We have today, all across the country, government stealing property simply for reasons of government greed.
We have takings through regulation, a process where a special interest working through government can make ones property essentially worthless.
We have the IRS and the ATF (or whatever they call themselves today), organizations that exist to infringe on our rights to insure the power of government.
We have zoning excesses
We have jack booted thugs murdering citizens who want to be left alone.
We have had other government agencies grab kids from their families under the guise of DHHS, often without real reason.
We have the government schools.
We have locations where the 2nd amendment does not apply at all.
We have nutty government agency's pandering to anti-religion zealots in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Heck, the list of REAL government excesses is very long indeed yet these are considered normal in out lives.
No, we worry about some computer listening in on your cell phone conversation with your wife over the grocery list.
How about saving all your concerns about freedom for the areas where the loss is real and pervasive[/quote]
Boy I could not really disagree with any of that. All I want is for the government to leave me alone and stay out of my life. I do not think it is the governments job to protect me or anybody else. The liberterians believe that one is responsible for his own security. I buy that!
I want government to get smaller not bigger. Trouble is a lot of Repubs, once in power, want it bigger cause they like controlling others also, just like the dems.
Come on people. Stop and think. We knew about Carnivore long before 9/11. That's where the FBI intercepts enormous quantities of internet traffic, feeds it through supercomputers and filters out messages "of interest". Lots of patriots end their messages with little notes to the Carnivore gnomes such as this:
bomb poison gas radioactive device explosives shipments target schedule synchronize GPS coordinates
The list is longer, but you get the idea. It wakes up the gnomes. Why, you might even see a black Ford Crown Victoria with tiny hubcaps cruise by your house from time to time.
Psst. Hey, gnomes. We Americans are not the enemy. We don't need a whole Patriot Act and infrastucture aligned against us. If 10% of the passengers on those 9/11 flights had been carrying legal hand guns there would have been no crashes.
woodcanoe notes: "We have the IRS and the ATF (or whatever they call themselves today)"
It's BATF. It stands for Bad Attitude Toward Freedom.
[quote="woodcanoe"] I do not think it is the governments job to protect me or anybody else. [/quote]
What would be government's legitimate purpose then?
[quote]The liberterians believe that one is responsible for his own security.[/quote]
That's why I'd never vote for a Libertarian for any office. They're dangerously naive about national security.
A very good site. [url]http://www.constitution.org/[/url]
[quote="Robert"]Then why are borders still wire open.[/quote]
The perpetrators of 9/11 didn't come through open borders. They were here legally at least initally on visas.
The Patriot act that you paranoids hate so much combined with the NSA program could well have discovered them.
Supposedly Able Danger, which was another data mining operation, IDed four of the 9/11 hijackers before the fact, but nothing was done with the info because of civil liberties concerns.
Open your mind Roger. Wide open borders does not just mean Mexicans sneaking in at our Southern Borders.
[quote="Roger S"][quote="woodcanoe"] I do not think it is the governments job to protect me or anybody else. [/quote]
That's why I'd never vote for a Libertarian for any office. They're dangerously naive about national security.[/quote]
Especially after the foreign policy actions of Republicans and Democrats have bleeped things up so severely. Better to stay the course, and bleep it up at home as well.
here's a little something for you "bob" .at first i wasn't going to respond. but then i said may'be a little experience from my past might make this "rookie" wake up.
in the sixties i worked for a consultant company that was hired to locate buildings that could be used as "nuclear bomb
shelters" perhaps your old enough to remember the signs.
one of the bldgs. i had to inspect was the "telephone bldg. in portland". they wanted me to also test the security of the bldg. as all military connections passed thru this office. i got in with a clip board and a military drivers license which
i had when in the service. they had cameras at the door. i made sketches of all the bldg. and hardware.
at that time i knew if we were under attack that the operators of this bldg. would not be allowed to leave.
there's plenty more -but you never know who's listening.
i received a letter from governor reed and the sect of the navy after the project was over.
so yes my theory is : they'll tell you anything you want to hear but checks and balances are put there for our protection.
and you can bet many things looked at are not as stated in the press release!
Thanks for the story.
There are checks and balances throughout this process. I think they are quite evident in the information provided in the past couple of weeks in the media.
I can see a where large part of American sheeple have been so cowed by 911 that they are willing to surrender their liberty, our constitution and our Bill of Rights for safety the government cannot give.
How is monitoring communications between known AQ cells and miscreants overseas "surrendering their liberty, our constitution and our Bill of Rights"?
I don't get it.
Bob, read the fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This makes sense to me. When the founders said "papers" were they not talking about communications?
From the Future of Freedom Foundation:
"Why did the Founders implement such a weak, divided government? One big reason: they clearly understood that historically the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people comes not from foreign enemies but instead from their own government officials, even democratically elected ones. And they understood that that threat to the citizenry was always greatest during war.
Consider the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution: â€œOf all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.â€
What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.
Again, reflect on the words of Madison: â€œThe Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.â€
Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.
What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesnâ€™t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.
Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war â€” illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government â€” the Constitution."
I think the above pretty well speaks for me as to why I am concerned about the domestic surveillance that seems to be going on and the long term effects of such on our liberty.
Pres Bush has stated many times that we are at "war" thus his expansion of these powers of surveillance are justified as it is "war time" just like Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced.
So just who are we at war with and when was it declared by Congress?
I would be interested to know what many think the definition of "terrorist" is.
I don't think monitoring known AQ communications, going cross border, to non-United States persons, is an [b]unreasonable search[/b]. I believe every single instance has been approved by the FISA court, even if after the fact.
What is the alternative? Let them go ahead, execute their plans to kill as many Americans as possible, with the protections of the Constitution shielding them from our intell assets? I can assure you that the same people who are complaining about sniffing would be yelling about the Bush Administrations "failure to protect" us because of "faulty intelligence".
I say monitor the hell out of them.
[quote="Robert"]Open your mind Roger. Wide open borders does not just mean Mexicans sneaking in at our Southern Borders.[/quote]
Closing the southern or northern border doesn't solve the problem of hostiles who have entered through legal means.
Freedom of travel and trade are just as important civil liberties as any others. Legal immigration is important to the vitality of the country. The PATRIOT Act, which has a number of immigration provisions and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, combined with a number of executive orders and administrative decrees have tried to address the problem of hostiles entering the country through the visa process.
None of this addresses hostiles who may have entered legally prior to these reforms. That's why data mining operations like the NSA program are important because they can function with a minimum of intrusiveness.
[quote="woodcanoe"]So just who are we at war with and when was it declared by Congress?[/quote]
[quote]That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[/quote]
[quote="Roger S"][quote="woodcanoe"]So just who are we at war with and when was it declared by Congress?[/quote]
[quote]That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[/quote][/quote]
"What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesnâ€™t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make."
I suppose you could say we are "at war" with the "evil doers of choice" (our choice). :roll:
Bush can go ahead and invade the privacy of anybody he thinks might be posing a major threat to the United States if it is a crisis situation. ***[u]THEN HE SUBMITS HIS ACTIONS AND FURTHER ACCEPTANCE REQUEST TO THE COURT[/u]***
By God, [u]there should be no problem with that procedure[/u], and ANY president that feels they are above that process should be dope slapped (and worse)! It is that sort of unaccountable arrogance that can rot the very fabric of our most basic freedom...PRIVACY !
Bob, every single act of domestic surveilance has not been accepted by the FISA court. That is why one judge has resigned and three more have expressed disatisfaction with the reporting. I believe your answer could have been given by one of the sheeple that blindly follow their leader.
How many have been rejected? How many have been accepted?
[quote="apondsong"]our most basic freedom...PRIVACY ![/quote]
When in the world did [i]privacy[/i] become our most basic freedom? A little time to myself is all I ask. Beyond that, I am a social animal with nothing to hide. Give me company or give me death, I say!
I don't remember seeing any reference in natural law guaranteeing me a right to be left alone to do God knows what without anyone else knowing or seeing me.
This sense of a need for privacy is borne out of the culture that gave us abortion. Guilty minds feel the need to get away with their acts.
Go ahead, listen to my phone calls, tap into my internet transactions, read my mail. And when I mention a possible bomb attack on the transit system carrying innocent civilians to work, arrest me.
Simple. If you feel that privacy is sooo imperative to your lifestyle, what the heck are you doing anyway that you wish to keep from being found out?
Was it Twain who remarked, "Curtains are to keep the neighbors from seeing that we really aren't up to anything much..."
Freedom...does not mean freedom to listen to private conversations. If there is a reason...just report and get a warrant after 72 hours...easy.
there does not appear to be any legal requirement to get such a warrant for foreign intel and there may not be any need period under those powers reserved to the president as commander in chief.
Are you expressing what you would like to be the law, or are you trying to make a legal case without the bother of finding legal cites?
Jim, it is my understanding that when taping Americans ...the President could go ahead and do it...just report it within 72 hours. I don't see why that should be a problem...do you?
Sorry you feel that way "Distributionist". Privacy is one of our most basic freedoms. "My bad" to say it was any more important than another.
Interesting, you don't have a problem with strangers knowing all of your business:
How much money do you make a year? Do you claim it [u]all[/u] on your income taxes? Have you ever cheated on your tax forms? Has your wife ever had an abortion? Have you ever had an affair...has she? Ever cheated on your wife (just once). What political party do you support and how much in contributions? Do you claim to be a born-again Chirstian..do you tithe 10% of everything you make? Are you a trust-fund baby? How much money do you have invested and where? Do you have herpes? Are you gay? Ever been to a gay bar? Ever kissed a man? How many firearms do you own? Where do you keep them? Are they loaded? How much ammunition do you have in your possession? Do you have a gun in your car/truck? Do you carry a weapon? Where did you buy them? Do you belong to a gun-club? Are you a member of the Maine Militia? Do you drink alcohol...how much? Are you an alcoholic? Do you go to AA meetings? Do you visit pornographic web-sites? Do (or did )you homeschool your kids? Where do they go to college? Do you pay their tuition? What were their grades...what were YOUR grades? Do you owe money to credit card companies...how much? Do you wear a seat-belt? Are you under insured? How many dogs do you own? Are they all licensed and up to date on their vaccines? Do you have a will...what's in it? Have you ever been to a therapist? What for? Do you have cancer? Does your wife? Aids? What's your credit card number? Do you have an unlisted telephone number...why? What's your social security number? Ever been arrested....what for? Are you pregnant or is that just a beer belly? Are your wife's hooters for real? Do you support your troops? Do you support your PRESIDENT? Was that an Arab we saw you talking to in the bank waitng line !!?? What did you talk [i]about[/i]? Oh....and by the way.....VER ARE YOR PAPERZ !!!??? :roll:
Makes "none of your business" seem mighty refreshing, [i]don't it[/i]?
Bob, I do not know and they are not saying, but we do know one has resigned and three more has expressed their disatisfaction. Do you deny that? Do you say it is not true?
Just curious as to what the ratio was to approved and rejected. 99 to 1? 435 to 1? 1 to 1?
No, I am not denying that. I'll take your word for it. Do you know who appointed those judges? I don't.
Apondsog, just to be devil's advocate.....
For many of the things you listed a private citizen, acting on their own, could find out the answers to the questions you asked. Are you suggesting that private citizens should have more power to collect information about other citizens than government? Which would have more accountability to the people?
As to "VER ARE YOR PAPERZ!!!??? Try getting a job without your papers and see how far you get. Or driving.
[quote="charlotte"]Jim, it is my understanding that when taping Americans ...the President could go ahead and do it...just report it within 72 hours. I don't see why that should be a problem...do you?[/quote]
We are not discussing the same thing here. The actions you describe are the process outlined in a congressional act that provides a procedure for domestic wiretapping.
The president has, in addition to this route, others. The President has inherant powers under the constitution that are outside of anything the Congress authorizes. The Congress can never take away any of those constitutional powers. ie; the president has those powers regardless of what Congress might do.
In addition, numerous courts have recognized a foreign inteligance exception to the procedures outined by Congress and have also noted the presidents inherent powers.
I guess I am trying to say that we mix apples and oranges. The president CAN act using the Congressional process but he has no Constitutional responsibility to do so. He can act on foreign intel under his very own powers and neither the Congress nor the courts can remove the power.
In this area his check is the voters and elections, not congress and the courts.