Author Topic: How could this have happened? (Read 2215 times)

victorcharlie · « **on:** August 17, 2006, 05:49:44 PM »

Finally, a judge that read the constitution....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc

Funny, when I read it a couple of months ago...and posted about it.... I was told I was a dump redneck that didn't understand constitutional law.........

I guess the fact that this judge draws the same conclusion that I did makes her a dumb redneck too......

and more detail at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

Lets hear it for liberty!

nomosendero · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2006, 06:52:17 PM »

The irony is that she is a Socialist Democrap appointed by that great crybaby Socialist Jimmy Carter,
you know, the guy that bowed to Iotola.

Funny how these Activist Judges are worried about this supposed threat to Cival Liberties, doesn't affect me because I don't talk to foreign ragheads, but this same "judge" had no problem with the Klinton FBI file debacle right, VC. And that had nothing to do with terrorist.

How about any wire tapping that Klinton & Treason loving Mr. Peanut with private citizens, no problem. Let's see, wonder what she would do if she could about gun control, I wonder?

This Judge has no regard for American rights, give me a break!!!!!

Mr. VC, I will let you trust this Socialist, as for me no thanks.

DWTim · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2006, 08:25:25 PM »

I hope I wasn't the one that said it.

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day. What makes this tricky is that it's right on the line. Unlike the eavesdropping that supposedly has been going on since the 70s, this new method first looks at call routing before tapping in on conversations. It has implications if a US citizen happens to be on one end. On the other hand, calls of foreign origin are what the executive branch can classify as 'foreign intelligence.'

As I believe you pointed out earlier, we have to go on faith that it's not being abused, because the NSA is never going to discuss the details.

DWTim · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2006, 04:14:47 AM »

Well, they had their chance to mull over the bill when it came up for expiry, so no one can use that excuse the second time around. In fact, they modified it a bit. And despite all the hot air from the Dems, no one put together a specific set of arguments against it, or could name specific abuses. It was renewed in the end.

I'd like to know whom I am supposed to elect that can go to Washington, and perhaps construct a thought well enough to make a reasoned argument. Most of these people were lawyers!

magooch · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2006, 05:01:51 AM »

The people who are hollerin about international communications monitoring are the same people who will holler the loudest if and when we get hit again.

It seems that the administration can have any number of Constitutional experts and judges agree with them on the monitoring program and that carries no weight, but have one silly, liberal judge make a ruling that only idiots agree with and that becomes gospel.

On the other hand, because of all the lucy goosey, liberal dingalings, the program has probably been so compromised that it is most likely a moot point.

Dee · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2006, 01:01:34 PM »

The biggest problem I have is telling the Dems from the Repubs. The take the party designation off their name and they all look and sound alike. I vote Constitutional Party where-ever there is a candidate and Libratarian when there is not.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #6 on:** August 19, 2006, 04:11:27 PM »

Quote from: magooch on August 19, 2006, 05:01:51 AM

The people who are hollerin about international communications monitoring are the same people who will holler the loudest if and when we get hit again.

It seems that the administration can have any number of Constitutional experts and judges agree with them on the monitoring program and that carries no weight, but have one silly, liberal judge make a ruling that only idiots agree with and that becomes gospel.

On the other hand, because of all the lucy goosey, liberal dingalings, the program has probably been so compromised that it is most likely a moot point.

Now I'm not an expert by any means, but I did take 12 years of english through high school and a couple of college english classes.

I recently read the constitution, and I came to the same conclusion as the "socialist" judge.........

As far a hollering loudly, you betcha......open boarders and 12 million illegals is sure going to make me holler if we get hit again.

I suggest you read the constitution, the Madison Debates, and the Federalist Papers. If you still agree with the administration then I'd like to know why.

I also suggest you read the Communist Manifesto and Mao's little red book.......and I think you'll agree we're already "socialist".......

Politics asside, the Judge made the right call even if it's for the wrong reason IMO......

Chalk one up for liberty.

DWTim · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2006, 05:44:48 PM »

Interested to read about who filed the case? Clicky:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/01/whos_behind_the.html

EDIT: It's basically a character assassination piece, but it's a real

.

Dee · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2006, 01:31:14 AM »

What Constitution? We done away with that! We now have the Patriot Act. Congress and the Senate didn't read it the first time or the second time. How, can they make decisions concerning law when they haven't read the NEW LAW OF THE THE LAND the Patriot Act?

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2006, 02:24:39 PM »

I personally don't give a rats crap about these Godless scums rights. I don't care how the Godless ones are caught, just as long as they are stopped. POWDERMAN.

Dee · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2006, 02:50:15 PM »

Powderman, take a deep breath and calm down. Speak slowly and more clearly and stop beating around the bush. Just tell us how you really feel.

WylieKy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2006, 07:44:12 AM »

Quote from: powderman on August 20, 2006, 02:24:39 PM

I personally don't give a rats crap about these Godless scums rights. I don't care how the Godless ones are caught, just as long as they are stopped. POWDERMAN.

It's not about catching the Godless scum. It's not even about what is happening today. It's about tomorrow. Every right we give up will take thousands of gallons of blood to get back later, when someone begins to abuse it. Maybe the current administration is not and will not abuse it. The next administration may, or maybe one in 50 years. At this point I have nothing to hide. I have no connection with or need to call anyone in the Mideast, so at this time it does not affect me. I will never give up my guns though, so, if that ever comes to pass, I will have something to hide and fight for.

I guess that as long as you lead a life of mindless obedience and are willing to bow the demands of the government, no matter what may be, then there is no reason to ge against this bill. I, however, have lines that I will not cross.

WylieKy

magooch · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2006, 08:40:38 AM »

The one argument that the anti-NSA folks use that seems to be credible is, why not get a warrant from a judge to monitor suspected calls; if need be, get it after the fact. Well, the question shows that those who ask it are politically motivated and are being less than truthfull, or they just don't understand how the program works.

How do you get a judge to issue a warrant to monitor literally thousands of phone calls 24 hours a day? If a specific call grabs the attention of the computer, or agent who is doing the monitoring and some action is taken, then sure, go for a warrant. We don't know if there have been any phone calls that have actually been acted on and if so, whether a warrant was obtained.

Those who approve of the NSA monitoring assert that if al Qaeda, or any other subversive outfit is communicating with someone in this country, or anywhere else for that matter, we should know about it. It just might lead to foiling another attack and that's fine with me.

Dee · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2006, 03:01:17 PM »

Let's have one big huraaah for the socialists!

magooch · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:41:15 AM »

Whuut?

nomosendero · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:44:17 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on August 22, 2006, 01:26:43 AM

"How do you get a judge to issue a warrant to monitor literally thousands of phone calls 24 hours a day? If a specific call grabs the attention of the computer, or agent who is doing the monitoring and some action is taken, then sure, go for a warrant. We don't know if there have been any phone calls that have actually been acted on and if so, whether a warrant was obtained."
.
UMmm,,Well some people that are truly conservative may have a problem with this scenario and modus operandi.. Looks like the USA is dividing along a few lines:
-Those that believe in NWO and the security state.
-Those that believe in the Constituion,country, privacy and limited government.
-Those that are ignorant, insane, and indifferent and too busy trying to eek out a survivial to even care.
.
When it comes to so-called hardcore terrorists, they must have an advanced idea who these guys are in advance, so snoop on them not everybody else. It was less then 45 minutes after 9/11 and Ozama and a bunch of arabs were accussed of doing the deed. The whole snooping overlord programs are a complete disconnect with the wide open border policy as well. What are we paying 60 billion dollars for a security program in this country and it gets down to wanting to eventually monitor every blessed citizens conversations, transactions, and movements? Freakin strange if you ask me and there is probably an alterior motive. As old Ben F. said.

jmo..................TM7

Well, let's see where I fit in. I don't like the NWO stuff so I will scratch number 1. Now, for number 2 yes, I believe in the Constitution but on the other hand it just might be OK to listen to overseas terrorist making phone calls here. Now for number 3, I am a little busy eeking out a living & paying for those who don't have
to make their own living, but I do care, so part of 3 I guess.

Sir you say that they should have an idea who the terrorist are in advance & snoop on those, which is exactly my point & the point of others & I agree with that. Are you saying they don't have an idea & are doing totally random tapping? If so tell us their criteria. Then you say they should do that & not snoop on everyone else. OK, are they snooping on me, VC, magooch, you & everyone on this thread? If you know that & can prove it, count me as agreeing on this. If it is a fact as you said that they are listening to everyone BUT the terrorist,
let's get on the stick & stop it.

It is true that we must watch for the future as a previous poster correctly stated & I would add watch now as well.

As far as Conservatives go, I believe some who say they are Conservative including a local politician now serving
are about Conservative as Whoopie Goldberg!!

victorcharlie · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2006, 05:01:20 PM »

Nomosendero.....How do you know they arn't?

Your a trusting soul........I see the power the federal government has assumed........once assumed, they never give it back......I don't like the idea of warrantless searches via illegal wire taps.......And I certainly object to it when the borders are wide open especially after 12 million aliens sneeked across........

This is double speak, homeland security and open borders?

I'm more concerned about where all this will lead, not where it's at now.

nomosendero · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2006, 05:40:19 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on August 22, 2006, 05:51:53 AM

Magooch... ..you, alluded to thousands of phone monitorings a day....remember, by computor overlords.
.
NS...I'd say you belong in group 1, because you go along with such stuff in spite of resevations you may have, even shun viable discussion about such controversy at times. And Magooch said they are doing mass communication monitoring via computor controls, etc.; and I agree with him. What I'm simply saying is target in on so-called terrorist and monitor them according to laws we use to have and the Constitution we use to have. Secondly, I'm simply saying if you take the GWOT seriously then close the borders and exclude middle eastern types---pretty simple. But no, instead we have to shred the Constitution [the citizen's only protection from utter fascist gov.], result to mass population monitoring via overlords, and continue on the path to the disassembly of the USA. What part of this do you not understand?

jmo................TM7

Only a nut would believe that I would be in catagory 1. It is just your opinion though as you said just like it is my opinion that you are a flaming Liberal but act Independent. But just as you are wrong about me I could be wrong about you, no biggie. And no I don't shun discussions, rather I get in them, unless we are skirting toward blasphemy, I will continue to avoid those. I just see your contradictions, you say that everyone is watched but who needs to be & can't back it up & you won't in the next post either. I merely quoted your own words & you will not address them . I will do it again, if you can show how we are being monitored but the terrorist are not as you said before, then I am on your team, so how about it?

VC, where do you get that I am a trusting soul? Man, show me the goods & I will look at it different. No, I don't agree with monitoring calls of plain American citizens that are NOT talking to terrorist & I am not aware that anyone here does. I don't trust the Gov., but I trust terrorist less, if you don't want terrorist monitored, fine but I disagree. And I agree with you on the border completely & with TM7 as well even though it is not the subject of this post & yes to be complete we need to watch the Border, I think we all know that. None of the Socialist Democraps agree with that & only a few Republicans do like the good Senator from CO.

The program will be compromszed now as stated before, let's trash it anyway. People in the Urban areas
& the Northeast will be the most likely targets at first & typically you are also the least worried, so deal with it. Got to go on a business trip for a couple of days, bye now.

magooch · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2006, 05:44:57 AM »

I favor any and all methods of discovering who intends to harm this country, regardless of whether our borders are ironclad. The terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks entered this country legally. Now that's not to say that I don't want our borders secured. At the same time, I'm totally realistic about it; no matter how hard we try to secure the borders, terrorists will still find a way in.

No one believes in, nor embraces the Constitution more than I, but again, I am realistic about it. It might be nice and idealistic if we could take the Constitution at its word, and again, let me reiterate, would that it were possible. However, the world, life and reallity just isn't that simple. Many if not all the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been modified, explained, exempted, interpreted and nullified to some degree. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but it is reality and I learned a long time ago that living with reality is better for me than living within a fantasy.

Fantasy is believing that our government is a bigger enemy than the islamo terrorists. Fantasy is believing that you can tie the hands of those who are responsible for this countries safety and expect that they can do their jobs. Fantasy is believing that our government officials are somehow more intent on violating our rights and liberties than on protecting this country. Fantasy is believing that everyone can always get it right and " right" will always be what we think it should be.

I am sure that the government has violated the strict intent of the Constitution many times and that is wrong. But we are dealing with an element that was never contemplated by the strict originalist version of our Constitution. It is just possible that we could have remained right, but it's also very possible that we could be DEAD right.

dukkillr · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2006, 05:58:16 AM »

Quote from: magooch on August 23, 2006, 05:44:57 AM

Fantasy is believing that our government is a bigger enemy than the islamo terrorists. Fantasy is believing that you can tie the hands of those who are responsible for this countries safety and expect that they can do their jobs. Fantasy is believing that our government officials are somehow more intent on violating our rights and liberties than on protecting this country. Fantasy is believing that everyone can always get it right and " right" will always be what we think it should be.

Great post. I liked all of it, but especially the above quote. Now be prepared to be personally attacked.

DWTim · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:25:55 AM »

Just keep in mind that we're going to have a regime change in two years. The successor may not hold the same opinions as the rest of you regarding whether the greater threat is from the inside or the outside.

Although I support the current NSA foreign intelligence collection efforts, my memory is not so short that I have forgetten what happened during the last decade.

WylieKy · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2006, 07:56:27 AM »

Quote from: magooch on August 23, 2006, 05:44:57 AM

I am sure that the government has violated the strict intent of the Constitution many times and that is wrong. But we are dealing with an element that was never contemplated by the strict originalist version of our Constitution. It is just possible that we could have remained right, but it's also very possible that we could be DEAD right.

I think you are wrong here. In their time, the origional writers of the Constitution were the "terrorists"! Their intention was to set up a government that was beholden to the people, not vice versa. The terrorists are achieving their goal everytime we allow our government to take another step on the road to totalitarianism.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Frankliin

Terrorism is a terrible, frightening thing. 2,973 died in 09/11 This is a tragedy on an unprecedented scale, and has caused tremors of fear that still reverbrate through our society. People are not as hospitable to strangers, the economy has suffered, we have gone to war, and are considering giving up some of our liberty for safety.

01/01/2001-12/31/2001- Deaths caused by terrorism in US -2,973 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

01/01/2001-12/31/2001- Deaths caused by drunk driving-17,448 http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2001.html

01/01/2001-12/31/2001-Deaths by Murder-15980 (I assume this include 09/11) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

Dead is Dead. Let's keep everything in perspective. Is terrorism frightening? Yes. Is it worth selling our dearly bought liberty? No.

WylieKy

nabob · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2006, 02:28:16 PM »

Well, the quote from Franklin actually speaks of essential liberty being given up to a temporary safety. We give up liberty whenever we form a society so as to bring order to that society. We agree to be constrained from being able to murder people but at the same time, we gain from the fact that no one can murder us. So essential liberty has been given up, but the safety is permanent until order in society breaks down.

Treating radical Islam as a purely criminal matter, to be responded to only after an incident, misses the point that in today's world, where one person can have an enormous impact on the lives of thousands at once, means to me that we will be forced to live in constant fear. I don't agree with anything regarding the Patriot Act or the circumventing of the FISA court. However, the problem is much bigger than a simple matter of criminal actions. A criminal represents a threat to individual members of society. Radical Islam represents a threat to society itself. It seems to me to be more than an issue of actions by criminals.

magooch · « **Reply #23 on:** August 24, 2006, 05:15:37 AM »

Now nabob, there you go being rational and thoughtful. Rigidity is called for here. We also must defer to quaint sayings from our venerable forefathers for the way out of this mess. Surely there must be some ancient slogan, or apothegm that would point the right and legal way to lead us out of the wilderness.

It does seem a little odd that the elected representatives of the federal legislature who have oversight of the NSA monitoring program, and notably, the Dumbocrats thought the program was perfectly acceptable until the political season reared its ugly head. Now they act like they never heard of it before. But even if they did--they didn't really understand it. Yeah, right.

I still haven't figured out how my rights have been violated by the NSA monitoring of suspected terrorist communications. Call me silly, but I just don't accept calls from foreign, or domestic terrorists. Even if I knew some e-mail addresses of legitimate terrorists, I wouldn't have the time to drop them a line. Man, I'm so far behind on anwering e-mails from my non-terrorist contacts.

nomosendero · « **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2006, 04:45:14 PM »

Just got back from NW TN & it is good to be home. TM7, I looked at the references & the blogs looked to be something to watch & soon. USA Today report was found to be inaccurate but some of the others bear watching. I don't think anyone said that big brother wasn't trying to watch, they have been for many years & watching the US citizens like was done in the past is not good. That was interesting about LBJ, I read some of that a long time ago. Yes, some of this crap has been going on for a long time, FDR had letters read from soldiers (letters sent to family, not terrorist) & any conversation possible listened to, we know.

But back to the program & subject of this thread, no in my earlier reply to you I was not refering to the first paragraph in post#17, rather the last paragraph. And again, I say to you that if you KNOW
that THIS program is watching everyone but the terrorist, please inform us, my question to you from the beginning.

nomosendero · « **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2006, 05:02:05 PM »

WELL, WELL, WELL!!!!! It appears that the "judge" in question is the Sec. for a "charitable" organ.
which donated over $125,000.00 to the ACLU!!! The also have donated large funds to the so-called "Gay" movement & Planned Parenthood. They gave very small amounts to more Con. groups, a couple for about $6,000 or so total.

This was filed by the ACLU. To a Lib this is no conflict at all. I wonder what the Libs would say if a Fed judge handed down a pro gun ruling about a gun control matter & it was discovered this judge was a Life NRA member & a large Donor as well. We all know don't we.

So we have a ACLU puppet that is protecting us & the Constitution & ruled on a matter that was filed by the ACLU. Yea, right!

victorcharlie · « **Reply #26 on:** August 25, 2006, 02:54:37 PM »

J. Edgar Hoover collected information on a lot of people and then used it to his own advantage. I'm really amazed to find that people don't have a problem with this, as other legal, but embarassing situations can come to light and thus be exploited by any one who has access to the information.

With the loss of laptop computers and the general disregard for data security found through out much of the us government, the collection and storing of such data presents a risk to all of us.

We all want the terriorist destroyed, but lets be smart about it.........

nomosendero · « **Reply #27 on:** August 25, 2006, 03:04:08 PM »

Yea, like listening to raghead terrorists.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2006, 01:58:17 AM »

This is kinda funny......

http://www.newsday.com/media/flash/2006-06/23671673.swf

Dee · « **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2006, 02:26:36 AM »

The goverment seldom gives back what it takes. The Clinton Gun Ban for instance was allowed to expire, however it is not needed for we have the Patriot Act. As I said in a previous post Congress hasn't read it yet, but it has been discussed to be made PERMANENT! The last two trucks (big trucks) I have bought I had to sign a release document at the bank involving the Patriot Act giving reason for the goverment to check and make sure that I was going to spend the money for what I said I was. My ancestry is American Indian, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. We need to go back to States Rights and a Republic in this country. For the people and by the people instead of the reverse that it now is.