

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit 1 recommendation FFH5 Premium Member Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me



And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. »



The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization. I don't think Obama( BTW, he is the defendant & not Bush ) has to worry. The court making this ruling is overturned on cases like this more often than not.And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· undation The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization.



Krisnatharok

PC Builder, Gamer

Premium Member

join:2009-02-11

Earth Orbit Krisnatharok Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by FFH5:



And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. »

And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· undation Priceless.



Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode to FFH5

News Guy to FFH5

And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. The Judge is "unconcerned" because this particular case wasn't about the group (which doesn't technically exist any more), the case was about the United States government following the law when pursuing terrorists. The Judge is "unconcerned" because this particular case wasn't about the group (which doesn't technically exist any more), the case was about the United States government following the law when pursuing terrorists.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit 1 recommendation FFH5 Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by Karl Bode: And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. The Judge is "unconcerned" because this particular case wasn't about the group (which doesn't technically exist any more), the case was about the United States government following the law when pursuing terrorists.

The Judge is "unconcerned" because this particular case wasn't about the group (which doesn't technically exist any more), the case was about the United States government following the law when pursuing terrorists.



A review of this book:

»www.amazon.com/review/R3 ··· rdp_perm



My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice and the safety of US citizens. Practicality, in my view, should trump dogmatism when the stakes are great. You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: » www.amazon.com/Not-Suici ··· -6797265 A review of this book:My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice and the safety of US citizens. Practicality, in my view, should trump dogmatism when the stakes are great.



The Limit

Premium Member

join:2007-09-25

Denver, CO 1 edit The Limit Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me



You talk about how we need less government regulation in the private sector, and now you say that the the law should be ignored in favor of national security?



Really? Heh, in the interests of justice huh? When will you learn that whenever you give the government an inch, they will take a few miles? Why don't you go back and review some World History ? You will find that whenever said government becomes "too big to fall", that fall occurs, it just takes some time for that to occur.



How about Rome for example? Or during the days of the USSR?



Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode to FFH5

News Guy to FFH5

My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice. Justice is relative, which is part of the reason we have laws. Justice is relative, which is part of the reason we have laws.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by Karl Bode: My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice. Justice is relative, which is part of the reason we have laws.

Justice is relative, which is part of the reason we have laws. Laws are relative too - in both their interpretation and in their implementation.



BillRoland

Premium Member

join:2001-01-21

Ocala, FL BillRoland to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: »

You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: » www.amazon.com/Not-Suici ··· -6797265 I think our Founding Father's would disagree profusely with that statement. The Constitution is the surpreme law of the land (in theory) for a reason. The Bill of Rights is included in there for a reason.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by BillRoland:



said by FFH5:



You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: »

You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: » www.amazon.com/Not-Suici ··· -6797265

I think our Founding Father's would disagree profusely with that statement. The Constitution is the surpreme law of the land (in theory) for a reason. The Bill of Rights is included in there for a reason.



It's easy to talk about how the Constitution is absolute. But, in practice it leaves a lot of gray areas. If that weren't true, we'd just have one branch of government.



Mark But, put 20 people in a room and give them real-life examples, and suddenly you have 20 opinions of how the Constitution is intended to serve the people (or, the people serve the Constitution.). See my previous post It's easy to talk about how the Constitution is absolute. But, in practice it leaves a lot of gray areas. If that weren't true, we'd just have one branch of government.Mark



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit FFH5 Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by amigo_boy: said by BillRoland: said by FFH5:



You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: »

You should read this analysis of the constitution and the need to ignore it on occasion written by a Federal Appeals Judge: » www.amazon.com/Not-Suici ··· -6797265

I think our Founding Father's would disagree profusely with that statement. The Constitution is the surpreme law of the land (in theory) for a reason. The Bill of Rights is included in there for a reason.



It's easy to talk about how the Constitution is absolute. But, in practice it leaves a lot of gray areas. If that weren't true, we'd just have one branch of government.



Mark

But, put 20 people in a room and give them real-life examples, and suddenly you have 20 opinions of how the Constitution is intended to serve the people (or, the people serve the Constitution.). See my previous post It's easy to talk about how the Constitution is absolute. But, in practice it leaves a lot of gray areas. If that weren't true, we'd just have one branch of government.Mark



The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them. I just don't have the reverence some have for their ideals and archaic ideas. Yes. And the Constitution has been twisted and turned 100's of times since then by numerous SC judges and legislators(AMENDMENTS).The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them. I just don't have the reverence some have for their ideals and archaic ideas.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 2 recommendations amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by FFH5:



The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them. I just don't have the reverence some have for their ideals and archaic ideas.

The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them. I just don't have the reverence some have for their ideals and archaic ideas.



- The founders never believed their constitution would last 220 years.



They changed constitutions after just 12 years (ditching the Articles of Confederation of 1776 for the Federal Constitution in 1789).



Also, Jefferson said government should be changed every 20 years. ("God forbid we go a generation with a revolution." loose quotes).



- I believe we'd be better served by a parliamentary form of government. A Constitutional Convention would be useful to bring that about.



A Congressional/Presidential system was intended for a participatory citizenry. A "civic republic" of self-sufficient citizen-farmers who participate as citizen-senators and citizen-soldiers.



With most modern Americans working 8 hours a day for someone else, we would be seen as "share croppers" by the founding generation.



Today, most Americans don't involve themselves in politics and social challenges. Not until something goes too far. Then they're awoken to a reactionary movement, susceptible to demagoguery (smiling promises of "hope and change," or pitchforking crowds threatening insurrection).



A parliament moves accountability to political parties, not to the voter. It makes the President (PM) accountable to Parliament (led by a coalition of parties). And, individual members to their party more than to their district (the district's citizenry voting mainly for the party and not the man).



I believe that kind of system would be more fitting to the citizenry we have today, who merely want to work for someone else, come home and copulate, and eat and relax their bowels.



I doubt that's a popular message. But, really, we aren't the society that the founders imagined (and created a system of government for). They were terrified of direct democracy even when citizens were more self-sufficient and capable of participation. I think it would blow their minds that we have a nation of sharecroppers voting out of ignorance. (Or, a majority not even voting because the whole thing looks hopelessly driven by demagogues.).



Mark I understand your point, but would word it differently out of respect for the institutions of government.- The founders never believed their constitution would last 220 years.They changed constitutions after just 12 years (ditching the Articles of Confederation of 1776 for the Federal Constitution in 1789).Also, Jefferson said government should be changed every 20 years. ("God forbid we go a generation with a revolution." loose quotes).- I believe we'd be better served by a parliamentary form of government. A Constitutional Convention would be useful to bring that about.A Congressional/Presidential system was intended for a participatory citizenry. A "civic republic" of self-sufficient citizen-farmers who participate as citizen-senators and citizen-soldiers.With most modern Americans working 8 hours a day for someone else, we would be seen as "share croppers" by the founding generation.Today, most Americans don't involve themselves in politics and social challenges. Not until something goes too far. Then they're awoken to a reactionary movement, susceptible to demagoguery (smiling promises of "hope and change," or pitchforking crowds threatening insurrection).A parliament moves accountability to political parties, not to the voter. It makes the President (PM) accountable to Parliament (led by a coalition of parties). And, individual members to their party more than to their district (the district's citizenry voting mainly for the party and not the man).I believe that kind of system would be more fitting to the citizenry we have today, who merely want to work for someone else, come home and copulate, and eat and relax their bowels.I doubt that's a popular message. But, really, we aren't the society that the founders imagined (and created a system of government for). They were terrified of direct democracy even when citizens were more self-sufficient and capable of participation. I think it would blow their minds that we have a nation of sharecroppers voting out of ignorance. (Or, a majority not even voting because the whole thing looks hopelessly driven by demagogues.).Mark



HunterZ

join:2003-07-16

Kent, WA HunterZ Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me Ugh, making political parties even stronger is not going to help anything when we have a two-party system.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 edit amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by HunterZ:



Ugh, making political parties even stronger is not going to help anything when we have a two-party system.

Ugh, making political parties even stronger is not going to help anything when we have a two-party system.



Something like that would eliminate 1) fear voting which prevents minority parties from having a modicum of representation, and 2) the costs associated with traditional runoff elections (causing us to accept fear voting instead of runoffs).



Another example



But, I think a parliamentary system would make parties more consistent and answerable to the nation. There would have more control over members, with members being less likely to pander to their constituency (like, the ugly largess which was granted to Nebraska during recent healthcare reform?).



To me, that's the problem with our Presidential/Congressional form of government. Individuals are too answerable to their particular electorate, place their electorate's selfish needs above the nation's.



In "civic republicanism," citizens were to put themselves above their own selfish needs and sacrifice for the "common good."



Our society doesn't have that kind prerequisite character because it doesn't have the kind of self-sufficiency, responsibility, participation that was expected in an agrarian society of never-ending frontiers.



Mark I agree. That's a different problem, which could be solved by something like "instant runoff voting" as used in Australia Something like that would eliminate 1) fear voting which prevents minority parties from having a modicum of representation, and 2) the costs associated with traditional runoff elections (causing us to accept fear voting instead of runoffs).Another example here But, I think a parliamentary system would make parties more consistent and answerable to the nation. There would have more control over members, with members being less likely to pander to their constituency (like, the ugly largess which was granted to Nebraska during recent healthcare reform?).To me, that's the problem with our Presidential/Congressional form of government. Individuals are too answerable to their particular electorate, place their electorate's selfish needs above the nation's.In "civic republicanism," citizens were to put themselves above their own selfish needs and sacrifice for the "common good."Our society doesn't have that kind prerequisite character because it doesn't have the kind of self-sufficiency, responsibility, participation that was expected in an agrarian society of never-ending frontiers.Mark



boog

Premium Member

join:2000-07-24

Trenton, OH boog Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me The system was designed to run on a local system, not a national system.



Why would people in Maine want people in California to tell them what is good for them when they live on different sides of the Continent?



We would probably be better served getting rid of earmarks, and 20,000+ page bills.



Say, legislators in the midwest got enough pull to force those in Arizona to have to follow daylight savings time. It would be for the "common good" to save energy. How many people in AZ would like that? The sun would be up longer in the evening, sure would be hot...

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by boog:



The system was designed to run on a local system, not a national system.

The system was designed to run on a local system, not a national system.



That experiment of local, minimal government didn't work well. They ditched a relatively libertarian system for the relatively gigantic federal system of 1789.



I'm sure they didn't imagine how far the nebulous "interstate commerce," "ensure a republican form of government" and "general welfare" clauses would be extended.



But, neither did they imagine interstate communications, gasoline engines, industrial pollution or over-harvesting wildlife.



They lived in a world of never-ending frontiers. Where our dependence upon each other didn't require as much balance and preservation. If you wanted to withdraw from society, you could move to the frontier.



That's not a reality any more. Folks in Arizona are dependent upon Nevada, Utah and Colorado not to consume too much river water before it reaches us. Folks in New York are dependent upon folks in the midwest not to over-farm their lands, leading to another dustbowl and famine.



It's quaint to say everything should be local. But, it's not realistic. It's a childlike fantasy based upon times long gone.



Mark That's odd, considering the founding generation ditched the Articles of Confederation after just 12 years for a federal government with vastly more power.That experiment of local, minimal government didn't work well. They ditched a relatively libertarian system for the relatively gigantic federal system of 1789.I'm sure they didn't imagine how far the nebulous "interstate commerce," "ensure a republican form of government" and "general welfare" clauses would be extended.But, neither did they imagine interstate communications, gasoline engines, industrial pollution or over-harvesting wildlife.They lived in a world of never-ending frontiers. Where our dependence upon each other didn't require as much balance and preservation. If you wanted to withdraw from society, you could move to the frontier.That's not a reality any more. Folks in Arizona are dependent upon Nevada, Utah and Colorado not to consume too much river water before it reaches us. Folks in New York are dependent upon folks in the midwest not to over-farm their lands, leading to another dustbowl and famine.It's quaint to say everything should be local. But, it's not realistic. It's a childlike fantasy based upon times long gone.Mark



coldmoon

Premium Member

join:2002-02-04

Fulton, NY coldmoon Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by amigo_boy:



It's quaint to say everything should be local. But, it's not realistic. It's a childlike fantasy based upon times long gone.



Mark

It's quaint to say everything should be local. But, it's not realistic. It's a childlike fantasy based upon times long gone.Mark



So maybe the forefathers saw a little further than you might think, just not with HD clarity...



Just a thought

Mike Problem is however, if the system breaks down or the disasters you allude to take place, the only resources you would be able to rely on with any confidence would be local.So maybe the forefathers saw a little further than you might think, just not with HD clarity...Just a thoughtMike

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 2 edits amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by coldmoon:



So maybe the forefathers saw a little further than you might think, just not with HD clarity...

So maybe the forefathers saw a little further than you might think, just not with HD clarity...



Using your logic, we should have no government at all. No building codes. No zoning laws. Just rely on yourself (to make all the right choices about which house you buy, or where) because, if society breaks down, that's all you can rely upon.



Societies are formed for the preservation of society. Not with a goal to live like society will end at any moment.



You are right that the founding generation believed individuals would be more independent yet also more involved in the institutions of society. That the citizenry would have a better character, called by Civic Republicanism as "civic virtue." Focused on what is called in Civic Republicanism "the common good."



Civic Republicanism is based upon citizens who are self-sufficient farmers, capable of serving as senators, yet retreating to their lands if government becomes tyrannical. A system which emphasizes preserving a government that protects their rights, as much as it emphasizes protecting the rights of individuals. Individuals accomplishing this balancing act by subordinating their rights for the "common good." A sign of "civic virtue." A recognition that the protection of our rights depends upon the survival of society. A society which may not always be perfect, and requires subordination of one's own selfish interests for the long-term health of society (which is the health of the individual).



That's a nice ideology. But, it wasn't realistic. It was based upon never-ending frontiers (expanding borders at the expense of others who that land belonged to). It didn't foresee an industrial world where the majority work 1/3 of their lives for someone else. (Civic Republicans would call such workers "sharecroppers." An undesirable state for true citizens.).



Even Thomas Paine saw this. He was a leading advocate of "small government" during the founding. By 1795 he saw how agrarianism (self-sufficiency) wasn't working. That citizens were specializing into trades, becoming dependent upon each other (unlike the self-sufficient farmer). And, how this was economically necessary.



As a result, he proposed this nation's first Social Security program in 1797 as a way to redistribute this nation's landed and finite resources.



He saw the nation's land as a political resource to accomplish Civic Republicanism (a self-sufficient citizenry, civic virtue). But, as citizens specialized (one person farming, one person making chairs to sell to the farmer), it gave the primary benefit of the nation's land resource to only one segment of society. Making everyone else (in non-agrarian trades) dependent upon those who are self-sufficient (acquired at the expense of the politic).



Regarding those who were not landed agrarians, Paine wrote: quote: In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity . . . [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

-- »www.thomaspaine.org/Arch ··· jst.html That was 1795. It's wrong to say the founders were stoic, rugged individualists. Civic Republicanism was a strange blend of individualism and communism. Promoting civic virtue in the individual through compulsory service (coercion, which is antithetical to libertarianism) for the "common good" (which translates into the good of the individual).



Our "connectedness" and dependence upon each other was a huge part of the founding generation's view. But, it wasn't sustainable in the form they envisioned.



We could give Civic Republicanism modern meaning by



1. Reinstitute the militia. Not the independent, self-styled "militias." But, the compulsory, universal-participation, state militias.



The militia served a larger purpose than opposing bad government. It was a place for individuals of diverse backgrounds and class to deliberate on what constitutes bad government. To see "bad" from various perspectives and understand what is "common good."



2. Institute a form of workplace democracy. Not labor and management trying to get the most from each other. But, a framework that promotes ownership across labor and management.



The loss of never-ending frontiers and free land for every citizen to be self-sufficient was a huge blow to the goals of Civic Republicanism. The founders would call today's generation "share croppers," working for someone else, entirely dependent upon the resources/property of someone else to meet their day-to-day needs.



Promoting greater ownership across the corporation (a socially-created entity which business owners voluntarily choose to operate under) might help instill independence and self-sufficiency which the founders envisioned (made possible by society, and to promote a better society).



Mark If that were true they would have remained with the limited-government Articles of Confederation. Instead, they weren't happy with how that worked for 12 years and created a more powerful, centralized and remote government.Using your logic, we should have no government at all. No building codes. No zoning laws. Just rely on yourself (to make all the right choices about which house you buy, or where) because, if society breaks down, that's all you can rely upon.Societies are formed for the preservation of society. Not with a goal to live like society will end at any moment.You are right that the founding generation believed individuals would be more independent yet also more involved in the institutions of society. That the citizenry would have a better character, called by Civic Republicanism as "civic virtue." Focused on what is called in Civic Republicanism "the common good."Civic Republicanism is based upon citizens who are self-sufficient farmers, capable of serving as senators, yet retreating to their lands if government becomes tyrannical. A system which emphasizes preserving a government that protects their rights, as much as it emphasizes protecting the rights of individuals. Individuals accomplishing this balancing act by subordinating their rights for the "common good." A sign of "civic virtue." A recognition that the protection of our rights depends upon the survival of society. A society which may not always be perfect, and requires subordination of one's own selfish interests for the long-term health of society (which is the health of the individual).That's a nice ideology. But, it wasn't realistic. It was based upon never-ending frontiers (expanding borders at the expense of others who that land belonged to). It didn't foresee an industrial world where the majority work 1/3 of their lives for someone else. (Civic Republicans would call such workers "sharecroppers." An undesirable state for true citizens.).Even Thomas Paine saw this. He was a leading advocate of "small government" during the founding. By 1795 he saw how agrarianism (self-sufficiency) wasn't working. That citizens were specializing into trades, becoming dependent upon each other (unlike the self-sufficient farmer). And, how this was economically necessary.As a result, he proposed this nation's first Social Security program in 1797 as a way to redistribute this nation's landed and finite resources.He saw the nation's land as a political resource to accomplish Civic Republicanism (a self-sufficient citizenry, civic virtue). But, as citizens specialized (one person farming, one person making chairs to sell to the farmer), it gave the primary benefit of the nation's land resource to only one segment of society. Making everyone else (in non-agrarian trades) dependent upon those who are self-sufficient (acquired at the expense of the politic).Regarding those who were not landed agrarians, Paine wrote:That was 1795. It's wrong to say the founders were stoic, rugged individualists. Civic Republicanism was a strange blend of individualism and communism. Promoting civic virtue in the individual through compulsory service (coercion, which is antithetical to libertarianism) for the "common good" (which translates into the good of the individual).Our "connectedness" and dependence upon each other was a huge part of the founding generation's view. But, it wasn't sustainable in the form they envisioned.We could give Civic Republicanism modern meaning by1. Reinstitute the militia. Not the independent, self-styled "militias." But, the compulsory, universal-participation, state militias.The militia served a larger purpose than opposing bad government. It was a place for individuals of diverse backgrounds and class to deliberate on what constitutes bad government. To see "bad" from various perspectives and understand what is "common good."2. Institute a form of workplace democracy. Not labor and management trying to get the most from each other. But, a framework that promotes ownership across labor and management.The loss of never-ending frontiers and free land for every citizen to be self-sufficient was a huge blow to the goals of Civic Republicanism. The founders would call today's generation "share croppers," working for someone else, entirely dependent upon the resources/property of someone else to meet their day-to-day needs.Promoting greater ownership across the corporation (a socially-created entity which business owners voluntarily choose to operate under) might help instill independence and self-sufficiency which the founders envisioned (made possible by society, and to promote a better society).Mark



bent

and Inga

Premium Member

join:2004-10-04

Loveland, CO bent to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them.

The Founding Fathers and the constitution they crafted have almost zero relevance to today. They were upper class land owners and merchants that didn't like British taxes and they convinced the lower classes of the time to do most of the fighting and dying for them. And that's not relevant how? Strike the word "British" and replace it with "American" and you'd hard pressed to pin down the era of American government you were talking about.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 edit 1 recommendation amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by bent:



Strike the word "British" and replace it with "American" and you'd hard pressed to pin down the era of American government you were talking about.

Strike the word "British" and replace it with "American" and you'd hard pressed to pin down the era of American government you were talking about.



Exactly ten years after the revolution a group of men tried to use the argument you're making. They rebelled against heavy taxes using rhetoric from a decade earlier. The population was horrified. Shay's Rebellion is considered the single largest contributor to the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation (a relatively libertarian form of government) and popular push for the relatively gigantic Federal/constitutional government of 1789.



Mark That's not true. The founding generation was unhappy with taxes originating from a legislature they didn't elect (in Britain, not the colonies). Thus "taxation without representation."Exactly ten years after the revolution a group of men tried to use the argument you're making. They rebelled against heavy taxes using rhetoric from a decade earlier. The population was horrified. Shay's Rebellion is considered the single largest contributor to the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation (a relatively libertarian form of government) and popular push for the relatively gigantic Federal/constitutional government of 1789.Mark



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

It matters not to the case.



The Government just slipped up by proving they had been acting illegally.



As for your comment about the Law, I'm sure almost all fringe groups and terrorist cells would agree with you. Their ideas of what's right and wrong is much more important then pesky laws, which is why it's ok to break them.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS to FFH5

MVM to FFH5

said by FFH5:



My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice and the safety of US citizens. Practicality, in my view, should trump dogmatism when the stakes are great.

My thoughts are that sometimes "The Law" has to be ignored in the interests of justice and the safety of US citizens. Practicality, in my view, should trump dogmatism when the stakes are great. Great. Why even bother having a law, then? Let's do away with the U.S. Constitution, because it is designed to hobble the government. We need protection from the terrorists more than from our "Godvernment", after all!

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04

Sugar Land, TX 1 edit WernerSchutz to FFH5

Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



I don't think Obama(



And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. »



I don't think Obama( BTW, he is the defendant & not Bush ) has to worry. The court making this ruling is overturned on cases like this more often than not.And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· undation



»www.uscrusade.com/forum/ ··· ead/1372



A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 1955-1992: *

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". *

Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". *

Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". *

Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". *

Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". *

Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". *

Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". *

Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". *

Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". *

Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". *

Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *

Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". *

Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". *

Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". *

Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". *

Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". *

Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". *

Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *

Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". *

Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". *

Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". *

Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". *

Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". *

Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *

Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". *

Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re- admit two deported Palestinian mayors". *

Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". *

Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". *

Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". *

Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". *

Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". *

Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". *

Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". *

Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". *

Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". *

Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. *

Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". *

Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". *

Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. *

Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. *

Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". *

Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. *

Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. *

Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return. Should we also then not care about UN's resolutions against Israel ? oh, wait, in that case, we don't, for some strange reason.A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 1955-1992: *Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". *Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". *Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". *Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". *Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". *Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". *Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". *Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". *Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". *Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". *Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". *Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". *Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". *Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". *Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". *Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". *Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". *Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". *Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". *Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". *Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". *Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". *Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re- admit two deported Palestinian mayors". *Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". *Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". *Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". *Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". *Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". *Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". *Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". *Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". *Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". *Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. *Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". *Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". *Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. *Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. *Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". *Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. *Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. *Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.



woody7

Premium Member

join:2000-10-13

Torrance, CA 1 recommendation woody7 Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me Isn't that a little OT?

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04

Sugar Land, TX 2 edits 1 recommendation WernerSchutz Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by woody7:



Isn't that a little OT?

Isn't that a little OT? No, because that is why we got hit on 9/11 and many Americans died on that terrible day: our support for Israel. Let them deal with their problems for the last 2000 years. No more Americans need die for a war that is not ours, nor our fault !



wifi4milez

Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07

New York, NY 1 recommendation wifi4milez Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by WernerSchutz:



No, because that is why we got hit on 9/11 and many Americans died on that terrible day: our support for Israel. Let them deal with their problems for the last 2000 years.

No, because that is why we got hit on 9/11 and many Americans died on that terrible day: our support for Israel. Let them deal with their problems for the last 2000 years. That's not only incorrect, but totally ignorant. I should also add that its one of the excuses terrorists use when trying to justify their evil ways. Without Israel the middle east would be an even bigger cesspool of violence and terrorism than it already is. In addition, terrorist nation states would attempt to assert control over the entire region, and then eventually surrounding regions. This would in turn cause a war of epic proportions, perhaps rivaling that of WW2. The fact that Israel has no qualms about turning their enemies into radioactive glass is the very reason there is a semblance of peace in the middle east.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 recommendation amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by wifi4milez:



I should also add that its one of the excuses terrorists use when trying to justify their evil ways.

I should also add that its one of the excuses terrorists use when trying to justify their evil ways.



He was told to keep his check.



The real irony is that Saudi Arabia isn't a self-determined state. The indiginous inhabitants of the area were made subjects to the Ali Hussein family after WW I by the British.



The Saudi family attacked the Husseinis, forcing them out. The British did nothing even though, if anyone deserved the region it was the Hussenis because they fought against the Turks with the British. The British paid the Saudis to help, and they did virtually nothing.



Now you have a royal family reaping the rewards of the land's natural resources, imposing its rule (without democracy). And they want to lecture us about our support for the "injustice" in Palestine.



I use quotation marks ("injustice") to highlight the irony of how all these Middle Eastern dictators and ruling families came into being at the expense of the people they deny democracy to. And, how all the oppressed in that region are fixated on Israel's injustice.



It's just hard to take their complaints seriously when they're so complacent about their own injustice. (Saddam killed far more Muslims than Israel has.).



I'm not trying to minimize how unjust it really was to give land to foreigners. Just that, within context it's no more unjust than the example set in the entire region. And, based upon the deafening silence about the surrounding region, apparently not too unjust.



Mark Remember the Saudi prince who wanted to give a huge check to New York after 9/11, but had a condition: He wanted to speak to the city and say the attack was due to our support for Israel.He was told to keep his check.The real irony is that Saudi Arabia isn't a self-determined state. The indiginous inhabitants of the area were made subjects to the Ali Hussein family after WW I by the British.The Saudi family attacked the Husseinis, forcing them out. The British did nothing even though, if anyone deserved the region it was the Hussenis because they fought against the Turks with the British. The British paid the Saudis to help, and they did virtually nothing.Now you have a royal family reaping the rewards of the land's natural resources, imposing its rule (without democracy). And they want to lecture us about our support for the "injustice" in Palestine.I use quotation marks ("injustice") to highlight the irony of how all these Middle Eastern dictators and ruling families came into being at the expense of the people they deny democracy to. And, how all the oppressed in that region are fixated on Israel's injustice.It's just hard to take their complaints seriously when they're so complacent about their own injustice. (Saddam killed far more Muslims than Israel has.).I'm not trying to minimize how unjust it really was to give land to foreigners. Just that, within context it's no more unjust than the example set in the entire region. And, based upon the deafening silence about the surrounding region, apparently not too unjust.Mark

your moderator at work hidden : Personal attacks

amigo_boy amigo_boy to WernerSchutz

Member to WernerSchutz

said by WernerSchutz:



Should we also then not care about UN's resolutions ...

Should we also then not care about UN's resolutions ...



People with the worldview you exhibit usually rave about the UN being antithetical to US interests. It's always amusing to see them invoking the UN when it suits them.



Mark Are you saying you support the UN? Or, are you only selectively relying on them?People with the worldview you exhibit usually rave about the UN being antithetical to US interests. It's always amusing to see them invoking the UN when it suits them.Mark

amigo_boy amigo_boy Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by WernerSchutz:



said by amigo_boy:



said by WernerSchutz:



Should we also then not care about UN's resolutions ...

Should we also then not care about UN's resolutions ...



People with the worldview you exhibit usually rave about the UN being antithetical to US interests. It's always amusing to see them invoking the UN when it suits them.



Mark

Are you saying you support the UN? Or, are you only selectively relying on them?People with the worldview you exhibit usually rave about the UN being antithetical to US interests. It's always amusing to see them invoking the UN when it suits them.Mark

People like you are usually the lackeys of corrupt totalitarian governments and are considered the filth of history. Is it as inconvenient to you as historical context?



Mark I notice you didn't answer the question.Is it as inconvenient to you as historical context?Mark

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04

Sugar Land, TX 2 edits WernerSchutz Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by amigo_boy:



I notice you didn't answer the question. Is it as inconvenient to you as historical context?



Mark

I notice you didn't answer the question.Is it as inconvenient to you as historical context?Mark



It is either one way or the other.



I would much rather have an isolationist policy and less assholes that have been reviled by history fight each other to the end of time without Americans dying for corrupt politicians being bribed so we get involved in a fight that is not ours.



I do not want the same horror that happened in Germany to sweep this country and many Jews to die when the people here will wake up and take their revenge on innocent ones for the crimes of some Zionist pieces of shit using the Holocaust to justify their crimes of our days.



Is that clear enough for you ? I believe the US is a sovereign nation and am not fond of the UN dictating policy. But it is hypocritical to whine about the UN declaring some criminal Arab org. and then ignore a ton of other resolutions against a state that engages in genocide.It is either one way or the other.I would much rather have an isolationist policy and less assholes that have been reviled by history fight each other to the end of time without Americans dying for corrupt politicians being bribed so we get involved in a fight that is not ours.I do not want the same horror that happened in Germany to sweep this country and many Jews to die when the people here will wake up and take their revenge on innocent ones for the crimes of some Zionist pieces of shit using the Holocaust to justify their crimes of our days.Is that clear enough for you ?

8744675

join:2000-10-10

Decatur, GA 8744675 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

I dunno on this one. The court essentially called the government liars and nearly sanctioned them for contempt of court for failing to abide by court orders. They really pissed off the judge, who used some pretty strong language against the NSA in his ruling.



"Instead, defendants have interposed three arguments

intended to undermine plaintiffs claim for relief. All three

arguments lack merit."



"In an impressive display of argumentative acrobatics,

defendants contend,..."



"In so contending, defendants take a flying leap

and miss by a wide margin."



"defendants could readily have availed themselves of the courts processes to present a single, case-dispositive item of evidence at one of a number of stages of this multi-year litigation: a FISA warrant. They never did so..."



"Defendants third argument is essentially to quarrel with

the courts finding that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie

case of electronic surveillance"

Methadras

join:2004-05-26

Spring Valley, CA Methadras to FFH5

Member to FFH5

said by FFH5:



I don't think Obama(



And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. »



The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization.

I don't think Obama( BTW, he is the defendant & not Bush ) has to worry. The court making this ruling is overturned on cases like this more often than not.And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· undation The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization. CAIR has also been proven to be a terrorist front, but it appears they get to skate.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: Proven terrorist organization spied on - OK by me said by Methadras: said by FFH5:



I don't think Obama(



And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. »



The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization.

I don't think Obama( BTW, he is the defendant & not Bush ) has to worry. The court making this ruling is overturned on cases like this more often than not.And, of course, the judge seems unconcerned that this organization was a proven terrorist front organization embargoed worldwide by the UN. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· undation The two lawyers were listened in to because they were talking to the terrorist organization.

CAIR has also been proven to be a terrorist front, but it appears they get to skate. Not if I was running the NSA.

gorehound

join:2009-06-19

Portland, ME gorehound to FFH5

Member to FFH5

I would love to know if I was spied on for no reason at all.

I am glad of the ruling.



OldschoolDSL

Premium Member

join:2006-02-23

Indian Orchard, MA 1 edit 1 recommendation OldschoolDSL Premium Member It was illegal I understand there will be many people who will defend what was done, but once we open to door for illegal wire tapping of any kind.... When will it end?



When answering that question... Please point out any recent time when something was freely given (rights) and then undone. You can't, cause we like to add and not subtract.

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member It'll be overturned on appeal Watch and see.



Krisnatharok

PC Builder, Gamer

Premium Member

join:2009-02-11

Earth Orbit 1 edit Krisnatharok Premium Member Fanboy Response



»old.nationalreview.com/m ··· 0715.asp Let's talk until we're blue in the face about the abstruse legalities of warrantless wiretapping. Have the courts repeatedly recognized the president's constitutional power to conduct warrantless wiretapping? Does the president have the power regardless of whether the courts acknowledge it? Can Congress, by passing a statute like FISA, limit the president's commander-in-chief prerogatives? Is FISA unconstitutional, at least at the margins? Is FISA, in any event, too bureaucratically sclerotic to combat a nimble foe like al Qaeda? Could the administration have avoided controversy by asking Congress to amend FISA? Or by using FISA's provision for retroactive judicial approval within 72 hours of emergency eavesdropping?



But the exhaustion of these questions, in the self-conscious pomp of serious discussion, mustn't obscure what is really going on here. This, plain and simple, is a political game of "Gotcha!" Played with our national security  played with the lives of the innocent.



For serious people, wartime decisions are sober, often excruciating choices between liberty and security. But for those not invested in America's victory over our highly motivated, highly committed enemies, they can be spun into high crimes no matter which choices are made.



And for those whose agenda, far from victory, is vengeance for the Clinton impeachment, they will continue to be spun just that way until that beloved "Mission Accomplished" banner is draped, finally, over the remains of the Bush presidency. Not really, but a good counter-point, I think, to the "omg the gov't broke the law" perspective. I don't believe the issue to be settled, and that a more deeply-seated disagreement between the Executive and Judicial branches is only beginning to brew.

33358088 (banned)

join:2008-09-23 33358088 (banned) Member ok i didnt read it all BUT



IF ITS YOU OR me or the AT&T crap its ok, BUT DONT MESS WITH LAWYERS MAN they help the copyrights



and you htink its gonna get better look at this tech dirt link and its NOT an april fools joke. the original article was posted 2 days ago



COPYRIGHT FOR HOMES NOW

Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale



»www.techdirt.com/article ··· 18.shtml



read the comments and enjoy where reality is going



thank you mister actor , thank you mister musician and thank you bribed govt YOUR ALL SHIT HEADS as soonas i saw it wasnt about real people it was lawyers i began to realize why the ruling was as is.IF ITS YOU OR me or the AT&T crap its ok, BUT DONT MESS WITH LAWYERS MAN they help the copyrightsand you htink its gonna get better look at this tech dirt link and its NOT an april fools joke. the original article was posted 2 days agoCOPYRIGHT FOR HOMES NOWDevelopers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resaleread the comments and enjoy where reality is goingthank you mister actor , thank you mister musician and thank you bribed govt YOUR ALL SHIT HEADS



Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA Bill Neilson Premium Member I have never had a real problem with wiretapping as long as it stuck strictly with terrorism activities



But I just don't trust our government with these tapes.



I can see this slowly turning from terrorism activities to other activities that are not as high-priority as terrorism.



TheHelpful1

Premium Member

join:2002-01-11

Upper Marlboro, MD TheHelpful1 Premium Member Re: I have never had a real problem with wiretapping The problem there is who defines what terrorism is? A slippery slope when we could define it as anyone who doesnt have America's best interests in mind or let it rest on the whim of one person (i.e. the president). Search "The Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010"



Camaro

Question everything

Premium Member

join:2008-04-05

Westfield, MA Camaro Premium Member Doesn't matter if anything is overturned,all i care about is this issiue is on the front pages again,and i want it to stay there for as long as possible because hopefully enough people will keep on reading this story and get pissed off enough to finally say "this is my country and i am sick of the path this great country has taken since 9-11".



ChuckDeuce

join:2010-02-04

San Francisco, CA ChuckDeuce Member Do we really need this? The NSA broke the law. Period.

But has anyone thought to ask the Judge, "What'cha gonna do about it? They're the NSA...they know where you live and know how many sets of batteries, know where you shop, and know about that mistress on the side. If not now, they will before the end of the day."

deadzoned

Premium Member

join:2005-04-13

Cypress, TX deadzoned Premium Member 3 Times Maybe third times a charm? It could happen...

LowRider

join:2006-06-23

Dallas, GA LowRider Member Here's some sense Why not allow the gov to spy on non citizens instead. After all the Constitution was created for Americans not foreigners. We could pass a law saying we will spy on you and you are only guaranteed basic rights. Let's face it the gov was spying on everyone not just who they thought needed spying on. Obama is just as guilty as Bush after all he signed to let this go on and not stop it. He renewed some parts of it. By the way the war over seas means squat in protecting us here, ever walk into Mexico? I have and wasn't stopped Are borers are wide open. The Federal gov won't even put troops where they count, the borders. Canada is just as bad. The next 9-11 is coming it's just a matter of time. With no border patrol were back at square one one. Seize up the borders and protect us.

Methadras

join:2004-05-26

Spring Valley, CA Methadras Member Re: Here's some sense said by LowRider:



Why not allow the gov to spy on non citizens instead. After all the Constitution was created for Americans not foreigners. We could pass a law saying we will spy on you and you are only guaranteed basic rights. Let's face it the gov was spying on everyone not just who they thought needed spying on. Obama is just as guilty as Bush after all he signed to let this go on and not stop it. He renewed some parts of it. By the way the war over seas means squat in protecting us here, ever walk into Mexico? I have and wasn't stopped Are borers are wide open. The Federal gov won't even put troops where they count, the borders. Canada is just as bad. The next 9-11 is coming it's just a matter of time. With no border patrol were back at square one one. Seize up the borders and protect us.

Why not allow the gov to spy on non citizens instead. After all the Constitution was created for Americans not foreigners. We could pass a law saying we will spy on you and you are only guaranteed basic rights. Let's face it the gov was spying on everyone not just who they thought needed spying on. Obama is just as guilty as Bush after all he signed to let this go on and not stop it. He renewed some parts of it. By the way the war over seas means squat in protecting us here, ever walk into Mexico? I have and wasn't stopped Are borers are wide open. The Federal gov won't even put troops where they count, the borders. Canada is just as bad. The next 9-11 is coming it's just a matter of time. With no border patrol were back at square one one. Seize up the borders and protect us.



This particular method is a loser. Move on. I was for the initial 'warrentless' wiretapping because I knew that it still required a warrant (on the back end) and that it, if you read the legislation, it still required (to some degree) probable cause, not to mention the fact that as it was presented it was only to engage in wiretapping of suspect non-citizens as they communicated with outside enemy interests that were also non-citizens. It was never intended to be made to wiretap citizens. But now that it has been shown that it is, I say drop the whole thing altogether and go back and devise new, legal, and constitutional strategies to find the enemy where it lurks.This particular method is a loser. Move on.



Boojum Bunny

@att.net Boojum Bunny Anon Sometimes you just have to face the music. Sometimes I think a different factor is forgotten in all this



Yes, there aretimes you have to break the law in the name of justice, but you should still be held accountable for it. For example, I decide that (despite it being against the law) I hunt down and kill someone who abused my daughter. The law SHOULD prosecute me. I decided that this person not being living was more important than not going to jail, for right or for wrong. If they don't prosecute me then the next person who decides to kill someone will use my example as to why they shouldn't be punished.



In this case the government decided that uncovering terrorists plans and preventing another attack was more important than the law... and it will be facing the consequences.. such as being unable to prosecute some of the terrorists.



yacman

@shawcable.net yacman Anon holy crap! the mere fact that some of you are willing to give up your rights in favor of the "big brother" approach is laughable. your ancestors, grandfathers, brothers and sisters have all DIED in the name of FREEDOM( not the name of the us govt).

WAKE UP !!! just because this happened to some slimeball lawyers does not mean YOU will be excluded next time.

all it takes is for some govt beancounter to deem YOU an enemy of the state. FOR FREEDOMS SAKE, STAND UP AND DEMAND YOUR GOVT STOP THIS IMMEDIATLY.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04

Sugar Land, TX WernerSchutz Member Re: holy crap! said by yacman :



the mere fact that some of you are willing to give up your rights in favor of the "big brother" approach is laughable. your ancestors, grandfathers, brothers and sisters have all DIED in the name of FREEDOM( not the name of the us govt).

WAKE UP !!! just because this happened to some slimeball lawyers does not mean YOU will be excluded next time.

all it takes is for some govt beancounter to deem YOU an enemy of the state. FOR FREEDOMS SAKE, STAND UP AND DEMAND YOUR GOVT STOP THIS IMMEDIATLY.

Tyranny wins because people vote for it. Tyranny wins because people vote for it.

Methadras

join:2004-05-26

Spring Valley, CA Methadras Member Well, how do you arrest the government...? Ultimately this is meaningless. How do you arrest the government? You aren't going to go back and put this current president or the previous one under arrest are you? Or do you go after a lesser minion that initiated this to begin with? Who is going to pay the price of this consequence?