Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 18 of 18
Quote:No, what you said was
You seemingly missed my post where I admitted our interest in the region, but that it wasn't any more , and in fact far LESS than that of other Western European countries.
Quote:Oh, yeah... and running coups, setting up secret police (like Savak), attempting assasinations, corrupting various governments and using Israel as proxy. And (your words) kicking Saddam out of Kuwait Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan
We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing. Building those Mid-East nations an entire infrastructure so they could pump oil and sell is to everyone on the planet.
Quote:Also, don't forget Lawrence of Arabia. Sadly, the root of many of these problems traces back to the British empire. But I'm curious- in your mind, what constitutes "cleaning up the mess"? Or, perhaps to rephrase it a little differently- what do YOU see as "the mess" that needs to be cleaned?
Funny, but wasn't it England who controled the lands of Israel and Iraq? Why the HELL aren't they doing mnore to solve these problems? After all, it was they who started all this mess. A bit of gratitude is due for the USA, in trying to clean up the mess that other's left behind.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hero, I don't normally jump in for Rue, but this is not what Rue said.
You: We join world to solve world problems.
Me: We sit around till hell freezes over waiting for world to show up.
I had to drop a line of discusison bc of lack of time, but I'm going to pick it up again. You said
Quote:You also said
If your talking to terrorists...you really can't be trusted and you should be tapped. Nobody else has anything to worry about.
Quote:Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France? Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)? Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise? Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".
Also a person's right to privacy extends only to a zone in which they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a person making an overseas phonecall to Osama Bin Ladden have that reasonable expectation? I think not. How about a payphone to call the local Mafia boss to arrange a hit on PirateNews? Maybe. Talking to your lawyer? Definately. Sending a message via your lawyer to Osama Bin Ladden or the Mafia? No (and a great Law and Order episode).
However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law, apparently not even the Constitution. So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?
If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France?
If they are terrorists, then...maybe?
If you know they are terrorists, then no, you have no expectation. If you don't know then, yes...YOU have the expectation. But since they certainly know then they have no expectation of privacy and while we can't use the call against you, we certainly can use it against them, after all we're not really monitoring you, we are monitoring them.
If they are not terrorists, then you have nothing to worry about, your call will not be monitored. Its the Terrorist Surveillance Program, not the Signy Calling His Mommy Program. And if you choose not to believe that, then there is really no argument you will accept.
Quote:
Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)?
For what purpose? I'm no chemist, but if your purpose is benign, then any inadvertant monitoring does no harm.
Quote:
Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise?
Certainly you do. Go be all secure. You have my permission, not withstanding stop and frisk, plain sight, plain smell (for the local drug dog...he's a good boy, yes he is), etc.
Quote:
Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".
However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law
Actually the President has some very clearly defined war making powers. For example, he can confiscate property (sorry sir, we need you house for a command post), blow things up, draft all the coal miners (you cannot strike against the public interest), gather signals intellegence and monitor the communications of the enemy (Hello Mr. Signy from Rhode Island, I have a long distance call from a Mister Admiral Yamamoto for you calling to discuss the upcoming surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, will you accept the charges?).
These powers are implied and have been identified through precedents stretching all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion (the most fun rebellion we ever had).
Quote:
So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?
I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense. Purely domestic calls should require a warrant same as always.
Quote:
If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?
The authorizing legislation needs to be periodically revised to allow for changes in both technology and the efforts of the enemy to adapt their habits to better hide their activities. Kinda like moving the flashlight around to try and see all the corners.
I advise you check my thread on the ruling yesterday, but in the short, the ruling will fail on appeal because the petitioners lack standing to make a claim in that they have not been the subject of the program and thus suffered no harm (its like the bar claiming unfair harm from the State's DUI law). Also, I noted today that they apparently forum shopped to find a sypathetic judge and that one of the ACLU lawyers regularly represents accused terrorists and money launderers a fact he managed to both confirm and deny and seperate court filings.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is tehre any reason that these should be warrantless as well? Doesn't FISA provide for 72-hour after-the- fact warrant? Seems to me that if someone is a suspected terrorist then a FISA warrant should be easy to get... and historically they have been extremely easy. Also, yes, it seems as if this is in another thread. I'll move my questions there.
I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas. uote]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zero,
Let's see .....
I said: "I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders."
you said: Blah blah blah "Lets look at Lebanon for example. The UN urges...urges Lebanon disarm and deploys Peacekeepers to assist and by assist they mean do nothing as Iran and Syria .. blah blah blah"
I said: "The Brits had the 'suspects' under police surveillance for nearly a year. Germans ... money transfers
you said: "I pointed out the fallacy of relying on international action.
In actual fact I talked about police work, England, Germany, the ICC and US borders. You talked about the UN, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. And then you tried to shift your debate to cover up your error, by pretending I said the US should rely on the int'l community. What I actually said was coordinate. You've mistaken my posts for someone else's. In fact, you've mistaken your posts for someone else's. Please let me know when you're ready to debate me and not some phantom poster.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So anyway, here we are.
Quote:Waiting to see if there is enough evidence to charge anyone with aything. In the meantime, Zero, Unwrapped, et al are hysterically channeling Oh Really !, Limp-baugh, et al while US security - uncoordinated with allies, borders gaping open, and more people than ever pissed at the US - sinks deeper into unaddressed threat.
On Wednesday, a court gave permission for the (British) police to question 21 suspects until next Wednesday before filing charges, and until Monday for 2 others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Get back to me in a month or six weeks time and tell me how many of the 24 people so far arrested have actually been charged with an offence relating to terrorism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5273104.stm
Like this thread wasn't long enough already.
De-lurking to keep thread current.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME