Jump to content

the perpetual excuse


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Guest a proud american
The word is TERRORist. How do you think they earned that name? Dictionary definition: "noun:  a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"

You don't have to be an authority to know how something as basic as how terrorism works. Just open a history book once in a while. Hell, it's right in the name, come on.

The people in the towers and the planes were not the targets; the rest of us were. IIRC, Osama was pleasantly surprised because he didn't expect the towers to fall at all.

When you cannot be assured of having a phone call with someone overseas without it being listened in on by the government, that liberty is already lost. Where is the paranoia there? You just confirmed that what you're alleging I'm "paranoid" about is already actually happening! Please explain how being outraged at something that is already actually F**KING happening is "paranoid." Listen to yourself. Listen to how desperate you are to dismiss what I'm saying. Think about what is being given up in exchange for the illusion of security.

I ask again: whatever happened to probable cause? Attacks like 9/11 are not planned in one phone call. The government would have plenty of time to get a warrant to record suspicious communication. So why doesn't it? Because it doesn't care about the freedoms of all of us who aren't planning terrorist attacks on the phone, don't you see?

79043[/snapback]

The Government isn't just monitoring phone calls to the United States they're monitoring phone calls and e-mails in the United States. And under King George, probable cause is just a pesky part of the Constitution he chooses to ignore along with the fourth, fifth and sixth Amendment. The King believes that he can do as he pleases because he's keeping us safe. But who is keeping us safe from the King.

There was a bill recently sent to the Senate that would grant immunity to the Telecommunications Companies. Fortunately, Senartor Dodd and others had the bill set aside until January. I am hoping that, if no action is taken then the bill dies and the FISA Law reverts to its original intent. So the question is, if they didn't do anything illegal then why do they need amnesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 448
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you cannot be assured of having a phone call with someone overseas without it being listened in on by the government, that liberty is already lost.

So don't call anyone in France, because the French government is far more aggressive in telephone surveillance than is the U.S.

And they're catching terrorists that way.

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/frenchlaw

Where is the paranoia there?

The paranoia comes when having a guarantee that the government isn't listening to your telephone calls is suppose to count as an "essential" liberty. If that's an essential liberty that you will not cede in order to fight terrorism then you may have made your constitution a suicide pact, effectively tying your government's hands so that it cannot protect you from terrorists.

You need to be able to keep tabs on multiple figures who use a different phone every day. Do you really think it's practical to get a fresh court order every day for each new phone?

You just confirmed that what you're alleging I'm "paranoid" about is already actually happening! Please explain how being outraged at something that is already actually F**KING happening is "paranoid."

Because you should hope that the government is taking pro-active steps to protect you from people willing to use the features of your open society to kill those who desire an open society.

Listen to yourself. Listen to how desperate you are to dismiss what I'm saying. Think about what is being given up in exchange for the illusion of security.

The illusion of security is far thinner if terrorists can depend on secure communications simply by using a new phone each day thanks to your paranoia.

I ask again: whatever happened to probable cause?

It shares space with "reasonable search" in the Constitution just like it always has.

Attacks like 9/11 are not planned in one phone call. The government would have plenty of time to get a warrant to record suspicious communication.

So explain how the government can record a brand new cell connection on the only day it will be used except by bypassing the step of obtaining a warrant. If it can't be done without giving up an "essential liberty" that you're unwilling to cede, then you're giving terrorists a guarantee of secure communications so long as they're willing to change phones often enough. Feel secure now?

So why doesn't it? Because it doesn't care about the freedoms of all of us who aren't planning terrorist attacks on the phone, don't you see?

79043[/snapback]

I see. The government isn't really trying to protect you from terrorists by data mining for indications of terrorist activity. Their real purpose is to take away Strife's essential liberties.

That's called paranoia, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Do you really think the choice is that stark? If it is, freedom is dead.

Read your own words, carefully this time. Look at how you're putting it. The way you put it, everything that takes away freedom somehow makes us safer - even though it doesn't. You're prepared to sacrifice freedom thoughlessly and for no reason. That's not good for us and it won't make us safer.

What could motivate a world view like that? Two things: fear and ignorance. Exactly what the terrorists want. If we do it your way, they win.

I want a government that makes reasonable choices and respects us, not a government that seeks power for itself. Cheney has been pushing for increased executive power since long before terrorism became a significant threat. He got his opportunity, had an immature doofus over him who didn't have a clue, and he took the opportunity to do what he has been wanting to do for years - and you helped him do it.

Bush has not protected us. Just the opposite, he has made us weaker and more vulnerable to terrorism. He has completely screwed up the entire Middle East. The world is waiting for the next American president so it can begin to undo the damage.

There's no reason the government can't do appropriate surveillance, under the Constitution, with a warrant. As someone on your side pointed out, the government can't listen to every conversation. So what makes you think that it needs the power to do that? What makes you think that the government can't investigate and prosecute people whom we have good reason to believe may be engaging in improper activity? What makes you think that you're safer under a government that is lying to you and keeping secret things that personally affect you? Why can't we have freedom and security?

Because I'll tell you what: If we give government the power to do anything it wants, any time it wants, then we're not safe anyway. You look at the history of the whole world. That's how it works and has always worked. We're no different.

79037[/snapback]

Gobbly Gook

Once again, a Loony Lefty bloviates without any knowledge of the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The word is TERRORist. How do you think they earned that name? Dictionary definition: "noun:  a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"

You don't have to be an authority to know how something as basic as how terrorism works. Just open a history book once in a while. Hell, it's right in the name, come on.

The people in the towers and the planes were not the targets; the rest of us were. IIRC, Osama was pleasantly surprised because he didn't expect the towers to fall at all.

When you cannot be assured of having a phone call with someone overseas without it being listened in on by the government, that liberty is already lost. Where is the paranoia there? You just confirmed that what you're alleging I'm "paranoid" about is already actually happening! Please explain how being outraged at something that is already actually F**KING happening is "paranoid." Listen to yourself. Listen to how desperate you are to dismiss what I'm saying. Think about what is being given up in exchange for the illusion of security.

I ask again: whatever happened to probable cause? Attacks like 9/11 are not planned in one phone call. The government would have plenty of time to get a warrant to record suspicious communication. So why doesn't it? Because it doesn't care about the freedoms of all of us who aren't planning terrorist attacks on the phone, don't you see?

79043[/snapback]

On the list of moronic things Strife has typed on this board, this one is #1.

"The people in the WTC towers were not the targets, the rest of us were".

I suppose in the sick mind of Strife, there's some loony thought process

that caused him to type that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to

  scare us)?  That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on

  9/11 scared or killed?  The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

  originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

  around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

  deprive you of your "essential liberties". Your paranoia is obvious.

79026[/snapback]

This is a quote from a leading expert on terrorism. He's made millions protecting companies and is a consultant to the FBI and the NSA

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006...the_terror.html

The majority of terrorist attacks result in no fatalities, with just 1 percent of such attacks causing the deaths of 25 or more people.

And terror incidents began rising some in 1998, and that level remained relatively constant through 2004.

These and other myth-busting facts about global terrorism are now available on a new online database open to the public.

The database identifies more than 30,000 bombings, 13,400 assassinations and 3,200 kidnappings. Also, it details more than 1,200 terrorist attacks within the United States.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007...rism_stati.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to

  scare us)?  That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on

  9/11 scared or killed?  The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

  originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

  around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

  deprive you of your "essential liberties". Your paranoia is obvious.

79026[/snapback]

It's truly refreshing to read the words of a lucid, clear thinking american.

Thanks for your comments. Semper Fi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Again, those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. It's a sad day when this country has forgotten the meaning of "essential liberties" and how important it was to have them. :rolleyes:

Actually, most of that 'sentiment' is just a jab at the Bush-heads who seem to think that having Bush in office makes us impervious to terrorist attacks. Pointing out the fact that he didn't stop 9/11 is just injecting a bit of reality back into the equation.

Don't you see how terrorism works? The whole point is to SCARE you. If we had been able to show that their plans failed, that would deter them a whole hell of a lot more than the woefully misnamed "Patriot Act". You know what would kill their morale? Rebuilding the Twin Towers immediately (and hell, make them one floor higher just to spite them). I'm sure we could have rebuilt them in less time than it took them to plan the attacks! What better way to demoralize terrorists and their cause than to negate all of their efforts and planning and show them that we can build faster than they can destroy?

Instead, people like you do exactly what they want. You get scared, and you become willing to hand over the freedoms that generations of people have fought and died for, just for the illusion of security. Yes, it's an illusion. You CAN'T make an airplane 100% safe; too many people have access. Even with all of the added checking and stopping going on in airports since 9/11, it's still only a small percentage of people who are actually stopped and thoroughly checked. What terrorist wouldn't take those odds? Even if it was 99% (and even something like 50% would slow airports down to the point of unusability), the terrorists would still try, because of their fanatical devotion to their cause. And eventually, one of them would get through and cause another disaster. Then what?

You have to be realistic about this. Those freedoms you're so willing to concede? A whole lot of people have fought pretty damned hard to get them. Don't squander them. It isn't worth it. Handing over essential liberties will not stop maniacs from trying to kill us, it will not stop the occasional one from succeeding, and too many people have given their lives for these freedoms for me to be willing to just hand them over for the illusion of safety.

NO ONE is capable of perfectly protecting us. If you think that's possible, you are living in a dream world. Nothing short of housing the entire population of the US in bomb shelters and never allowing them to leave would come even close to doing the job. I wonder if you would be willing to go that far just to feel safe.

78976[/snapback]

"Show them that we can build faster than they can destroy" !! Yes, he

really said that. This is Strife's answer to terrorism; don't scan phone calls

coming from overseas,( that would be depriving us of "essential liberties").

Just allow the terrorists to blow up whatever they want, killing whoever they

want, and just keep rebuilding everything they destroy. How much Kool-aid

does one have to drink to think like he does ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Government isn't just monitoring phone calls to the United States they're monitoring phone calls and e-mails in the United States.

That's not my understanding of the NSA program, unless you just happened to find a very confusing way to refer to calls originating in the United States.

But you can clear up the confusion by providing a supporting URL.

And under King George, probable cause is just a pesky part of the Constitution he chooses to ignore along with the fourth, fifth and sixth Amendment.

Like King Abraham and King Franklin before him ...

The King believes that he can do as he pleases because he's keeping us safe.
But who is keeping us safe from the King.

Thank Woodrow Wilson and FDR if you don't like it.

There was a bill recently sent to the Senate that would grant immunity to the Telecommunications Companies. Fortunately, Senartor Dodd and others had the bill set aside until January. I am hoping that, if no action is taken then the bill dies and the FISA Law reverts to its original intent. So the question is, if they didn't do anything illegal then why do they need amnesty?

79078[/snapback]

It's very special the way you magically transformed "immunity" into "amnesty."

Without immunity, a terrorist front group with plenty of money (like one funded with ME oil revenue) could mount expensive challenges to information sharing and economically cripple the surveillance program. Paul the lawyer can explain the concept to you if you find it difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the list of moronic things Strife has typed on this board, this one is #1.  "The people in the WTC towers were not the targets, the rest of us were".        I suppose in the sick mind of Strife, there's some loony thought process    that caused him to type that.

79099[/snapback]

It directly agrees with this terrorism expert who is a consultant to several government agencies:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006...the_terror.html

Wonder why that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the list of moronic things Strife has typed on this board, this one is #1.

"The people in the WTC towers were not the targets, the rest of us were".

I suppose in the sick mind of Strife, there's some loony thought process

that caused him to type that.

79099[/snapback]

Yes. It's called "intelligence". A phenomenon with which you appear to be unacquainted.

Really, 2smart, do you propose that the WTC attack wasn't an attack on the US as a whole? That the people killed were specifically targeted? That the terrorists would have cared if an entirely different 3000 people had died in the attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Show them that we can build faster than they can destroy" !!    Yes, he

    really said that.  This is Strife's answer to terrorism; don't scan phone calls

    coming from overseas,( that would be depriving us of "essential liberties").

    Just allow the terrorists to blow up whatever they want, killing whoever they

    want, and just keep rebuilding everything they destroy.  How much Kool-aid

    does one have to drink to think like he does ??

79132[/snapback]

Strife is not saying don't scan phone calls, or "just allow the terrorists to blow up whatever they want." That's your problem: you're so convinced you're right that you can't understand what you read.

And of course everyone who doesn't agree with you seems "rediculous" to you. You misinterpret them to make them ridiculous.

You might say to yourself, "I don't understand how those people can think like that." You would be right: You don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's truly refreshing to read the words of a lucid, clear thinking american.

    Thanks for your comments. Semper Fi.

79129[/snapback]

Or, in YOUR case..................................SEMPER LIE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gobbly Gook

    Once again, a Loony Lefty bloviates without any knowledge of the subject.

79097[/snapback]

What a coincidence! Once again an asinine stement but nothing constructive from 2Dumb4ToBelieve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to

  scare us)?  That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on

  9/11 scared or killed?  The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

  originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

  around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

  deprive you of your "essential liberties". Your paranoia is obvious.

79026[/snapback]

3,000 killed.

Over 100 million scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strife is not saying don't scan phone calls, or "just allow the terrorists to blow up whatever they want."

That probably is what Strife is saying, in effect.

Obtaining a warrant to listen in on a given communication is probably impossible if terrorists do so simple a thing as change phones every two days (you'd get your warrant, perhaps, but too late for it to do any good).

Strife either gives up his "essential liberty" to guarantee that his conversations won't be overheard even if he says things like "explosives" "washington monument" "allah akbar" or terrorists have effective leave to have secret communications with their operatives in the United States.

That's your problem: you're so convinced you're right that you can't understand what you read.

And of course everyone who doesn't agree with you seems "rediculous" to you. You misinterpret them to make them ridiculous.

You might say to yourself, "I don't understand how those people can think like that." You would be right: You don't understand.

79176[/snapback]

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
If the govt' were only listening to "terrorists" phone calls then they would have no trouble justifying it and could continue working well within the FISA laws.

Now, they need no permission, warrants or records. Even if they didn't listen to you and me, they will listen to politcal rivals. That is also unacceptable.

Paranoid? I think not.

79055[/snapback]

Lets get to the point. That you, strife, paul or any of the LoonyLeft "guests"

thinks scanning phone calls "unacceptable" is irrelevant. The president is

doing what we elected him to do, protect the american public. GWB does not

care if some Kool-aid drinking nut jobs have their panties in a bind. As a

matter of fact, I think the president enjoys watching the Loonies running

around like mindless idiots screaming about their "essential liberties".

Fortunately for America, the Loony Lefties are a small minority and will

not change any policies that protect us. So my advice to you and those who

think (?) like you is simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting

underwear.

simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting underwear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That probably is what Strife is saying, in effect.

Obtaining a warrant to listen in on a given communication is probably impossible if terrorists do so simple a thing as change phones every two days (you'd get your warrant, perhaps, but too late for it to do any good).

Strife either gives up his "essential liberty" to guarantee that his conversations won't be overheard even if he says things like "explosives" "washington monument" "allah akbar" or terrorists have effective leave to have secret communications with their operatives in the United States.

<_<

79230[/snapback]

They can effectively communicate secretly anytime. Its called PGP. Tapping phones doesn't help.

And somehow, I just have a feeling, real terrorists aren't going to greet each other with "allah akbar" on a clear phone line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That probably is what Strife is saying, in effect.

Obtaining a warrant to listen in on a given communication is probably impossible if terrorists do so simple a thing as change phones every two days (you'd get your warrant, perhaps, but too late for it to do any good).

79230[/snapback]

The problem with your assertion is that we all know it isn't true.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...05----000-.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get to the point.  That you, strife, paul or any of the LoonyLeft "guests"

  thinks scanning phone calls "unacceptable" is irrelevant. The president is

  doing what we elected him to do, protect the american public. GWB does not

  care if some Kool-aid drinking nut jobs have their panties in a bind. As a

  matter of fact, I think the president enjoys watching the Loonies running

  around like mindless idiots screaming about their "essential liberties".

    Fortunately for America, the Loony Lefties are a small minority and will

  not change any policies that protect us.  So my advice to you and those who

  think (?) like you is simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting

  underwear.

                      simple, seek professional help or get  looser fitting underwear.

79294[/snapback]

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president's duty is to the Constitution. Bush ignores the Constitution.

I've asked this question before but I never got an answer: How are the radical right wingnuts going to feel about the godless Democrats listening in to their phone calls and reading their mail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get to the point.  That you, strife, paul or any of the LoonyLeft "guests"

  thinks scanning phone calls "unacceptable" is irrelevant. The president is

  doing what we elected him to do, protect the american public. GWB does not

  care if some Kool-aid drinking nut jobs have their panties in a bind. As a

  matter of fact, I think the president enjoys watching the Loonies running

  around like mindless idiots screaming about their "essential liberties".

    Fortunately for America, the Loony Lefties are a small minority and will

  not change any policies that protect us.  So my advice to you and those who

  think (?) like you is simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting

  underwear.

                      simple, seek professional help or get  looser fitting underwear.

79294[/snapback]

You trust him. We don't.

Amazing how we manage to keep our freedom and our security when presidents who don't do those things are in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 30 2007, 11:44 PM)

You trust him. We don't.

Amazing how we manage to keep our freedom and our security when presidents who don't do those things are in charge.

Huh?

79428[/snapback]

Right-wing Chicken Littles are always telling us the sky will fall if we don't do things their way, and if we don't give them absolute power to do whatever they want to do. Yet somehow we manage just fine when they're not in charge.

Righties can second-guess Clinton all they want. The fact remains that we did very well while he was president. We kept our freedom, we remained secure, and we weren't constantly being told to be afraid - very, very afraid.

Responsible government isn't about scaring the people into irrationality. It's about keeping us safe and free at the same time - you know, walk and chew gum at the same time. Gerry Ford did it, and he was a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BushBacker
Lets get to the point.  That you, strife, paul or any of the LoonyLeft "guests"

  thinks scanning phone calls "unacceptable" is irrelevant. The president is

  doing what we elected him to do, protect the american public. GWB does not

  care if some Kool-aid drinking nut jobs have their panties in a bind. As a

  matter of fact, I think the president enjoys watching the Loonies running

  around like mindless idiots screaming about their "essential liberties".

    Fortunately for America, the Loony Lefties are a small minority and will

  not change any policies that protect us.  So my advice to you and those who

  think (?) like you is simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting

  underwear.

                      simple, seek professional help or get  looser fitting underwear.

79294[/snapback]

Great post. You are a true Patriot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly which civil liberties have you people lost? Since the inception of the Patriot Act, I have lost none. Law enforcement since that day has not changed MY life one iota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
Lets get to the point.  That you, strife, paul or any of the LoonyLeft "guests"

  thinks scanning phone calls "unacceptable" is irrelevant. The president is

  doing what we elected him to do, protect the american public. GWB does not

  care if some Kool-aid drinking nut jobs have their panties in a bind. As a

  matter of fact, I think the president enjoys watching the Loonies running

  around like mindless idiots screaming about their "essential liberties".

    Fortunately for America, the Loony Lefties are a small minority and will

  not change any policies that protect us.  So my advice to you and those who

  think (?) like you is simple, seek professional help or get looser fitting

  underwear.

                      simple, seek professional help or get  looser fitting underwear.

79294[/snapback]

I think you have it backwards. He would rather have people like you, the ones who either don't know what he's doing or don't care to support his illegal surveillence programs.

The loony left as you refer to us are the ones who do care and we are the majority.

Fortunately, this great national nightmare will play itself out on 1/20/09 when this fool and his mery bunch of neo-cons are shown the door. So dream on if you think he's done such a wonderful job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...