USA: Police State? II

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 16:52
VIEWED: 11437
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6:11 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html?hp or
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/04/4304/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A German citizen who said he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency and tortured in a prison in Afghanistan lost his last chance to seek redress in court today when the Supreme Court declined to consider his case.
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071022hayden;_ylt=AimyHjcBj17ElEFO
h4ff5xGs0NUE
The Nation -- Like a sharp razor cutting through the fog of war, the New York Times headline reads, "Justice Dept. Said to Back Harshest Tactics After Declaring Torture Abhorrent."
The report could not be clearer. The Bush Justice Department has secretly authorized "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."
Simulated drowning. Fear of suffocation. Blows to the head. Naked men held in freezing cells. Sleep deprivation. Noise assaults.
All secretly legalized, from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib. Anything is permissible up to organ failure or death, or unless it "shocks the conscience."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007
100502492.html?hpid=topnews
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007
100502492.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09nsa.html?hp
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency ...
A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6:34 PM

ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

God! I just want to ram my head into a wall! It might feel better than reading this.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:09 PM

I've been reading the 'bury guns' thread.

I wonder how packing a pistol, or even a rifle, is going to do any good when the SWAT team outguns you and you get 'disappeared'.

All you supposed libertarians out there - you going to get up on your hind legs about this ??

***************************************************************
Never mind.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

God! I just want to ram my head into a wall! It might feel better than reading this.

You're right. A string of 9/11 attacks here and abroad would be FAR better than us getting stern w/ some foaming at the mouth terrorists.

I'm fully convinced now.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:41 PM

Auraptor, perhaps you haven't noticed that some of the folks tortured by "the system" were... ahhh.... innocent?

Yeah, that'll keep us safe alright: Torturing the innocent and creating a system where that happens w/o review and w/ impunity. Nice logic.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:49 PM

Rap

Perhaps you didn't read the part about the intelligence gatherers in WWII. About how well they did - using wits, not torture. And about how they decry the use of torture - to the point of one even refusing an award for his work. And of course, I'm sure you remember we won.

You don't have to BE the enemy to defeat them.

Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007
100502492.html?hpid=topnews
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:53 PM

A) Supreme Court Decision on CIA Kidnapping :
I DON'T CARE, BASTARD LIKELY DESERVED IT

B) Harsh Interrogation Techniques :
NOT HARSH ENOUGH, & I DON"T CARE

C) Nazi Interrogations 60 Years Ago :
WE GOT OUR NAZIS, THE RUSKIES GOT THEIRS

D) Telecom Co's. Immunity On Eavesdropping :
GOOD FOR THEM....THEY'RE HELPING SAVE AMERICAN LIVES

Calling America a Police State is dishonest, lazy, and utter garbage....you wanna see a real police state?...there's still plenty of them around : N. Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Iran, Syria, China, Singapore, etc etc. Go take a close look on your next vacation.

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:09 PM

Gee, I'd sure like to see some intelligent discussion around here.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:21 PM

It's scary how many neo-Nazis line up to shit on the Constitution.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:30 PM

Better to shit on it a little when needed, then to adhere to it as if it's an un-flexible FUCKING SUICIDE PACT.

ask Kennedy
ask FDR
ask Truman
ask Lincoln
ask Clinton
ask EVERY President.

AND...also Mr. Smegma....who the fuck are you to call anybody here Nazis? Are we back to that again? I got plenty of names to put into print here for all those that YOU don't consider neo-nazis

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:32 PM

"It's scary how many neo-Nazis line up to shit on the Constitution."
And how few freedom-lovers rise to defend it.

Hey - you libertarians out there - Do you think your guns are going to help you as your neighbors stand behind their curtains to spy on what's going on ? And later they'll say - gee I never would have guessed ... and much later they'll say ... hey whatever happened to ...

There are some things that need a mass response. Buying guns isn't going to help you one bit.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:35 PM

"Better to shit on it a little when needed" Yeah, the constitution makes great toilet paper.

Got anything intelligent to say ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:36 PM

To quote from one of YOUR recent INTELLIGENT posts Rue...GO Fuck Yourself!....How's that? Intelligent enuf?

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:55 PM

It's your exact style. Why would I expect anything different ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:57 PM

Frem, Veteran, SergeantX, CTS, 6-string - anything ?

***************************************************************
Freedom: gone, not even with a bang or a whimper ...

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 9:09 PM

Quote:
Better to shit on it a little when needed, then to adhere to it as if it's an un-flexible FUCKING SUICIDE PACT.

Yes, because torturing innocent people and spying on 35 million Americans is a GREAT way to fight terrorism! HEY! I have an idea! Why don't we grab Jongsstraw and string him/her up as a warning? That'll work for sure against them terrorists! 'Cause grabbing people at random off the streets... that's powerful, man.

But if you want an argument that hits closer to home: Hillary Clinton, Imperial President.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 11:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor, perhaps you haven't noticed that some of the folks tortured by "the system" were... ahhh.... innocent?

Yeah, that'll keep us safe alright: Torturing the innocent and creating a system where that happens w/o review and w/ impunity. Nice logic.

No, I've not noticed ANYONE being 'tortured', by the system or otherwise.

Quote:
Yes, because torturing innocent people and spying on 35 million Americans is a GREAT way to fight terrorism! HEY! I have an idea! Why don't we grab Jongsstraw and string him/her up as a warning? That'll work for sure against them terrorists! 'Cause grabbing people at random off the streets... that's powerful, man.

I'm at a loss as to where anyone was 'tortured', and exactly where do you get the stats that 35 MILLION Americans were spied on ? Who the hell could possibly waste the man power or even HAVE the man power in the 1st place to spy on that many people? That's enough to fill up a stadium holding 100,000 people 350 times. Is that 35 million people every year? Since 9/11 ? Are each and every one of them different individuals, with no repeaters?

I think you're living in fantasy land.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 11:53 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html?hp or
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/04/4304/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A German citizen who said he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency and tortured in a prison in Afghanistan lost his last chance to seek redress in court today when the Supreme Court declined to consider his case.
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.

***************************************************************
The STATE is all, and we are ... as nothing.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:59 AM

Apparently Auraptor's eyes kinda stop working when they slide over that word. A sort of selective pattern non-recognition.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:14 AM

Hello,

Guns. What good can guns possibly do against SWAT teams? What good can guns possibly do when National Guardsmen are mobilized against you? Do you really think you can overpower the U.S. government?

No. You can't beat SWAT teams. You can't beat the National Guard. You can't overpower the U.S. government.

So what good are guns?

I draw your attention to WACO. To Ruby Ridge. To events of armed resistance that drew the nation's eyes and ears.

I do not intend to paint these people as noble revolutionaries. I know little about their personal philosophies. I do know that they used arms in a defiant stand against the government, and I know that the entire nation took note. I also know that these people lost. They did not launch successful rebellions. They died or were forced to surrender.

But they also forced us to look.

If it comes down to rebellion against the government, the idea is that we will have dozens, perhaps hundreds of similar incidents. Different people in different places. People shooting cops and FBI agents and getting shot in return. Scores of people dying in acts of unthinkable defiance.

The government will either re-think itself at this point, due to public pressure, or it will react with even greater restrictions.

If it reacts with greater restrictions, it will inspire further defiance. More people pushed to their limit. More incidents of the unthinkable.

And again they will either re-think, or tighten their grip.

And either the entire nation will become an intolerable prison, or the strength of public opinion will sway us in the opposite direction. Public massacres of rioting civilians and other similar events might help. Eventually, police officers, FBI agents, and National Guardsmen may take exception to slaughtering their neighbors wholesale.

I hope so.

The real question is, What good are guns if you don't use them?

No good at all.

Everyone has their own breaking point. Usually it happens whenever a person decides that all peaceful means of resistance and influencing the system have failed or will fail. Then they have to use the toilet or exit the restroom.

Many people, reaching this point, will do nothing. They will decide to suffer in silence rather than become agents of violent rebellion. Not everyone has it in them to kill. Not everyone will willingly put themselves into harm's way.

Other people, reaching this point, will pick up a weapon. These are the people who will most assuredly die. Their blood would become the price that is universally exacted for Freedom.

I hope none of this occurs. I hope we turn things around politically. I hope the nation can somehow repair itself.

But I worry. Don't you?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:48 AM

"If it comes down to rebellion against the government, the idea is that we will have dozens, perhaps hundreds of similar incidents."

And what if it doesn't make the news ? That's what happened in Argentina. People just disappeared. No one knew where. The government said nothing. The papers said nothing. There was a wall of silence.

Or worse, what if you have people like Hero and Rap and Jong saying 'well, they must have done something to deserve' - the taser, the sneak and peek, the phone tap, the disappearance, the torture ...

One person with a gun, even a tank, is not going to stop this. Not even a hundred people will. Nothing will stop this until people COOPERATE with each other.

Then I read the posts here, where people are SO reluctant to cooperate with ANYONE - even in defense of their freedoms. They'd rather (and pardon if I sound critical) retreat to their fantasy world of cowboys and Indians - or is it cops are robbers ?

John/ Jane Q Public will, as I said - hide behind their curtains, looking to see what's up. Wondering what's going on. And a few years later maybe they'll be wondering - whatever happened to ...

So why does anyone here think people are going to stand up for them - or with them ? If they themselves won't stand up together ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:05 AM

Hello,

I don't know. I'm willing to cooperate. You got a plan?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:09 AM

Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...

***************************************************************
... polish my gun, and feel all heroic.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Frem, Veteran, SergeantX, CTS, 6-string - anything ?

***************************************************************
Freedom: gone, not even with a bang or a whimper ...

I do. I don't think we are a police state yet. I will say our liberties are being eroded as I type this...the time is coming. Guns will help stop this Rue...trust me.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...

***************************************************************
... polish my gun, and feel all heroic.

Funny the best thing the ACLU(actually ex-head of ACLU) did was put out the video..."Busted: how to SURVIVE a police encounter".........

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:28 AM

" WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A German citizen, Khaled el-Masri , who said he was kidnapped.......blah blah blah"

Quote:
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.

I'm glad someone is standing up for the good guys. About damn time.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:38 AM

DANG ! I was going to PM a few people to say that's what you'd say. Too bad I didn't have the time.

Let me ask you this - if there was no apparatus, no kidnapping, rendition and torture - and he wasn't a terrorist (seeing as how they let him go) - what state secrets could POSSIBLY be revealed by bringing this to trial ?

***************************************************************
And I'd like you explain how it is the 'good guys' have dirty secrets to hide.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
DANG ! I was going to PM a few people to say that's what you'd say. Too bad I didn't have the time.

Let me ask you this - if there was no apparatus, no kidnapping, rendition and torture - and he wasn't a terrorist (seeing as how they let him go) - what state secrets could POSSIBLY be revealed by bringing this to trial ?

I dunno. Guess that's why they call them SECRETS, now isn't it ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

HARDWARE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've been reading the 'bury guns' thread.

I wonder how packing a pistol, or even a rifle, is going to do any good when the SWAT team outguns you and you get 'disappeared'.

All you supposed libertarians out there - you going to get up on your hind legs about this ??

***************************************************************
Never mind.

Rue,
Please read the US Army's counterinsurgency handbook and quoting from Nathan Bedford Forrest, hit 'em where they ain't.

I'm not going to quote anything, but the information is out there. Oddly enough, published by our own government.

And yes, they outnumber a few of us, but they don't outnumber all of us. Planes have to land. Tanks need fuel. Ships need to call at port. And servicemen and women need food.

Will hundreds of thousands die? Probably. Will the survivors live free? Undoubtedly, for a time. Until the next government forgets and has to be taken to school.

Whining about it isn't going to do any good. Sooner or later you're gonna have to decide whether to fish or cut bait. Choice is up to you.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:17 AM

Rap

"dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets."

That's an admission - that they DID something with him that's a state secret. Something about kidnapping, rendition and torure.

***************************************************************
And you - jeez what a shit-covered coward you are.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

"dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets."

That's an admission - that they DID something with him that's a state secret. Something about kidnapping, rendition and torure.

***************************************************************
And you - jeez what a shit-covered coward you are.

That doesn't nescessarily follow. Lot's of things that might come up in trial could be considered secret even if they actually never actually tortured him. I would assume that to challenge his case names/places/techniques would have to be revealed. Since disclosing those facts may effect national security they are refusing. That doesnt mean that they tortured him, just that they don't want to say how they operate. If you look into the way the Whitehouse operates you will see they tend to mark almost everything as secret unless forced to do otherwise. My guess is that the butt-clench reaction to any questioning of presidential authority is to label it secret even though that may not even be in their own best interest.

It's a little like the right to remain silent, in theory you have that right and it shouldnt be construde to be an admission of guilt and in fact you may not be guilty however it does make you look guilty.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:24 AM

"I would assume that to challenge his case names/places/techniques would have to be revealed."

But the judges didn't reject it on the basis of merit, which they could have. If they had said it had no merit then you might have a point.

They rejected it b/c they felt a greater good would be served by keeping state secrets.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:25 AM

Alas, for me, Rue - it's a dead letter issue.

To truly comprehend what I mean by that, you have to understand that I have seen this coming all the way back to the early 1980's, chapter and verse - and have been banging this little drum ever since, only to be ignored, mocked, and shouted down by prettymuch everyone.

And so when many of those people who did that come back to me a couple years later, after it's too fuckin LATE to do anything about what I was bitching about at the time...
(I fucking TOLD THEM the Patriot Act would never be sunset, but no...)

Do you really think I have much sympathy for the very folks who *could* have stopped such things, or at least sandbagged em a while, who then chose instead to ridicule the people trying to stop it, while helping it along ? would you ?

Especially when, after finding themselves somehow on the recieving end of shit that only happens to "other people" cause in their little fucking plastic bubble, they're the hero of the story, you know... they come to you and ask you what to do ?

Would you TRUST them, not just to take your advice, but with your plans, your freedom and your life ? or would you expect them to flee at the first sign of any *personal* risk, to betray you in a heartbeat if they thought that would protect them ?

And so I tell em all the same thing - Buy a weapon, get some ammo, and hope you die well when your time comes around.

The hell if imma detail my TETOWAKI plans, sorry, but the folk on the short end of the stick these days - they dug their own grave, and probably mine beside it.

So fuck em, let em reap the bitter harvest they themselves have sown, and maybe they'll find some mercy and forgiveness in whatever afterlife they favor, cause they damned sure won't get none from me.

For mine own, I've no intention whatsoever of being a futile martyr to a cause no one seems willing to accept if it costs them anything, so mostly I'd be jamming up the works in a manner that leads them to suspect each other, resulting in what, due to the fear and paranoia of such types, will amount to a circular firing squad.

But no, I've no intent whatsoever to risk my neck to save the very cowardly snivelling bastards who put us in this position - if that's what your asking.

On the other hand, my free advice is worth everything ya paid for it, and you needs but ask to have it.

I just wanted to make it 100% sure and clear where I stand on this up front, ok ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:29 AM

Oh, and I have a nasty question apropos of nothing - how many of you think that Rap wouldn't turn one of us in if he 'felt' justified ?

***************************************************************
Collaborators - what would a police state be without them ?

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:31 AM

Frem

I've been criticizing the Patriot Act ever since when. It's a thankless task. Either people feel that it won't touch them or they feel political action is beneath them. Because, by god, they have a GUN.

***************************************************************
Can you think of nothing else to do but Custer's last stand ?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:42 AM

Well, I have to go collect the drunks and run em home, lemme think on this a bit and if advice is what you desire, you'll get it.

Provided another SUV pushing cell phone yakker doesn't finish the job the first one started, my back is still killin me, here.

-F

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.

Bullshit. It's routine in fed court to have scumbag govt informants testify without revealing their identities. That's why the feds unconstitutionally ban all videocams and photography in fed courts. Judges routinely run star chambers with secret govt files in camera, sealed under court order. The "state secret" is that torture is only good for coercing false confessions for false flag psyops, according to CIA agents.

However, I support torture. Arrest the White House NOW!

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG

My interview with General, er, Colonel Janis Karpinski, ex commander of Abu Ghraib, plus hidden audiotape of 40 minutes of Police State death squad torturing US citizen in USA:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3386531596598980684&hl=en

I'd pay good money to see the hanging of George DWI Bush. And Rupert Murdoch. Or death by waterboarding. No trial required, per U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

"How can I get the Captain to shoot a cop in the face, and make it right? That extra moment of sadism - that's the thing that says it's okay, buddy, you're not up to spec, you're going down!"
-Joss the Boss, Firefly DVD, censored Episode 1 "Serenity"

FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html

Does that seem right to you?
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair/

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:48 AM

duo

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I would assume that to challenge his case names/places/techniques would have to be revealed."

But the judges didn't reject it on the basis of merit, which they could have. If they had said it had no merit then you might have a point.

They rejected it b/c they felt a greater good would be served by keeping state secrets.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Chances are that they were not told any of the facts either. All you would need would be a compelling legal argument that the topic if discussed at trial would produce information usefull to an enemy. This ruling is proceedural they never got as far as considering it's merits. For them to say, "no you cant proceed because you are lying" means they have heard and examined the facts for the first time in court -- which isnt something the supreme court does, it essentially oversees decisions made in lower courts.

The government said in effect "this should not go to trial because of national security issues" and "proved" that simple fact they probably never even discussed the nature of the complaint.

Think on it like this. Imagine a DA wants to try a kid as an adult. He goes before a judge in the higher court and says he wants to charge the kid, the judge looks and sees that it's unconstitutional in that state for a child that young to be tried as an adult so he bops it back down to family court. In doing so he says nothing about the merits of the case or if anyone was guilty or not, all he's saying is that on this point of proceedure the adult court has no juristiction. Same deal here, all the gov had to do was prove to SOTUS that the case had national security issues and that a law exists somewhere that lets them avoid bringing it to trial, not that the complain has merit either way.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:04 AM

Not really. But I have a teen up at all hours I need to attend. to.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

"dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets."

That's an admission - that they DID something with him that's a state secret. Something about kidnapping, rendition and torure.

It's not an admission of any such thing. Just that it was dismissed for the reasons listed above. That's it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:28 AM

For now I'll just repost this from the gun thread (original from SignyM)

BERLIN — A Munich court has ordered the arrest of 13 U.S. intelligence operatives in connection with the kidnapping and beating of a German citizen who was interrogated for five months at a secret prison in Afghanistan, prosecutors announced today.

The suspects belong to a CIA-sponsored team that allegedly flew Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, from Macedonia to Afghanistan in January 2004. Each of the accused, all but one of whom were identified only by aliases, were charged with kidnapping and causing serious bodily harm. Police found a "strong suspicion" that the operatives were involved in el-Masri's disappearance, said a statement released by the Munich prosecutor's office. "According to the information we have, the suspects listed in the arrest warrants are believed to be so-called code names of CIA agents. The investigation will now focus on learning the actual names of the suspects."

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/CIA-al-Masri-Kidnap31jan07.htm

***************************************************************
Stick that up your butt, Rap. And don't think I didn't notice that you only posted after I said I was busy. Shit-covered coward.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:29 AM

And Fletch,

I'm not done with you either.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ARCLIGHT

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:20 PM

"...A German citizen who said..."
Lotta folk can say a lotta things, don't make it so. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team?

Graba Arab prison torture? Don't think so. More like college frat boyz hazing stunts.

If the United States Of America were a police state Barbra Streisand would not be free to walk the streets. Oh, but she moved out ot the country didn't she.

Man made Global warming. It's not just a lie, it's a damn convenient lie.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:33 PM

Well gosh, I guess Arc goes on my list too.

Rap, and Fletch and Arc - you seem to think that a lawyer would go before a federal judge and say - well, my client said so and it's good enough for me. And your further assume that a case like that would make it all the way to the supreme court. A case like that wouldn't even get in front of Judge Judy.

Do you know what happens when cases like that go before a judge ? They get dismissed - with prejudice. (I hope you know what that means.) And the US government wouldn't even have to present their side, let alone argue 'state secrets'.

The fact that the case was good enough where the US government HAD to argue 'state secrets' should be telling you something. The case had merit, the court had standing. What was ruled on was that government state secrets are more important than justice for an innocent man who was kidnapped, taken to Afghanistan, and tortured - with US government complicity.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:13 PM

Bush pushes for telecom immunity
AP - 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=Al7o3yg9ZNHm.IRZyPV5s5Ws0NUE

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:17 PM

Ok few factoids. First, something going to SOTUS does not mean that it's a big deal, for every "Roe V Wade" there are several dozen minor proceedural questions that get appealed up the chain of courts until it reaches SOTUS. Hell Anna Nicole Smith had her day before the courts and the decision they made had nothing to do with the merits of her inheritance case but if a judge in California could rule on a will filed in Texas. That was it, just that narrow legal question that could come up anywhere or any time.

Things we KNOW as facts. Rendition happens, the EU has records to prove that it does. The CIA holds people in friendly states to avoid having to work within the US system. That's proven and should be enough for anyone.

That does not mean that this guy's accusations have merit and that isn't what SOTUS ruled on. All the government said was that discussing the techniques used --- which they would have to do to refute the case, benefits the enemy.

If "torture" consisted of playing 12 straight hours of Barry Manilow records (oh the horror) and they would rather not let the world know that they would tell the judge the exact technique was secret. That does not mean they are admiting to the guy's claims they roasted his goolies for 3 hours.

Look at it this way. Assume before Cheyne/Libby et al outted her Valerie Plame ended up on a witness list for a trial. As a CIA operative the government can and probably would ask for her to be removed on national security grounds not nescesarily because she knew something but because her being in court could identify her as a CIA operative and that fact is a national secret.

If the guy sueing was intent to name names the same rule would apply. So no, it's not an admission that this guy's specific accuations are true just that in going to court they would have to reveal stuff they dont want to.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:38 PM

You keep saying over and over that all the supreme court did was uphold the lower courts on procedural terms. Big deal. You keep avoiding the decisions of the lower courts.

The lower courts did NOT dismiss the case for lack of merit or lack of jurisdiction. That has meaning which you refuse to address.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You keep saying over and over that all the supreme court did was uphold the lower courts on procedural terms. Big deal. You keep avoiding the decisions of the lower courts.

The lower courts did NOT dismiss the case for lack of merit or lack of jurisdiction. That has meaning which you refuse to address.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

No. You miss the point. The government decided it has a blanket power to avoid going to trial on the grounds of national security. That's a trump card, it goes before anyone decides if the case has merit or not. My understanding is that this is a civil action. Civil Suits are not vetted for validity, that's a decision for the courts. For Gods sake people sue Apple because the Iphone they bought broke after they themselves changed the software. You live in America, I could sue you for anything you say here. The fact that I sue does not automatically imply that what I say has merit, that's the decision the court makes.

Now assume that like the government Rue has the power to dismiss the action on proceedural grounds. Now imagine that you always use it for any suit brought against you irrespective of content -- which is the case here. The fact that Rue uses her "get out of jail free card" the moment I file my case doesn't mean that my case has merit, it just means she has a legal excuse she can use and so she does.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:40 PM

Me: Your honour in my complaint I charge that Elvis Aaron Presley is alive. That in the late 1970's the US government replaced his body with that of a clone and that he now lives in Fort Mead Maryland at the headquarters of the NSA. To prove my case I need to supenna staff members of the NSA and conduct a search of lvl 15 of the Maryland site.

Government: Your honour this charge is rediculous and baseless. The government has no intention of allowing employees of one of our secret intelligence services to appear in open court. Persuant to article X of Y any information pursuant to the Fort Mead location or it's employees is a state secret and we move to have this case struck on the grounds of national security.

Rue. OMG THE KING LIVES!!!! The gov wouldn't have pulled the national security card it he didn't!!!

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:56 PM

"(National Security) (i)s a trump card, it goes before anyone decides if the case has merit or not."

Not true. There is a pre-hearing where Judges dismiss civil cases that are without merit. It's their perogative. Anyone can sue but not every case goes forward.

Fletch: Your honour in my complaint I charge that Elvis Aaron Presley is alive. That in the late 1970's the US government replaced his body with that of a clone and that he now lives in Fort Mead Maryland at the headquarters of the NSA. To prove my case I need to supenna staff members of the NSA and conduct a search of lvl 15 of the Maryland site.

Judge: This case is without merit and is dismissed.

(PS for a civil suit you need to show harm. The rule is - no harm, no foul.)

---------------------------------------

Plaintiff: Your honor, my client was kidnapped, rendered to a foreign country, tortured and released. We have evidence from German police and security that my client was subject to this with US CIA complicity.

Judge: your case has merit, and it's within my jurisdiction. The US must answer the complaint.

US: Judge, to answer these charges would compel the government to reveal state secrets. This case must be dismissed in the interests of national security.

Judge: I rule that this case must be dismissed on the grounds that to try the facts of the case would jeopardize national interests.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:05 PM

So I take it everyone is OK with warrantless government phone snooping ? Look around at the next 9 people you see. One of you DID HAVE your phone calls traced.

And everyone is OK with warrantless tracking of their financial transactions ?

With warrantless phone taps on their phones ?

With data-bases of personal information ?

With 'enemy combatant' designations at the Bush's discretion ?

With lack of habeus corpus ?

With random government snooping on its own citizens ?

With 'free speech' zones ?

With the government photographing, identifying and monitoring anyone taking part in a march or protest ?

Going once, going twice ...

***************************************************************
SOLD ! a bill of goods to the gutless Browncoats !

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:21 PM

Germany isn't the only country that has arrested CIA agents for "rendering" people for torture.

Italy has done the same, arresting 13 Americans, mostly CIA agents, for "rendering" Hassan Nasr to Egypt for torture.

Quote:
he had been abducted and taken to Egypt, where he said he was tortured and injured so badly that he lost his hearing in one ear. He made the phone call after being released because of what the prosecutors' statement termed a ''deteriorating physical condition... The United States has acknowledged that renditions have taken place but has declined to discuss specific individual cases or reveal how many transfers have occurred.

www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/25/italy_judge_seeks
_arrest_of_alleged_cia_agents/

British resident Bisher al-Rawi, was "rendered" from Gambia in 2002 to Aghanistan by the CIA. The original purpose of his flight was to set up a peanut oil factory in cooperation with his brother, who was already in Gambia. After having been transfered through several prisons, he has been held in Guantanamo FOR FIVE YEARS w/o charges on apparently phonied suspicion.
www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2137255,00.html

A Canadian engineer Maher Arar, later found innocent of all suspicion, was kidnapped from JFK airport in 2002 and sent to Syria

Quote:
The pain was so unbearable, he said, that “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.”

www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

The CIA has reportedly rendered hundreds of people suspected to third-party states such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. ...A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated one hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture

The simplest gloss of headlines over the past few years should have alerted you all to the acknowledged FACT that the CIA kidnaps people and takes them to other countries for torture. And while some of these people are radical Muslims, some of them are innocent of all suspicion. Please don't continue the argument about whether people are "rendered" or "tortured" as the answer to both questions is an undeniable "yes".

The question we should be focusing on is whether or not the various programs: extraordinary rendition and torture, warrantless eavesdropping, indefinite detention, etc etc. should have judicial oversight... and if not, why not.

So far, all I've heard is the squealings of frightened little boys.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:53 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist _surveillance;_ylt=AthlyBeCa8Julb78tF_zEWCs0NUE

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

On 1 in every 10 americans.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The lower courts did NOT dismiss the case for lack of merit or lack of jurisdiction. That has meaning which you refuse to address.

Legally it has no meaning. If those issues were not addressed then there is nothing to argue, no case to be made, no evidence to be examined, and no decision upon those issues to be attacked.

Its like a dead ball foul in football. You snap the ball, drop back, roll left, throw, the ball is caught for a touchdown. Now questions of whether you were over the line of scrimmage before the throw, whether the receiver had possession, whether he was in bounds, whether the Defender had illegal contact, whether there was contact out of bounds...they all don't matter because the play is whistled dead at the snap.

You can have the best case in the world, with all the evidence you'd ever need, but if you miss a deadline, or its a collateral attack, or the wrong defendant, or the case is moot or any one of a hundred tiny little things that they pay me big money to avoid, your case is over BEFORE it starts.

In this case the fella had little admissable evidence and was likely on some sort of a fishing expedition. I note for the record that this is not the first time a case like this has come up since 9/11.

H

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:24 PM

"In this case the fella had little admissable evidence"

Now there you go again, mistaking your propaganda for fact. German authorities arrested and are trying 11 CIA operatives for this exact case. No evidence ?? Bullshit.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:28 PM

You would think Hero would be on the German prosecutors' side, seeing as they have so much in common.

So, to get back to the question of whether or not renditions, eavesdropping, and indefinite detention should have SOME sort of review the Democrats proposed this:

Quote:
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.

Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.

If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.

Eh? See, no problem. The government gest to do it's eavesdropping, and a program comes under review. It's not the BEND OVER OR DIE!!!!! Jack-Bauer-type scenario that some people seem fixated on.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So I take it everyone is OK with warrantless government phone snooping ? Look around at the next 9 people you see. One of you DID HAVE your phone calls traced.

It depends on the circumstances. I favor monitoring the calls, but I don't necessarily agree with having all of the phone calls admissable in court. That requires scrutiny. In a perfect world we could stop the terrorist attack AND use the phone call as evidence...but if I have to choose one or the other, I think we should stop the attack and maybe find some other evidence to use in court.

Quote:

And everyone is OK with warrantless tracking of their financial transactions ?

Have you noticed all the credit card applications you get...I've got news for you, your already being traced.

Quote:

With warrantless phone taps on their phones ?

I got news for you again...if all our phones are tapped then it would take tens of millions of people to monitor those conversations. Hmm...maybe thats what India is really up to...

Quote:

With data-bases of personal information ?

Like the BMV, they have your SSN and with that all your secrets are open.

Quote:

With 'enemy combatant' designations at the Bush's discretion ?

Thats only necessary because we're at war and the pansy liberal judges and lawyers don't seem to understand that. We'd never have needed new legally ambiguous designations if we'd have been allowed proper use of the traditional ones. We would not need to work around you folks if you'd get out of the way.

Quote:

With lack of habeus corpus ?

Missed that one. What lack? I habeus corpus all the time.

Quote:

With random government snooping on its own citizens ?

My government monitor just IM'd me on this one and said its not happening. Nothing "random" anyway. Except those of us "randomly" calling known terrorists.

Quote:

With 'free speech' zones ?

What's your problem with free speech? Personally, I'm in favor of free speech...perhaps we differ on this point.

Quote:

With the government photographing, identifying and monitoring anyone taking part in a march or protest ?

Nobody is forcing you to march and protest. Your in public, the point is to be both seen and heard. I don't see why your upset that the govt. is seeing and hearing you.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:40 PM

Quote:
Thats only necessary because we're at war and the pansy liberal judges and lawyers don't seem to understand that. We'd never have needed new legally ambiguous designations if we'd have been allowed proper use of the traditional ones. We would not need to work around you folks if you'd get out of the way.

More squealing? I'll bet you can't find ONE instance in which a "terrorist" was let go because of a "pansy" judge.

ALSO

Quote:
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.

Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.

If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.

See? It's so easy to be reasonable. Unless of course you're ... not.

---------------------------------
BEND OVER OR DIE!!!!!

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:34 PM

"I favor monitoring the calls" of 1 in every 10 ordinary Americans who are not suspect and have done nothing wrong ? Isn't there some kind of law or something about unreasonable search and seizure and probable cause ? I know I read it somewhere - now where could that be ???

"warrantless tracking of their financial transactions" ... "Have you noticed all the credit card applications you get...I've got news for you, your already being traced." But that's by corporations who are super-people in our system. It's their right. I'm talking about by the federal government. I keep thinking there's something about that ... it's right there at the edge of my memory ...

"if all our phones are tapped then it would take tens of millions of people to monitor those conversations" Uh, you're from this century, aren't you ?

Quote:

"the Department of Homeland Security, over the last several years, has been secretly compiling detailed records of the travel activities of American citizens and assigning "risk assessment" ratings based on a whole slew of related information it collects and stores -- assessments which citizens have no right to review and which will be maintained by the U.S. Government for the next 40 years"

"that USA Today revealed earlier this year that the NSA continues to compile comprehensive records of every telephone number which every person inside the U.S. calls, every telephone number from which they receive calls, and the duration of the calls."

"Total Information Awareness" followed by

"A forthcoming government database will compile information from all federal agencies and the private sector on people deemed possible terrorist threats, President Bush said Tuesday evening.

Bush used his State of the Union address to announce the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), a mammoth data-collection project intended to fuse information collected domestically by police and internationally by spy agencies."

"With lack of habeas corpus" if you're designated an enemy combatant. You DO read the news. Right ?

"Like the BMV, they have your SSN and with that all your secrets are open." But the information stays out of the federal government's hands until the government decides to compile all your information in one place. My grandma, what a big database you have. The better to track you with my dear. My grandma, what a big dick you are. The better to screw you, my dear.

"Free speech zones" which restrict people's rights to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:53 PM

Rap, Jong, Fletch, Hero - the usuals, and Arclight.

Sigh.

What do you all have against freedom ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:09 PM

Actually nothing, you will note that I mentioned the rendition secret prisons and the whole deal. However every time you do 2+2=5 I feel forced to call you on it. The US clasifying this case does NOT mean that everything the complainant says is gospel, which seems to be your argument, it just means that the government has decided to claim national security, which incidentally this administration does for just about everything.

If you came here and said. The CIA frequently sends folks to it's own fascilities in 3rd countries for interigation and occasionally hands folks over to other countries where there is a risk of physical torture, you would not hear one argument from me, there is evidence in multiple places to prove that. However to decide that everything THIS complaint says MUST be true because the government doesnt want the case heard is a logical error, the government doesnt want ANY national security cases heard in court. Like I said if you could make a case that Elvis is alive that has security overtones the gov will squash that, it doesnt mean the King is alive and well and shopping at Walmart.

LEADB

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:57 PM

Rue,
I'm feeling a bit 'off today', so maybe my thinking isn't entirely clear; however, there's a huge difference between someone saying 'Elvis lives' and having the case tossed as frivolous; and the judge not calling it frivolous but just because it has some merit doesn't mean it is true.

For instance, the German dude might have 4 people who say, 'Yeh, he suddenly went missing' and heck, perhaps he was arrested and held somewhere for the time being incommunicado; but that doesn't mean he'd -win- the civil case, it just means the judge is prepared to give him a day in court... until the US says 'it involves state secrets' and they say so sorry, too bad.

What I don't see is a solution to this. Obviously, we can't force the government to reveal it's legitimate secrets, but I'm decidedly getting to the point where it seems the Fedgov is abusing the power. If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust. And then, what if the verdict in and of itself would by it's nature reveal a secret. I'm very interested to see where the German court ends up on this.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap, Jong, Fletch, Hero - the usuals, and Arclight.

Sigh.

What do you all have against freedom ?

I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:07 AM

Fletch

What I've been saying is that just b/c the court tossed it due to 'state secrets' doesn't mean it's invalid - as Rap claims.

But I also think that one can read more into it. It COULD have been tossed as frivolous. It wasn't. Therefore, there was enough merit to bring it to trial. And IF it was brought to trial the government COULD have claimed that the complainant and they had nothing to do with each other, therefore they were innocent of his complaints. They wouldn't have to delve into their operations IF those operations had nothing to do with the lawsuit. But the government didn't go that way and chose to claim 'state secrets' instead.

See where this is leading ?

LeadB
"If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust."

That's what the FISA courts do. It's not impossible.

Edited to add - FISA was re-written over a dozen times to give more authority and more flexibility to the secret investigation process before 9/11. The government had the power to tap, to trace, to search ... to do whatever they needed to do when they needed to do it as long as they went to the FISA court 72 hours AFTER their actions.

Bush doesn't want ANY review. EVER. Not even by a secret court that doesn't turn the government down or reveal secret information. He wants to be able to invesigate anyone, at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all. In secret and without any accounting.

What does that say about your liberties - to be presumed innocent, to be free of search and seizure except for probable cause ? To peacefully gather and petition ? Those rights have been hosed by the administration.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:19 AM

Quote:
I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.

So, you gonna apologize to the 350 million non-terrorists for stomping on their rights? It seems to me that in your fear of terrorists and your zeal to find them you wind up treating everyone like a terrorist. Does that seem right to you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:22 AM

"freedom for terrorists to do as they please"

Your posts reek of cowardice.

You'd rather the entire country be under investigation to assuage your fears.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have a big problem with freedom for terrorists to do as they please. Not gonna apologize for that to anyone, anywhere, under any cirucmstances. Not ever.
So, you gonna apologize to the 350 million non-terrorists for stomping on their rights? It seems to me that in your fear of terrorists and your zeal to find them you wind up treating everyone like a terrorist. Does that seem right to you?

One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.

rue - You're the coward who doesn't want to face the reality of those out there who want to kill you, your love ones and all they stand for.

Pathetic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:33 AM

Rap - perhaps you failed to read things like - every phone call is traced by the government and the data stored. Doesn't that infringe on freedom of assembly, innocent until proven guilty and freedom from unreasonsable search and seizure unless for probable cause ?

Or are those liberties that everyone USED to enjoy mere trifles to you ?

I'm really curious how you can justify this to everyone here on the board. Feel free ...

***************************************************************
At your leisure ...

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:59 AM

Quote:
One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.

So have you actually read The Constitution lately? Aside from the rather general instrusion into privacy on a good sampling of the population (and Bush's insistence that he has the right to snoop into anyone's phone conversaiton no matter what) what about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows people to be detained indefinitely with no charges, no review, and no legal recourse? Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
One small problem. None of their rights have been stomped on. So your question is moot.
So have you actually read The Constitution lately? Aside from the rather general instrusion into privacy on a good sampling of the population (and Bush's insistence that he has the right to snoop into anyone's phone conversaiton no matter what) what about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows people to be detained indefinitely with no charges, no review, and no legal recourse? Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

Nope. Not true. Sampling of phone conversations with KNOWN or SUSPECTED terrorist on phon calls OUTSIDE OUR COUNTRY. This isn't nearly as complicated as you're trying to make it out to be.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:03 AM

This peripherally brings up a couple of interesting questions. What I want are honest answers, not an ideal perfect world view or a slip into political dogma.

1) Do you think that the abuse of foreigners abroad by US intelligence REALLY worries middle American middle class Soccer Moms and Nascar dads. I'm not talking the chattering classes or the political junkies, I'm talking about your average Joe. If you said "we had to torture this Saudi national because that was the only way we coulod keep America safe how many would accept that? To what extent is the "Jack Bauer" effect part of the American consensus.

2) As a hyperthetical. Subject Ali has information about a 9/11 scale attack you know will kill 3000+ Americans. Technical means have failed and the only way to get the information is torture -- and I mean the nasty 3rd world kind before anyone uses hazing as an analogy. If you knew 100% before time that this would make him crack and avert the plot would you do it or would you let 3000 of your fellow citizens die. Would your opinion be different if your wife/mother/children where in the target zone?

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap - perhaps you failed to read things like - every phone call is traced by the government and the data stored. Doesn't that infringe on freedom of assembly, innocent until proven guilty and freedom from unreasonsable search and seizure unless for probable cause ?

Or are those liberties that everyone USED to enjoy mere trifles to you ?

I'm really curious how you can justify this to everyone here on the board. Feel free ...

...

I'm not paranoid, as you are. EVERY phone call traced ? WTF does that exactly mean? We knew of the Carnivore program going on under Clinton, but gee oh golly, no one seemed to care then. Wonder why they care now ? Hmmm.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:28 AM

And if you go back through my posts you will see me lambasting Carnivore as well - even years after the fact. Gee, how did that slip by you ?

"The FBI describes Carnivore as a "well-focused" system that has been used in only a small number of cases: 16 this year, including six criminal and 10 national security investigations. Each case, however, could involve dozens of wiretaps. The FBI didn't offer details." And the program - eventually abandoned.

At the time the repubicans were all twisted about it.

And Bush's programs now which are a vast expansion of anything ever done by the Clinton administration ? By, for example, tracing every phone call WITHIN the US - they don't even merit a yawn.

So, can you respond to the question I posed or are you going to bob and weave on the entire topic ?

The question - if I may remind you - is how you justify the loss of recent freedoms such as presumed innocent, assembly, and freedom from search and seizure, to all of us here.

Any time you're ready ...

***************************************************************
And yes - it's EVERY domestic phone call traced.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:46 AM

Fletch

For someone who's looking for 'honest' answers you sure are stacking the questions. If you get any anwers at all what you'll get are hyper-focused distorted hypothetical ones that have no bearing on what people 'honestly' think.

***************************************************************
And my opinion - I don't approve of torture. First of all, it doesn't work. That's a big flaw in your argument. Second of all, torture is used to gain admission of guilt, not information. That means anyone for whom there isn't enough solid evidence is liable to being tortured - and that includes all innocent people. Me, or you, or my family. And finally, torture's most efficient use is to spread fear and keep people compliant.

So the question isn't - would I approve of torture for one? It's a question - how many people will be tortured ? And what will that do to our freedoms ?

LEADB

Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB
"If you had a judge who could review the facts in such a way as to not reveal secrets? But then you'd need a judge both sides could trust."

That's what the FISA courts do. It's not impossible.

Sorry, I have a cold or something... at one point I heard about FISA, and since forgot.

Quote:

Edited to add - FISA was re-written over a dozen times to give more authority and more flexibility to the secret investigation process before 9/11. The government had the power to tap, to trace, to search ... to do whatever they needed to do when they needed to do it as long as they went to the FISA court 72 hours AFTER their actions.

Bush doesn't want ANY review. EVER. Not even by a secret court that doesn't turn the government down or reveal secret information. He wants to be able to invesigate anyone, at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all. In secret and without any accounting.

Does seem to be the case.

Quote:

What does that say about your liberties - to be presumed innocent, to be free of search and seizure except for probable cause ? To peacefully gather and petition ? Those rights have been hosed by the administration.

Even with a cold, I agree with you on that.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:38 AM

Hi LeadB

I'm sorry about your cold. There is something nasty going around here was well. I hope you're better soon.

Anyway, I need to sign off. There are things I need to get done.

Signing off for now ...

good night.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:08 AM

Auraptor, plugging your ears and closing your eyes is pathetic. Just pathetic. I found these articles in wildly leftwing sites like, c|net and Ars Technica and Christian Science Monitor

Quote:
... the NSA does not monitor domestic communications exclusively between persons in the United States without warrants, but the government will not provide such an assurance under oath. Despite broad public knowledge of the NSA wiretap program's existence, the federal government continues to assert that national security would be threatened if any evidence were presented that merely confirms the program's existence, even if no other information about the program is exposed in the process.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-appeals-court-judges-scr
utinize-bush-administrations-wiretap-arguments.html

Quote:
The illegal NSA domestic surveillance was first revealed by the New York Times on December 16, 2005.... the NSA has gained access to major telecommunications switches inside the US, giving it essentially unchecked access not only to international communications but to purely domestic emails and phone calls. A new book by New York Times reporter James Risen... along with reporting in the LA Times and ABC News further revealed that the NSA has been using that access--as well as access to telecommunications companies' databases--to data-mine Internet logs and phone logs for "suspicious patterns" presumably to find new targets for the wiretapping program.... The administration has admitted to the existence of the classified program... not only is the legal standard lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable basis," the determination of whether there was or was not such a reasonable basis was left to NSA agents and their shift-supervisors, eliminating even the limited check of the FISC from the process (the FISC has approved all but five of the 19,000 requests placed before it).

www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/

Bush wants permanent warrantless wiretap law 'Nuff said
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0921/p99s01-duts.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

For someone who's looking for 'honest' answers you sure are stacking the questions. If you get any anwers at all what you'll get are hyper-focused distorted hypothetical ones that have no bearing on what people 'honestly' think.

As I recall you wanted a focussed answer on your free speech question. These are two questions and yes the second one is artificial and extreme, much as your free speech question was.

My view is that average Americans don't care what happens to none citizens in other countries if the end result is that it keeps them "safe." While the talking heads where rending garments on TV about Abu Graub the impression I got when I spoke to people "on the street" was that they felt let down but the military in the same way they felt let down by a sports team if they are caught cheating. There wasn't a sense of moral outrage that this was wrong so much as an anger that these people had let the side down somewhat and embarressed America. Just like supporters of a sports team might be embarressed if their team was found doping.

As to my second question. I justify it in the following way. In the free speech debate you constructed an artificial yes/no black white answer and I think we explored out personal perceptions and limits pretty well. It was informative, certainly more so that just hurling insults. So perhaps I'm trying to catch lightning in a bottle to want another exploration, but I do think it's a valid question.

My view is that principles become mutable in extreme situations, I think that's a matter of basic human psychology. You may believe firmly in "thou shalt not kill" but it's far harder to hold to that ideal if the situation becomes "him or you" harder yet if it becomes "him or your loved ones." The world does have saints, I haven't met any of them myself though because in the end we are all imperfect beings. I want to explore those limits, so I'd like your take on teh question as posed and then if you like you can modify it along the lines you feel are more "real world."

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
God! I just want to ram my head into a wall! It might feel better than reading this.

By "this," do you mean this thread?

Here are my two cents.

I don't know what scares and saddens me more: The government abusing our freedoms or all the people who believe this sort of government is necessary and desirable.

Erosion or outright attacks on freedoms are always preceded by a good enemy, for whom such sacrifices are necessary and desirable.

Just because there are worse police states out there doesn't mean ours is not also a police state.

What keeps us from being as bad as the other police states is that we have an armed citizenry. If they ever try to attack too many of us at once, or too many average citizens, armed citizens will and can fight back.

Citizen weaponry will always be outgunned by government weaponry. It won't stop the govt from attacking people's freedoms, but it does slow the attack down.

I'm becoming convinced the crumbling of the last stronghold for freedom, America, is irreversible, and that our only option for real freedom is technology and space travel.

At least, the sky is MY only hope.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:54 AM

Meh, that and the internet, the last bastion of real free speech, IF you can cover your tracks well enough to keep off any folk you annoy...

No wonder the Gov and their Corpie friends wanna strangle it, monitor it, or shut it down and slice it up, eh.

I was gonna give some bits of detailed advice, but yanno what ?

No, no I don't think so, and I have my reasons.

I'm with CTS, I want off this rock - but that'd take more than an overcomplicated antiquated piece of junk designed to put corporate or Gov spy sattelites in orbit and of NO use for anything else.

Screw the shuttle, build a damned SPACE ship, not a pissant station, a SHIP, one not dependant on ability to take off and land on a planet, put the parts on these crummy orbiters, take em out to the L5 point and put the damned thing together.

If naught else, it'd give us a better idea of how we need to go about properly building a REAL deep space exploration vessel - but you know where that runs into problems ?

Putting people outside the reach and control of earthly governments - they totally shit bricks over even the concept, a case study was done by our intel folks and their psych crews, who determined that even IF a crew was up to 70% Gov plants or partisan fanatics, they'd STILL defect en masse the very instant they achieved self-sufficiency.

And following that to it's natural, logical conclusion once typical Gov threats are issued ?

Rocks are cheap in space, and dumping one into a gravity well is dead bang simple in comparison to spatial navigation.

So hell no they don't wanna go down that road, even if we had the tech right now, they wouldn't... cause folks like me would do just about anything to get the hell OUT of their reach and control, and every time they expand their influance, we'd just move further out.

Kinda reminds me of something, yanno...

But yes, I'd like off this rock before the fearful little crazy bastards blow half of it to bits with nukes and make the rest uninhabitable.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

HERO

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

You'd rather the entire country be under investigation to assuage your fears.

When your looking for needles in the haystack...it helps to look in the haystack.

I suspect you'd rather have us suffer more terrorist attacks then accept reasonable govt. surveillance. The "1 in 10" innocent Americans who you claim were monitored...and thats thirty million people, which I doubt because the volume of calls is such that your talking perhaps hundreds of millions of man-hours to review the conversations, they have nothing to worry about because, as you say, they are innocent.

Its like being mad at the policeman running laser on the side of the road because he might clock cars that are not speeding and that's not fair. Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.

H

HERO

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does that not strike you as being a violation of the rights of 350 million non-terrorists?

I note for the record that legally a person's rights cannot be violated until they have suffered actual harm.

For example, the mere passage of a bill or a policy by the government is not per se a violation of the rights of the whole of the American people, even if later found to be unconstitutional. Only those people directly harmed by it, in your example a innocent person who is illegally detained, would have standing to challenge the issue.

Your other example, the Terrorist Surveilance Program, would only harm the rights of person's who were surveiled, not the 300 million others not party to any particular call.

I also note for the record that the question is not just whether this policy is an intrusion, and that is a question since I would argue that a person talking to a suspected terrorist has no expectation of privacy...especially since now everybody knows they can listen in. Its also whether the intrusion is unreasonable, which is a subjective test. To some persons, like yourself, any intrusion is unreasonable. The Framers disagreed because they could have said "any intrusion" and chose not to so they clearly intended some intrusions to be reasonable and others not to be. I would suggest the question of what's reasonable is also circumstancial, and that is also the position of the govt.

H

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:31 PM

I may not always agree with em, but damn the LR guys make a good point sometimes.
Even moreso when you ponder this bit was written in 1939!

Original URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com/nock/nock13.html

The Criminal State
by Albert Jay Nock

As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally-expressed attitude.

All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.

I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put everytime a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture-platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would expect? – look at the record!

No State Excepted

That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices largescale carpet-baggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.

In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the S

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.

I like that Hero....In the good old days people that promulgate the insane horseshit I read on the web would have been shunned and mocked by society...in many cases they'd be put in straight-jackets & hauled off to insane asylums. Now...with the internet, all manner of whack jobs, flakes, perverts, conspiracy lunatics, etc, etc have crawled out from under their slimy rocks to spew their paranoid and demented thoughts with impunity, polluting the landscape of a once-sane society.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:59 PM

Fletch

I can't believe what an ass you are at times, and a stupid one at that.

My question was open ended - HOW you justify .... no yes/ no there, is there ? Now, HOW did you miss such a simple reading of normal English ?

Yours is such a pathetically stupid question it's beyond meaningful answer.

It's so structured that the information you'll get back reflects only the structure of your question. Like shining a red light on a white piece of paper and declaring it red.

***************************************************************
God what a stupid ass you can be.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

I can't believe what an ass you are at times, and a stupid one at that.

My question was open ended - HOW you justify .... no yes/ no there, is there ? Now, HOW did you miss such a simple reading of normal English ?

Yours is such a pathetically stupid question it's beyond meaningful answer.

It's so structured that the information you'll get back reflects only the structure of your question. Like shining a red light on a white piece of paper and declaring it red.

***************************************************************
God what a stupid ass you can be.

So what you are saying is you won't answer? Ok I have no problem with that, just so we know.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:20 PM

I did answer - I gave you my honest opinion, which is what you SAID you were looking for.

Now to deconstruct your question:

IF you know that the person planted a device, AND you know that it WILL kill 3000 people, THEN he/ she (I'll say he for convenience) is guilty, isn't he ?

FURTHER I'll POSIT even more extreme torture - the kind that doesn't end when he answers the questions but goes on and on so that you know the only thing at the end will be a painful death.

The question then becomes - do you approve of cruel and unusual punishment if it means saving lives ? And would your answer change if one of those lives was a member of your family ?

With me so far ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:24 PM

Silly, unproductive thinking by narrow minds unable to grasp more then a childish and selfish understanding of the Bill of Rights.- Hero

I like that Hero....In the good old days people that promulgate the insane horseshit I read on the web would have been shunned and mocked by society...in many cases they'd be put in straight-jackets & hauled off to insane asylums. Now...with the internet, all manner of whack jobs, flakes, perverts, conspiracy lunatics, etc, etc have crawled out from under their slimy rocks to spew their paranoid and demented thoughts with impunity, polluting the landscape of a once-sane society.- Jongsstraw

Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did answer - I gave you my honest opinion, which is what you SAID you were looking for.

You did? I missed that. Did you answer the specific question or did you rework it ans answer your own question?

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:
I note for the record that legally a person's rights cannot be violated until they have suffered actual harm.

That is not true. There are two intepretations about privacy (for example). To illustrate, let's say a Federal agents come into your home, rifle (carefully) thru your things, make a copy of your hard drive(s), carefully lock the door behind themselves. You had no knowledge they were there, and nothing comes of the search except a file mouldering somewhere.

On interpretation is that you didn't suffer any "harm" so no violation occurred. Another intepretation is that your rights are a thing onto themselves, and that the Federal agents violated them. I'm of the second interpretation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:35 PM

Quote:
You did? I missed that. Did you answer the specific question or did you rework it ans answer your own question?

Somewhere in that explanation as to WHY you framed the question the way you did, you also said that readers could modify the question to be more "real world". Seems like Rue took you up on the offer.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:40 PM

Fletch

You said you were looking for honest opinions. "What I want are honest answers, not an ideal perfect world view or a slip into political dogma." My honest opinion was that I couldn't answer the question as proposed. To answer it would be to accept certain predications that are not only factually wrong but internally inconsistent and that remove the essence of the dilemma. (And I also pointed out how MY question to Rap - which is open ended - is not a yes/ no question as you so erroneously claimed, and therefore is not like YOUR yes/ no question.)

So I reworded the question slightly in a way that makes logical sense and is not internally logically invalid.

here it is, again:

IF you know that the person planted a device, AND you know that it WILL kill 3000 people, THEN he/ she (I'll say he for convenience) is guilty, isn't he ?

FURTHER I'll POSIT even more extreme torture - the kind that doesn't end when he answers the questions but goes on and on so that you know the only thing at the end will be a painful death.

The question then becomes - do you approve of cruel and unusual punishment if it means saving lives ? And would your answer change if one of those lives was a member of your family ?

With me so far ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

If you hate 'The Police State' as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace mean and anarchistic? Like Somalia, Rwanda, or Mongolia?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

Too hot & muggy in Cuba, and I don't enjoy octopus
Chinese people all look alike, too confusing to live there
I chew gum and smoke, so Singapore's out
...and for the record, and for your personal need's fulfillment, I value the freedom that has been fought and won for, and the freedom that comes at the end of a tough work week when you get your paycheck...the type of "freedom" you typically refer to is the freedom to be a bum, leech, and scumbag, all on my dime.

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:48 PM

Actually I said they should answer the question as posed and then modify it if they believed it was unrealistic (which it was and I said it was and knew it was.)

Rue's free speech question was framed in a "does no harm" context. As I said at that time if there was no harm then nobody could possibly object to free speech, the problem came in the messy real world where harm could be done or where X's right to free speech effected some right of Y's.

In my mind this is the same deal. My question removes all "what if's" and speculation. It has an artificial cause/effect because it's a direct moral question ----are your principles with regard to torture worth trading 3000 lives for? Are they worth trading the lives of loved ones for?

I was looking for a simple answer to that question and in exchange I was willing to let the question be reframed so that an answer more in keeping with "real life" conditions was possible.

So for example an answer could be "yes in that situation of course I would do whatever was nescessary to save those 3000 people but you realise in real life torture like that would never give you reliable information."

or

"No I would never consider that as a valid tactic. A measure of a societies resiliance is it's ability to hiold by it's highest principles even in the face of a deadly challenge. Once we go down that kind of path far more than 3000 people will be at stake. In a civilised society we must set limits and be willing to stand by them."

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:49 PM

Or Canada, France or Germany ? Or some other democracy that's signed onto the ICC ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said in the "Security Coda" thread, if you hate American freedom as much as you appear to, why don't you go live someplace nice and orderly? Like Cuba, Communist China, or Singapore?

If you hate American law so much why don't you go live in Canada.

Or we can compromise and both stay here in North Mexico.

H

FLETCH2

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:54 PM

I don't accept your rewording. There is no logical inconsistancy.

HERO

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To illustrate, let's say a Federal agents come into your home, rifle (carefully) thru your things, make a copy of your hard drive(s), carefully lock the door behind themselves. You had no knowledge they were there, and nothing comes of the search except a file mouldering somewhere.

On interpretation is that you didn't suffer any "harm" so no violation occurred. Another intepretation is that your rights are a thing onto themselves, and that the Federal agents violated them. I'm of the second interpretation.

But your illustration is one were harm actually occurs. It does not, however, illustrate your point.

Rather, imagine the same federal agent going into your house, same circumstances. Your argument against wiretapping is that your neighbor, whose house was undisturbed, was also violated. I understand the whole 'if one suffers we all suffer argument, I'm saying legally that is not the case.

If you slip and fall in the grocery store, you can sue them...not you neighbor. If the govt taps your phone illegally your rights are violated, not mine.

And the best remedy is not to stop the wiretaps, since they are a necessary part of our national security, but rather to limit their admissability in court.

Edited to add: I note for the record that if the police illegally search your trunk and find drugs...the remedy is to make those drugs inadmissable in court. You don't get the drugs back. (Had a fella that didn't understand that one, but he'd been smoking alot of his product.)

H

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE