 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 28, 2008 at 08:02:09
If Bush Is Leaving Office In Less Than A Year, Why Are They Still Intent On Destroying Our Privacy? by William Cormier Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
For all practical purposes, President Bush is now a lame-duck President. If that’s the case, then why is his administration working so hard to take away even more of America’s constitutional rights and his departmental heads are ramping-up their efforts to increase the spying on Americans? The common logic is that when Bush leaves office, some semblance of sanity will return to the United States and we will continue conducting whatever “war on terror” that needs to be undertaken without violating the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. We are all hoping the 2008 elections will bring back the rule of law to Washington, and these illegal and unconstitutional programs will be dismantled. That’s what we are hoping… But, the signals coming out of Washington speak of a different story - one that is too horrific to imagine! Based on the rush to dismantle almost off of America’s rights to privacy - and these actions and initiatives are being carried out at a dizzying speeds, it would appear that Bush has no plans of leaving office or this Presidency fully expects the next President to follow in his footsteps of tyranny and oppression. The stage is being set for these violations of our civil rights to escalate and careen out of control until eventually - perhaps within months, nothing Americans use their personal computers for will remain private. No, I’m not being melodramatic. I’ve warned people myself that S 1959, The “Thought Crime Prevention Bill” is being partially implemented even though its still in committee and hasn’t been passed into law yet. Yesterday, a brilliant essay was a written on exactly what privacy the government is attempting to negate by Elliot Cohen, and he describes why this is happening within America. People must be noticing that none of the Presidential candidates are speaking in depth in regard the way that Americans are losing some of their most basic constitutional rights, and none are pledging to stop the constant fear-mongering that our government is using to push its policies through, nor are they pledging to stop those policies that infringe on our constitutional rights. The following Op-Ed is powerful and covers many of the issues that seem to be intertwined with S 1959: The End of Privacy
Posted on Jan 24, 2008 (Excerpts)
By Elliot Cohen
Amid the controversy brewing in the Senate over Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the Bush administration appears to have changed its strategy and is devising a bold new plan that would strip away FISA protections in favor of a system of wholesale government monitoring of every American’s Internet activities. Now the national director of intelligence is predicting a disastrous cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S. if this scheme isn’t instituted.
It is no secret that the Bush administration has already been spying on the e-mail, voice-over-IP, and other Internet exchanges between American citizens since as early as and possibly earlier than Sept. 11, 2001. The National Security Agency has set up shop in the hubs of major telecom corporations, notably AT&T, installing equipment that makes copies of the contents of all Internet traffic, routing it to a government database and then using natural language parsing technology to sift through and analyze the data using undisclosed search criteria. It has done this without judicial oversight and obviously without the consent of the millions of Americans under surveillance. Given any rational interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, its mass spying operation is illegal and unconstitutional.
But now the administration wants to make these illegal activities legal. And why is that? According to National Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell, who is now drafting the proposal, an attack on a single U.S. bank by the 9/11 terrorists would have had a far more serious impact on the U.S. economy than the destruction of the Twin Towers. “My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens,” said McConnell. So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches.
McConnell’s prediction of something “horrendous” happening unless we grant government this authority has a tone similar to that of the fear-mongering call to arms against terrorism that President Bush sounded before taking us to war in Iraq. Now, Americans are about to be asked to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights because of a vague and unsupported prediction of the dangers and costs of cyber-terrorism.
The analogy with the campaign to frighten us into war with Iraq gets even stronger when it becomes evident that along with the establishing of American forces in Iraq, the cyber-security McConnell is calling for was, all along, part of the strategic plan, devised by Dick Cheney and several other present and former high-level Bush administration officials, to establish America as the world’s supreme superpower. This plan, known as the Project for the New American Century, unequivocally recognized “an imperative” for government to not only secure the Internet against cyber-attacks but also to control and use it offensively against its adversaries. The Project for the New American Century also maintained that “the process of transformation” it envisioned (which included the militarization and control of the Internet) was “likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” All that appears to be lacking to make the analogy complete is the “horrendous” cyber-attack—the chilling analog of the 9/11 attacks—that McConnell now predicts.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the resolve of the Bush administration. But it would be a bigger mistake for Americans not to stand united against this familiar pattern of government scare tactics and manipulation. There are grave dangers to the survival of democracy posed by allowing any present or future government unfettered access to all of our private electronic communications. These dangers must be carefully weighed against the dubious and unproven benefits that granting such an awesome power to government might have on fending off cyber-attacks. (Emphasis added.)
Elliot D. Cohen, PhD, is a media ethicist and critic. His most recent book is “The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship.” He is a first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.
LINK
Only selected excerpts are published and this is an Op-Ed worth reading.
Using a rationale that can only be described as bizarre, the government’s position is that if we don’t allow them (NSA, CIA, etc.) unfettered access to our private computer activities, documents, searches, and downloads, it opens-up the United States and make us vulnerable to being hacked in a “terror attack” on a massive scale.
So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims Mike McConnell, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches.
1 | 2
http://justanothercoverup.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 31 comments |
|
It's Quite SImple
While American slept their Democracy was swept from them. It makes no difference now whether it is Bush/Cheney or McCain or Clinton or Obama or Giuliani or Romney in the throng at the top. It is easier for this lame duck to do the bidding of whomever the corporations put in his place. The only change that will take place in the White House in 2009 is one of underwear of the incumbent. by Dennis Kaiser (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 730 comments [137 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:07:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
Let's try to be a bit fair
Isn't your article just a bit paranoid? Why don't you compare today during the Roosevelt-WWII era, where the government read every single letter and telegram coming and going out of the country. Yet democracy survived. In any case, to answer your question, why is Bush doing this? First of all, it's not just Bush, but anyway he's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do. He's not personally listening to your phone calls, and he doesn't personally profit by any of this. If you don't like it, vote for someone who doesn't support it. Simple. Incidentally, if you are concerned about "thought crimes" bills, then I hope, to be consistent, you also oppose hate-crimes legislation. But somehow, I'm guessing you don't... by JR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:38:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Be a "Little Bit Fair?"
Why? The article is factually correct. It was recently revealed that the Bush administration lied in excess of 935 times - and you think I'm paranoid? Were those lies also "for our own good?" How is it that a President lies to the nation, breaks our own laws, holds Congress and the Constitution in contempt, and has bankrupted our country and people still support him? William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And to maintain the fairness...
this definitely is not another World War Two. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:26:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: True, and to maintain the fairness even further..
The Patriot Act is, likewise, nowhere near the powers that Roosevelt held during his war. by JR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:28:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: To be fair...
What Bush has done he is responsible! What he has done you under-state and misrepresent. What Bush has done is to dismantle every protection found in the Bill of Rights, the single document that stood between the individual and tyranny. But --maybe that's no longer required reading in schools. Consider as a package, what Bush has done gives him dictatorial powers. And yes --those powers are his PERSONALLY. If Bush deems one a terrorist, that person --even if he/she is a US citizen --may be held, in secret, without an attorney, with trial, indefinitely. In other words, you can be dissapeared. No one --least of a Republican --can be trusted with that kind of power over another person and the founders understood that if you don't. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:06:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And for any who may have doubts....
the NEXT president will have and will probably use those powers (if Busho doesn't pre-empt the election and do it first). Why do you think the candidates ain't talking about those laws (except Paul and Kucinich - who is no longer a candidate) nor are they making any pledge to rescind them. This is not a dem vs repub issue. It is a government versus the people issue. And we are losing it. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:00:01 PM (0+)
|
|
The new police state
laws are an ongoing project of the Establishment, not just the Bush administration, so the lame duck status of Bush is not relevant. The leading candidates of both parties are CFR approved. Ron Paul is truly the only candidate of either party who is anti-establishmentand pro individual rights. It took an all out effort by Andrew Jackson to 'root out' that den of vipers known as the Second Bank of the United States. Likewise, it will take Ron Paul an entire term to root out the Federal Reserve System and restore constitutional government again. by wraft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Keith Olberman won't save us ...
Please explain how Olberman is going to save us if the vote is on Monday at 4:30 and his program is at 6:00? And even if he were to have reported on it this past Friday, how's that going to effect anything? The whole world isn't watching Kieth Olberman and of those that do maybe 1% would take action and then the action itself is meaningless. You'd have to believe that petitioning these criminal bastards we refer to as our so-called representatives give a damn about what we the people have to say. It's nice to have all this hope that phone calls, letters and e-mails have an effect, but reality of the situation dictates that they don't. Please mention one thing that they have done so far? Are we out of Iraq? Have the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act or the proposed S 1959 been trashed and the rights they destroyed restored? Last week I watched Pelosi talking at a press conference about peoples efforts to get her to put impeachment back on the table and she laughed! She actually laughed at our at the overwhelming response she was receiving and then went on to tell us why we're wrong. See, she knows better than the people she's supposed to represent so we should not bother her before we become the blunt of more of her jokes. And these are the people you think are going to change their tune just because Keith Olberman does a news cast after the fact? Or even before? Do I have to remind you that even Olberman is still M$M? That although he has reported on issues others haven't, those reports are for the most part one shot 5 minute segments, or that he hasn't gone out on the big limb to report about Sibel Edmonds, election theft, or 9/11? You can forget about Keith Olberman as Superman, nor any one person from the media, no presidential candidate, or anyone from this criminal organization we call our government saving us. Unless we save ourselves we're heading full-bore into a future of the likes not seen since Nazi Germany - only this time 100 times worse. The only effective way to petition any so-called representative of the people now is to sigh your name on a brick and aim it at their God-damn heads! What I'm seeing is opposite of what is being told to us. All of the democratic candidates say they will get us out of Iraq (eventually- and that's if Iraq is even discussed) and all of the republican ones seem to be saying we're staying a thousand years, all this while they've just ordered $20 billion more for anti-IED vehicles. So who are you going to believe? Them or your lying eyes? New York is going to get rid of all the E-voting machines after the 08' elections, mean while the rest of the nation, after being aware since 2000 that massive election fraud was taking place have hardly moved at all to right this wrong. My spin, if we even have an election, and I'm saying this because it's more than just a paranoid suspicion that another false-flag 9/11 attack could very well occur before the election of a magnitude to cause Marshall Law to be enacted for "national security reasons" and have elections postponed or propel one of the war-mongering republican candidates into office. Or either Clinton or Obama, the two most unlikely to win against any republican candidate become the nominee, and democratic party once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Not that it matters. There isn't but 0.05 degrees of separation between the two parties anyway. Bitter? You bet I am. Angry? Who wouldn't be? A solution? I wish I had one that wouldn't most likely make me an early victim of our new National Security Policy. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:31:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Olberman
is there to fool some of the people in to believing somebody on the M$M is actually telling the truth.... but the truth is that he is a left wing gatekeeper just about the same way The Nation is. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:04:35 PM (0+)
|
|
It's a little too early to say if Bush is leaving.
There's still plenty of time left to attack Iran, declare martial law, finish off the dollar, have a nuclear exchange with Russia, etc. Let's face it, Bush and Cheney are loyal puppets with a mission, and that mission hasn't been completed yet. But even if we get lucky and Bush doesn't attack Iran, he may still decide he's not ready to go, and if so, who or what is going to stop him? by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Re: If Bush Is Leaving Office In Less Than A Year
Thank you for that awakening article Mr. Cormier. "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: IF BUSH IS LEAVING
"ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING" EDMUND BURKE BUSH IS LEAVING AND MC-CAIN WILL JUMP RIGHT HIS SHOES, AND THE BEAT GOES ON AND ON. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 4:51:18 AM (0+)
|
|
This is the graphic that went with the article
<img src="http://images.democracyforamerica.com/website/prove_ad.jpg" alt="No Immunity For Telecoms!" /> William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:54:50 PM (0+)
|
|
It seems the ccountry is divided into three camps;
1) Those who support Bush and Cheney 2) Those who think things will change in November 3) Those who believe impeachment is foolishness in a short-term presidency The reason we must have an impeachment of this president and his vp, is because without that message, no future president will need to care about constitutional government. We will then have traded checks and balances for the hope of benevolent presidents. In fact, we may have already done so, if Nancy Pelosi is allowed to control the issue. The founders were not worrying and arguing over these issues for nothing. They had a very clear idea of what boulders lay in the road of free government, because they were at personal risk for their audacity of purpose. We're no longer there. Threats to our freedoms have never approached our shores, nor has there even been a war that put us at equal risk in the memory of most Americans alive today. We are dealing in abstracts. Those who would gladly be done with the wavering loyalties of a constantly changing electorate are busy behind the curtain of a fear-based chimera of their own invention. Their short-term aim is to commit to a war with Iran before leaving office. Long-term, they're after a one party system of pretend democracy. (The other party will exist, but not be a player.) Not a single candidate for president has leveled with the public on these issues. Nor will they. While the concerned among us lurch from frustration to despair, the great majority think it will be over when this president leaves office. Good luck with that. by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:48:44 PM (0+)
|
|
FISA Action in Senate Today
Dear William, EFF/PFAW Grassroots Action Page Your help is urgently needed to help defeat a Senate bill to revise FISA, the warrantless wiretapping surveillance program and provide sweeping, retroactive immunity, requested by the president, for telecommunications companies that participated in this program. Your Friend, by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 3:15:05 PM (0+)
|
||||||
|
Reply: Reply
John , Tell Nancy your loyalty is to the American people and the CONSTITUTION which you both swore to uphold. Now start the impeachment let the chips fall where they may Nancy be damned as she has damned this country. Follow the law NOW!!!!! Terry J. Beitl,One Pissed Off American by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:51:54 PM (0+)
|
|
The answer is simple.....
Information equals power.... by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 4:14:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: THE ANSWER IS SIMLPE
POWER EQUALS CONTROL. CFR TC GLOBALIST THATS POWER, = CONTROL OF MONEY OF THE WORLD, WARS OF THE WORLD, FOOD SUPPLY OF THE WORLD, ENERGY OF THE WORLD, MED-AND HEALTH OF THE WORLD, ELECTIONS OF THE WORLD INCLUDING OURS, AND COMING SOON TO A COUNYRY NEAR YOU POPULATION CONTROL BY WHAT EVER MEANS, AND AT THEIR PLEASURE. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 5:03:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Laughter is good for the soul
I will be laughing so hard at so many people after January 2009. That will be after a new president is sworn in and the peaceful transfer of power once again takes place. And it will take place. Part of me doesn't care whether a Republican or a Democrat wins the election (but ONLY part of me). To all the voices who are claiming there will be no election in November: Yes, there will be. And then I will be laughing until my sides ache. by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:10:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Who's claiming that "there will be no election"?
I know I implied that there's a possibility that there'll be no election, but that's not what you're saying. by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:24:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You strike me as someone who is truly asleep
We now have a government that is pre-Magna Carta in its vision. The right of habeas corpus goes back to AD 1215. Bush did away with it. May you be tortured to death in a FEMA camp. by wraft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 9:14:02 AM (0+)
|
|
To be a bit fair, please read the legislation and statistics
JR, I want to respond to your assertion that William Cormier's article is "paranoid" and that the Patriot Act is of less consequence than Teddy Roosevelt's power previously exerted. Do you really know what you are talking about? Have you read the facts of the Patriot Act in detail? Do you know the statistics of who is being clamped down on as "Terrorists" since 9-11? If not, then NOBODY has the right to comment. Because such comments, based on opinions alone and not backed up by facts, are bound to seriously hurt other people. When I say "seriously hurt", I am not kidding. Try for example: Gag orders with a five-year jail sentence for telling a soul that you got a subpoena from the FBI (National Security Letter). Try Patriot II stripping YOU of YOUR citizenship and....it gets a lot worse than just that. This is LAW and not paranoia! I served on the board of the ACLU and have read the ACLU's website for 7 years now. I know a bit (only a little bit, actually) of what is going on. In addition, I want you to read on the ACLU's website www.aclu.org about the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA broadening (enter into the Search box). Connect the dots between the contents of each of those laws: Where does spying lead us to? I will say no more: Check out the contents of EACH bill above. Then and only then will you have the right to make an informed statement. Here they are: http://www.rightsmatter.org/multimedia/ "Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity?" asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights." a true story written in the Washington Post by a receipient of a National Security Letter (NSL) carrying a gag order with a penalty of five years in jail for telling even his girlfriend. The country: Post-11 USA. www.aclu.org/spyfiles/index_old.html the ACLU's summary of who is being spied on (which cultural cross-sectors, such as environmental groups, religious and peace groups, etc) http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/16960prs20031123.html News of the classified (FBI) bulletin (about FBI crack-downs on dissent) also comes on the heels of an ACLU lawsuit against the Secret Service for the continuing practice of allowing pro-Bush protesters to remain visible to cameras during presidential appearances, and corralling anti-Bush protesters into pens or designated areas far from the media. Examples of California free speech/free association violations on ACLU National's website Info about the ACLU free speech forum which was just held in September '07, including 25 page report an actual FBI document showing the FBI investigation of the Thomas Merton Peace Center, as represented by the ACLU. This summarizes the ACLU's attempts (most of them stonewalled) to get information about the spying of the FBI on peaceful activist groups and religious groups. It also lists who they are, what the ACLU has done, evidence they managed to get in spite of stonewalling, etc. This link takes you to the ACLU's statement that they, as an organization, are being spied on (more than a thousand FBI pages about the ACLU), as are other groups. There is another FBI document shown on the ACLU's website, which was almost entirely blacked out by the FBI prior to being released. I couldn't find it when I searched the site: Maybe one of you can find it. I went to the "Search" box and entered FBI documents. It's interesting to see and shows, in living color, the attempts of this Administration to stonewall. The Gun Owners of America's vociferous cry against the Patriot Act and how it endangers our freedom from the knock of the FBI on our door at 4am. It's interesting to see what conservatives have to say about this, and read the legal analysis. Note how Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the AMerican Way and more all agree in their analyses of the Patriot Act. SEE ALSO AND NOTE HOW ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS AGREE IN THEIR ANALYSES OF THE PATRIOT ACT: www.eff.org, www.centerforconstitutionalrights.com, www.aclu.org (enter Patriot Act Fact List into the search box), etc... I have read that parts of Patriot II were passed into law on the sly: Bush snuck parts of it into other benign bills to assure their passage. I don't know whether or not the power to revoke Americans' citizenships passed (enabling Bush to declare ordinary Americans enemy combattants and rendered to other countries for torture): I'm still trying to find out. And I'd sure like to know what other parts did pass. Anybody have that info? This summarizes the ACLU's attempts (most of them stonewalled) to get information about the spying of the FBI on peaceful activist groups and religious groups. It also lists who they are, what the ACLU has done, evidence they managed to get in spite of stonewalling, etc. This link takes you to the ACLU's statement that they, as an organization, are being spied on (more than a thousand FBI pages about the ACLU), as are other groups. Thank you, Kathryn Smith by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:48:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have a question for you
Did YOU read the bills? Because I just read the full text of S1955 & S1959 and I can't see anything remotely unconstitutional. All they do is set up commissions to study ideologically-based violent groups (something any US citizen can do on their own). In fact, it explicitly states that part of its purpose is to monitor the DHS from infringing on constitutional rights . On top of that, the members of the commision that they establish are appointed from several different sections of Congress, and no more than 6 can belong to one political party, to keep it from being politically stacked. Now having said all that, I'm not sure that I would support this bill just because it seems to be a waste of money - maybe one of the sponsors could explain it better, but I don't see what advantage this commission would have that the DHS or the DOJ don't already have. In the rest of your very long-winded comment here, you keep referring to the ACLU as if it is some kind of legitimate source. Well, that doesn't really impress me - while the ACLU has done some good things in the past, these days they spend too much of their time defending the rights of illegal aliens to sneak into this country, and now in the Larry Craig case they claim that people have a right to have sex in public bathrooms! So I don't pay much heed to them anymore. In any case, it seems that at least 90% of yours and the ACLUs complaints that you mention here are only of people being investigated or questioned. When people are being imprisoned or detained, then I pay attention, but no one has a constitutional right of freedom from being investigated, and anyone can be questioned at anytime. Not just by the police, but even by you or me. You also have the right to not answer anything. It's called free speech - if it's your right, then the government has the same right as well. It's also the government's responsibility to make certain that non-profit, untaxable, charitible groups are legitimate charities and that they are not sending money to support terrorism. Sure, it may be a nuisance, and they don't always behave pefectly (no one does), but it is necessary. It's called "doing their job". by JR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:48:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: JR
After reading your responses I have come to the conclusion that waking up is simply not going to happen for you, at least not in this lifetime, barring some unforeseen event. Therefore, be at peace in your world. You have opted to take the blue pill - so be it. by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks...
Because I don't subscribe to your conspiracy theories I take it? In the past 30 years, I've been told the same thing (to "wake up") when I didn't believe that Elvis was still alive, that we faked the moon landings, or that the CIA caused 9/11. So far my instincts have proven correct. I have also traveled much of the world, been to war more than once, and seen truly evil things. Can you say the same thing? If you really want to join the "waking world", I recommend getting away from the Internet for awhile. by JR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:34:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Re: S1959
Good article and posts for the most part. But I think you watered down your argument a little by calling S1959 a "Thought Crimes Bill." I admit I haven't read it, but I have read its cousin H.R.1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This was after Paul Craig Roberts wrote about it and started ringing alarm bells about Halliburton prison camps, etc. Frankly, I thought his reaction was over the top. I find H.R.1955 to be rather innocuous. It establishes a Commission under the Department of Homeland Security to investigate and report on domestic terrorism, but I don't see how that makes it a true "thought crimes" bill. The bill seems to be just another boring bureaucratic attempt to solve a largely nonexistent problem, which is what Congress does 99% of the time anyway. I can see why it passed the House with such little opposition. It explicitly states that no American civil liberties are to be violated in conducting the hearings and report. There seems to be a long way between H.R.1955 and domestic prison camps in my book. Am I missing something, or is the H.R.1955/S1959 debate excessively shrill. And if it's the latter, I don't see how that contributes to the public debate about FISA laws, the PATRIOT Act or the Military Commissions Act which are separate issues. If anything, it tends to undercut your argument. by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:16:08 AM (0+)
|
|
WAKE UP
It sounds to me like many of you are lost in details and missing reality. Fact: Our government began in earnest to shred the constitution in the beginning of the 20th century with the income tax and the federal reserve act. In essence turning the real power of our country over to private wealthy hands. All presidents from that time on have been nothing more than puppets of these masters. Bush is no different nor will the next be. The masters agenda hasn’t changed it is simply progressing as they wish it to. by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 466 comments [69 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:05:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Why does dubya dump on our rights ?
Because he is a gnaw-stick and detarmined to. I was tuning my cyber radio dial Sunday and by chance I picked up a right-wing talk show, the kind I usually avoid like the plague. The hosts were talking up the media projected candidates and you know thats their job is to be corporate buffoons shilling for the cash. Then this woman comes on and says "candidate A wants to close Guatanamo thats why I'm voting for candidate B, How could we close Guatanamo? What would we do with the terrorists? " Then I quickly turned off the feed. That is the empty headed droning of an empowerer of evil, torture is happening there, but that doesnt matter. It is so easy when the opinions are formed for us and we dont have to bother thinking. Across America in churches and offices , in kitchens and school buildings these TV programmed robots go through the movements thinking that they are living. Dubya dumps on us because our fellow citizens are programmed to accept it , so he gets away with it. He gets away with lying, he gets away with genocide and the sheeple say nothing. Its time each of us makes an effort every day to get in someones face and ask the hard questions. Its time the gloves came off. Find out one misguided belief and then lay the axe in at the root. These people dont want to think so we must force them. Be creative, print them out a good article that will place in question the very foundation of their politically correct delusion. Planting a little seed might get a thought to grow. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:57:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well Said John
Very well said John. by Kris Malmquist (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 108 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 5:42:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Why? To Destroy Evidence, That's Why
I think the reason this administration wants this power is so that they can continue to sidetrack the truth about what they have been doing for the past 7 years. They want to place surveillance on anyone who might expose even more of the crimes they have committed against the American people specifically and Humanity in general. Their modus operandi is to destroy all of the evidence. Delete all of their own emails but spy on ours while they burn the videotapes that prove their guilt. Plus they want to use any dirt they can uncover on nonmembers of their "club" to extort and blackmail them into silence. Bush and his coconspirators would have been sent packing a long time ago if the American public knew the half of their dirty tricks. by Kris Malmquist (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 108 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 5:38:51 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
