So, you're living in a police state
Constitution-huggers are up at arms about the Bush administrations wide-reaching new wire tap program (not to mention the administration's tortured legal justifications for it).
But there are lots of benefits to living in a police state, as Stephen Colbert explains.
So, You're Living in a Police State
posted by Luke Francl @ 8:56 AM |
| 
28 Comments:
Yet the FISA act the constitution and a couple hundred years of judicial rulings do give the president the powers to investigate and spy on foriegn entities. All of this comes from Article II of the Constition.
The are dozens of situations that DO NOT require warrents for searches and wiretaps. Since the constitution gives DOMESTIC parties protection from UNREASONABLE intrusion by the goverment you must make the case the the interception of communication by suspected FORIEGN terrorist without warrents is falls within this realm.
Lets see your arguements rather than blindly parroting those that will us any excuse to undermine the United States and weaken or standing in the world which will result in the loss of the ultimate civil liberty, life. Having my libray records protected while myself or my children are blown to bits is not protection.
Dave
Gee, you're right.
Oh wait, this program is illegal because it spies on UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
Read the news.
Read the news?
Uh dude, pretty much everyone and his mother is saying "its legal" including former Clintonistas.
Maybe this will help:
Kos != News
-Censored
Blah, blah, blah.
Hannity != News
We could go in circles for days, Swiftee, what's the point?
Luke where is your evidence that it has and continues to be used to spy on us ordinary folks. Even so it you still have not made the aurgument that it is an unreasonable intercept and that it causes harm to those not under suspision. The primary method being deployed is when suspect and actual terrosts are captured thier communications are back tracked and all previous contacts are open to further investigation. This will hopefully lead to further detentions and disruptions of the terrorist to protect YOU. If you want to trust the murdering religious facists to not attack you because we played nice and didn't dig too deep into thier affairs, you deserve the horrible death or Iranian Governing Council that they want to impose on you.
These is not new programs or methods they have been used for DECADES (centuries) and by all administrations. Intellectual dishonesty does not make for good political debate.
Dave
Dave,
The New York Times headline is: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts". You figure out the rest.
This is such a simple issue. The law says that the NSA can't spy on Americans without a court order. They can get a court order up to 72 hours after the fact, if the matter is so urgent they can't wait. This court has approved virtually every request put before it.
The Bush administration decided not to follow this law, and Bush personally authorized spying on Americans without a court order, in violation of the law.
I don't have more details than what's been reported in the news because this is all secret on Bush's orders.
Don't you agree that Congress should get to the bottom of this to determine if the law is being followed?
Luke - you get to have your own opinion, but not your own facts.
The fact is that you are running with a book advertisement...
-Censored
Yet the FISA act the constitution and a couple hundred years of judicial rulings do give the president the powers to investigate and spy on foriegn entities. All of this comes from Article II of the Constition.
Dave, what part of Article II are you referring to? The section on spying? I don't see that in my copy.
Which judicial rulings give the president powers to spy on US persons on his own initiative?
And you see Jeff...
That's exactly the problem. Why are judges deciding what our laws are instead of our legislators?
Just something to think about.
-Censored
And you see Swiftee...
That's exactly the problem. Why is the President deciding what our laws are instead of our legislators?
Just something to think about.
Freedom != Spying on U.S. Citizens
What is comes down to is this: For the thankfully tiny number of extremists like Power Line and those who tow their line [you know who you are] - National Security and the War on Terror are priority one, and everything else is #233.
That includes, unfortunately, many of the freedoms and values our country was founded upon. It means they'll sacrifice truth, liberty, and law... for our own protection.
"Those who are willing to trade civil liberties for temporary security, deserve neither" is the famous Benjamin Franklin quote. Would he still say it now, in a post-9/11 world? Hard to say, but his ultimate point still stands. We must never lose site of our liberties or trade them away too easily -- or without our consent.
We have to decide as a nation what the balance is between national security and civil liberties. We must not stand for unbridled presidential power deciding for us (or rather, against us) without any oversight.
Yet I cannot name one liberty I have lost since the election of 2000 or the implementation of the Patriot Act that was not authored or engineered by those claiming to be progressive( smoking ban anyone).
Dave
Here's a little civics lesson Marki-mark, there are powers that belong to the executive, like these. That's the difference.
Chuck, you scare me. That "tiny number" you refer to would be the MAJORITY of people who elected and then then relected W. You are the minority, not the other way around. BTW, the Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think if we asked 100 reasonable people to define "essential liberty" not one would define it as the monitoring of international communications during wartime.
Here's another Ben Franklin quote to ponder.
"The cat in gloves catches no mice"
That seems to fit the situation just as well. Of course he also famously said, "Fart proudly" so there's that.
-Censored
Yep...I'm a big Ben Franklin fan.
You incorrectly assume that everyone who voted for Bush is in favor of having their phone and/or email spied upon by the government. I think you'll find a whole lot of Americans don't want the government snooping in their personal affairs without a damn good reason. And if they have a damn good reason -- they can get a warrant. That's what's reasonable. We should seriously question the NSA sniffing huge volumes of private citizen communication of any sort. Again -- a balance must be struck. The executive can't secretly spy on volumes of innocent Americans without a warrant or oversight.
Why don't you try walking into a nursing home sometime and find out what folks think about all this. I might just do that with my video camera.
Well, at least we have Franklin in common.
I conceed that not all Bush voters favor communications monitoring, but you'll have to admit not all detractors do. Kind of a wash on that one.
I suppose we just disagree about the "good reason" part of your statement. I'd point to the events of 9/11, London bombings, Indonesia, etc and call combating international terrorism a good reason.
I'm not sure why having a camera makes you feel like your judgement is superior to mine, nor why a nursing home would provide enlightenment, but have a good time.
-Censored
At last, we are agreeing to disagree.
There are always good reasons, there are always threats. And there are always warrants, and there are always limits to the unchecked power of government. As I keep saying, it's a matter of where you draw the line.
I never suggested my judgement was superior to yours because of a camera, I'm just talking about getting out of the partisan blogosphere and into the real world to hear what people think. If you don't see any value in that, well... that speaks volumes.
Real world = Nursing home?
I do not agree.
I think a much better gauge of public feeling is the vote. It eliminates the opionion of non-citizens, those who don't care enough to act, and measures the rest directly.
The results are clear and do not support your positon.
-Censored
censored fears the elderly!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
Opps - this one didn't resonate, time to make up another story...
-Censored
Yeah, too bad they're asking the wrong question. I'd probably say yes myself, the way they phrased it - no mention of warrants.
No Chuck.
Not in this case. "Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely."
With the MSM drumbeat of leading coverage on this there's no misunderstanding. People knew what they were being asked. I strongly expect that with the addition of the "with warrants" clause, it would have been approaching 100%. (I mean, not even you guys object to that, right?)
I think there's a perception on the left, that the right is playing on people's fears. Obviously, to some extent that's true, but the fears are also real. We were attacked, there are bad people in the world who hate us, want to do us more harm, etc.
This was simply a shot at trying to play the same game. The difference is that having your international calls with terror suspects monitored isn't scary. In fact, its probably a good idea.
This just didn't resonate...
-Censored
Better poll question, different results.
The whole idea of playing the "game" the way terrorists play was an appalling justification for torture, and it ain't too pretty here either. You really shouldn't frame it like that, because we're better than they are.
Anyway, I hear what you're saying. They did it to protect us. I know that. We're going in circles. The question is, how far can they go? The fact that they're willing to circumvent the courts (and probably the law) is a warning bell.
I'm never going to stop defending my liberties, or stop being watchful of organizations like the NSA. We have a long, sad history of spying on individuals and groups in this country because of their beliefs - under the initial guise of national security. With this secret program and other revelations (secret surveillance of Muslims) it's clear this administration is pushing hard to snoop as much as they can get away with. That's why people like me have to push back.
Let's break it into extremes. On the libertarian extreme, our personal liberties trump national security. We're attacked and people die. At the other extreme, national security trumps civil liberties. Welcome to a totalitarian state. Either way we lose.
That's why we must struggle, as a nation, to find a balance between security and liberty - and make sure our government reflects that balance.
Different question, different results. But the link doesn't show the questions.
If 45% of Americans think the government is constitutionally prohibited from monitoring international calls without a judge's approval I'll eat my hat.
Throw in "where an American, in the US is a party to the call" and more likely "as Bush asserts" and you might get to these results, but really it just comes down to 45% being wrong. (Both legally and in practical terms.)
If I gave the impression that we were emulating terrorists, I apologize. I meant that Dems were fearmongering with this nonsense. (And I was conceeding that GOP is scaremongering too.) I can see how that wasn't clear.
Regardless, Happy New Year.
-Censored
If Dumbya wanted spying on Americans as part of his election platform then why did he ask the NY Times to quash the story before the election?
Smarter trolls, please.
Smarter Georges please.
Umm...maybe he didn't want a classified program compromised?
I don't recall him saying "run it after the election..."
-Censored
I hope everyone had a great holiday and New Year.
I hope you don't consider my comment as an unwarranted intrusion. After perusing your blog, namely, "new patriot", I believe I can reasonably suppose both you and readers would welcome news of opposition to your "smirking chimp", my "dum'ya botch". In plainer terms, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.
Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. "impeach bush" is the first plank. The second is "impeach bush". The third is like the second, "impeach bush".
To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html
As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.html
toodles
......\
.he who is known as sefton
first off, please let me thank you for allowing my previous comment to remain appended to your "police state" piece.
well, here's more:
Yes and yes again, whyz.ache.err, I'll own up to it. There is a ton of personal animus in my campaign to get the "smirking chimp", also known as "dum'ya botch", impeached. It's not at all like I don't have cause. For one thing, what he's peddling as, get this, "terrorist surveillance" ain't Shinola.
I'm hoping you'll grant me the small favor of patience. I would like you, at first, to read straight through to the end of this text, without clicking on any of the enclosed hyperlinks.
In case, you'd like to know, the hyperlink to your blog, specifically, "New Patriot', is found at the third hyperlink on the list below ... ah, please remember, no clicking until AFTER reading the entire text.
Perusing your blog, I believe I arrived at what is a reasonable inference. That is, both you and your readers concur with my interpretation of "terrorist surveillance". Wood'ja (?) buh-leave! A civilian like me, and up to his ears in credit card debt, could come up with a game plan to snag Osama bin Ladin.
As for my plan for capturing Osama, again I should like to ask to refrain from clicking on any enclosed hyperlink, until AFTER you've read the entirety of the text.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/osama-and-our-president-dumass-botch_20.html
The hyperlink just above this sentence leads to my game plan. If you've gotten this far on the first read, without clicking on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, congrats!
Whatever the case, remind or prepare, please keep in mind that it's a good bet that everything else to snag bin Ladin has already been tried. I think it's time we tried drawing on one of the few activities Americans do better than any other national group, music and pizza delivery being among those few activities.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html
oh, yeah, and here's the third hyperlink:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/states-writes.htm#MN
toodles
......\
.he who is known as sefton
oh, yes, surely, you've heard about the government "requesting" certain records about internet activity. oh, br'dah! ... cynical and skeptical lil'ole me, I'm smelling a rat in all that. Quite candidly, I have cause to suspect that more than compiling statistics on access to pornographic websites is involved.
oh, yeah, right after Hitler came to power, the German people were assured that, if they were innocent of untoward activity, they would have nothing to worry about ... yeah, right.
Incidentally, the second hyperlink leads to a piece that relates to governmental eavesdropping WITHOUT a warrant.
Post a Comment
<< Home