Trunk Monkey
Defender of the Blonde
You OK?vraiblonde said:
State of The Union play by play
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Kerad
New Member
ylexot said:
IRRATIONAL?
I do not have enough time to go into all the reasons I (and many others) am repulsed by the Bushies. Maybe I'll have to start a "Reason of the Day" thread and just do a different reason every day....
I can give you one reason, though.
LIES.
Yes...every politician/administration lies. It's the nature of the lies...what the lie is covering up, that is the difference.
My proof?
We all know what's been going on after the disclosure of the ...ahem...."Terrorist Surveillance Program". (Gotta hand it to the Bushies...they sure can put the positive spin on anything!)
Now...we have these words from Dubya's very own mouth (April 2004):
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "
and:
"So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies. "
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
That's just one example.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Kerad said:
I've thought that too. Most analysis shows that American voters are more middle of the road than the party they most strongly identify with. Each party has SOME thing that makes it members *wince* at hearing - but they also like to hear SOMEBODY just pound away.
Unfortunately - as was also pointed out - exactly WHAT would a "centrist" party stand for? Our two parties have at least a dozen "litmus test" answers that pretty much spell things out. For example - most Americans are against gun control and for capital punishment. This is why you don't hear Democrats crowing about it any more in national elections - because for someone like Kerry to go to the South and get *DEMOCRATIC* votes, he'd better not p!ss off the *Democrats* there who want their guns and believe in executing capital offenders.
But any "centrist" party that claimed these bona fide "middle of the road" ideas would quickly be labelled "conservative" - because those views are largely EMBRACED by the GOP.
Similarly, you wouldn't be able to be pro-choice or pro-life without either label - even though there are GOP and Dem members on EITHER side of this issue - because everyone knows which side is embraced by the two major parties.
In Canada, you have the Tories (Conservatives) and the Liberals - and the other "three" (Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Greens - Greens get the most votes of the smaller parties, but they have no seats). I have NO freakin' idea what distinguishes the NDP from the others, except that they're supposed to be more "socialist" than their liberal counterparts. But each has a fairly distinctive agenda that makes them different from the others. I can't see that happening with a Centrist party here - I don't see how it would work. The closest thing we had was the Reform Party, as an agent to clean up government waste - but in reality, it was just an offshoot of the Republicans, and drew away Republican voters.
I'm fine, thank you. I'll let you know...Trunk Monkey said:
ylexot
Super Genius
Where's the lie? Echelon is not a wiretap.Kerad said:IRRATIONAL?
I do not have enough time to go into all the reasons I (and many others) am repulsed by the Bushies. Maybe I'll have to start a "Reason of the Day" thread and just do a different reason every day....
I can give you one reason, though.
LIES.
Yes...every politician/administration lies. It's the nature of the lies...what the lie is covering up, that is the difference.
My proof?
We all know what's been going on after the disclosure of the ...ahem...."Terrorist Surveillance Program". (Gotta hand it to the Bushies...they sure can put the positive spin on anything!)
Now...we have these words from Dubya's very own mouth (April 2004):
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "
and:
"So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies. "
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
That's just one example.
Why do you fear the tapping of terrorist communication?Kerad said:
Are you a terrorist?
Trunk Monkey
Defender of the Blonde
Just checking. You know where I will be.vraiblonde said:
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Kerad said:IRRATIONAL?
We all know what's been going on after the disclosure of the ...ahem...."Terrorist Surveillance Program". (Gotta hand it to the Bushies...they sure can put the positive spin on anything!)
Now...we have these words from Dubya's very own mouth (April 2004):
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "
and:
"So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies. "
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html)
That's just one example.
Ok, I don't understand the problem or the lies, here. This particular problem, I'm familiar with, as I've heard Homeland Security types discuss it. You have a wiretap for a specific phone line - you get a court order. He switches phones - you get another. He does this again, again, again - *within* the context of a SINGLE PHONE COMMUNICATION. Switch, switch, switch. It's a tactic already used by drug dealers. It's not, he changes phone companies - he has like, 20 phone lines and switches them, constantly - within a FEW MINUTES. You *cannot* get court orders fast enough to keep up with him.
What you NEED is a law that allows you to wiretap the *person*, regardless of what line he's using. Kind of the anti-terrorist version of a per-seat license versus a server license - because he's not going to just hold still and LET you monitor him.
Guess what? We've had that capability. I think it's great we can outfox terrorists. For pity's sake, in our own country, in time of war, we censored mail coming back from the front (in WW2). You're saying we *shouldn't* track communications *specifically* designed to catch terrorists? I can't see the problem here.
Kerad
New Member
vraiblonde said:Why do you fear the tapping of terrorist communication?
I don't fear the tapping of terrorist communication. I'm 100% for it, as are most level headed people.
It isn't hard to get FISA court orders for the tapping of said communications. In peace time, they have 72 hours to listen in without a warrant. In war time (as we are in, now) there is a 15 day window. Plenty of time to get a warrant. There is no valid reason to NOT get a warrant.
What the warrant does is it tracks who the agencies are listening to. If someone's communications are being monitored for months (or years) with no evidence of terroristic activites...someone should know that and pull the plug on that tap.
Kerad
New Member
Frank said:
Besides your prior idea ("tap" the person....), the roving wire taps Bushie referenced in his speech. He was certainly selling it in 2004. What's changed since then?
It isn't about tapping or not tapping...it's about having the court order. (I've already discussed this)...
itsbob
I bowl overhand
What the warrant also does is give dozens of people information about what is supposed to be a SECRET operation.. An intelligent person would weigh the risk/benefit in getting a warrant, and in this day and age, the risk was too great that the secret would be divulged prior to tapping a single call.Kerad said:
Do you honestly think the Feds will waste manpower tapping phone conversations that do not pertain to the task at hand?Kerad said:
It's more likely that they will miss terrorists than it is that they'll hit on ordinary citizens.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Kerad said:
Ok, so where in that speech does he mention dismissing court orders? He doesn't. That's your interjection into the argument.
But it's a different issue altogether. Tapping someone FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY who is talking to a laundry list of persons *here* should NOT require a court order. If we found a laptop in Pakistan with a list of 100 contacts for Osama in the United States - you're saying we should get roving wiretaps on ALL of them, including those NOT on his list - because it's wrong to tap HIS communications? Wouldn't it make more sense to pick up whoever HE is calling?
ylexot
Super Genius
Echelon (as explained by Ken King):
http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=66388
http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=66388
ylexot
Super Genius
How? Are we doing wiretaps without court orders?Kerad said:
Talk about being sidetracked....the wiretaps issue is it's own seperate debate.
Getting back to the quotes what got us to this point...
The President lied in that election year speech.
Just one example. Just one reason.
Kerad
New Member
Frank said:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
We now know due to recent revelations that the US government was indeed serveilling without the FISA court orders he was referencing in THAT speech. He personally signed off on it. THAT is the lie.
