Maybe you're right. I'll give it some thought..
Maybe you're right. I'll give it some thought..
This is exactly what's going on. The NSA has unbelieveable power to intercept and inspect phone traffic like that.
That's what I don't *get*. There is a secret court that has been set up for many years, their only purpose in life is to provide WARRANTS for these taps inside of 72 hours whenever the administration wants them. Yet they were not using that court to obtain warrants, when they could have.
Your objection is covered by the already existing system to provide warrants as needed.
Jim
I think you're wrong about that. There is principle, but the principle goes against the ideas many of us hold about individual liberty. But, then, so does much of legislation. That's the dilemma of democracy.
Hmm. Non sequitur. The lack of respect for law and the influence of those small groups doesn't connect in any way I can see. IMO, those small groups are influential because of their intensity of belief.
For example, for most of us, letting girls in high school show their midriffs with short tops is a ho-hum issue. But I've been to some board of education meetings where the small, intense group that feels otherwise has shown up. They're adamant. We're bored. So they have leverage on the issue and often get their way.
I'm adamant against the use of artificial materials on dry flies in fly-fishing-only waters, but I haven't been able to get enough like-minded souls together to correct this foul legislation that allows Mylar wings. I'll have to see what I can learn from the Intelligent Design folks. They're similar moral issues.
-- Ed Huntress
After reading:
R, Tom Q.
There is an awful lot of legislation passed that fly's pretty much under the radar Ed. You're in the drug business, you should know that. I doubt that most people have the slightest knowledge of how that industry is "regulated" . There is a rather large constituency believing that you only need enough money/juice to do what you want regardless of the law. The net effect seems to be to concentrate power among the few that do care whether they represent the main stream or not. Were that not the case the pharmaceutical industry would look a lot different in the US than what we see today.
Either that or get the au naturals to hire a lobbiest and kick in a little money to have mylar regulated out of the industry. It worked for ID.
Merry Christmas Ed.
I haven't read your link yet, Tom (I hope I will have time to do so) but it's a common subject among Constitutional scholars that the powers of the president, in wartime or under circumstances that have some of the characteristics of war (like conditions right now), are ambiguous and subject to wide interpretations. It's the result of vagueness inherent in the idea of "actions necessary to accomplish..." We're seeing the debate become public right now.
One legal scholar named Yoo, formerly of the Bush administration lawyer and now a law professor, shaped a lot of the theory under which Bush is operating. I started to search for his articles last night but I'm out of time for it. He is known as an advocate of wide-ranging presidential power, and he's no lightweight.
OTOH, legal scholars tend to get out of their research and logic what they want to get out of them. Some of them, like Bork, seem to delight in doing high-wire acts with speculative legal philosophy. Yoo's collegues, while they respect him greatly, seem to imply that he also gets a charge out of the high wire.
And let's be frank: Bush is unlikely to have a genuine opinion of his own on the matter. He's no Constitutional scholar, and he wasn't a "C" student for nothing. He's listening to his advisors and acting on what he wants to hear from them. Yoo was one of his advisors.
-- Ed Huntress
You are 100% correct. Morality is legislated every day. People that claim otherwise are simply mistaken. Everything from the age of sexual consent, to the use of alcohol, to the language we use, you name it the government regulates it. So for anyone that doesn't know it the answer is yes, morality is regulated all the time. Hope that clears things up.
Hawke
One of the groups that the government likes to listen in on overseas happens to be American journalists. They make calls from overseas to the US all the time. Lots of times they may have information the government might want, like who they have been in contact with, terrorists maybe? Those journalists have a right to privacy, which is in the constitution. Sure, they're not terrorists but so what if the government goes a little too far and taps them anyway. It might stop a terrorist act, right?
Once you let the government get rolling they never know when to stop. Give up a few rights and the next thing you know they want to take some more...and more. It's like taxes, once they put them on something how often do they take them off? Like, haven't they taken in enough taxes yet to have paid for that bridge in San Francisco? If we don't keep a tight leash on the government we're going to wind up with a tight one on us.
Hawke
Yes, and aren't we all a more advanced, more moral society because of all these helpful laws?
YOU BET.
Steve
Keep one thing in mind. No matter what a president does he always says that it was legal, whether it turns out to be or not. Presidents always overstep their authority at some point and no matter how improper their actions they will always argue that what they did was right and legal. And they always say that their lawyers have researched the issue and agree with the president's actions. It doesn't mean a thing. Any time a president does something that is questionable in a legal sense it has to go to the courts to determine whether is really is legal or not despite what the president and his supporters say. In Bush's case the odds are that his failure to stay within the bounds of the FISA act means he's guilty of a crime. With a Republican majority in Congress it's moot. He could commit murder and they would not find he did anything wrong. Which is why letting Republicans control all the branches of the government mustn't be allowed to happen again.
Hawke
I kind of like that leash that Paris Hilton has on her dog. I think it would look really good on Harry Reid, but only if he would eat dog biscuits, and I could pull his ear if he made any unpleasant or inappropriate sounds.
What do YOU think? And what size choker do you like? Or do you like the soft collars?
There are so many choices when reining in a government.
I have a dominatrix that's a diesel mechanic who's temporarily out of work. Well, just until her case comes up, and they can't find one of the witnesses, so it looks good for her. Do you have any positions open for her? Lordy knows, she's good in a lot of positions. I'm sure she'd be a very strict person for the other end of your leash. Of course, she would need adequate compensation, a limo, a driver, and she's really not into compromises.
I'll mention to it to her next time we have a session.
In the meantime, watch out for those invisible silent black helicopters, and the inaudible wiretaps. And cell phone interception. And radar monitoring with laser enhanced barcoding. The ones on Campbell's soup are actually self transferring. If you pick up a can of Campbell's, then check your hand with a black light, you will see what I mean. It works the same way with drinking water additives from your local city supplier. And doubly worse with bottled water. Just drink some of it, and hold a black light up to your pee stream. It's enough to make you want to drink only rainwater, but that can be influenced by electromagnetic wave pulses from satellites. Did you know that? Of course you would, being knowledgeable about clandestine government activities.
We need to get together, but need a code. We have to be very careful, though. They broke Letterman's code, and he has some of the best code monkeys known to the free world. We need to let that one die down for a couple of months before we start anything. We could pass coded information through the newsgroup, just like Al Kayda is doing. He's posting under various aliases, but those of us who know, know who he is. Right, Hawke? Or is that High Flyer? I didn't get the last code book. And now that this Letterman thing has broken, I'm not sure my last book hasn't been compromised.
And don't worry too much about what the government does. They're mainly lackeys working for The Outfit, and are in the process of working their way up. The journalists too.
Go to your nearest Starbucks and sit by the window. Watch the outside for a man smoking Marlboros. When he tosses his crumpled cigarette package on the ground, pick it up, take it home, and hold it to a black light. There will be a message for you.
I hope that I am knowing that I can trust you to do these things. You know the other alternative.
Steve (not my real name)
Or Democrats. When one party controls the executive and the legislative branches, all pretense of checks and balances goes to hell -- like the earlier part of Bush's presidency, for example, and some previous terms of Democrats in our lifetimes (if my memory is correct about Dems controlling both the House and Senate at the same time, while a Dem president is in office. I'd have to check about the Senate).
It's interesting to see how Congress is behaving since Bush became a weak lame duck, however. Now it takes just a few Republicans to switch sides on an issue and it's stalled. This probably is a good thing, because we were winding up with some ideological federal legislation that didn't reflect majority interests.
-- Ed Huntress
In the first place, we have a record that shows us to be pretty lousy in our intelligence capabilities overseas, with our not knowing Al Aqeda was planning to hit us, or that we were totally mistaken about WMDs in Iraq, for example. So our ability to know what's going on in other countries is weak, to say the least. When we say we just want to monitor Al Qaeda suspects how much confidence do you have that is what is actually happening. Personally, I don't think we can tell an Al Qaeda suspect from an Israeli most of the time. It's just not believeable that the government is any good at determining who is "bad" over there and who isn't.
The second thing is that why do you believe that the government isn't just tapping every conversation and sorting out later who's a suspect and who isn't? That's my guess. They tap everyone and of course they couldn't get legal authority to do that. But they think they can do whatever they want and worry about it later. It's Nixonian thinking. I've seen it before and Bush looks like he's cut from the same jib as Nixon. Both of them thought they had unlimited power. Bush sure acts like he thinks so.
Hawke
My point was that it doesn't work.
Tom, I've been thinking the same thing. I'll see if I can scare him up.
Americans choose the best "C" student they can get, even if by a small margin. Kerry finished Yale with a cumulative score of 76. Bush finished Yale with a cumulative score of 77.
Im doing ok, generally.
However..until a number of my slow pay customers get off their asses, I dont have internet access during the week while I work in LA, as I had to let my phone line get disconnected at my RV in So. Cal. So you will only see me post when Im at home.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
One should note..that the time of war snooping on electronic media, was instituted by FDR at the beginning of WW2. It was further implimented by Jimmy Carter (Hostage Crisis) and carried forwards since then by every president.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
One should note, that a large majority of this spying is engineered in offshore US bases, such as the commo facility in the US, and also uses satillite communications snooping. If the signals are picked up from outside the CONUS...and is used to investigate suspected combatants and their minions, even if one side of the conversation is from American soil...is this a violation of the Constitution?
Not according to FDR
Or Carter or Clinton.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.