Only the dummies who registered their guns.
Posted on 12/29/2005 9:01:59 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
No he doesn't, and this precedent has been established for well over 25 years, going all the way back to Jimmy Carter. Even the FISA Court itself is on record as saying that they take it for granted that the President has this power.
You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the big liberal newspapers, because most of it is garbage.
As is all too common, you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.
No. Semantics are confusing you about my above statement.
Our Constitutional government only best protects unalienable rights. It doesn't absolutely protect unalienable rights.
We surrender our absolute unalienable right to self determination by accepting our Constitutional form of government. Read the procedures of the Constitution. We sacrifice some measure of self control.
Anarchy is the absence of government control. Libertarianism is the abscense of government control and non-government control.
The procedures of the Constitution are not libertarian.
I'll bet you $20 that, if we ever find out anything about the scope of this program, that will not turn out to be the case.
What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to telephone numbers which were called at some time in the past by persons who are simply under suspicion of being connected with a terrorist group abroad?
Because I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.
What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to relatives in Middle Eastern countries who have also been called by other distant relatives who are thought to have ties to charities which are believed to finance terrorist organizations?
'Cause I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.
How far removed does it have to be before you say "enough - that ain't part of any inherent 'war power'"?
I don't trust the government. Try dealing with the IRS about your tax problems. The last thing the IRS wants to do is go to court.
"Hobbes believed in strong government, but he was no totalitarian. Instead, he was reacting to the Wars of Religion that had raged across Europe for the previous century-and-a-half, in which Catholics and Protestants enthusiastically burned and butchered one another by the millions. In addition, Hobbes' own country had just been wracked by a decade-long civil war.
Clearly, a powerful state was needed - a regime that, as he put it, would possess a monopoly of force within the society. Would people lose some of their freedoms? Sure they would, and among the freedoms lost was the freedom to hack to death the deviationist next door."
Wrong; what was needed then and now is a state under the rule of law--not a state ruled in force by men's will.
"That's the reason why, for example, Wyoming is a more libertarian place than New York City. Out in the West, where miles might separate people, you can pretty much do what you want. But, if millions are going to live in close proximity to one another, then lots of red tape is going to thread itself around each resident, governing not only the obvious concerns, such as weapons and pollution, but matters such as noise abatement and cigarette smoking."
Correct; so the laws New Yorkers impose on themselves (at this point I wonder that they don't have cameras in people's--oops the state's home where they allow the serfs to live) need not be imposed in Wyoming.
I'm sure you're right. But you'll have to excuse my preference for wiretapping of individuals who want to get me killed!
Correctomundo.
It is NOT a civil rights violation for the govt. to selectively monitor potential/probable enemies of the United States, especially those who offer financial and moral support to those who have directly attacked our homeland and/or citizens in recent years.
It is embarassing to hear otherwise level-headed conservatives going gaga with claims that "we're all" being eavesdropped by big brother, etc.
Unless and until non-Muslim everyday American Joe-sixpack types are being wiretapped by the NSA, dont bother me with silly conspiracy hallucinations.
Well, I too fear that the government will sooner or later come to take my weapons. It's happened in other countries and there is a well funded effort supported by the liberal media to do so here.
I believe that there is justification for fear that there are those who wish our government to take guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
However, there are those who use that fear to advance other causes by misrepresenting the facts.
That's fine. I don't much care for the IRS or anti-smoking laws myself. Every one of us has laws that we don't like.
But I'm extremely grateful that this administration is determined to do whatever it takes to try and prevent another major attack from happening on our soil, and so far they've managed to just that, and I think most people are with me on that. The left-wing crybaby attitude is what eventually got us to 9/11 in the first place. The people who think that Bush cares about their library books and porno videos are paranoid fringe characters, in my opinion.
I got no problem with that. It is the process of indentifying those individuals - and actually having some basis for putting them in that category other than the fact that someone in the NSA thinks they might be - that is at issue. It ain't about wiretaps. It is about how they are obtained. On whose say so. And on what basis.
And when will this "emergency" be over? We knew when the civil war was over because the confederate armies surrendered. We knew when WWII was over because Germany and Japan surrendered.
This is not an "emergency" that will ever be over - at least not in our lifetime. As long as there exists those that practice Islam, there will always be the chance of Islamic terrorism.
A good rule of thumb is that an war against a non-proper noun (poverty, drugs, terrorism) will never end.
Please tell me how you know who is being wiretapped without a warrant, and how I can get this information.
"This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular."
Pinkerton always was, always will be -- an ignorant ass.
LOL - people tend to talk big when they are not under direct threat - once the threat arrives, they usually just roll up into a ball and comply.
The lawful gun owners in New Orleans got their gun confiscated by the government. It's a lot different when it is one homeowner, his wife and some kids versus a group of armed government agents.
Most will talk big and say how their guns will hold off an entire army of government agents but once the situation presents itself, they decide that fighting disarmament isn't worth the lives of their wife and children and hand over all of their guns.
Some like the Branch Davidians resist and they're all dead. Same with the Ruby Ridge group.
The only real way to protect your 2nd amendment rights is through legislation - by the time they come for your guns, it is too late - you'll either have to lick boot or die.
Thanks. I needed that!
After you regain your composure maybe you could tell me (in an adult manner) what on earth you are talking about and why you are attributing to me things I never said?
When an act is not taken to defend the country it is not part of the President's inherent war power. This was decided clearly at the Constitutional Convention. The president was empowered and charged to repel sudden attacks without any authority from congress. The principle was stated most clearly by president Jefferson that he was " Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defence".
The congress is empowered to determine if his acts were reasonably aimed at defending the country. They are not empowered to legislate away his authority, so the Judiciary has no review. The Judiciary is an oligarchial branch of the government and such power would make them utter and unlimited tyrants.
Besides his War Power, the president also, however, has sole power to deal with foreign agents- neither the legislature nor judiciary has any authority here. This was also best stated by Jefferson -as Secy of State- in a letter to Edmund Genet: "I am, therefore, sir, not authorized to enter into any discussions with you on the meaning of our constitution in any part of it, or to prove to you, that it has ascribed to him alone the admission or interdiction of foreign agents."
Of course James Madison, who- before the War of 1812- paid a fortune to an informer for information on US citizens in the US who were sympathetic to the British, is the deepest explicator of the Constitution.
It is seldom noticed in this debate that even solely domestic wiretapping was not covered at all by the Fourth Amendment until the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled so in 1967- not a very long time ago.
Previously they had ruled that there was no trespasss and so no search. I'm not saying it's bad to extend Fourth Amendment protection to electronic communications via a third party, just that it's a new concept.
PS As for Hillary Clinton and obeying "ANY" laws or not, again I will have to trust that my overall meaning was clear, even though my individual words were not exact. I'm sure there are some laws she has no trouble obeying, although none come to mind right away. ;)
Only the dummies who registered their guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.