Senate vote to shield wire tap collaborators - Page 4

glitch · #31 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 06:51 PM

[quote="TarBaby";p="422609"][If you go to the wiki on Legal Challenges to the NSA you'll see that a number of law abiding American citizens have been illegally targeted./quote]

No they haven't:

"Because of the nature of the program, the plaintiffs do not allege any specific instance of harm"

None of these people have been targeted. Not one! They just don't like the government tapping into overseas conversations with terrorists. By their actions they attempt to endanger the lives of our citizens.

BroncoBilly · #32 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:08 PM

You seem to be throwing stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks. This topic has many law experts challenging it, and for the most part, they have not made much headway. So unless you can provide the names of those targeted, and unless you are an expert on constitutional law, your points are nothing but your opinion.

TarBaby · #33 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glitch";p=&quot

"Because of the nature of the program, the plaintiffs do not allege any specific instance of harm"

None of these people have been targeted. Not one!

Perhaps I should clarify. There are dozens of suits against the government from citizens concerned that their calls have been monitored without a warrant. There is also a case against AT&T due to their helping the NSA monitor immense amounts of internet traffic secretly by tapping the company's fiber backbones. Theres even a delightful case where a Islamic charity group received a copy of its call log sent by mistake by the NSA. When it tried to use that as evidence it was told that due to national security it couldn't. Ironic, no?

The Justice Department is stalling or derailing these cases by claiming "state security" and so there is no way to know how pervasive this problem is. Obviously, a secret wiretap is not going to overtly harm a person unaware of its existence, but that doesn't mean that a wrong has not been committed and American citizen's expectation of privacy haven't been violated.

Quote:

They just don't like the government tapping into overseas conversations with terrorists. By their actions they attempt to endanger the lives of our citizens.

Again, please stop with the baseless fear mongering. No one is attempting to stop legitimate law enforcement or trying to kill citizens as you ridiculously suggest. They are trying to stop a gross abuse of power by an organization and administration that has shown no real reason to be trusted.

DuH2 · #34 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:25 PM

1. I replied to the subject. Not you.

2. 4 post back you spent 90% of your thread flinging stupid insults to get a fight.

Your trolling and nothing more.

So I'll use you..and any stupid reply you make after this for whatever the hell I feel like.
That way I'll not only disrespect you but also not play the game you want.

Heres a good article from of all place the Seattle -PI..
Its from 2004 so maybe they hadn't gone full Lunatic Lafty by then..but now the S-I is lunatic left all the way...almost a joke in Washington now.

Quote:

Whines come in from the loony left

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

They can dish out criticism but can't take it. They are thin-skinned. They like to curse, using choice epithets when a messenger puts out a political message that hits too close to home.

Who? Surprise -- not ultra-right-wing Republicans, though that description has at times fit them.

I'm talking about the super-left-wing loonies among the Democrats, specifically those folks who so blindly lapped up the comments that drooled last month from Congressman Jim McDermott's lips.

When I pointed out that McDermott pulled a "McDuhmott" for suggesting that President Bush timed the capture of Saddam Hussein for political gain, it touched off a firestorm among my fellow Democrats.

"Your references to Congressman McDermott ... are laden with sarcasm, half-truths and dare I say it, political smears that are worthy of reptilian forces currently in control of our country," blasted Sara DeHart of Lynnwood.

"Speaking of 'irresponsible verbal diarrhea,' don't you think that Bush & Co. are in much greater need of an Imodium capsule than Jim McDermott?" Michael Bright asked.

Another reader said he supported the congressman's comments. He said I was wrong, invoking a colorful racial epithet for critical emphasis.

Meanwhile, Chris Greenlee of Vashon Island wondered: "You tell us that McDermott's comments are way off base because he doesn't trust the people in the White House and wouldn't put it past them (to) set up the capture of this dictator for their own political advantage.

"Have you looked into the facts?"

Chris, that's the very question I've been raising about McDermott all along. Where were his facts? He didn't serve them up when he blabbered on KIRO airwaves.

Shortly after the congressman spoke, stories broke in Europe and in the Middle East suggesting that Saddam was not in hiding but had been a prisoner before U.S. leaders cheered: "We got him."

Some foreign media reports claimed Kurdish forces nabbed the bad-guy dictator and turned him over to coalition forces; other reports, at the very least, credited the Kurds with paving the way for his capture.

But McDermott's radio rant came with little proof. He didn't even go on a limb and cite speculative foreign news reports. Even if he had, not even those reports went so far as to allege political calculation by Bush.

No wonder radio listener Wally Smith was at a loss when he tuned in to the radio and caught McDermott. "I thought some nut was advancing (a) conspiracy theory," says Smith, who "almost drove his car off the road" when he learned it was a congressman speaking. "I bet he believes the CIA is waiting until election eve in November to trot out Osama bin Laden to ensure Bush's re-election."

That is precisely the problem with McDermott and his bout of logorrhea. By playing loose with words and facts the congressman fanned flames of conspiracy at a time when people are already weaving so many kooky theories.

Talk about irresponsible.

To be sure, the Bush administration has given the public reason for doubt. Bush & Co. has produced clumsy deceptions and sloppy attempts at spin control. Who could forget the Thanksgiving photo op -- complete with faux turkey -- when Bush dropped in to surprise the troops in Baghdad? And what about the Jessica Lynch "hero" story that even Lynch said was pumped up with patriotic fictions to boost a war-weary nation?

Add on Bush's shifting justifications for why we went to war in the first place. Saddam? Terrorism? To plant the seeds of democracy? To find curiously elusive weapons of mass destruction? All of this feeds public suspicions that leaders will do whatever is necessary to achieve objectives. Even distort or deceive.

Given such a convoluted swirl, the last thing the nation needs is a congressman, from the safest seat in the most left-leaning part of the region, shooting wildly from the hip.

In July, I praised McDermott for his willingness to go to Baghdad and raise hard questions about the war. He'd done his homework. He'd spoken with Iraqi people. He saw what was happening with his own eyes. At the time, he stood on a solid -- if highly controversial -- soapbox.

Last month, when McDermott took to the radio waves, his soapbox was flimsier than wet cardboard -- a point not lost on some who normally support the congressman. "You're right to criticize the unfounded remarks of McDermott," writes John Pearson of Bothell. "I value McDermott's courage to criticize -- but not his 'unsubstantiveness.' "

It is admirable to have a leader who is willing to stick his or her neck out among the lemmings in Washington, D.C. We could use more people like that inside the Beltway. As the writer Studs Terkel points out, "Without dissidence there is no America."

But in times so precarious and charged as these, the voices of dissidence must be resolute and grounded in facts if they are to be taken seriously. These voices should not become megaphones for hollow rhetoric, half-baked suspicions and inflammatory hot air that only serve to pull the country further apart.

Are you listening, Mr. Congressman?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamies..._robert05.html

TarBaby · #35 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

You seem to be throwing stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

You seem to be dodging my points and questions. No answers for them?

Quote:

This topic has many law experts challenging it, and for the most part, they have not made much headway.

In large part due to the circular problem of "state secrets" and the Justice Depts. unwillingness to cooperate. You do see how its difficult to prove a secret violation of the law if the government keeps it secret?

Quote:

So unless you can provide the names of those targeted, and unless you are an expert on constitutional law, your points are nothing but your opinion.

Since none of us are political experts maybe we should all just close up our browsers and not post again? I may be no expert on the Constitution, but I sure try to have a reasonable understanding as an civic minded citizen should.

The fact still remains that if the NSA is fighting to have the ability to wiretap citizens without warrants and to provide amnesty for telecoms that have helped, it stands to reason that they have, in fact, wiretapped citizens without warrants. That seems pretty simple, even to a lowly non-expert like myself.

TarBaby · #36 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

1. I replied to the subject. Not you.

Oi vey, the point of a message board is discussion between the people on it. If you just wanted to drop your opinion on the matter without anyone responding then the OP should have made a poll, or you should have sent a PM. Any posts made in a thread are fair game for discussion by anyone that feels like it. This is pretty basic stuff.

Quote:

2. 4 post back you spent 90% of your thread flinging stupid insults to get a fight.

Theres a world of difference between critiquing the content of your posts, and slinging around an insult like "Hurr hurr, your mom's an ass."

Quote:

Your trolling and nothing more.

I'm doing my best to discuss an issue I feel strongly on. Sorry if it isn't convenient.

Quote:

So I'll use you..and any stupid reply you make after this for whatever the hell I feel like.
That way I'll not only disrespect you but also not play the game you want.

Now who's the one trolling?

BroncoBilly · #37 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarBaby";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

You seem to be throwing stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

You seem to be dodging my points and questions. No answers for them?

Quote:

This topic has many law experts challenging it, and for the most part, they have not made much headway.

In large part due to the circular problem of "state secrets" and the Justice Depts. unwillingness to cooperate. You do see how its difficult to prove a secret violation of the law if the government keeps it secret?

Quote:

So unless you can provide the names of those targeted, and unless you are an expert on constitutional law, your points are nothing but your opinion.

Since none of us are political experts maybe we should all just close up our browsers and not post again? I may be no expert on the Constitution, but I sure try to have a reasonable understanding as an civic minded citizen should.

The fact still remains that if the NSA is fighting to have the ability to wiretap citizens without warrants and to provide amnesty for telecoms that have helped, it stands to reason that they have, in fact, wiretapped without warrants. That seems pretty simple, even to a lowly non-expert like myself.

You said in an earlier post that there are many lawsuits PENDING. The word pending means just that. So if you can cite any cases that our government violated their constitutional rights, your point is moot.

Tarbaby;
"Perhaps I should clarify. There are dozens of suits against the government from citizens concerned that their calls have been monitored without a warrant".
Again, pending, means nothing, or do you live in a different America?

Everyone has addressed your points, and you claim that rights are being violated, yet you can't cite any. Just because people make claims (those would be the terrorist supporters to you slick) does not make it the truth, so pony up, or find a topic you can credibly argue.

DuH2 · #38 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

“DIDN’T the fox never catch the rabbit, Uncle Remus?” asked the little boy the next evening.

“He come mighty nigh it, honey, sho’s you born—Brer Fox did. One day atter Brer Rabbit fool ’im wid dat calamus root, Brer Fox went ter wuk en got ’im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w’at he call a Tar-Baby, en he tuck dish yer Tar-Baby en he sot ’er in de big road, en den he lay off in de bushes fer to see what de news wuz gwine ter be. En he didn’t hatter wait long, nudder, kaze bimeby here come Brer Rabbit pacin’ down de road—lippity-clippity, clippity -lippity—dez ez sassy ez a jay-bird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit come prancin’ ’long twel he spy de Tar-Baby, en den he fotch up on his behime legs like he wuz ’stonished. De Tar Baby, she sot dar, she did, en Brer Fox, he lay low.

“‘Mawnin’!’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee—‘nice wedder dis mawnin’,’ sezee.

“Tar-Baby ain’t sayin’ nuthin’, en Brer Fox he lay low.

“‘How duz yo’ sym’tums seem ter segashuate?’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee.

“Brer Fox, he wink his eye slow, en lay low, en de Tar-Baby, she ain’t sayin’ nuthin’.

“‘How you come on, den? Is you deaf?’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. ‘Kaze if you is, I kin holler louder,’ sezee.

“Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.

“‘You er stuck up, dat’s w’at you is,’ says Brer Rabbit, sezee, ‘en I’m gwine ter kyore you, dat’s w’at I’m a gwine ter do,’ sezee.

“Brer Fox, he sorter chuckle in his stummick, he did, but Tar-Baby ain’t sayin’ nothin’.

“‘I’m gwine ter larn you how ter talk ter ’spectubble folks ef hit’s de las’ ack,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. ‘Ef you don’t take off dat hat en tell me howdy, I’m gwine ter bus’ you wide open,’ sezee.

“Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.

“Brer Rabbit keep on axin’ ’im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin’ nothin’, twel present’y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis’, he did, en blip he tuck ’er side er de head. Right dar’s whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis’ stuck, en he can’t pull loose. De tar hilt ’im. But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.

“‘Ef you don’t lemme loose, I’ll knock you agin,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, en wid dat he fotch ’er a wipe wid de udder han’, en dat stuck. Tar-Baby, she ain’y sayin’ nuthin’, en Brer Fox, he lay low.

“‘Tu’n me loose, fo’ I kick de natal stuffin’ outen you,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain’t sayin’ nuthin’. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don’t tu’n ’im loose he butt ’er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa’ntered fort’, lookin’ dez ez innercent ez wunner yo’ mammy’s mockin’-birds.

“‘Howdy, Brer Rabbit,’ sez Brer Fox, sezee. ‘You look sorter stuck up dis mawnin’,’ sezee, en den he rolled on de groun’, en laft en laft twel he couldn’t laff no mo’. ‘I speck you’ll take dinner wid me dis time, Brer Rabbit. I done laid in some calamus root, en I ain’t gwineter take no skuse,’ sez Brer Fox, sezee.”

Here Uncle Remus paused, and drew a two-pound yam out of the ashes.

“Did the fox eat the rabbit?” asked the little boy to whom the story had been told.

“Dat’s all de fur de tale goes,” replied the old man. “He mout, an den agin he moutent. Some say Judge B’ar come ’long en loosed ’im—some say he didn’t. I hear Miss Sally callin’. You better run ’long.”

http://www.uncleremus.com/images/Tar...Movie_Clip.wmv

I replied to the subject. Not you.
..and BroncoBilly is right.

DuH2 · #39 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 08:43 PM

TarBaby-If you want to find out what I thought/think on this with links and al that... its in that 65000 posts
Its been done to death.

good

Daybreaker · #40 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p=&quot

I still don't get why I should be okay with the government (or especially some private phone company) spying on me.

Why in the world should I let a phone company spy on me? How is that going to stop terrorism?

How do you know they are spying on you? Are you paranoid? Have you been in contact with al qaeda?

You asked how is it going to stop terrorism? Uh, maybe you should try thinking proactively, or would you rather thousands die again and then you can say, maybe we should monitor overseas calls of terrorists.

Well just relax, your democratic brethren know what is best to protect this country, and like I said, the loony left has been put in their place.

I think they're spying on me because they keep insisting that they have the right to spy on me, and you, and everyone else. And they don't, but that's actually beside the point at the moment, which is that the only reason for them to insist that they have the right to spy on anybody is so that they can do it. Would you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode