BOGUS Republican Argument

[Care4all]

Republicans are TRYING TO SAY that Britain would not have caught their suspects if they had not used the ILLEGAL in the USA wiretapping that Bush is doing without Congress's approval in the NSA....

This is such utter BULLSHIT it is laughable! First off, if they had reasons to suspect these individuals...then the listening to suspected terrorists is allowed and possible...

which means in the usa, using a FISA warrant to do the listening.... that's all. period...

care

[LadyT]

You're title's a bit redundant, no? :p

[Jarod]

ITs dispicable how they use fear of and manipulation of terrorism for political advantage.

[uscitizen]

And those like dixie suck the BS up and spout it back out like parrots.

[Brent]

I have no problem with the wire-tapping. It is necessary.

[LadyT]

I have no problem with the wire-tapping. It is necessary.


The problem wasn't hte wire tapping itself. It was hte fact that Bush thinks its okay to excuse the feds from the proper checks and balances that our founding fathers believed in.

[Brent]

from the proper checks and balances that our founding fathers believed in.

What about President John Adams supporting the Alien and Sedition Acts?

[uscitizen]

I don't care about JQA, I am old but I was not alive when he was president :)

[LadyT]

What about President John Adams supporting the Alien and Sedition Acts?

They weren't very popular and were repealed after a couple of years. When presidents get power hungary they should get kicked out on their a$$es as Adams did.

[OrnotBitwise]

The problem wasn't hte wire tapping itself. It was hte fact that Bush thinks its okay to excuse the feds from the proper checks and balances that our founding fathers believed in.
That's a problem, certainly. And it's a bigger problem than any other.

OTOH, I think that those who believe it is necessary are themselves part of the problem.

[LadyT]

That's a problem, certainly. And it's a bigger problem than any other.

OTOH, I think that those who believe it is necessary are themselves part of the problem.

an even bigger problem is my inability to spell "the".

[Brent]

Toby's nation is Usio, for those who are interested.

[OrnotBitwise]

an even bigger problem is my inability to spell "the".
Hey, that's traditional on teh internets. :cof1:

[Immanuel]

an even bigger problem is my inability to spell "the".

I wasn't going to say a word about it.

Immie

[uscitizen]

I guess I am a man without a nation...sigh...
Or another way to put it.
None of the cyber nations are blessed by my presence :)

[Care4all]

I guess I am a man without a nation...sigh...
Or another way to put it.
None of the cyber nations are blessed by my presence :)

lol uscit,

is this the wrong thread?

[uscitizen]

could be, this is not the cyber thing thread ? oops.

[Adam Weinberg]

Considering it was old fashioned on the ground floor intelligence that cracked the case in Britain, and it was the same sort of thing that prevented the recent attacks in Toronto, I don't see any up to date evidence to suggest that our government needs more control over the average citizen or less Constitutional oversight in order to combat terrorism.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Care, I would like to know, how all you pinheads know for a fact, just exactly HOW this investigation was done? The details have not been made public, as far as I know. We are not being told a whole lot about "how" they did it, just that they did. Now, I admit, it sounds great for you to step up and proclaim something bogus and insist that you know how it all went down, but unless you have some source of inside information the rest of us don't have, you simply have no clue of what you're talking about.

This investigation went on for months, and being that the Brits have a much more intrusive policy regarding what they can and can't do in such investigations, it's doubtful they completely followed our Constitutional guidelines the whole way. It also seems ignorantly presumptive to conclude, when the investigation began, they had enough evidence to obtain a FISA warrant, (not that the Brits were so obligated) Yet, that is exactly what you seem to be claiming. Again, you have no information to make this conclusion, you just assume, since they turned out to be correct in their suspicions, and the suspicions ended up being valid, that they just always knew the whole time. You also presume, for some unknown reason, that US warrantless wiretaps are being routinely done when there is absolutely no suspicion, and that hasn't really happened either.

[Adam Weinberg]

There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about having an informant in Pakistan.

That's where we want the intelligence gathering to stay as much as possible, so we can keep at bay the bad guys out there and the bad guys in here who want to use terrorism as an excuse to trample all over the Constitution.

And when it comes over to intel gathering in a domestic situation, it should have full judicial oversight and follow due process. It's not that hard, and it doesn't slow them down. This is just a powergrab that began long before Bush, unfortunately, but now that it is highlighted, people should be taking a stand against it.

Our rights are not the problem.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Considering it was old fashioned on the ground floor intelligence that cracked the case in Britain, and it was the same sort of thing that prevented the recent attacks in Toronto, I don't see any up to date evidence to suggest that our government needs more control over the average citizen or less Constitutional oversight in order to combat terrorism.

This is just plain wrong. BOTH investigations utilized measures made possible by the MANY changes in post-9/11 intelligence and security policies and guidelines. You simply can't conclude otherwise, without just being void of common sense.

No one has ever advocated "more control over the average citizen" or "less Constitutional oversight" with regard to NSA or anything else. You have a gross misconception of what the actual laws are, and how they are applied. You've drawn up every conceivable horror story you can think of, and made that reality, and when reality presents results like this, you refuse to believe it and continue to decry the false reality you've built.

[Adam Weinberg]

Oh, really?

So, three minutes ago, nobody was qualified to say how these investigations were handled, and now that I've made an assertion on the matter, suddenly you've known all along?

I'm going to say the onus is on YOU, Dix, to show us how and why post 9/11 policies led to cracking the case in London and Toronto.

[maineman]

good call adam

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the bad guys in here who want to use terrorism as an excuse to trample all over the Constitution.

In so much as the Patriot Act and NSA WWP are needed to enable government to fulfill it's first and foremost obligation to protect it's citizenry, how do you manage to find a "trampling of the Constitution" in what has been done? I hear people say this all the time, and I have not once heard of an instance where someone had their Constitutional rights trampled, only instances of the GOOD guys catching the BAD guys.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, really?

So, three minutes ago, nobody was qualified to say how these investigations were handled, and now that I've made an assertion on the matter, suddenly you've known all along?

I'm going to say the onus is on YOU, Dix, to show us how and why post 9/11 policies led to cracking the case in London and Toronto.


According to Chertoff, the US initiated several key provisions of the Patriot Act, including details about banking records and finance, as well as phone records, to assist the Brits in this investigation. I stand by what I said, no one knows all the details of the investigation, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude, they probably used some of the provisions made legally available for them to use in such circumstances. I certainly don't see where this foiling of a mass terror plot, is any proof that we don't need the Patriot Act or other anti-terrorism tools.

[Adam Weinberg]

Secret searches and gag orders on private citizens and institutions resulting from those secret searches, without a warrant or probable cause are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The fact is that all of our records and properties and persons are now up for grabs due to the Patriot Act, and it's not just library books. The Patriot Act is a sanctioned form of breaking and entering, privacy-violation and institutional manipulation.

These warrantless searches have been done, before and after the Patriot Act, but after the Patriot Act it is now recognized as legal, and that is a very dangerous power for our government to be granted.

It's not right that your private transactions can be traced against your will, they can be intercepted and documented, and you can be tracked in any number of methods, with all parties related to your records sworn to secrecy by the government if they do obtain those private records.

The Bill of Rights is very clear about this, not only in the Fourth Amendment, but also in the Ninth, which was used to establish our right to privacy.

The government may not search or seize without very clearly describing what they've searched and seized, with a warrant issued under probable cause and the Patriot Act claims to invalidate that essential liberty.

[Adam Weinberg]

The fact is that the vast majority of the Post-9/11 Anti-Terror Gospel Preached by DHS is bunk. Color alerts are bunk.

Most of the TSA system is bunk. The liquid ban is bunk. Racial profiling is bunk. Most of the FAA system is bunk. Not having double cockpit doors five years after 9/11 is bunk. Not having more air marshalls and armed pilots five years after 9/11 is bunk.

These agencies have a lot of everything but common sense.

[zoombwaz]

This is just plain wrong. BOTH investigations utilized measures made possible by the MANY changes in post-9/11 intelligence and security policies and guidelines. You simply can't conclude otherwise, without just being void of common sense.

No one has ever advocated "more control over the average citizen" or "less Constitutional oversight" with regard to NSA or anything else. You have a gross misconception of what the actual laws are, and how they are applied. You've drawn up every conceivable horror story you can think of, and made that reality, and when reality presents results like this, you refuse to believe it and continue to decry the false reality you've built.

What a totally irrelevent argument. You have no clue. Wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional and a violation of FISA. It doesn't matter that no one has advocated those things. They are the inescapable results of Bush's illegal wiretapping program.

[zoombwaz]

According to Chertoff, the US initiated several key provisions of the Patriot Act, including details about banking records and finance, as well as phone records, to assist the Brits in this investigation. I stand by what I said, no one knows all the details of the investigation, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude, they probably used some of the provisions made legally available for them to use in such circumstances. I certainly don't see where this foiling of a mass terror plot, is any proof that we don't need the Patriot Act or other anti-terrorism tools.

The terror plot is irrelevent to the fact that the Patriot Act is an unamerican infringement of our constitutional rights. There is never any excuse for abrogatng our rights.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Secret searches and gag orders on private citizens and institutions resulting from those secret searches, without a warrant or probable cause are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The fact is that all of our records and properties and persons are now up for grabs due to the Patriot Act, and it's not just library books. The Patriot Act is a sanctioned form of breaking and entering, privacy-violation and institutional manipulation.

These warrantless searches have been done, before and after the Patriot Act, but after the Patriot Act it is now recognized as legal, and that is a very dangerous power for our government to be granted.

It's not right that your private transactions can be traced against your will, they can be intercepted and documented, and you can be tracked in any number of methods, with all parties related to your records sworn to secrecy by the government if they do obtain those private records.

The Bill of Rights is very clear about this, not only in the Fourth Amendment, but also in the Ninth, which was used to establish our right to privacy.

The government may not search or seize without very clearly describing what they've searched and seized, with a warrant issued under probable cause and the Patriot Act claims to invalidate that essential liberty.


Yada yada yada... 10-20 Commercial Airliners are still in the air today, and countless innocent people aren't resting in peace at the bottom of the Atlantic. That's the bottom line.

[maineman]

to some, the ends will always justify the means

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The terror plot is irrelevent to the fact that the Patriot Act is an unamerican infringement of our constitutional rights. There is never any excuse for abrogatng our rights.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin


You know, if we were talking about disturbed clowns going around hitting people in the face with cream pies, I would be on the side of you and Adam here, I would simply say it's not worth sacrificing any of our freedom for security against the threat, and we would just have to put up with the occasional clown popping up out of nowhere with a cream pie.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect, you people genuinely don't comprehend the nature of the threat here. These radicals have studied our way of governing, our Constitution, our freedoms, and they have devised ways to exploit those freedoms to their advantage in order to perpetrate terrorist acts on innocent people. We can either ignore the problem, or we can take measures to make it more difficult for them to exploit our freedoms. The problem you have is, these measures encroach on your own freedoms as well, and you simply don't understand the magnitude of the threat we face.

Here we are, five years into the Patriot Act, and literally dozens of terror plots foiled because of these provisions, and you have yet to give an example of someone having their Constitutional rights violated. In theory, you can argue this or that is a violation, but when it comes to examples, you struggle to find any real good ones. The fact of the matter is, normal everyday people are not having their rights violated at all, some people are being inconvenienced at times, and those who are up to no good, are being caught and apprehended before they commit terror.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

ITs dispicable how they use fear of and manipulation of terrorism for political advantage.


A. Do you think terrorism is something harmful?
B. Should we fear harmful things?

[uscitizen]

!. Should the fear of terrorism be used to manipulate people for other interests outside of fighting terrorism ?

[Damocles]

A. Do you think terrorism is something harmful?
B. Should we fear harmful things?
It would honestly depend on the statistical chances of the reality of such an attack hitting you personally that should make you "fear" such an attack.

You have a far larger chance of dying in a swimming pool than in any terrorist attack in the US. Should we fear swimming?

Now should we fight such attacks? You bet. These are people who wish to do harm. Should we fear them? No, not really. Should we logically and practically look at how they were able to do such things and stop access to such? Yes, definitely.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

It would honestly depend on the statistical chances of the reality of such an attack hitting you personally that should make you "fear" such an attack.

You have a far larger chance of dying in a swimming pool than in any terrorist attack in the US. Should we fear swimming?

Now should we fight such attacks? You bet. These are people who wish to do harm. Should we fear them? No, not really. Should we logically and practically look at how they were able to do such things and stop access to such? Yes, definitely.


No. Honestly it doesn't depend on the chance of personal harm. A nation is a social construct in which we internalize the fears and victories of other individuals of the nation.

Fear of unwelcome outcomes does prompt people to think logically and practically to prevent such an occurence.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

!. Should the fear of terrorism be used to manipulate people for other interests outside of fighting terrorism ?

No. But it should be used within that context.

[uscitizen]

I lean more towards Damos response AHZ.
A fear driven response being used by this administration is what got us into Iraq...

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I lean more towards Damos response AHZ.
A fear driven response being used by this administration is what got us into Iraq...


Any action taken would have been a "fear driven" response, because terrorism is scary, dangerous and should be feared. Fear doesn't necessarily result in irrationality. You may disagree with the solution the administration offered, but that has little to do with "fear". Only an idiot would not fear a terrorist attack.

I think the most rational response would be to curtail mulim immigration, but most people are too afraid of being called a racist to take that reasonable action.

[uscitizen]

I do not FEAR a terrorist attack.

I have lots more "fear" umm expectations really of dying in an auto accident.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I do not FEAR a terrorist attack.

I have lots more "fear" umm expectations really of dying in an auto accident.


You should fear both. Your refusal to apply the word fear to terrorism merely indicates the degree to which you're brainwashed yourself into being an anti-bushbot, which is a state of unthinking reactivity just as dangerous as bushbot-ism.

[uscitizen]

You should fear both. Your refusal to apply the word fear to terrorism merely indicates the degree to which you're brainwashed yourself into being an anti-bushbot, which is a state of unthinking reactivity just as dangerous as bushbot-ism.

Sorry WM your rhetoric does not work on me. I think for myself.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Sorry WM your rhetoric does not work on me. I think for myself.

No. You don't. you buy into whatever rhetoric is popular and suddenly, terrorism is nothing to fear, because bush was "using fear".

[Damocles]

No. Honestly it doesn't depend on the chance of personal harm. A nation is a social construct in which we internalize the fears and victories of other individuals of the nation.

Fear of unwelcome outcomes does prompt people to think logically and practically to prevent such an occurence.
No fear prompts a much less thoughtful approach.

[uscitizen]

No fear prompts a much less thoughtful approach.
yes emotional responses are always less considered.

for instance on the VT massacre. Ban guns is the emotional response...

[OrnotBitwise]

You're title's a bit redundant, no? :pDamn! Beat me to it again. :)

[OrnotBitwise]

No. You don't. you buy into whatever rhetoric is popular and suddenly, terrorism is nothing to fear, because bush was "using fear".Nonsense. No one is saying that terrorism is "nothing to fear," merely that fear of terrorism has been blown all out of proportion. Getting hit by lightning is definitely something to fear -- especially if you're a golfer -- but no one really ought to spend much time worrying about it, either.

Terrorism has become the new bogeyman, replacing that Evil Empire nonsense.

[uscitizen]

The terrorists have replaced the Communists as a neo con tool of fear.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The terrorists have replaced the Communists as a neo con tool of fear.


YEah. Communism was a legitimate fear as well.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually, you're about twice as likely to die getting hit by lightining as you are to die in a terrorist attack.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Actually, you're about twice as likely to die getting hit by lightining as you are to die in a terrorist attack.


We can't do much about lightning, but we can kill terrorists. Attention is best directed where efficacy is possible. Knowing where efficacy resides can be a great source of serenity.

[OrnotBitwise]

We can't do much about lightning, but we can kill terrorists. Attention is best directed where efficacy is possible. Knowing where efficacy resides can be a great source of serenity.Only to the goofy. :rolleyes:

Fact is, you're worrying your little head over some pretty silly things. Communists, terrorists: do you also check your closet each night to see if there are monsters hiding in there?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Only to the goofy. :rolleyes:

Fact is, you're worrying your little head over some pretty silly things. Communists, terrorists: do you also check your closet each night to see if there are monsters hiding in there?

Monsters are fairly innocuous relative to communists, terrorists, and globalist nihilist satan spawn like yourself.

[uscitizen]

YEah. Communism was a legitimate fear as well.

yeah we did not survive it did we ;)

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the bad guys in here who want to use terrorism as an excuse to trample all over the Constitution.

In so much as the Patriot Act and NSA WWP are needed to enable government to fulfill it's first and foremost obligation to protect it's citizenry, how do you manage to find a "trampling of the Constitution" in what has been done? I hear people say this all the time, and I have not once heard of an instance where someone had their Constitutional rights trampled, only instances of the GOOD guys catching the BAD guys.

"Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither"

-Benjamin Franklin

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The terror plot is irrelevent to the fact that the Patriot Act is an unamerican infringement of our constitutional rights. There is never any excuse for abrogatng our rights.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

HAH!

Great minds think alike, Zoom.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

yeah we did not survive it did we ;)

We did, with appropriate vigilance.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The problem wasn't hte wire tapping itself. It was hte fact that Bush thinks its okay to excuse the feds from the proper checks and balances that our founding fathers believed in.
And you believe in raced based preference systems.

[doniston]

And you believe in raced based preference systems.


Question: and how do you beleive this is sufficiently relevant to resurect a long dead thread?