You Are a Suspect

NY TIMES via Drudge ^ | william safire

[antidisestablishment]

The government does not have legal "access" to the data without a search warrant. Currently, criminal targets are pursued utilizing access granted for specific searches.This legislation appears to be giving the government possession, and/or at least carte blanche access, to data on all individuals.

It throws away warrants, probable cause and consent. It also completely limits redress of harm from any action under these statutes. If you can't understand the difference, there is no helping you.

[mrsmith]

That is both the stupidest and the most dishonest exposition of congress's war powers that I have ever seen.

Here are some online sources that you can use for honest information about the Constitution:
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
Avalon Project
The Founders' Constitution

Free Republic is also a great source. There have been several discussions of congress's war power. Too bad you missed them.

[Abundy]

What freedoms have we lost?

Any time the State is allowed ot usurp the Rights of anyone, we all lose the usurped Rights.

And that statement is coming from a former law enforcement officer. It isn't coming from some liberal disruptor.

This law would seek to remove the warrant requirement and that is something noone should be advocating.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"November 14, 2002: "In selecting its next targets," the F.B.I. alert said, "sources suggest Al Qaeda may favor spectacular attacks that meet several criteria: high symbolic value, mass casualties, severe damage to the American economy and maximum psychological trauma. The highest-priority targets remain within the aviation, petroleum and nuclear sectors, as well as significant national landmarks." So, your solution provides the level of urgency to address this issue? "

Level of urgency? Oh, I'm sure that they are just bragging away in AOL chat rooms about having a nuke in their basement. Or maybe writing cryptic emails back and forth bragging. As someone who has fought these bastards on their own turf, you are severely underestimating their abilities. The Mossad has problems penetrating the Hamas circle and getting intelligence to prevent every attack. If they have planned something, everything is in position to execute the attack and there's not squat we can do about it unless someone gets lucky and stumbles across the active cell. Your concept of data flow is somewhat simple minded.

"There's no time to turn around 30 years of liberal abuse - information is king and if you have any we are going to get it from you whether you like it or not."

No, you will not get it from me. Having exposure to the IT world has it's advantages. I know how to dissappear and re-appear if need be. Your threat that information will illegally be extracted from me sounds like the rantings of a Gestapo officer in a poorly made WWII movie. The information we need is available without violating the rights of real American citizens. But I guess you just would be happy to have anyone who disagrees with your version taken to a camp and given a shower. Great logical statements on your part. You've shown your true colors, that of no one more advanced than a DUidiot or a facist. Conservatives have one over riding principle - We fight to defend the Constitution and we do not dismantle it on a whim. Roosevelt went over the line in WWII and our generation ended up paying millions to the vicitims. There are more efficient methods but since you can not read an entire posting, I have no idea why I am wasting my time with you trying to discuss them with you.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I don't understand the zombie mentality. I'm going to go mix 10 vodka martinis and smoke a nice Honduran maduro and perhaps I can kill enough brain cells to communicate efficiently with the.

What part of taking the handcuffs off of the CIA and letting them fight this war on enemy territory was too hard to comprehend?????

[FormerLurker]

That is both the stupidest and the most dishonest exposition of congress's war powers that I have ever seen.

And how is it either "stupid" OR "dishonest"? Why exactly do you need to resort to ad hominem remarks? Please be specific.

[DLfromthedesert]

The point is that if the government was truly concerned about security, the first priority would be to control the borders.

Seems to me it's more important to the powers-that-be to control the American people; get us used to having ourselves felt up at airports, Big Bro doing through our personal data, etc.

If you are content to be a cog in wheel, so be it

[TigersEye]

And how is it either "stupid" OR "dishonest"? Why exactly do you need to resort to ad hominem remarks? Please be specific.

You might also post, for the benefit of the forum, an intelligent and honest exposition of congress' war powers. If you have ever seen one, mistahsmith. I'll be waiting with FormerLurker to see your expert dissection of the one he posted.

[Free the USA]

I don't think you read my original post or you have misinterpreted my position in order build a straw man that you can then attack.

[FormerLurker]

I'll be waiting with FormerLurker to see your expert dissection of the one he posted.

I have a feeling I've got time to make popcorn...

[mrsmith]

I've given you references to honest discussions of our Constitution.

[FormerLurker]

I've given you references to honest discussions of our Constitution.

What you posted doesn't answer the questions posed. Regardless of what information those sites provide, the questions to YOU remain the same, plus I'll add a few more..

1. Why exactly do you call what I posted "stupid" and "dishonest"? How is it "stupid" OR "dishonest"?
2. Why do you need to resort to ad hominem remarks?
3. What is YOUR understanding of Congress's war powers?
4. Exactly where in your links does it show that anything that I posted was incorrect, stupid, or dishonest?
5. Do you have any idea at all of what you are talking about?

Oh, and PLEASE be specific.

[panther33]

Well, I started reading at about post 150, with occassional glances to earlier posts... now that I am more informed about this thread and the posters in it, I have confirmed some of my original beliefs:

1.) There are some FR posters (it doesn't seem right to call them FReepers) who use insults instead of facts to counter good arguments. (Cough)Deb(Cough)Howlin

2.) There have been a few FReepers who have made this such an excellent thread (quotes from posts will be reposted and outlined in a minute)-- these people include: antidisestablishment (posts 57, 177);
dirtboy (posts 196, 225, among others);
Nuke'm Glowing (posts 209, 256, plus a cool name); and last but most certainly not least,
Abundy (no specific posts, but rather a continual use of logical reasoning and great points)

3.) Deb does not deserve to bring down this thread with unsubstantiated claims and baseless insults. (Please, Deb, don't flame me with another ridiculous post again. Keep your opinions to yourself, because two people can't have a conversation if one isn't willing to listen)... (Psss.... you're the "one")

4.) The more I hear from the extremist give-up-all-constitutional-rights people (for lack of a better name), the more I am against their side. Isn't there a quote about that-- opening your mouth and proving your stupidity to everyone instead of shutting it up and leaving at least some doubt?

I think I am forgetting something that I wanted to say... oh, well... senior moment :-)

God Bless

[panther33]

oops.... for antidisestablishment, I complimented him/her on post #57... should have been #87... (sheepish grin)

[panther33]

Here are the quotes I was talking about: (BLUE = my comments)

Antidisestablishment--
Post #87: "...But nothing can give politicians, police or defense agencies license to overthrow our Constitution. The rights enshrined therein are not given by agency; they are not even a consequence of citizenship; they are not a privilege granted by chance or effort. They are the birthright of every living human being. They are the constituent elements of humanity itself.

No individual or agency has the power to restrict, rescind, or in any way transfer these rights. Any American who suggests a “temporary” laying aside of rights is a traitor to our Republic and an enemy to man and God. Our soldiers and our officials have sworn to uphold these truths and to fight against any enemy, foreign or domestic, who would attack these principles. Those who breech this oath are cowards and traitors.

We can win this “war” without resorting to draconian* measures. Our founding fathers established a Republic that was capable of self-governance—even in times of war. The only way to save her is to return to those principles on which she was founded...

You who defend such garbage deserve the world which you would build. As for me and my house, we will serve God and our country. And we will fight you tooth and nail."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Post #177: "...It could be likened to impressionist art: sometimes you need to see the big picture before the constituent parts and patterns make sense."

Nice analogy.

Dirtboy--
Post #196: [Original comment from Deb: "They are welcome to monitor anything and everything I come in contact with. I don't break laws and I don't have anything to hide. I volunteer my records. It's not an invasion of privacy if you welcome the process."]

[Dirtboy's response:] "That's the whole point, Deb. It is your perogative to surrender your own rights voluntarily. It is NOT your perogative to have me surrender mine against my will. Oh, and BTW, I have never been convicted of anything worse than a traffic ticket. It's not that I have something to hide. It's that I have something to protect - my rights."

The exact same things that I was thinking...

Post #225: "Deb, we had a decent thread going here until you came along and started crapping all over the place."

I noticed, too.

Nuke'm Glowing:
Post #209: [To Deb] "You are supporting the elimination of my rights!! That's where the line is drawn."

Sums up our general argument quite well.

Post #256: [To Deb] "I got 4 wounds from defending people like you to make an ass of themselves. I also learned how to be an expert capitalist. I also know what our Constitution means to everyone who has fought for it. If you want to give it up, then give up some blood for it. Otherwise, ... open up some books. I would suggest the Federalist Papers as an opener and all of the writings of Jefferson."

Self-explanatory.

[Illbay]

You need to go to DU and check up on what a TRUE Liberal says.

I am saying that the Federal government's primary role is to defend us from enemies. That means a strong military and no hesitation in projecting military might when it is needed to protect us.

If I was a LIBERAL, I'd say "no military, can't we all just get along?" and advocate appeasement every time someone threatens us.

Your silly "you're a liberal from DU" comments display a profound ignorance on your part. Fortunately, ignorance can be corrected, if you're particularly diligent about it.

[griffin]

LOL!

Hey! Put this together with a nice ID chip for you here and I bet you're in hog heaven. Get your kids chipped...they'll thank you for it once the government and whoever wants to bribe or hack the system gets in and controls their life....but hey...that is government's job.

You did it Ill. You convinced me. LOL!

[No.6]

Hate to interrupt everyone; can someone find me the bit in the "Homeland Security Bill" (that's HR 5710, as passed by the House, on Thomas) where the Total Information Awareness thing is funded? I've been looking for it off and on all weekend, can't find a word about it. Granted this bill is not 500k+ characters, but still. This whole thread got started because Safire said the 'security' bill will fund this monstrosity; wish he'd provided a reference.

And yea, I took the time to look up Darpa/IAO and the little charts and such on TIA. I don't like it one bit (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!)

Actually it reminds me most of the 'Beast' from old Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! book. This is kinda interesting given the Darpa/IAO logo and since IAO is a meaningful acronym to Crowley fans. (heh tin foil alert!)

But I'm still trying to figure out how this bill will or will not actually fund TIA.

[antidisestablishment]

Thanks for the kudos. I thought this was a good thread, at least until it was infested by the saboteurs.

Either way, this legislation will bear watching in the courts. It's pretty scary when we must invest our hopes in the most liberal sector of our government becuause Congress is too lazy to do their jobs!