Ive read the thread and seen nothing other than heresay. Document it or retract it.
Wire taps
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
1. Comment #34.Damn True said:
2. Jose Padilla.
I guess we can add illiteracy to your list of shortcomings?
N8 said:
If the victim were allowed to call a lawyer, that is.
Damn True said:
Says the man that posted a ann coulter editorial?? Heal thy self, hypocrite.
Illiteracy? Oh sweet, back to the insults. The article says:Old Man G Funk said:
So they used human intel, not electronic surveillance. Nothing about that even sniffs at illegal practices.
and
It dosen't say that PETA was a part of the domestic wire tapping.
...and last time I checked Padilla is being held because he was plotting to use a "dirty bomb" in the US.
he was connected to Al-Queda not Peta. They do rhyme if you use a long e though.
So again. Can we document a case in which the Wire Tapping and subersion of the FISA court was applied to PETA, Greenpeace or the ACLU.
Not attacking you here and I'm certainly not insulting you. Or saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I haven't seen any documentation that PROVES it happend. Only hearsay and very loose inuendo that it "could" have.
Reactor said:
Which fact is she wrong on?
There are some opinions in her piece, and some of them are presented in a rather bombastic fashion (as I stated in my post). But which of the FACTS is she wrong on?
All I'm asking for is some documentation on the hearsay that the wire tapping was used against PETA or Greenpenis or anti-war groups.
Do you have that, or are you going to continue to make personal attacks to divert the conversation away from the topic?
You're stupid and you're momma dresses you funny.Damn True said:
The thing that worries me is that there is no way to find out if it is being abused. When these things pass thru the FISA court that they provide a reasonable level of oversight to avoid widespread abuse. However when the court is bypassed then all real oversight is eliminated.
DRB said:
You are absolutely right. There is a potential for that.
However, it has been asserted that the FISA court was subverted for wire taps against "non terrorists" like PETA, Greenpeace etc. I have not seen nor heard of anything to substantiate that. I am asking G-funk to provide that since he is the one currently making the claim.
The editorial loses all credibility right about here.Damn True said:
..and the rest of the sentance...ghostrider said:
....because if it was common knowledge that we were tapping their conversations they'd most likely find other ways to communicate.
The fact that we know about this at all points to the fact that one or more of the members of Congress (or their staffs) who were briefed on the practice are not awfully good at maintaining secrecy when it comes to matters of national security.
ohio said:
I like dogs and babies.
Again. Did it happen?
If it didn't, and the practice was only used for tapping terror-connected targets I have no problem with it.
If they were tapping Cindy Sheehan w/o a warrant then that is absolutely wrong.
I wouldn't tap it even with a warrantDamn True said:
So clearly in your worldview the end does not justify the means.
I disagree, provided the practice is not used against groups or individuals deemed non-combatants.
(Though the definition gets a little wiggly with people like ELF)
I disagree, provided the practice is not used against groups or individuals deemed non-combatants.
(Though the definition gets a little wiggly with people like ELF)
PonySoldier said:I wouldn't tap it even with a warrant
LOL, funniest thing Ive heard all day.
So G-funk. Have you found anything to substantiate those claims?
Don't divert.
Who were the subjects of the taps?
So when the DOJ does something good (outing Abramoff) Bush has nothing to do with it.
When the DOJ does something iffy, it's Bush.
Interesting.
Who were the subjects of the taps?
So when the DOJ does something good (outing Abramoff) Bush has nothing to do with it.
When the DOJ does something iffy, it's Bush.
Interesting.
Again...that's a leading and evasive dodge of the issue. Not one person in the US besides AQ members has an issue with this.Damn True said:
THEY SHOULD BE WIRETAPPED, CAUGHT, AND HUNG OUT TO DRY. We ALL know that.
But why, specifically, must it be done without a warrant? I know FISA warrants probably aren't as simple as your average search warrant, but
1) this is top executive-level stuff in which the President is personally involved...who could better expedite it?
2) The taps can be run for 72 hours without a warrant. If you can't get one together in 3 days, with top-secret well-paid spymasters working round the clock, you probably don't have anything like probable cause.
So, then, what's the real deal? This can't be as simple as avoiding red tape. When you're on Osama's speed dial, a warrant's not going to be the issue. Are they actually using this as cover for programs that sweep all of our communications for mention of certain keywords or whatever? If so, I don't necessarily think that's wrong...but I heartily disagree with the way they're going about getting it done. Such a program needs to be set forth within the context of checks and balances and a given situation, like the suspension of certain civil rights or the writ of habeas corpus in the civil war.
In any case, Ohio's 100% on the mark as far as why we have separation of powers and the potential for abuse.
MD
Which alleged facts have you documented?Damn True said:
Calling you a hypocrite for demanding documentation, when you have provided none isn't a personal attack, it's a fact.Damn True said:
This is what I like to call factopionionspinification. It starts with a fact, well half a fact, She gives detailed numbers on the number of requests and rejections after 9/11, but a vague "fact "of "before 9/11". The same 12 judges handled the majority of the requests, Who here think article III judges, confirmed by the senate, and recommended by the president, suddenly sided with the terrorists after 9//11? That seems to be her point, suddenly after 9/11 the judges started denying requests, supporting terrorists.
O.K. how many people think the Bush Administration submitted more requests in the last two years, than all previous presidents combined? How many people think, given this, that there were bound to be some bogus request among the 5,645 requests? So three percent were rejected, and 3 percent modified, so 94% of the time the Bush administration got what it wanted. But they wanted more, and they didn't like to justify their actions, and they didn't like the law. So they chose to ignore it and remove those troublesome judges that had the audacity to reject 3% of their requests. But reading Ann Coulter's mix of fact, omission, spin , and opinion you'd think Article III judges were card carrying members of Al Qadea.
I'm not. It's a fact we know about the actions of the court that tends to suggest Bush is (once again) over-reaching.Damn True said:
We'll never know without a leak, it's a secret court, remember? Nice and transparant.
When the Bush administration authorises wire taps without a warrant, guess what, it's BUSH!
MikeD said:
Exactly. Bush and Cheney have made no secret of they fact they want to win back bower for the chief executive. However, the founding fathers wisely divided power between the three branches of government. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch signs them and enforces them, and the judicial branch adjudicates the executive branch's accusations of violations of the law laws to ensure the constitution, and personal rights of the involved are respected.
Bush wants to ignore the law passed by the legislative branch, signed by a prior president, and avoid having to explain his reasons for wiretapping to the judicial branch. In all likelihood his wiretaps will violate the law, and be unexplainable to the judicial branch, so he chooses to ignore them. Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn't envision a scenario where the chief executive, who controls the law enforcement agencies, would also be the one violating the law.
Changleen said:
I can't answer that, my current job requires that I not be a member of any group the advocates the violent over throw of the American government, nor can I advocate the overthrow of the American Government.....Besides that would probably put me out of a paycheck, At least for the next week or two.
I will retract that and go even further. I am the illiterate one apparently. You asked for specific examples of illegal wiretaps on PETA, Greenpeace, etc. and I provided examples of spying on those groups, but not specific wiretaps. The wiretaps are secret, so we don't know who was being tapped. When I'm wrong, I say it, and I was wrong about that specific fact.Damn True said:
Padilla was in response to who is a victim of the Patriot Act. He definitely is, whether he is guilty or not. He's an American citizen that has been held without counsel and without being charged for years.
That's why the FISA act allows for them to obtain secret warrants, but it has to be done before the court. They can't simply bypass the court.Damn True said:
Again, the act provides for the expedited warrant process so that they can get warrants without any hassle and quickly. There is no reason for them not get a warrant to wiretap a terror-connected target. It's wrong no matter who they do it to if they circumvent the law in order to do it.Damn True said:
Patriot act or no, Padilla (and lots of others, Americans and non-Americans) should not be considered a mere criminal. He's an individual who, as a member of a larger group, is at war with America, both by self-definition and as established by the circumstances. And traditional methods of dealing with EPWs (holding until war is over, then returning them to their country of origin) just won't work...there is no national entity to 'end' the war for him, plus in this case he's American. Putting him in prison for a few years to learn even better ways to evade authority and hurt people is a bad, bad idea. He's just going to return to his jihad once he's out, and even probably try and prosecute it while he's in.Old Man G Funk said:
He and others like him do need to be dealt with in a way that's not necessarily traditional criminal justice. What this is, I don't yet have an answer. Whatever the case, there needs to be a formal decision and a relatively open system for dealing with such people...top-secret unseen processes with no oversight are not a good thing for America or America's image.
I know, maybe they can be secretly sent to countries that have slightly looser definitions of "interrogation" and dealt with there?...Oh wait....nevermind.MikeD said:
By US law Padilla is accused of plotting a terrorist act, which is aMikeD said:
crime. Padilla, is an American citizen accused of a crime against the American state, his ties to any terrorist organization are speculative have to be proved, and constitutional due process observed. And no one can argue that the founding fathers, having fought a guerrilla war against the British empire, didn't foresee terrorists. They did. Padilla should be punished, if proven guilty before a court of law.
I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that one man, without any oversight or counter balance, can suddenly designate an American citizen as an enemy of the state, and therefore an "enemy combatant". Suddenly taking away all constitutional and due process rights, hold the person in question incognito and possibly subject them to torture. You have to wonder how long before it gets applied to other inconvenient people, like Washington post reporters, Cindy Sheehan.... It smacks of Pinochet, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and a thousand other leaders who found abiding by the law inconvenient, and so just ignored it.
I don't have a answer either, but the course we're on leads to the dark side.
Not suggesting this should be the case, just that we need to look at this situation and actually form a legal framework, with oversight and balance, to deal with it.Reactor said:
I agree that Padilla and his ilk can be dealt with Consititutionally, but I think the Founding Fathers did lots of smart things with the Constitution in anticipating those things that they couldn't anticipate, if you will.
The idea of extra-national terrorist groups may not be entirely new, but the power given to such groups through technology and communication is new and different.
In any case, treason is a crime at the moment, and Padilla should be charged and hopefully executed ASAP. But I think that just because things are one way now, we shouldn't look at things a new way.
MD
I didn't intent to give the impression that you agreed, with some of the unsavory things currently happening. So I hope you aren't offended. I'm just expressing my concern that the current situation, left unchecked, leads to a very dark place. A place many countries have gone much to their detriment.MikeD said:
The founding fathers did an amazing job with the constitution. It's very important, we in the haste and passion of the moment don't throw it away because it's inconvenient.MikeD said:
We and the other governments of the world need to come to an agreement of how to handle and classify terrorism. It's not a war, but it's not a simple criminal matter either. Currently the buzzword terrorist is being applied very haphazard manner, and many times to people or causes that are unpopular, as well as legitimate terrorist organizations. There should be an agreement to the status of captured terrorists and basic level of treatment and due process they can expect, an most importantly a way for them to protest their status to prevent abuses of the system.
Are you really that uncritical a reader that I have to do this for you?Damn True said:
It's easy to win an argument when you make up the opposition to it.Extremo She-man said:
Really DT, this was pointed out to you several times before you askde Reactor to refute the facts. Did you just skip over the whole first page of your own thread?
Ahh, time to resurrect this old thread...I knew this day would come:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush
Bush was nothing compared to the loss of individual rights we're in for under Obama and his ilk...but this time around the media is somehow okay with it.
Bring on the hypocrites! Let's hear why was it was an outrage when Bush did it, but it's okay when Obama takes it ten steps further.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush
Bush was nothing compared to the loss of individual rights we're in for under Obama and his ilk...but this time around the media is somehow okay with it.
Bring on the hypocrites! Let's hear why was it was an outrage when Bush did it, but it's okay when Obama takes it ten steps further.
Last edited:
No it's just as annoying when someone else does it, dumbfvck.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Go suck a bag of dicks, 1000-Oaks.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217199
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215654
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227954
You're late. We didn't really miss you.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217199
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215654
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227954
You're late. We didn't really miss you.