A Modest Proposal

[insert_namehere]

It seems to me that there is a certain percentage of Americans that are completely terrified of some bogeyman with a car bomb, anthrax envelope, poison gas or what have you and yet at the same time, don't seem to feel that restrictions of personal rights, such as privacy, unreasonable search, restriction of free speech (as well as a free press) and habeas corpus are anything to get in a dither about.

Now, for the rest of Americans who happen to LIKE the Bill of Rights and would like to see them around for a bit, what's a body to do?

Seems to me that the best thing for all concerned would be the old angle of secession. There's a few states that currently aren't the supposed numero uno target for any wild-haired mujhiahadeen with a boner over the "American Shaitan" (North Dakota springs to mind) that the rest of the good ol' US of A could probably survive without.

So, the thought here is, everyone that really feels the current executive administration has their collective finger on the pulse of true America, why not move to North Dakota, declare anonymity, invite Bush as your first President, seal up your borders and call your yourselves "True Blue America".

The rest of us who've been duped by the liberal media will muddle on as best we can.

Sounds like a Win-win to me - what do the rest of you think?

[tsmandy]

What if I just secede? Give me a million square miles of land, some rivers, maybe a forest, even a desert, and I'll show you something special...

[chefmike]

What if I just secede? Give me a million square miles of land, some rivers, maybe a forest, even a desert, and I'll show you something special...

You already have, Mandy...in body and mind...don't be a stranger, babydoll...and BTW, what was your connection to Blacksburg, if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing that it was the outdoor recreation available there, by looking at some your past posts...

Why couldn't you have been hugging a tree when I used to explore the Jefferson State Forest? I could've shared some tasty 'shrooms with you...among other things...talk about a picnic.... :wink:

[guyone]

Excuse the ignorance but how exactly are your rights being trampled on? Or were you planning a 'spectacular' event?

[tsmandy]

What if I just secede? Give me a million square miles of land, some rivers, maybe a forest, even a desert, and I'll show you something special...

You already have, Mandy...in body and mind...don't be a stranger, babydoll...and BTW, what was your connection to Blacksburg, if you don't mind me asking? I'm guessing that it was the outdoor recreation available there, by looking at some your past posts...

Why couldn't you have been hugging a tree when I used to explore the Jefferson State Forest? I could've shared some tasty 'shrooms with you...among other things...talk about a picnic.... :wink:

Actually I was at a conference in DC and I met some cool kids from Blacksburg. I had a crush on one of them and ended up spending a bit of time there. I also happened upon a coal train derailment that had happened a few days previous. I remember being ill at ease for some inexplicable reason the whole time I was there, and the train accident somehow summed it up for me.

[insert_namehere]

Excuse the ignorance but how exactly are your rights being trampled on? Or were you planning a 'spectacular' event?

Pardon the lateness of my response, but you know - work, life, etc. It gets in the way sometimes.

Anyway, on to my response.

Okay, let's start with Free Speech.
Our current Chief Executive, since the passing of the Patriot Act, has decided on an interesting little wrinkle in how he "controls the message". Every time he goes galumphing around the country, he has the Secret Service and local law officials set up what are referred to as "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. On average, these areas tend to be anywhere from one to five miles from wherever Bush happens to be.

If he was attending a privately funded event, say a GOP fundraiser, the folks putting on the event are absolutely free to say who may and who may NOT be there, as well as giving anyone the gate that they might feel is disruptive. Such was the case of Sistrunk vs. the City of Strongville a few years back. In the instances of Alex Young and Leslie Weise in Denver, Bill Neel in Pittsburgh, Christine Mains in Missouri, Brett Bursey in South Carolina, as well as a number of cases the ACLU have combined in a single petition for redress that have occurred in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and Florida, these were public events, paid for with public monies and held as public (non restricted) events. All criminal charges against defendents arrested by local officers under the direction of the secret service have been continually thrown out, since as presiding Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula said at Neel's trial, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

I can only imagine the squawk the some conservatives might raise if they were subjected to the same treatment under a democratic president - and you know what? I'd be squaking right there with them.

Free Press?
Summer - 2001, Vice President Cheney refused to release basic information about meetings he and other administration officials had held -->on government time and property<-- with energy company executives to help formulate federal policies, a position on which he remains steadfastly adamant.

August 11, 2001 - the Justice Department secretly subpoenas Associated Press reporter John Solomon's home telephone records. As Solomon, stated in a later interview, "The Justice Department has indicated to us that they were actually trying to stop the publication of a story that I was working on and tried to find out who I was talking to and cut off the flow of information. So it does get into the issue of prior restraint, along with First and Fourth Amendment issues."

Patriot Act - giving federal authorities more power to access email and telephone communications. The federal government detained hundreds of people indefinitely without releasing the most basic information about them. Attorney General John Ashcroft described the news blackout in Orwellian fashion, "It would be a violation of the privacy rights of individuals for me to create some kind of list." He also issued the following directive: "When you carefully consider FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions…"

Fall, 2001 - Bush drafts Executive Order 13233, overriding the post-Watergate 1978 Presidential Records Act and sharply reducing public access to the papers of former presidents, including his father's.

December 6, 2001 - Marines lock reporters and photographers in a warehouse to prevent them from covering American troops killed or injured north of Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Homeland Security Act - Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) section. Former Miami Herald managing editor Pete Weitzel recently described it in The American Editor as a "black hole" for almost boundless censorship. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, called the move-which created an entirely new level of secrecy and a system of binding nondisclosure agreements effectively muzzling millions of state and local officials and private contractors-"the single greatest rollback of FOIA in history."

Well, you get the idea, right?

On to my personal favorite and something that will be back in the headlines shortly - telling habeas corpus to go fuck itself. The case of Jose Padilla - a guy that's led pretty much of a low-life's existence, but at the same time, is an American Citizen - NOT a soldier, NOT a foreigner - and as such, is entitled to the right of habeas corpus - errr - except that John Ashcroft and later good ol' Al Gonzales have argued unsuccessfully otherwise.

The shorthand on this case is as follows: Jose Padilla converts to Islam while in prison, changes name to Abdullah al Muhajir and talks a lot of smack. Eventually he turns up at the US embassy in Pakistan because he lost his passport. On the basis of THAT event and interrogation of Abu Zabaydah (a close associate of Bin Laden's who was captured in Pakistan) where he stated he'd been approached in the Afghan city of Khowst by an American recruit to al Qaeda, (he couldn't identify the man by name) but the American told him he planned to build and detonate a dirty bomb in his home country, Jose was put on a government watch list and then arrested when he landed in New York on May 6, 2002 on a warrant as a material witness (to what, exactly, the warrant didn't say). Donna Newman was his court appointed counsel and for as long as he was a prisoner of the New York district courts, she had access to client. However, come June 11 and all of a sudden, he's handed over to the DoD and classified a prisoner of war. Since then, he's been stuck in a military compound in South Carolina as well as sunny GitMo until the government finally realized that even a military tribunal can't hang a guy on flimsy circumstantial evidence and now he's reclassified a citizen again, back in Florida and about to stand trail on charges of "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim". Sadly, for Al Gonzales, at least - presiding Judge Cooke labeled it "very light on facts."

Even so, this guy gets to be denied due process, access to representation and a complete abrogation of habeas corpus based solely on circumstantial evidence?

By the way, thanks to good ol' section (PCII) of the Homeland Security Act - this is the only case like this we KNOW about. You're probably too young to recall much of "Los Desaparecidos" - a term used to describe folks who just went "poof!" in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 - curiously enough, under the auspices of a military junta intent on wiping out "left-wing terrorism". Must feel like old home week, huh?

[guyone]

Funny how you don't mention the fact that Jose was carrying radioactive material and on his way to detonate a DIRTY BOMB!!!

And I'm sure that the people who were clobbered over the head with 2x4's by A.N.S.W.E.R. members at a recent protest for disagreeing with them were violating the A.N.S.W.E.R. members rights of free speech so they were justifiably punished?

C'mon...really.

What kind of VICHY BOLSHEVIK nonsense is this?

Has this board been shut down? Has anyone been arrested?

[White_Male_Canada]

Excuse the ignorance but how exactly are your rights being trampled on? Or were you planning a 'spectacular' event?




Summer - 2001, Vice President Cheney refused to release basic information about meetings he and other administration officials had held -->on government time and property<-- with energy company executives to help formulate federal policies, a position on which he remains steadfastly adamant.

June 2004, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Cheney. It`s a little something called executive privilege, look into it some day.





August 11, 2001 - the Justice Department secretly subpoenas Associated Press reporter John Solomon's home telephone records. As Solomon, stated in a later interview, "The Justice Department has indicated to us that they were actually trying to stop the publication of a story that I was working on and tried to find out who I was talking to and cut off the flow of information. So it does get into the issue of prior restraint, along with First and Fourth
Amendment issues."


Solomon quoted unnamed law enforcement officials saying that (D) Robert Torricelli had been overheard on an FBI wiretap related to an organized crime investigation. It`s very illegal for law enforcement to reveal information gleaned from wiretaps.




Patriot Act - giving federal authorities more power to access email and telephone communications. The federal government detained hundreds of people indefinitely without releasing the most basic information about them. Attorney General John Ashcroft described the news blackout in Orwellian fashion, "It would be a violation of the privacy rights of individuals for me to create some kind of list." He also issued the following directive: "When you carefully consider FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions…" [/quote]


The PS gives law enforcement the same tools as it had to go after the mafia,organized crime,drug trafficking,etc. It also removed major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from coordinating information.

Joe Biden (D), “ The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”


Fall, 2001 - Bush drafts Executive Order 13233, overriding the post-Watergate 1978 Presidential Records Act and sharply reducing public access to the papers of former presidents, including his father's.

EO`s are legal. Sheesh



December 6, 2001 - Marines lock reporters and photographers in a warehouse to prevent them from covering American troops killed or injured north of Kandahar, Afghanistan.


And? Last time I looked at a map Afghanistan was not US soil.


Homeland Security Act - Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) section. Former Miami Herald managing editor Pete Weitzel recently described it in The American Editor as a "black hole" for almost boundless censorship. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, called the move-which created an entirely new level of secrecy and a system of binding nondisclosure agreements effectively muzzling millions of state and local officials and private contractors-"the single greatest rollback of FOIA in history."

More nonsense. DHS`s Infrastructure Partnerships Division was created for private industry to share it`s security based information. Why in the world should the Feds or private businesses be forced to reveal their sensitive security information? Unless you`re a terrorist probing for gaps in their security.

:smh

[Quinn]

Funny how you don't mention the fact that Jose was carrying radioactive material and on his way to detonate a DIRTY BOMB!!!


LMAO.... Maybe he didn't mention it because it didn't happen. No need to let actual facts get in the way of making a point, is there, Gumpone:

But as the (not quite radioactive) dust settled on Ashcroft's dramatic announcement, some began asking not only why Mr. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was being held in a Navy brig as an "enemy combatant," but also why he was dominating America's headlines — and its nightmares. Within hours of Ashcroft's announcement, administration officials were pointing out that Padilla had no radioactive material or any other bomb-making equipment. Nor had he chosen a target, or formulated a plan. And while his connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt, he suddenly began to look a lot more like the accused shoe-bomber Richard Reid (i.e. another disaffected ex-con from the West desperate to get in with al-Qaeda) than like the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11.

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html

Seriously, do you George Bush wannabe retards ever get your facts correct? Oh, well, we can just chalk it up to more of the usual backpedaling, selective reinterpretation, and outright lying preferred by your factually challenged kind.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Sure. Keep dreaming.

[Quinn]

ROTFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What, no answer, Gumpone? That's what I thought.

-Quinn

[tsafficianado]

Quinn sez, and with a straight face i presume

'the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11'

thanks quinn, we all needed a good laugh.

[Quinn]

Quinn sez, and with a straight face i presume

'the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11'

thanks quinn, we all needed a good laugh.

Maybe paying attention and reading comprehension just aren't your strong suit. Since these skills do seem wanting in your case, and I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll help you figure out what would be obvious to a computer literate ten-year old: www.time.com (in partnership with CNN) published the relevant article, not me. I guess you didn't notice that it was italicized and that the link was posted beneath.

Thanks for providing that "good laugh" you were talking about. Let this be a lesson, boys and girls; stay in school. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

[guyone]

Maybe you should spend less time undermining the fabric of America.

[insert_namehere]

Funny how you don't mention the fact that Jose was carrying radioactive material and on his way to detonate a DIRTY BOMB!!!
This has already been dealt with by another poster, so I'll move on.


And I'm sure that the people who were clobbered over the head with 2x4's by A.N.S.W.E.R. members at a recent protest for disagreeing with them were violating the A.N.S.W.E.R. members rights of free speech so they were justifiably punished?
You may be sure, but I'm not. One of the things I've always appreciated (seemingly more so than Bush, et al) is the right to dissent. Left or right, it doesn't matter - protest and free expression shouldn't be exclusionary.

Oh, and believe it or not, MANY folks that have issue with our current involvement in Iraq have issues with A.N.S.W.E.R. The world isn't quite as simplistic as "if you agree with someone on one issue, you must agree with them on all issues".

[Quinn]

Maybe you should spend less time undermining the fabric of America.

Feel free to demonstrate the courage of your convictions by doing something other than continually whining on a transsexual forum – like actually serving your country the way other posters and I have. Until then, might I recommend doing a little reading on anything at all. Maybe then you won't have so much trouble getting your facts straight. :wink:

-Quinn

[insert_namehere]

June 2004, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Cheney. It`s a little something called executive privilege, look into it some day.
Actually, Cheney didn't invoke executive privilege, at that would have been a whole different ball of wax and one he KNEW he couldn't win. He may be a soul-less venal monster, but he knows politics - that's why he refused to hide behind executive privilege OR produce the requested documents, as well as take Justice Scalia quail hunting just before the case came up for review.

In the end, just to keep the facts straight, the majority opinion ruled "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections." And then bounced it back to a lower Appellate court. Not exactly the stunning vindication your response would indicate.


Solomon quoted unnamed law enforcement officials saying that (D) Robert Torricelli had been overheard on an FBI wiretap related to an organized crime investigation. It`s very illegal for law enforcement to reveal information gleaned from wiretaps.
And the normal procedure is to issue a subpoena to the individual to appear before a court of law to answer a charge, not secretly subpoena phone records without the individual being informed of a possible case of action - that pesky habeas corpus again.


The PS gives law enforcement the same tools as it had to go after the mafia,organized crime,drug trafficking,etc. It also removed major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from coordinating information.

Joe Biden (D), “ The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”
Again, in order to tap organized crime or whathaveyou... you MUST get a warrant from a JUDGE... you must produce sufficient CAUSE for a tap or a search. If the Patriot Act required the same procedural, there wouldn't need to BE a Patriot Act. In point of fact, it was put in place so that suspicion with NO evidence at all was enough to initiate invasive investigation.


EO`s are legal. Sheesh
Yes, they are legal. Poll taxes were legal once too. Sometimes you have to look at the underlying principle. Trust me, if we were talking about a Democratic President, you'd probably be hollering for transparency.



And? Last time I looked at a map Afghanistan was not US soil.
And the last time I looked, Marines aren't normally tasked with locking up reporters who are merely doing their job.


More nonsense. DHS`s Infrastructure Partnerships Division was created for private industry to share it`s security based information. Why in the world should the Feds or private businesses be forced to reveal their sensitive security information? Unless you`re a terrorist probing for gaps in their security.

:smh[/quote]

From the Department of Homeland Security's Website:
"PCII is an information-protection tool that facilitates information sharing between the government and the private sector. DHS and other Federal, State and local analysts use PCII in pursuit of a more secure homeland, focusing primarily on:
· Analyzing and securing critical infrastructure and protected systems,
· Identifying vulnerabilities and developing risk assessments, and
· Enhancing recovery preparedness measures.
Information submitted, if it satisfies the requirements of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, is protected from public disclosure under
· The Freedom of Information Act,
· State and local disclosure laws, and
· Use in civil litigation. "
Looks like pretty much of a black whole to me. Any information of any sort you don't want anyone to see - just send it through the PCII. Yup, it's a nifty neato coverall. Of COURSE, no one will EVER think of misusing it, would they?

[tsmandy]

[quote=guyone]

Oh, and believe it or not, MANY folks that have issue with our current involvement in Iraq have issues with A.N.S.W.E.R. The world isn't quite as simplistic as "if you agree with someone on one issue, you must agree with them on all issues".

Just about anyone who has gone to an anti-war protest over the past fifteen years (unless they are in the Revolutionary Workers party aka ANSWER run by former 70's FBI COINTELPRO mastermind Ramsey Clark) has had the tremendous displeasure of sharing a space with those people. They make the left sound just as stupid and shrill as some of the posters on this board make the right look. They are very good at yelling, and littering.

[White_Male_Canada]

Actually, Cheney didn't invoke executive privilege, at that would have been a whole different ball of wax and one he KNEW he couldn't win. He may be a soul-less venal monster, but he knows politics - that's why he refused to hide behind executive privilege OR produce the requested documents, as well as take Justice Scalia quail hunting just before the case came up for review… "Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch "shall bear the burden" of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections." Not exactly the stunning vindication your response would indicate.

You interpret incorrectly. That quote from the court was siding with cheney,not against. I never stated Cheney invoked Privilege, althought he should have. Cheney refused to respond to the litigants, he also held back on invoking executive privilege,which he could. USSC stated that lower courts could fashion discovery requests from the executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege. Thousands of pages have been released. Sorry, no grand conspiracy.

You`re a conspiracy theorist, looking for some meaning in life. Your hope seems to be that there are big fat men chewing cigars in dark rooms, plotting to take over the world and once you expose them nirvana will unfold.



And the normal procedure is to issue a subpoena to the individual to appear before a court of law to answer a charge, not secretly subpoena phone records without the individual being informed of a possible case of action - that pesky habeas corpus again.

Phone records are the private property of phone companies. Your phone number belongs to them, not you. No warrant is required, all the government has to do is ask. It`s up to the phone company to say yes or no.


in order to tap organized crime or whathaveyou... you MUST get a warrant from a JUDGE... you must produce sufficient CAUSE for a tap or a search. If the Patriot Act required the same procedural, there wouldn't need to BE a Patriot Act. In point of fact, it was put in place so that suspicion with NO evidence at all was enough to initiate invasive investigation.

Wrong. Already ruled on back in 2002. Previous ruling allowed for broad surveillance authority. You live in the past when one would pick their phone , talk to an operator and ask for Regent-4505. Cells phone, calling cards, emails are what law enforcement have to deal with. The FISA court rules on those type of issues.


Any information of any sort you don't want anyone to see - just send it through the PCII. Yup, it's a nifty neato coverall. Of COURSE, no one will EVER think of misusing it, would they?

Yeeahh, and those planes were remote controlled by the CIA. That and they keep the aliens under wraps at area 51

[insert_namehere]

You interpret incorrectly. That quote from the court was siding with cheney,not against. I never stated Cheney invoked Privilege, althought he should have. Cheney refused to respond to the litigants, he also held back on invoking executive privilege,which he could. USSC stated that lower courts could fashion discovery requests from the executive that did not require an invocation of executive privilege. Thousands of pages have been released. Sorry, no grand conspiracy.

You`re a conspiracy theorist, looking for some meaning in life. Your hope seems to be that there are big fat men chewing cigars in dark rooms, plotting to take over the world and once you expose them nirvana will unfold.

No, I interpreted correctly and you just re-iterated what I stated.
1) You suggested I look at "executive privilege" in your previous comment and I stated that he didn't invoke same.
2) I stated that the court ruled that the case be returned to a lower court. You re-iterate the same.
3) "Grand conspiracy" is your term, not mine.

On a side note, I'm curious as to why you're assuming I have hopes of this or that. I originally stated and have continued to post supporting statements that Bush and company have little to no regard for certain personal rights addressed in the Constitution and a certain percentage of the public has more fears regarding terrorism that doesn't seem to be in evidence since 9/11 that they're more than willing to give up their personal liberties in hopes of more security. Fool's parades don't require conspiracies.

In regards to Cheney - it's my perception, borne out by the continual single supplier contracts Halliburton and Blackwater wind up with under this administration, as well as the consistent findings of the GAO (when they're granted access) of inexplicable cost overruns, inflated billing/pricing etc., to suggest that Cheney couldn't give a rat's ass about anything other than feathering his own nest. Make of that what you will. This has zilch to do with Liberal/Conservative perceptions. This has to do with the character of an individual.


Phone records are the private property of phone companies. Your phone number belongs to them, not you. No warrant is required, all the government has to do is ask. It`s up to the phone company to say yes or no.

And in this instance, they said "no". At that point, a subpoena was drafted that curiously bore no Court's signature. Hence the term "secretly". Solomon learned about it when the phone company contacted him as they had concerns that the subpoena was improperly served.


Wrong. Already ruled on back in 2002. Previous ruling allowed for broad surveillance authority. You live in the past when one would pick their phone , talk to an operator and ask for Regent-4505. Cells phone, calling cards, emails are what law enforcement have to deal with. The FISA court rules on those type of issues.

Err, no - you stated "mafia" - which doesn't not fall under FISA coverage. Even RICO requires a warrant. FISA , as Judge Richard A. Posner stated: "requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist", so, again your argument that FISA permits surveillance without a warrant, is, in fact, inaccurate.

Now, is it possible to conduct a debate without your resorting to personal assumptions of my motivations, character or background? I've said zip about you.

[White_Male_Canada]

No, I interpreted correctly and you just re-iterated what I stated.

You`re USSC quote vindicated Cheney. I never stated Cheney invoked executive privilege. It is my opinion he should have,and then given them the middle finger.


In regards to Cheney - it's my perception, borne out by the continual single supplier contracts Halliburton and Blackwater wind up with under this administration, as well as the consistent findings of the GAO (when they're granted access) of inexplicable cost overruns, inflated billing/pricing etc., to suggest that Cheney couldn't give a rat's ass about anything other than feathering his own nest…

Halliburton conspiracies don`t fly. During a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.
In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.
Those evil no-bid contracts derided by democrats? It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding.”(Factcheck.org)


... in this instance, they said "no". At that point, a subpoena was drafted that curiously bore no Court's signature. Hence the term "secretly". Solomon learned about it when the phone company contacted him as they had concerns that the subpoena was improperly served.

False.Solomon was notified by the authorities within the apporpriate and legal time required under law.
Clinton appointee Mary Jo White said in a letter to Solomon that her office had obtained his home telephone records for both incoming and outgoing calls from May 2 to May 7. The AP reported that White disclosed that Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose permission is required before Justice Department officials subpoena a member of the news media, recused himself from consideration of the request, which was then approved by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.


your argument that FISA permits surveillance without a warrant, is, in fact, inaccurate.

False. The Truong decision allows for warrantless surveillance. Added to that fact is U.S. Signals I.D. Section 4 of USSID 18, which explicitly allows NSA to capture and gather intelligence, "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

Continuing my legal pile-on- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802

More? On top of all that add E.O.12333, E.O. 12949 and E.O. 12139


Now, is it possible to conduct a debate without your resorting to personal assumptions of my motivations, character or background? I've said zip about you.

Surely you`re not as hyper-sensitive as the others in here who can`t take a little jab?

I do assume you know little of the law,only enough to be dangerous in that you disseminate half-truths or outright falsehoods. I`ll also assume you read these legal arguments on some left-wing web site that has an agenda other than the truth itself. 8)

[chefmike]

:roll:

[tsafficianado]

it's amazing, every one of you liberal bags of hot air were up in arms after the shooting at virginia tech....they whould have locked this kid up for expressing himself, somebody should have whistled on him, this kook had a gun, any kid who doesn't fit the mold should be reported to the authorities, and just for the sake of convenience let's ignore ONE passage in the constitution, y'know, the one that says citizens have a right to bear arms.

on the other hand, when the government, which is sanctioned to get involved in matters of national security, makes an effort to reduce the likelihood that hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of americans might get killed by some maniacal terrorist organization you get all huffy about YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. try to wrap your imagination around the repercussions if some gang of thugs manages to unleash a dirty bomb in new york city. y'know, the most important piece of real estate in the world made uninhabitable for a few millenia. now, i'm not saying that the government is perfect or devoid of shenanigans or that the mechanisms they craft are perfect, they aren't and they never were and they never will be.

you're all so worked up over your ivory tower interpretation of the Constitution like it's some pristine sculpture from god's hands to yours, but you want to blame BUSH for 9/11. how absurd! you don't want the government (at least not a Republican government) to have any authority or any manner in which to intercede but you want to blame them when something goes wrong. you whine about some filthy criminal who may not be getting cable tv in his cell at gitmo or you scowl at the number of americans who are willing to let the government have access to their phone records if it might prevent some holocaust, but when the day comes that you or yours are crawling out of the wreckage and crying for friends and family lost in the next attack you will have a swift change of heart, believe me.

the constitution is a fluid document, it always has been. it would appear that the ONLY passage in the US constitution that you do NOT believe should be held literally and god-like is the passage about the right of the citizen to bear arms.....and that one we will just ignore. why is that?

i don't believe one of you has mentioned one of the intentions of the Patriot Act, to develop mechanisms to detect inappropriate activities in our capital markets to forewarn possible acts and to prevent terrorists and thugs from profiting hugely by taking massive positions in advance of acts that they know will roil our markets. in the aftermath of 9/11 there was clearly evidence that parties did just that. you want to protect trerorists' right to make billions of u.s. dollars by perpetrating heinous acts on american soil?

[svenson]

Quinn sez, and with a straight face i presume

'the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11'

thanks quinn, we all needed a good laugh.

Maybe paying attention and reading comprehension just aren't your strong suit. Since these skills do seem wanting in your case, and I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll help you figure out what would be obvious to a computer literate ten-year old: www.time.com (in partnership with CNN) published the relevant article, not me. I guess you didn't notice that it was italicized and that the link was posted beneath.

Thanks for providing that "good laugh" you were talking about. Let this be a lesson, boys and girls; stay in school. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

maybe his english is bad. mabye english is a second language for him like me.

[TJT]

From it's title I thought this thread was about Jonathan Swift and his fine idea to eat the Irish?