Who Needs Due Process? Senate Passes Spy Bill

[TQ]

Um...no one is talking about a lack of judicial oversight. Bush relented last year and placed the "domestic spying program" under FISA jurisdiction.
The sticking point right now is the insistence that the telecoms give up their exemption under the expired current law. That's motivated only be trial lawyers and their desire to make some bucks suing the telecoms when they cooperate with the government.

And K0NG0's comment about no one being hurt by Iranian nukes, well no one in Poland was hurt by Hitler prior to 1939 either.
I don't see the wisdom in waiting for (yet another) massive attack on the United States before we can data mine Abu's telephone calls.

And as far as my guns go, they've killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car and he's still driving.

[CrowdAds]

[TQ]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Better I guess to emulate Nazi Germany.

And this isn't a hyperbolic rant?

[Cogar]

Although I am all for security, I cannot think of a single USA government agency with the collective intelligence, discipline, restraint, or wisdom to properly utilize such power. Although there is more than a grain of truth in the generalization that people who are opposed to surveillance are themselves the ones who would do the least well under such scrutiny, I agree that using the current political "anti-terrorism" climate as an excuse to legalize powers that are not constitutional is yet another step down the wrong road by the "leadership" of the USA.

[tamarelle]

Actually no. I see the US moving strongly to the right and that is actually a painful and sad thing for most Europeans. You may not believe it, but in general, Europeans have great respect for the principles America was founded on.

To see Americans defending torture and spying and all manner of rephrensible acts, does remind me a great deal of the slow spiral of Germany into a military industrial state in the 1930's. The inclusion of religious doctrine into the American political mainstream gives many of us pause. America is still a great country, and FAR from degenerating into a totalitarian state but there are still parallels which frighten me. To see politicians screaming incessantly that the USA is the greatest country in the world as they do in America today, is so unlike the America of the 1940's where no politician ever entertained such an idea. The ideal of America was to be the best it could be. Now the ideal of America is to police the world and to export its "freedom", forcibly in the case of Iraq.

TQ you have made it clear that you value your personal rights, ie, to carry a gun. However, do you value the right of a woman to determine whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Or does personal freedom stop there for you? Do you support the right of homosexuals to marry? Or does their personal liberty mean nothing to you?

Actually I have no idea which liberties you personally support, but there are seemingly many americans who believe their personal religious beliefs entitle them to "adjust" the laws of america to forbid other Americans current liberties enjoyed in most every civilized country.

I went cold when I heard that Huckabee wanted to "change the constitution" to forbid gay marriages and abortion rights because his interpretation of the bible. To me that is as egregious as the denial of basic rights to Saudi women for religous reasons.

[ctal]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

I am myself mystified to read the amazingly right wing rants going on here.

First let me say that I don't mean the following to be pejorative towards anyone; it is just what I believe to be an objective observation.

I think part of the "mystification" is attributable to what I believe to be the fact that technically oriented people are, on average, further towards the right, politically, than the average of the population as a whole.

I'm not sure why that is so, but it has been my consistent observation through a lengthy career as an electronics engineer (while also being a non-practicing attorney). So I would expect that the consensus here at ABX concerning social and political matters would be some amount to the right of center, relative to the American mainstream.

Again, that's just what I believe to be an objective observation.

Regards,

-- Al

[tamarelle]

Ctal thanks for that observation.

Having lived in America when I was in my teens, I know that the USA is also home of some of the most forward thinking, liberal, and open minded people in the world. Your explanation did help me because these attitudes are not ones I ever encounter in Florida. Suffice to say that more people voted for Hillary Clinton in the Florida primaries than voted for either McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. It wasn't even close. So I know that even in Florida, radical right wingers are not the norm.

Americans seem to always find a nice middle ground. That's why they may vote for Universal Health Care but I doubt they will ever vote for Universal FREE healthcare as we know it in Europe.

Europeans actually do not mind paying a bit more in taxes, because our Governments tend to make sure that everyone can get a good education, good health care, good jobs, etc, not just the children of the very poor, or very rich, as it is seems to be in the USA lately. Conversely, Americans are very proud, and justifiably so, of their individualism, and the liberties which guarantee this. The price they pay is the relative lack of an effective social network to help them.

That's why it's doubly perplexing to see some people defend the right to own a gun and yet wish to repeal other social rights that they find objectionable.

If they are going to sacrifice BOTH social welfare and social liberties then they really have NOTHING. You can have both, or one or the other, but to have neither is rather chilling.

One last thing, can someone PLEASE teach George Dubyah Bush to correctly pronounce the word, NUCLEAR (ITS NOT pronounced NUKULAR Mr. Bush) before he ends his presidency? The most powerful leader in the world with the vocabulary skills of a 7th grader is truly embarrassing.

Originally Posted by ctal

First let me say that I don't mean the following to be pejorative towards anyone; it is just what I believe to be an objective observation.

I think part of the "mystification" is attributable to what I believe to be the fact that technically oriented people are, on average, further towards the right, politically, than the average of the population as a whole.

I'm not sure why that is so, but it has been my consistent observation through a lengthy career as an electronics engineer (while also being a non-practicing attorney). So I would expect that the consensus here at ABX concerning social and political matters would be some amount to the right of center, relative to the American mainstream.

Again, that's just what I believe to be an objective observation.

Regards,

-- Al

[ctal]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

One last thing, can someone PLEASE teach George Dubyah Bush to correctly pronounce the word, NUCLEAR (ITS NOT pronounced NUKULAR Mr. Bush) before he ends his presidency?

Actually, I recall seeing a press conference or some similar event some years ago at which Laura Bush, with the President standing next to her, teasingly announced to the assembled multitude that she knows how to pronounce "nu-cle-ar."

Originally Posted by tamarelle

Having lived in America when I was in my teens, I know that the USA is also home of some of the most forward thinking, liberal, and open minded people in the world ....

Americans seem to always find a nice middle ground. That's why they may vote for Universal Health Care but I doubt they will ever vote for Universal FREE healthcare as we know it in Europe.

Europeans actually do not mind paying a bit more in taxes, because our Governments tend to make sure that everyone can get a good education, good health care, good jobs, etc, not just the children of the very poor, or very rich, as it is seems to be in the USA lately. Conversely, Americans are very proud, and justifiably so, of their individualism, and the liberties which guarantee this. The price they pay is the relative lack of an effective social network to help them.

That's why it's doubly perplexing to see some people defend the right to own a gun and yet wish to repeal other social rights that they find objectionable.

If they are going to sacrifice BOTH social welfare and social liberties then they really have NOTHING. You can have both, or one or the other, but to have neither is rather chilling.

I think those are astute observations. Yes, it has been a long-standing paradox that the mindset of those who are at or near the right-wing end of the political spectrum tends to want as little government as possible, yet to have government be the arbiter of things that should be very personal (such as a woman's right to choose). I don't know how to explain that paradox. And many of the people with that mindset would accuse those on the left of hypocrisy and double standards in their concern for those less fortunate, because (in some cases, at least) they are perceived as being against governmental policies that might adversely affect their own circumstances.

My own take on all of this is, as I think yours is also, reasonably optimistic. In most things, a sensible middle-ground consensus usually emerges, albeit often after a longer than ideal gestation process, and often in reaction to negative experience with an alternative approach. And Presidents do tend to move toward the center, as has often been observed. Even Reagan made some Supreme Court appointments (Sandra Day O'Connor, for instance) that were welcomed by many who consider themselves "progressive," including me.

I would probably be considered by most people to be, overall, a little bit left of center politically. But my basic feeling is that, in this day and age, dogmatic, ideologically-driven political approaches of any persuasion simply tend not to work, and often have effects that are the opposite of what was intended. We live in a very complex and unpredictable world, which is increasingly different from all that has come before. I believe that most issues are best addressed in a pragmatic way, and I would say that having good government is akin to having a well run company -- the key to success is to have the right matchups of people and positions (not on the basis of ideology, but on the basis of relevant experience, overall intelligence, and good attitude), and then to let them do their thing. And ultimately that is the responsibility of the voters.

Regards,

-- Al

[jrefronc]

This is an interesting thread. The only thing missing from most of the complaints about this bill are the facts. This bill does not allow anyone to spy on any American citizens within the borders of the USA without a warrant. It allows warrantless wiretaps of communications that begin and or end abroad. Domestic calls -even to suspected terrorist cells- always have and still do require warrants. Read the bill before you start comparing Bush to Hitler. It's just ignorant. All this talk about "torture" and "spying" and "all manner of terrible things" the US is doing (In its war on people who chop off heads for fun, mind you) is the lamest form of moral equivalence.

The author of post number three which was refered to as a "right-wing rant" is apparently more informed than anyone who has replied. The House Democrats TODAY took a week-plus VACATION without even voting on the bill that expires TOMORROW. Our enemies know that after tomorrow they will have free reign to coordinate whatever they want without fear of being listened to specifically because the Democrats have allowed the current, perfectly legal law to expire.

[tamarelle]

Your input is valued, however, it is replete with misinformation, intentional or unintentional.

Firstly you assert that "Domestic calls - even to suspected terrorist cells - always have and still do require warrants".

That is just plain wrong. Immediately following 9/11, Bush authorized domestic spying WITHIN the borders of the United States on U.S. citizens WITHOUT A WARRANT. Please read the following article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...16program.html

I suppose your caveat could be "Domestic" calls and this depends on how one twists logic to make a point. To most people, a call made by a U.S. citizen IN THE UNITED STATES would qualify as spying within the United States borders on American Citizens, whether or not the call was destined domestically or internationally. Bush to this day is pushing for warrantless intrusions. However, Congress will not allow it and this bill is a compromise solution.

Bush also authorized torture. And not just torture of prisoners, but the abduction and torture of individuals within the confines of Europe. Read here: American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Applauds Europeans for Investigating Rendition and Torture Claims, Effort Called a Model for U.S.


No one compared Bush to Hitler. You are the one who mentioned Hitler.

I suggest if you wish to refute an argument then try using facts instead of a liberal sprinkling of mendacity.

Originally Posted by jrefronc

This is an interesting thread. The only thing missing from most of the complaints about this bill are the facts. This bill does not allow anyone to spy on any American citizens within the borders of the USA without a warrant. It allows warrantless wiretaps of communications that begin and or end abroad. Domestic calls -even to suspected terrorist cells- always have and still do require warrants. Read the bill before you start comparing Bush to Hitler. It's just ignorant. All this talk about "torture" and "spying" and "all manner of terrible things" the US is doing (In its war on people who chop off heads for fun, mind you) is the lamest form of moral equivalence.

The author of post number three which was refered to as a "right-wing rant" is apparently more informed than anyone who has replied. The House Democrats TODAY took a week-plus VACATION without even voting on the bill that expires TOMORROW. Our enemies know that after tomorrow they will have free reign to coordinate whatever they want without fear of being listened to specifically because the Democrats have allowed the current, perfectly legal law to expire.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

TQ you have made it clear that you value your personal rights, ie, to carry a gun. However, do you value the right of a woman to determine whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Or does personal freedom stop there for you? Do you support the right of homosexuals to marry? Or does their personal liberty mean nothing to you?

You know very little about me, but, for the record:

I support termination of pregnancy in the first trimester. I do not support late term abortions (something I wouldn't do to a dog much less a human being, though I generally prefer dogs to people) and believe they should outlawed.
But let's be honest...you're not killing a "fetus" but a person. To believe anything less is begin intellectually disingenuous.
I do not support public funding of abortions. If you're mature enough to get pregnant you're old enough to pay for it yourself. Don't ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for your decisions. Incest or rape, of course, is something different.

I fully and completely support gay marriage, polygamy or any sort of arrangement that adults decide to go with. It's no one else's business.
I do not support calling a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution
with an "anti-gay marriage" amendment. All kinds of extremists will come out of the woodwork for that and we'll be dealing with some really stupid **** if we go there. Besides, as a Christian it's not up to me to throw the first stone.
I'll leave that to the religions that stone women for any number of convenient reasons.

Am I clear on this now?

Oh, one thing more: I do not support mass executions of certain groups in gas chambers, the invasion and occupation of Europe, Russia, the Pacific Rim and the exportation of Nazi fascism on a global scale.

By the way, just for the record...the Nazi's were among the most aggressive proponents of gun control. Bad for government business.

For you to compare actions taken by the certain U.S. government agencies to those of the Nazis demonstrates your generation's failure to understand history and a certain convenient immaturity.
It's easy to call someone a Nazi when you disagree with them. I know. You wouldn't be the first person from France to call me a Nazi. The woman who originally has that honor is now a friend of mine. See, she took the time to get to know me. Besides, after a couple of bottles of a good Bordeaux I'm really cute and irresistible.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by tamarelle

No one compared Bush to Hitler. You are the one who mentioned Hitler.

You, dear Tam, suggested the U.S. government is becoming like Nazi Germany. And who led Nazi Germany? And who is the chief executive of the United States?
Be honest, please. It's logical to infer that you think of George W. Bush as Hitler.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by ctal

Actually, I recall seeing a press conference or some similar event some years ago at which Laura Bush, with the President standing next to her, teasingly announced to the assembled multitude that she knows how to pronounce "nu-cle-ar."

It's a Texas regional pronunciation. My father - a die-hard, yellow dog Democrat - pronounces it the same way. "New-cu-ler".

[tamarelle]

TQ I actually ASKED what your positions are, and said I do not know.

I do consider us friends, although I find your love of guns odd, its a guy thing to be sure. Males love guns, even in france. Please don't tell me Mrs TQ loves them too Im sure she does She seems to love everything you love.
That's a very nice thing to find in a partner, btw, and is not an attack on her.

Please don't make the mistake of labelling me as I did not label you. YOU don't like it and neither do I.

Even tho you are right wing, I am fond of you, but not your strident chauvinism. Neither do you seem fond of my European attitudes. I do consider us online friends, and as such I feel free to argue my position honestly and without fear of retribution or social reprisal. This is to me the most delightful form of social discouse apart from infamous girl-talk of which I am guilty and of course computer nerdiness of which I am also guilty.

I am happily surprised I will admit that your positions are not totally right wing, although I disagree with you that a fetus is a person. The term person is the socialized description of not only a human being, but also a description of that individuals interaction within social and environmental boundaries, and does imply self-awareness. The fetal brain does not even begin to function measurably until 40 days after conception.

But this of course is a long drawn out argument. The point is, nobody thinks abortion is good. It's a horrible process that scars the mother for life both physically and psychologically. However, what surprises me is that conservative Americans, who disavow all government intervention in their lives, seek to have the government control what a woman can or cannot do with her body. To force a female to carry an unwanted child to term is not the proper function of a government. As to whether the taxpayer should pay for abortions is a complex issue. One could also wonder why people who are anti gun should be forced to pay for a regulatory system to protect them against guns when they are against guns in the first place. Guns DO kill people. A man can stand around for eternity clicking his finger at someone from 200 metres away and no injury will ever result. But put a gun in that hand and he can kill a room full of innocent people.

As to you being cute, I have seen your photo and for an older guy I would definitely say you are hunky

Originally Posted by TQ

You know very little about me, but, for the record:

I support termination of pregnancy in the first trimester. I do not support late term abortions (something I wouldn't do to a dog much less a human being, though I generally prefer dogs to people) and believe they should outlawed.
But let's be honest...you're not killing a "fetus" but a person. To believe anything less is begin intellectually disingenuous.
I do not support public funding of abortions. If you're mature enough to get pregnant you're old enough to pay for it yourself. Don't ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for your decisions. Incest or rape, of course, is something different.

I fully and completely support gay marriage, polygamy or any sort of arrangement that adults decide to go with. It's no one else's business.
I do not support calling a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution
with an "anti-gay marriage" amendment. All kinds of extremists will come out of the woodwork for that and we'll be dealing with some really stupid **** if we go there. Besides, as a Christian it's not up to me to throw the first stone.
I'll leave that to the religions that stone women for any number of convenient reasons.

Am I clear on this now?

Oh, one thing more: I do not support mass executions of certain groups in gas chambers, the invasion and occupation of Europe, Russia, the Pacific Rim and the exportation of Nazi fascism on a global scale.

By the way, just for the record...the Nazi's were among the most aggressive proponents of gun control. Bad for government business.

For you to compare actions taken by the certain U.S. government agencies to those of the Nazis demonstrates your generation's failure to understand history and a certain convenient immaturity.
It's easy to call someone a Nazi when you disagree with them. I know. You wouldn't be the first person from France to call me a Nazi. The woman who originally has that honor is now a friend of mine. See, she took the time to get to know me. Besides, after a couple of bottles of a good Bordeaux I'm really cute and irresistible.

[jrefronc]

Tam, I mean no disrespect, but are you kidding me? That New York Times article is absolutely loaded with anonymous quotes, conjecture, and outright contradictory nonsense. It does not once actually quote the FISA act. It just dances around "percieved" observations and gives vague notions of impropriety. "Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests. " That sentence alone is worth a thousand journalism school bitch slaps.

And then there's this gem which maybe you just missed... "Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan. " That is almost word for word exactly what I wrote, copied directly from your NYT source.

And linking anyting by the ACLU is no way to add credibility to any argument.

Read the actual bill like I suggested.
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

It is based almost entirely on this here little inconvenience called the NIE:
http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

Then you might see who is really spreading misinformation, "knowingly or unknowingly."

Have a nice day!

[Deer Slayer]

This is just unbeleivable to me, EVERYBODY has something they want to hide! When you allow people to listen in on phone calls, just because they say it's to "stop terrorism", DOES NOT mean it will be used that way! Pretty soon, you'll have the feds selling tapes of Brittney Spears cell phone calls to the FRICKEN TABLOIDS to suppliment their salaries. They'll use phone calls ANY WAY THEY CAN after a while. I'm really suprised this is STILL going right under YOUR NOSES without people getting more upset! They start with TERRORISM, then they use your phone calls to bust illegal gambling, under age drinking, and tax evasion!!!! They make the process so gradual, like placing cameras everywhere. You know you may think "WHO CARES" who listens to your phone calls, but when they're used to BLACKMAIL, PROFILE, and bust you for EVERY MINOR OFFENSE, YOU WILL CARE!!! Do you really want law enforcement to have the ability to charge you with MAKING TERRORISTIC THREATS every time you get into a GW bashing session?!?!?! Come on, get real, you should know by now you give an inch, they take a MILE!!! Do you really think they'll limit this to terrorism?!?! I have NO PROBLEM with this being used for it's intended purpose, but if there's ANYTHING I've learned form watching the government in action is they'll TWIST the law to ANY INTERPRETATION they can to suit their needs. It won't be long, and they'll start using your phone calls ANY WAY THEY WANT! Do you really want the cops at the next poker game you and your buddies put on?!?! Do you really want them to charge you for betting $50 on a game?!?! What other minor infractions do you THINK they won't BOTHER with?? They have cops, DAs, judges, courthouses, probation officers, friend of the court, and a MILLION OTHER BUREAUCRACIES to support!!! The courts make $$$ by making COURT CASES!!! Fees, fines, assessments, OH MY!!!! Terrorists are smarter than to speak in plain language anyways, they'll speak in code. They won't be any easier to track, they'll just find ways around it, just like you will to avoid being busted for gambling, or whatever else you want to keep private. It will just result in more revenue for the courts, making it easier to control the population. The difference will be is you'll always be looking over your shoulder. It would be GREAT IF EVERYBODY in a position of power was trust worthy. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and will NEVER be. What happens when you get on some cop's S}{!T list just because they don't like you?!?!? When are you people going to grow brains?!?!