would be intellectual suicide.
Padilla is Lana's maiden name...her married name was also Nichols, but she dropped that in a heartbeat! These people change their name like underwear, so it's difficult to get a handle on the truth. I saw a document on another board verifying that Lana's mother is Jose's mother, but the mother has also changed her name many times...5 kids 4 different fathers, or something. I tried to run a search for that document, and it comes back costing money to access it...so I decided I don't need to know that badly.

Jaguar,
No, but when I read your stuff, the name Cleric in the Tribal area of Pakistan rings a bell.
Explain to me how loving ones Country destroys someone else?...Unless that "someone" is an Anti-American fanatic who wants to kill us!
Public information is collated into a single database that all authorities can access, instead of many bureaucratic bases that only certain Agencies(who don't like to share, and need to go back to kindergarten to learn)
Homeland Security streamlines and organizes the information they already have. Private information is kept with the private database. Example: your DMV records will be in the Homeland Security hub, but your banking accounts will not, they will remain in your banks database.

Padilla is Lana's maiden name...her married name was also Nichols, but she dropped that in a heartbeat!

I think the facts are that she divorced Nichols long before he became notorious. Whether she dropped it in a heartbeat or a heartache, you would know better than I. But it would seem appropriate not to keep it after she married another Mr. Padilla, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

I don't know what other board you're getting your facts from, but it seems that the Wall Street Journal has the financial resources to confirm her story and the one you've come up with to connect the dots in this important story.

For a major newspaper to ignore a story like the one you've got figured out would be more than intellectual suicide.

I suggest you get in touch with the WSJ asap and see what your facts are worth. Imagine what they'd pay you for the facts in such an important story.

No, but when I read your stuff, the name Cleric in the Tribal area of Pakistan rings a bell.

I'd be insulted if it wasn't so stupid and you hadn’t done such a good job of vindicating my previously stated opinion, good job, keep it up and I’ll barely have to bother posting at all!

Public information is collated into a single database that all authorities can access, instead of many bureaucratic bases that only certain Agencies(who don't like to share, and need to go back to kindergarten to learn)

So how about they get sent back to kindergarten? How about the reality is that it is more incompetence, arrogance and one-upmanship that cause these fuckups than a lack of information access. Yes your bank records would be kept at your bank, but they'd also be kept at this one big database, correct? I thought the idea was you could track everything a person did?

Explain to me how loving ones Country destroys someone else?

Huh? As I said, are you familiar with the name Joe McCarthy?

Originally posted by Cairo
Lana Padilla was paid $20,000.00 to say the things she says, so I wouldn't credit her too much.

You've yet to provide any reason why we should credit <b>you</b> very much.

Simply put, Nic Name thinks you're full of shit, and I agree with him. The myth has been debunked numerous times. Your argument doesn't hold water. Lana Padilla and Jose Padilla aren't related, and that's all there is to it.

The WSJ didn't pay her $20,000.00, and I never said it did...you assume too much. Lana was paid to not implicate co-conspirators(ie:Jose Padilla) by her "broke" ex-husband Terry Nichols.
Think about it, Nichols leaves ~her~ a message saying,"You're on your own now, go for it!"...
makes no sense because Lana had been "on her own" for years. And "go for it"??? Go for what? No sense. However, if she was supposed to pass that message to Jose, what better way than announce it in court for the world to hear. And the message makes sense if it were from Nichols to Jose Padilla, bin Laden style, because as we found out recently Padilla did try to "go for it!" on his own!!!!
Even concluding(which I am not ready to do until I see proof) that there is no relation, you can not deny the connections.
Confining ones research to a major newspaper is, I think, what the Communists do...am I right?

Jaguar,
You say,"I'll barely have to bother posting at all."
Great! Then we'll all be happy! To sum up your argument to me....you said, I can not defend or take responsibility for my positions, so I'll call you stupid....annnnd McCarthy!
Typical....pitiful, but typical.

dave,
Seems you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!...Does that mean you are "full of shit" as well? Give some proof.
Simply put, how the @#$%!! do you know what Nic Name thinks? Speaking for other people is a signal that the speaker has no backbone to stand alone!

<h3>Homeland Security cabinet level agency = bad idea</h3>
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11355&c=206">Holy crap , I agree with the ACLU! </a>

"Getting these rogue programs back in check is like trying to lasso a runaway train."

<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/business/story/38068p-35915c.html"> Homeland a megamerger mess</a>

"The new super-sized security bureau could take years to fully put in place. And there's no assurance that we will be any safer than when we started."

<a href="http://www.aclu.org/Cyber-Liberties/Cyber-Liberties.cfm?ID=11332&c=58"> J. Edgar Ashcroft </a> "What are the dangers to a democracy of a national police organization, like the FBI, which operates secretly and is unresponsive to public criticism?" The essay question that pissed off Hoover. It was optional question number 7 on UC's 1959 English aptitude test for high school applicants

WASHINGTON - Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubberstamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," said Ann Beeson, litigation director of the Technology and Liberty Program of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"As of today," she said, "the Attorney General can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices [and take notes of suspicious scratching]."

<h3> And another thing, where in the hell is the ACLU in defense of 2a issues? </h3>

If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here. I'm joining Xugumad he's depressingly correct. If anyone wants to contact me privately sharvari at optus dot net is the address> Have a nice circlejerk, I doubt i'll be sorely missed.
chow all.

<h3>Thank you Cairo!!!</h3> :)

Slang, please calm yerself down a wee bit.

You have been in the Cellar only a few weeks and have contributed only 50 posts. It's a bit too early, don't you think, to be thanking Cairo, who arrived this week and has contributed 16 posts ... all but 2 of which are in this single thread.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of Mr. Jaguar, who has contributed 1751 posts over a couple of years and has earned his bones. Jag is a part of this community ... whether he likes it or not. ;)

I'm prepared to cut him some slack for his hissy fit and make allowances for him cuz he's an Aussie. If he were to leave, he'd surely be missed by those of us who have disagreed with him more than by those who are more often agreeable. :(

Frankly, I'm not too worried about that happening anytime soon, anyway.

Slang, I suggest you stick around for another year or so and see who's still contributing to the Cellar.

Slang, please calm yerself down a wee bit.

Ok Nic, I'm calm

You have been in the Cellar only a few weeks and have contributed only 50 posts. It's a bit too early, don't you think, to be thanking Cairo, who arrived this week and has contributed 16 posts ... all but 2 of which are in this single thread.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I was thanking Cairo for pushing Jag out of this thread.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of Mr. Jaguar, who has contributed 1751 posts over a couple of years and has earned his bones. Jag is a part of this community ... whether he likes it or not.

I dont doubt this for a minute and I dont want him to stop posting here. I do think he has some very insightful things to say. It's his delivery that makes people want him to disappear. He believes that he is the smartest human being ever to walk the earth and yet doesn't understand why people think he's an ass. It's the delivery stupid!!! It's the sarcasm stupid!!! It's the assumption that your info is 100% right and all others are incorrect stupid!!! That's why I completely ignore his posts, even when I agree with him. There are a few people that I have recieved from feedback from after making my points. Very few agree with me but I can respect their opinions and the way they reply. Not Jag though, hes an ass. He's cutting even when you are trying to agree with him. Am I the only one that thinks that?

I'm prepared to cut him some slack for his hissy fit and make allowances for him cuz he's an Aussie. If he were to leave, he'd surely be missed by those of us who have disagreed with him more than by those who are more often agreeable.

That's your right, I dont have a problem with that. I will just continue to ignore him and try learn and explain as I have been. I'm interested in dealing with people that want to debate and have fun. Most people here do too, not all, but most.

Slang, I suggest you stick around for another year or so and see who's still contributing to the Cellar.

See who's contributing sharp cutting commentary? And consistently pissing people off? I dont doubt that. I heard about this asshead looooong before I became a member here. But I will respect your direction. I do respect you personally also. I will continue to ignore him and make an honest effort to bring a different perspective to the cellar and maybe some humor too.

I just found the ignore list. :) Life is good.

That's a handy feature to get through a period of adjustment to a new community.

Been there ... done that.

I think of the ignore feature as training wheels. If it keeps you going, great, but you'll soon want to ride no hands, no feet, like the rest of us. ;)

I don't think anyone is to thank for pushing anyone else from a thread. I don't think that was Cairo's intent nor her effect. So, it's probably not fair to thank someone for something they didn't intend as it sort of puts your reaction onto them.

Anyway, it's probably just that Jag has forgotten his medication.

Well now that we got that solved, I have to look into unconfirmed reports that Bill Gates is on the missing OKC sealed footage. :)

I don't know Jag, letting these two temporary characters get under your skin doesn't make much sense. I've pretty much stopped reading their stuff. Slang occasionally showed some potential early on, but Cairo is obviously posting from a middle school somewhere.

Originally posted by Jag

If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here.

:p

See what you miss when you give up on a thread?

Originally posted by Cairo
Seems you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!...Does that mean you are "full of shit" as well? Give some proof.

It seems to me as though you were the one with the ridiculous accusation. And as far as I recall, in general debate (and in courts), the burden of proof is on the accuser. Nic has provided links and evidence to show that Lana Padilla is of no relation to Jose Padilla. You have yet to provide <b>anything</b>. I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've already wasted enough time reading about how Lana Padilla and Jose Padilla are not related. The only evidence you can provide are a few webpages from some nutjob publications that, conveniently, are pay only. And, conveniently, you don't feel like paying. You come in, drop something like a Terry Nichols/Jose Padilla connection, offer no proof whatsoever and expect everyone to believe it? You'll pardon me if I ask you to put up first.

Nic earlier provided a link to the Wall Street Journal. Show me an equally respected publication (maybe U.S. News & World Report? New York Times? Washington Times? Newsweek?) that makes the link between the two. Until then, your argument looks exactly how it did before: bogus.

Originally posted by Cairo
Confining ones research to a major newspaper is, I think, what the Communists do...am I right?

Confining one's research to what they saw posted on an anonymous board somewhere is, I think, what people in tin foil hats do...am I right?

It's a sad state of affairs that we've lost two members of the community recently. Unfortunately, it happened to be 2 members that I often agree with in this topic, and who back me up (and I in turn). So I'm sad.

It's ridiculous that they were driven out by someone who can't even formulate a cohesive argument. I understand that they were insulted, and wasting their time, but at some point, but it is always good for intellectual growth to see the arguments of the other side - even if those arguments are provided by a generally incoherent insulter that doesn't seem to have any memory for history or talent for critical analysis.

So anyway, Jag, don't get so upset. They know not what they do. Or anything else, it seems.

Originally posted by slang


<h3> And another thing, where in the hell is the ACLU in defense of 2a issues? </h3>

I've wondered that for years ... the aclu seems to pick and choose the bits of the constitution and bill of rights it defends. (The majority of their focus is first amendment issues)

Frankly, I think that if they DID get behind 2a issues, they'd alienate a lot of their paying supporters (sad as that may sound).

Of courues, haveing Jag bak yooi upon anyythng arguemtn ina mthread is liike haveng Al Gore endrose yopur canddidacy fro prsdenit, isnt it?

I suspect young Jag's outburst is due more to fatigue and the stress of taking his final exams than anything else. He'll be back by and by, after he's had a couple of good nights sleep. After all, he's put up with far worse abuse than anything these two mouthbreathers are capable of dishing out.

Originally posted by jaguar
If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here.

Perhaps if you'd have elaborated on this statement, rather than just repeating it a couple of time, you might have generated some discussion on this aspect pf the topic ... speaking english louder and more slowly does NOT make the foreigner understand you better ... it just gets everybody more confused!

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Of courues, haveing Jag bak yooi upon anyythng arguemtn ina mthread is liike haveng Al Gore endrose yopur canddidacy fro prsdenit, isnt it?

Maybe, but he's not the only one. Plus, I actually kind of like Al Gore. So there. :P

btw, I love your sig. I've been hearing that whooshing sound a lot lately.

Jag, stop acting normal...get back here!

What's up with all the bullheadedness lately? I'm all for people standing up for what they believe, but sheesh...

dave,
To me, the ridiculous accusation is that they are definately NOT related. One person's word, does not make something fact or truth. As past experience has shown, we were told to believe,"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." as well. It was a crock!
Marriage certificates and birth certificates do cost money to obtain, so if you need proof, I'm not going to finance your homework for you.
I am simply contending that while no one has bothered to prove it, no one has been able to disprove it either...so, I keep an open mind, and accept all information. Instead of just thinking inside the convienence box.

How about MSNBC? Are they worthy of your nice, neat little box?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/769535.asp

Oh, and the ACLU is akin to the KGB when it comes to brainwashing and scare tactics. Foreign Intelligence is the key word here...if it doesn't have to do with CIA Foreign Intelligence, the F.I.S.C. can not hear the matter.
Read the official decision, not the Socialist spin.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

Originally posted by Cairo Oh, and the ACLU is akin to the KGB when it comes to brainwashing and scare tactics. Foreign Intelligence is the key word here...if it doesn't have to do with CIA Foreign Intelligence, the F.I.S.C. can not hear the matter.

First off I'd like to say that having some supporting documents makes your argument that much easier to follow. That doesnt mean that if someone posts a link it automatically supports their position, but it's very helpful to understand how someone formed an opinion. You did that, and I appreciate it.

Since you are one of the very few here that doesnt think I'm some dumb ass mouth breather, I really hate to disagree with you on this. This is what I found though, and it supports my original opinion that this whole mess is the wrong way to go.

The original article I posted that mentioned the FISC was from the ACLU homepage and is on page 4 of this thread. The ACLU claims that:

"Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens."

I agree with that statement. Not just from my gut feeling that government is out to screw us all, but from the decision of the Appeals Court. The ACLU column is dated Nov. 18 '02 and says ""As of today," she said, "the Attorney General can suspend......blah, blah ,blah. The Appeals Court ruling was handed down Nov. 18 '02

The article you posted for review was relevant, but the verbage specifically addressing FBI, DOJ, and FISA was detailing the changes in FISA from the Patriot Act (HR 3162) which was passes on Oct. 25, '01 The heading on your reference document also says "MEMORANDUM OPINION (AS CORRECTED AND AMENDED)" and is dated May 17, 02. This is the case that the FISA rejected the changes in the law regarding suspected US terrorists. The DOJ appealed the decision you cited, which was in favor of keeping the laws in question as they have been. The Nov 18. 02 decision overturned the May 17 , 02, the lower court's ruling.

Last May, in a historic first, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court (FISA) made public a unanimous decision rejecting the government’s bid for expanded spying powers.

<a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/newsroom/02-001.pdf ">So this brings us to the ruling of Nov. 18, 02.</a> that has set the new rules for the FISA's dealings with "United States Persons"

This is the key sentence:

After careful reviews of the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act, supports the government's postition and the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution.

So what the hell does all this mean? You can use FISA to spy on a "US person" per a DOJ request, if you have "detailed information" (which shouldnt be too hard to arrange with the new system) that implicates them in international terror. Now lets look at the legal definition of the phrase "detailed information" (NOT)

Take a look over my information. I might have come to the wrong conclusion here, but I think I got it nailed

Does it really matter? I dont know. BUT, the DOJ now does have access to FISA. Wonderful, the world is now a better place.

Originally posted by slang

So this brings us to the ruling of Nov. 18, 02. that has set the new rules for the FISA's dealings with "United States Persons"

Coincidentally, the case for the government was argued by Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose wife Barbara Olson was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Good post, slang.

thank you Nic, that means a lot coming from you... :)

Don't be a dumb ass mouth breathing sycophant. ;)

You don't curry favour around here by aligning yourself with a pinko commie Canuck, anyway.

In a free and democratic society like Canada, the interception and monitoring of private communications carries extraordinarily strong symbolic and psychological implications, in addition to the obvious practical ones. Canadians are entitled to feel confident that their communications and on-line activities will not be arbitrarily intercepted or scrutinized.

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by)

George Radwanski
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
November 25, 2002

Does the USA have a similar official?

Hi there slang,
Thank you for keeping your mind open to knowledge in order to think for yourself, unlike some who think the way others tell them to think.

I will try my best to answer all of your questions,
but, man, you have a lot of questions! If I miss one, let me know, K?
The F.I.S.C. has been Judging for Foreign Intelligence since 1976, I believe, so it is
hardly a secret to anyone. The reason activists
call it "ultra-secret" is,
1. Saying that to the American people helps their
cause and support. Shock value of sorts.
2. Transcripts of these hearings are sealed not
public. CIA agents who are risking their lives
undercover to gather intel are revealed in these
hearings, if made public, all these operatives are
dead. Our public courts also protect police officers who are undercover in the same manner,
with the F.I.S.C. all the cases deal with Foreign
Intelligence gathered through infiltration.

You have to keep in mind that F.I.S.C. handles
Foreign Intelligence ONLY. The review court found
that the amended Patriot Act already imposes the
restrictions necessary to uphold the F.I.S.A. and
the Constitution, so no duplication needed.
A non-citizen(Foreigner) of the U.S. has no 4th
Amendment, a citizen of the U.S. does. A non-citizen terrorist can be tracked through F.I.S.C.
A citizen terrorist can be tracked through a Fed. court. The controversy comes into play when a non-
citizen terrorist is plotting with a citizen terrorist. Does the F.I.S.C. lose their ability
to grant tracking the non-citizen because a U.S.
person is involved? That's what the ACLU wants.
Is that in the best interest of America?
The DOJ has always had access over all the courts.
Just as the DOD has access over all the military,
and the SD has access over all States.
Nothing has changed, it's just becoming de-Socialized....and the Socialists will kick and
scream the entire way.

Let me know if I didn't answer them all.
Always a pleasure to talk with you,
I look forward to intelligent replies such as
yours.

Hi Nic Name,
Are you Canadian?....if so, I apologize upfront
for what my 1st Amendment Right is prompting me
to say, I intend this to be taken in the most
respectful way possible.

I just have to say that " In a Socialist society
like Canada..." is more appropo.
Seems to me, this "yes man" propped up by the
Government of Canada is clearly saying, make up
some problems and I agree we need to access private
information, after all, Europe...our Socialist
Sister is doing it!

In a Constitutional Republic like the U.S.,
we have, obviously, our Constitution and the
courts. One single official deciding privacy
is hardly Democratic....or free.

Hey Nic. You never told me you were a Canadian socialist. A pinko commie I can deal with. A Canadian socialist is over the line.


I'm taking my previous thank you back...:p

Originally posted by Cairo
Is that in the best interest of America?
The DOJ has always had access over all the courts.
Just as the DOD has access over all the military,
and the SD has access over all States.

I see your point here and in the short term I would agree that this would be a good thing. History proves to us all that gov't never shrinks. Once the terrorist threat is eliminated, the people working in these depts wont just go home and leave us alone. They will increase their budgets every year as well as take on more people. Once the oringinal reason for the creation of a dept has been dealt with, they find another "evil" for them to chase after. Eventually there will only be 6 adult people in the US that dont work for the government in one way or another.

I think you are patriotic and well meaning but we will never really agree on this issue. You've made your points though and I respect them.

Hi Cairo,

[passive] I take you comments as well intentioned. [/agressive]

However, if I could be allowed a point of clarification:

In a Constitutional Republic like the U.S.,
we have, obviously, our Constitution and the
courts. One single official deciding privacy
is hardly Democratic....or free.

The Privacy Commissioner is not a single official deciding privacy. We also have our Constitution and courts. We also have this Privacy Commmissioner, who is an additional ombudsman with a focus on privacy issues from the perspective of the individual.

He is a voice for the people on privacy issues and has standing to bring action in the federal courts against the government for challenges to behaviour that might be unconstitutional.

I guess in the USA there is the ACLU, which might support a suit by an individual or class. But that doesn't indicate a commitment of the legislature to advocate privacy rights of the individual as a matter of governmental policy, as well as a Constitutional right. I'm not saying the American system is wrong, in this regard. I do understand the separation of the branches of government and checks and balances.

It's good to have discussion of comparative democracies, rather than everyone starting and ending with the premise that the system they were born in is the be all and end all. I'm not evangelical about the Canadian political system. I see aspects that work and many that don't. Likewise, from my limited understanding of the political system in the USA, there is much to be emulated and some things that are less appealing to me.

I'm not arguing a case for one way over the other. Just exploring the differences and discussing points in common and of distinction.

Philosophically, I think that if both our democracies could get a free "constitutional do-over" there might be aspects of each system that are worth keeping for the next hundred years, and others which might be culled and left behind as anachronistic. We don't have to agree on what those are, but it's fun and enlightening to discuss on the merits. I'd abolish the Canadian Senate in a "regulated" heartbeat, if you get my meaning. Could you accept the notion of representation by population? What's with that electoral college that recommends to the Supreme Court which decides who should be President? That might be tweaked!

This thread seemed to me to be a good place to raise one point of difference: that Canada has Radwanski and the USA has Poindexter. On that small point, I'm happy with the Canadian approach to taking care of the privacy of the individual.

I see aspects that work and many that don't

I have a question you for Nic. How would you rate the Canadian health care system ? On a scale of one to ten, ten being the best, what has been your experience with it?

We here in the US have resisted it for a variety of reasons. Oregon just held a ballot initiative on socialized health care for Oregon only. It failed but I can't find out by how much.

The systems that have been proposed here are frightening.

Juju and I were just discussing that the other day, so my response is in this thread.

There you'll also find a wonderful discussion Maggie and I were having about the subtle differences between Canadian and US criminal law jurisdictions.

You should have been there. And Cairo, too!

[passive] I take you comments as well intentioned. [/agressive]


I havent seen anything this funny since Hubris called me a mouth breather.

Fair enough, slang, my friend.

But I'm still not sure of exactly what it is you disagree with me on...is it the actions of the F.I.S.C., or Homeland Security?

The size of Government can shrink, as it has before. During our 8 years under Clinton, he managed to shrink the Military to skeletal proportions, leaving our men and women who protect us on food stamps, in poverty, and a morale lower than their income. While at the same time, encouraging the break up of family by increasing benefits and support to Mary and her 5 kids if she promises to stay single.
Under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush, The Military needs to grow, thanks to Clinton, because protecting the safety of We the People is the Government's purpose. And the endless list of Federal Social(ist) "feel good" programs will shrink. It's not the Government's purpose to give taxpayer money hand over fist to research pig feces, give out condoms, or do the bidding for special interest groups.
So it all comes down to what part of the Government you feel should shrink.

You say,"Eventually there will only be 6 adult people in the US who don't work for the Government in one way or another."
Like in Canada? In a Socialist Country, yes, that is what happens. That is why I fight against it so hard, and do my part to empower We the People!
The question is simple, Do you want the Government to own and control Business, Hospitals, Energy, Transportation, Housing, and Food? Or do you want We the People to own and control it privately?

Thanks for the explanation, Nic Name.
You might want to rethink the Canadian approach to privacy, because anytime a so-called "voice of the people" has his paycheck signed by the Government,
there is a huge conflict of interest involved.
Regardless of my contempt of the ACLU, the Government does not sign their paychecks.
Poindexter is not sworn in to uphold constitutional privacy, John Ashcroft is...so your Radwanski is a glorified John Ashcroft.

The electoral college is a safeguard put into place to stop voting fraud and ballot stuffing from affecting the outcome of the election. The US Supreme Court decided nothing of the kind, contrary to popular DemocRAT belief(they are wrong), the USSC's job is to keep check over State Supremes who fail to uphold it's own State's law on a National based issue(Presidency). Checks and balances.

We have certain procedures that must be followed and adhered to in order to "tweak" the Constitution. Any "free constitutional do over" would set a terrible precedence to go in and chip away at any of it, against the people's will.

You are correct in that no system in the World is the end all, be all. In a perfect World, we humans would be perfect...We're not.

That is why I fight against it so hard, and do my part to empower We the People!

:rolleyes:

warch, :angel:

Guess who's back...back again....
God i hate that song.

I don’t doubt this for a minute and I don’t want him to stop posting here. I do think he has some very insightful things to say. It's his delivery that makes people want him to disappear. He believes that he is the smartest human being ever to walk the earth and yet doesn't understand why people think he's an ass. It's the delivery stupid!!! It's the sarcasm stupid!!! It's the assumption that your info is 100% right and all others are incorrect stupid!!! That's why I completely ignore his posts, even when I agree with him. There are a few people that I have received from feedback from after making my points. Very few agree with me but I can respect their opinions and the way they reply. Not Jag though, hes an ass. He's cutting even when you are trying to agree with him. Am I the only one that thinks that?

No i don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, not by along shot. So i drop some acids in my posts, i find it more fun than calling people an asshead. My info usually is correct, sometimes i fuck up, most notably when debating with UT about Iraq, but it is usually correct. When you're debating opinion it's always murky, 100% is never the case and most of the debates here revolve around attacking delivery and surrounding content of posts when the gist is correct.

See who's contributing sharp cutting commentary? And consistently pissing people off? I dont doubt that. I heard about this asshead looooong before I became a member here.

Clearly my reputation travels before me, interesting. My assumption is you know someone else here, otherwise i'd expect the paperwork for the book deal to be here by now.

wolf: I'd expect people to understand their own nations history. To a google search for McCarthyism if you're not sure. The long and short of what is relevant for the purposes of this thread is a court with the ability to 'blacklist' people though the House Of Unamerican Activities Comittee. By it's very nature every step of this required that blind and dangerous brand of patriotism that is once again rearing it's ugly head.

Cairo: FISC _USED_ to handle foreign intelligence only. Under USA PATRIOT, it can now handle even ordinary criminal stuff as long as John Ashcroft says it's OK. This means all the shortcuts taken by FISC and supposedly usable only against foreign agents can now be used against US citizens with impunity. THAT is the danger.

russotto,
Your wrong, read it again. If the FISC handles anything other than Foreign Intelligence, it would cease to be called The Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Court. The Patriot Act clearly states that when the FISC issues a Court order to surveil a foreign terrorist and in the process of CIA surveilance that foreign terrorist is taped plotting with an American citizen...the FISC doesn't have to order a stop of surveilance, because the CIA is, in fact, still following that same foreign terrorist. See?