It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Government, left entirely to its own devices, will wither and die. For without the people, there is no government. This is simply a trustee model of representation, with the President acting in the best interest of the often apathetic or uninformed population. This is the nature of the beast.

Most people, not in control, wish to express individuality and exercise complete freedom of choice. Many are lead down the same path and socialized in similar ways; they therefore come to share many of the same views and values of those around them.

Simply saying “there must be a better way” is not enough. Find a better way, and make it happen. Because until then, all that we can do is utilize the resources at hand as effectively as possible to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Theological beliefs aside, denying the capacity for evil within man’s heart it no more effective than denying the existence of gravity. Left, right, white, black, purple, it really doesn’t matter - there are those who seek to eradicate us merely because we are Americans, regardless of our beliefs.

A government brought nearly to a halt via its own infrastructure by a handful of men with knives, has much to fear from its citizens.




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by para
Government, left entirely to its own devices, will wither and die. For without the people, there is no government. This is simply a trustee model of representation, with the President acting in the best interest of the often apathetic or uninformed population. This is the nature of the beast.


Respectfully submitted: Tell that to the citizens of the Roman Empire, the Laotians, the Cambodians, the Kurds, the Afghans, etc. etc. etc.



Most people, not in control, wish to express individuality and exercise complete freedom of choice. Many are lead down the same path and socialized in similar ways; they therefore come to share many of the same views and values of those around them.


That is bad how? Only when the people become dependent and apathetic does this become a bad thing, pretty much negating your statement on the government above .... Think in terms of the Alamo, cowboys, Hells Angels, Hippies, Yippies, Bloods, Crips, Batos, Homies, girl gangs, etc. It is, for better or worse, called independence, and life style choices. Many people feel like it is part and parcel of their divine right to life.

The status quo is the person who will sit in his/her home, let the government tax, without true representation, run his/her life from cradle to grave, take no personal responsibility, and generally let that government make dumb decisions that either leave that person to have to pick up the pieces (the California Oil/electricity debacle and Enron come to mind, almost immediately), or leave that person so crippled emotionally, and socially, that he/she is good for little else than giving the salute and screaming "Full Speed Ahead"!!! on the say so of some government official (The Nazis, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, the Pathet Lao, and many Americans comes to mind, almost immediately).


Simply saying “there must be a better way” is not enough. Find a better way, and make it happen. Because until then, all that we can do is utilize the resources at hand as effectively as possible to ensure it doesn’t happen again.


Submitted respectfully ... What have you done beside accept what is happening as an inevitibility? And speaking of the "generic you"...

Does relying on someone else for your well-being, and safety make you feel better? Are you willing to trade off your ability to think for yourself, make your own mistakes, and choices for a feeling of security?


Theological beliefs aside, denying the capacity for evil within man’s heart it no more effective than denying the existence of gravity. Left, right, white, black, purple, it really doesn’t matter - there are those who seek to eradicate us merely because we are Americans, regardless of our beliefs.


I agree... I also like the thought of dedicated people out there doing their best to protect my home and my freedom. But, and this is a large "BUT" I do not fancy having those people digging around within my personal life just because they can. It is not a matter of hiding anything from anyone. It is simply that my life and choices are not the government's business, insofar as anything, as long as I have not provided any overt evidence that I am contemplating a dastardly deed. We still have the protections of the constitution to be invoked all the time, and not simply after the fact.


A government brought nearly to a halt via its own infrastructure by a handful of men with knives, has much to fear from its citizens.


I have no idea what you mean by that... A government should be in fear of its citizens. That, in fact, is what keeps a government honest. We're speaking of a government that has become so lopsided, bloated and lethargic, that 3 months after the fact any assistance that it has offered to the people of New Orleans has been largely symbolic and less than substantive.

A government that moves and acts like the one we currently have in place in the United States has come to such a point that it is much like the tail wagging the dog. It depends on the lethargy and lassitude of the new common man for it's continued existence.

No.... I like the idea of a government that is afraid to piss off the people it governs. That tends to keep it competitive, lean, alive and un-meddling in the lives of the governed. Give me Liberty or give me death rings just as true today as it did those hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, the governing and most of the governed are forgetting that premise.

Regarding the concept of a few men with box knives holding anyone hostage... How could that happen? How is it that "We the People" have become so acquiescent that to challenge authority is unthinkable, even in the face of impending death?

Having spent a good number of years in the military, and teaching martial arts, perhaps, gives me a different view on what I may or may not allow to happen in my life... However, I can not imagine being in a situation where someone is holding a box cutter on me and threatening my life that I wouldn't respond in a thoroughly effective, efficient, and evil manner. But to become servile unto death?



[edit on 17-12-2005 by sigung86] several times to clean up typos.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Poor Mr. Bush...there goes his ratings again.....

This obsession he has is going to be the end for him.


I, for one, will be very dissapointed when he gets kicked out of office.

/OFF



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I'm adding domestic spying without warrants to my list of things I don't like about the way Bush is doing his job. The "without warrants" is key here, because I believe some intelligence gathering may be necessary to protect against terrorism, but it must be done constitutionally.


[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
In his presidential radio address, Bush strongly defended this NSA policy and sharply criticized whomever leaked it to The New York Times. It is likely a criminal investigation into the source of the leak will be launched:



ABC News

WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2005 — President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

...
The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.
...
The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," he said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 12/17/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
What is with the fascination of protecting terrorist?

Don't you dare try to overhear their converstions. That would stop another attack, and we sure don't what that.


After we capture them, don't you dare make them uncomfortable while trying to get information. That might stop another attack also.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I don't have time right now to read this entire thread; I'm currently listening to the report on Fox News, but, I'd like to voice my support to President Bush for authorizing the NSA to do this in the first place.


To the person(s) who felt the schoolyard tattle-tale need to leak this info, and thus blow open an intelligence operation thus putting our country at risk: I hope you feel the slow suffocation as the rope burns your neck for seemingly hours before you die for your act of treason.


Chuck Schumer just popped on the screen. Time to go.


Later.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Whether this action was "right" or not is irrelevant.

The big question is was this illegal? Did it violate US law? Does the president have the authority to change laws without a due process?

If it was illegal I think this is far more serious than lying about an affair. We all remember how that one went.

If this was needed to protect us but was against the law then the law should have been changed. This was one of the things we hated the most about the old Soviet Union, yet as long as we wrap terrorism around it we seem to be okay with it today.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
What is with the fascination of protecting terrorist?

Don't you dare try to overhear their converstions. That would stop another attack, and we sure don't what that.


After we capture them, don't you dare make them uncomfortable while trying to get information. That might stop another attack also.





Man , oh Man... Do you read? Do you think? Or do you just post? No one is is wanting to protect the terrorists, and no one is wanting to make them comfortable, and certainly, no one is trying to prevent anyone from making them give forth with information.

However, and I speak only for me, I am not into having the government pecking around in my life to do any and all of the above. I am a freeman, part of the last generation that gave up 50,000 plus of its own so that the freedom we hold dear was sustained. Now, in retrospect, whether that was right, or wrong, it was done and is perforce, a matter of history.

My whole point is that if we must abolish personal rights, and freedoms to defend them, then what good are they? I do not understand a person like Bush and the others of that ilk who think it would be easier if he were a dictator (his words, not mine)... A man who thinks the Constitution is just a piece of paper (his words, not mine)... being in charge of a dog catcher job, much less the Presidency of the United States, most particularly after taking an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

You will notice, I hope, that I call it the Presidency and do not refer to him as POTUS, which while it is a quaint acronym, somehow comes off sounding like an obscene word indicating certain dangling nether region.

But... Back on topic ...

I take personal umbrage that any person who is a citizen (by birth or otherwise) should have to fear such intrusion into his/her personal life. We, the ex- and future- military of this country are there to protect and defend the Constitution and your privacy, privileges, and rights. And that oath included a quaint and mildly peculiar little phrase, "Against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Bottom line... What he did is damnable, illegal, and most certainly, unconstitutional. I hope that in the final analysis that Bush, if he is found guilty of so gross and evil intrusion into the people's lives that has been taken, swings from a tree at sunrise... Or at the very least, is afforded an ample opportunity to face impeachment and dissolution of his Presidency.

I want to be able to object this strenuously about this situation, without fear of having a knock at my door in the middle of the night and disappearing forever ... Or being constantly on guard because being outspoken is taken for being non- or anti-patriotic. I, and you can still do that, but not if we must fear the "long arm" of the law.

I'm just a little curious as to how you can sit by and fritter away your personal freedom in the name of personal security. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "Those who are willing to barter their freedom for their security deserve neither".

Rant off...



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't have time right now to read this entire thread; I'm currently listening to the report on Fox News, but, I'd like to voice my support to President Bush for authorizing the NSA to do this in the first place.


To the person(s) who felt the schoolyard tattle-tale need to leak this info, and thus blow open an intelligence operation thus putting our country at risk: I hope you feel the slow suffocation as the rope burns your neck for seemingly hours before you die for your act of treason.


Later.


I dont think I could have said it better myself. I too support Pres. Bush for authorizing this. You cant be one step ahead if you dont know where they are going. To know where they are going, you have to listen.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86

Originally posted by Carseller4
What is with the fascination of protecting terrorist?

Don't you dare try to overhear their converstions. That would stop another attack, and we sure don't what that.


After we capture them, don't you dare make them uncomfortable while trying to get information. That might stop another attack also.






Man , oh Man... Do you read? Do you think? Or do you just post? No one is is wanting to protect the terrorists, and no one is wanting to make them comfortable, and certainly, no one is trying to prevent anyone from making them give forth with information.




I expect our government to track down and kill terrorist. I also expect them to prevent terrorist attacks. Limiting their means of doing this only helps the terrorist.

As a law abiding citizen I really don't care if the government listens in on my phone conversations. If I was a terrorist, drug dealer or other type of criminal I would be very worried.

The release of this information damages the security of the United States.



Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. That is in the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   


I expect our government to track down and kill terrorist. I also expect them to prevent terrorist attacks. Limiting their means of doing this only helps the terrorist.

As a law abiding citizen I really don't care if the government listens in on my phone conversations. If I was a terrorist, drug dealer or other type of criminal I would be very worried.

The release of this information damages the security of the United States.



Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. That is in the Constitution.



I see ... I see ...

You are, indeed, prepared to sell your freedom, gained at the cost of so much blood and sacrifice by patriots, so cheaply, then, pray, proceed.

But cogitate on this... You think for now that you are a law biding citizen with nothing to hide. However, once you have given away your rights and freedoms, you will not win them back from a government without magnificently stellar amounts of blood being lost and lives being taken.

Once you have given up your rights and freedoms to a government, it becomes de facto and de jour operation and that very same government can, and will, by obvious example, take more from you, and no one will stop that acquisition through peaceful means, despite all the innocent protestations by that government. History preceeds these actions by Bush and Co.

Do not believe me on my say so. Look at that very history. I present for your edification, and reasoned enlightenment, Ceaser, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pott, Lan Nol, Ceausescu, and on and on.

If, after thinking about these examples and still not understanding, then I will bow gracefully to your vision and near sighted outcome.

Howver, I will present to you one more possible insight, that is complete with the impassioned and indignant cries of the souls, whose lives were lost by The millions and millions of Romans, Germans, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Lesbians, feebles, infirmed, aged, Russians, Spanish, Chinese, Laotians, Cambodians, Hungarians, Africans, and on and on... Who took that same tack and stood by as law-abiding citizens, while governments defined and refined what it meant to be law-abiding; and slowly, but surely took those who fell, more and more, outside of those definitions to task for their sin of being outside of that more and more refined definition.

Please understand that there are no simple answers that are going to provide outcomes that are suitable to perhaps your children, or great grandchildren. There are no reasonable answers that are going to not involve you having stepping away from your keyboard, thinking clearly and definitively, and taking a stance.

And one final thought ... Chasing and killing terrorists at the cost of a citizens rights and freedoms, in no way, is any part of the Constitution. I suspect you need to read said Constitution and endeavour to understand it, and wrestle with solid "Constitutional" answers. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not always easily answered in clear terms of black and white.

One final and final thought... Should the government become the juggernaut that you seem bent on allowing it to become, then access to this website and others like it would be disallowed, probably under penalty of whatever penalties the government would deem appropriate for you not being a law abiding citizen.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by sigung86] To remove the possibility of perceived personal attacks, with my apologies.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Respectfully submitted: Tell that to the citizens of the Roman Empire, the Laotians, the Cambodians, the Kurds, the Afghans, etc. etc. etc.

I stand by my original statement; an entity such as government only has as much power as the people will put in it. Government, despite all its security organs and armed forces, can still be toppled a harsh wind from the constituency. Even some of the most oppressive governments in the world today were ushered in on the heels of popular revolution.




That is bad how? Only when the people become dependent and apathetic does this become a bad thing, pretty much negating your statement on the government above .... Think in terms of the Alamo, cowboys, Hells Angels, Hippies, Yippies, Bloods, Crips, Batos, Homies, girl gangs, etc. It is, for better or worse, called independence, and life style choices. Many people feel like it is part and parcel of their divine right to life.

Lost you here, my point was that people are given to express unrestrained freedom and not submit to oppressive rule.




Submitted respectfully ... What have you done beside accept what is happening as an inevitibility? And speaking of the "generic you"...

What have I done? Fair question - right now I am going to college as and majoring in global political science (foreign policy, national security, etc.). Hence, the “all politicians are greedy” struck a chord with me as a conveniently oversimplified stereotype. I plan pursuing a career in national security not because I have some unhealthy obsession with power, but because I have an honest concern for the future of my country. After I graduate I intend to join the military. So in response, not much yet. This is the internet and talk is cheap, but you will just have to take my word on this for the time being.

In response to whether or not I am willing to trade off the ability to think for myself, the answer is a complicated one. First, nearly all modern societies are based upon task specialization. Without it, I would have to dig my own well, harvest my own food, build my own house, etc. We rely on others who have more experience and information in a given field to do the work for us, following general guidelines on our behalf but ultimately relying on their own experience and judgment to make sure the job is done effectively. I see government as the same thing - a specialized task undertaken on behalf of those who, for whatever reason, decided it was the proper career for them. The average American, relatively uneducated on political matters, voices their “guidelines” in terms of votes and pays via taxes. In essence, as I referred to earlier, I believe in a trustee model of representation, wherein a better informed and more experienced representative acts in the best interest of the people he is governing, and not as their direct mouthpiece. The downside, obviously, is that you have to place trust in your chosen representative and you may end up with policy that you didn’t expressly support.




Does relying on someone else for your well-being, and safety make you feel better? Are you willing to trade off your ability to think for yourself, make your own mistakes, and choices for a feeling of security?

Am I willing to rely on others for my safety? I trust the government and the military to provide the security of the nation; I trust myself for my individual security. Make of that what you will.

And to bring things back on topic, I think people are reading too much into this. I don’t have the full text of the executive order, nor do I have express knowledge of exactly how it is implemented. However, I highly doubt we’ve gone into a 1984 “everybody is being watched all the time” spin. Rather, I would venture to guess if you are an ultraconservative foreign national of Arab descent, you might have to worry about your phone. But you are not going to be carried off into the night for disagreeing with the government, or for PEACEFULLY attempting to change U.S. policy. The political process is there for a reason; if the majority agrees with you then you stand a fighting chance. But we should not allow those who actively plan and have demonstrated their capability to kill innocents en masse to roam free on our streets. That is just foolish.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
I expect our government to track down and kill terrorist. I also expect them to prevent terrorist attacks. Limiting their means of doing this only helps the terrorist.

As a law abiding citizen I really don't care if the government listens in on my phone conversations. If I was a terrorist, drug dealer or other type of criminal I would be very worried.

The release of this information damages the security of the United States.



Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. That is in the Constitution.

Since you have nothing to hide, why would you need a private home with curtains and door locks, by any chances are you planning a terrorist attacking in there?

You worry me, Carseller4, I'm turning you to Homeland Security right away. As a law abiding citizen you will not mind spending 2 years in Gitmo. Since you seem so inclined to make it easier for the government to listen to your conversations, why don't you speak directly to the camera from your prison cell.

And don't you dare protest for you rights, as a supsected terrorist, just be glad they didn't kill you yet.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Let's not forget that our world changed forever on 9/11. The security and safety we felt, that was molded and guided by a set of laws that worked when we were isolated, is gone forever.

The old ways will not work in today's world. Laws are not meant to be engraved in granite and worshipped. They are not meant to never change. They must be allowed to evolve in the environment that they were born in: the constitution.

Old definitions of laws will not work today when defending our people against an enemy who has but one goal: to watch the life in the eyes of our nation slowly extinguish. An act may become illegal because it is outdated; can you understand that?

Change the laws? Fine. But you want we should change the laws before we act in all cases. Not practical, or smart, or safe when doing that would tip off our enemies.


I understand that this type of thing will catch the occasional terrorist operation, and act, but ... It seems to me, and I'm not really a moron, that there are more effective ways that are less invasive to achieve the same results. I'm not necessarily a right wing, nor am I a left wing, I am simply a human being who wishes to have the right to live and die as he wishes, as long as there is no harm to another person. and yet, I am beginning to believe that this is an illusory paradigm.


That's fine, You want to live as you wish. But in your zeal to achieve that, you have no problem putting the rest of us at risk.

The best thing for you to do is to find a place where your ideals can be realized. Is there such a place here on earth? Let us know when you find it, please.


from twitchy Odigo has its hand in every major Instant messenger service there is, Amdocs handles the billing and who knows what else for every major US telecommunications company. Both of them are based in Israel, and both of them have been rumored to have ties to Mossad.

Not to minimize them, but there are major players much bigger than them, esp. in China.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let's not forget that our world changed forever on 9/11. The security and safety we felt, that was molded and guided by a set of laws that worked when we were isolated, is gone forever.


Bull-dada! It was always that way... It was just not that big a thing until it happened to us. Nothing has changed, except you became afraid.



The old ways will not work in today's world. Laws are not meant to be engraved in granite and worshipped. They are not meant to never change. They must be allowed to evolve in the environment that they were born in: the constitution.


Ahhh... That's right! And that's my point. This thing that was done by Bush and the Home Boys was AGAINST that very Constitution that you are now supporting!




Old definitions of laws will not work today when defending our people against an enemy who has but one goal: to watch the life in the eyes of our nation slowly extinguish. An act may become illegal because it is outdated; can you understand that?


I understand what you are saying, and only disagree minimally. What I will not buy, however, is the fact that, according to the action and intent, per Dub and the boys, the Constitution must be torn down to defend the ... er .... Constitution... "Help I have a fire in the kitchen, someone please dynamite my garage!"



Change the laws? Fine. But you want we should change the laws before we act in all cases. Not practical, or smart, or safe when doing that would tip off our enemies.


No!!! I want all the laws to be equal for each of us. That is practical, smart, and very safe. That, within some "reasonable" limitations, like slavery, and women's right to vote, and a couple of other non-sequitars, was how the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was set up (Ooops! There's that DAMNED Bill of Rights that no one talks about anymore!



That's fine, You want to live as you wish. But in your zeal to achieve that, you have no problem putting the rest of us at risk.

The best thing for you to do is to find a place where your ideals can be realized. Is there such a place here on earth? Let us know when you find it, please.


That's right! In this world, we come into it alone, and we go out of it alone, and we are, each of us, responsible for ourselves to a greater or lesser extent... Thus, the mountain men carried guns, knives, hatchets, etc.

You are always at risk! I've done nothing, nor would I do anything to change that. Any time you forget that and act otherwise, or strictly depend on someone else for your security and safety, you are living in what we nominall call a fool's paradise. And there was such a place on Planet Earth, and still could be... It is called the "United States of America".

It may not be right, and it may not be perfect, but it is still the best place for a person to live, who isn't afraid to take responsibility for his/her own actions and self.

I want to thank you for carrying on this debate. It's not often that I get to really operate the old brain cells... And at my age that is certainly a detriment!



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufia

Originally posted by Carseller4
I expect our government to track down and kill terrorist. I also expect them to prevent terrorist attacks. Limiting their means of doing this only helps the terrorist.

As a law abiding citizen I really don't care if the government listens in on my phone conversations. If I was a terrorist, drug dealer or other type of criminal I would be very worried.

The release of this information damages the security of the United States.



Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. That is in the Constitution.

Since you have nothing to hide, why would you need a private home with curtains and door locks, by any chances are you planning a terrorist attacking in there?

You worry me, Carseller4, I'm turning you to Homeland Security right away. As a law abiding citizen you will not mind spending 2 years in Gitmo. Since you seem so inclined to make it easier for the government to listen to your conversations, why don't you speak directly to the camera from your prison cell.

And don't you dare protest for you rights, as a supsected terrorist, just be glad they didn't kill you yet.


There are no Americans being held at Club Gitmo. This is not a witch-hunt. Lives have been saved already because of this. You just don't hear about it. It is simply keeping eyes upon people wishing to do America harm. Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. So what if the government overhears a phone conversation of mine? Are they that interested in my wife telling me to pick up some bread?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by para


I stand by my original statement; an entity such as government only has as much power as the people will put in it. Government, despite all its security organs and armed forces, can still be toppled a harsh wind from the constituency. Even some of the most oppressive governments in the world today were ushered in on the heels of popular revolution.


Tell that to the millions of dead Cambodians and Laotions ... Tell that to the dead Jews, gays, underprivileged and ill-treated of the last global unpleasantness... The one that was titled WWII. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps million or more people who are dead at the hands of government driven pogroms like those in places like Kosovo.

Secondly, if handled correctly, and treated right, no harsh wind of revolution is needed. However, the government in place is like a greedy entity. It will take as much as you give, and so, must be kept in a respectful state. I submit that our US Government, at this point in time is not representative of the people. I submit that this government, at this time, is taking as much as it can while people are looking the other way. I submit that this government is not, in totality, keeping the best interest of the people in it's heart of hearts. If that were so, then political differences aside, a great many people who are becoming or are already afraid of our government would not be so.




Lost you here, my point was that people are given to express unrestrained freedom and not submit to oppressive rule.


Hmmm.... Tell that to the people who are quick to want to give up their freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the government can worry about their safety and security, thus relieving them of one more burden of self determination.



What have I done? Fair question - right now I am going to college as and majoring in global political science (foreign policy, national security, etc.). Hence, the “all politicians are greedy” struck a chord with me as a conveniently oversimplified stereotype. I plan pursuing a career in national security not because I have some unhealthy obsession with power, but because I have an honest concern for the future of my country. After I graduate I intend to join the military. So in response, not much yet. This is the internet and talk is cheap, but you will just have to take my word on this for the time being.


No disrespect intended to you, whatsoever, but please come talk to me in about 10 - 15 years, when you have a little less book learning and a little more practical experience.

I will grant you that not all politicians are greedy. Nor are all politicians, necessarily, looking to take away all my civil liberties. However, when enough of the really important ones begin to waddle like ducks, quack like ducks, and lay ducks eggs ... When those politicians say that it would be easier if they were the dictator, the constitution is only paper, and other desultory remarks, and when those politicians take independent actions that totally go against the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, I tend to start looking for the duck feathers, webbed feet and bills.



In response to whether or not I am willing to trade off the ability to think for myself, the answer is a complicated one. First, nearly all modern societies are based upon task specialization. Without it, I would have to dig my own well, harvest my own food, build my own house, etc. We rely on others who have more experience and information in a given field to do the work for us, following general guidelines on our behalf but ultimately relying on their own experience and judgment to make sure the job is done effectively. I see government as the same thing - a specialized task undertaken on behalf of those who, for whatever reason, decided it was the proper career for them. The average American, relatively uneducated on political matters, voices their “guidelines” in terms of votes and pays via taxes. In essence, as I referred to earlier, I believe in a trustee model of representation, wherein a better informed and more experienced representative acts in the best interest of the people he is governing, and not as their direct mouthpiece. The downside, obviously, is that you have to place trust in your chosen representative and you may end up with policy that you didn’t expressly support.


Again, I understand, and agree. However, the part of all this that bothers me is that in the face of these expectations and these "really pretty specific" guidelines (Constitution and Bill of Rights), the specialized body blatantly throws them out the window, then we have greater issues than terrorists to be concerned about. It begins to appear that the terrorists may have taken over the government...

What say you?????




Am I willing to rely on others for my safety? I trust the government and the military to provide the security of the nation; I trust myself for my individual security. Make of that what you will.


That is a very good thing... I make nothing more of it than what you stated. However, I am concerned for more than just you and I. Jsobecky and a couple of others who willingly follow the beat of the government drummer, blindly, and are quick to pounce on others for the mere sake of what appears to be supporting the government scare me. You can see what I mean by watching old film of the Nazi Torchlight processions and other political spectacles. You can see it in films, or perhaps in person if you so choose, at KKK cross burning ceremonies.



And to bring things back on topic, I think people are reading too much into this. ... However, I highly doubt we’ve gone into a 1984 “everybody is being watched all the time” spin. Rather, I would venture to guess if you are an ultraconservative foreign national of Arab descent, you might have to worry about your phone. But you are not going to be carried off into the night for disagreeing with the government, or for PEACEFULLY attempting to change U.S. policy. The political process is there for a reason; if the majority agrees with you then you stand a fighting chance. But we should not allow those who actively plan and have demonstrated their capability to kill innocents en masse to roam free on our streets. That is just foolish.


Indeed! I do not give a tinker's damn about the foreign national of Arab descent... He is on his own, unless he is a naturalized citizen. Then he should have no more worry about his phone than the next guy... Unless he has done something to overtly or perhaps, covertly, show that he is a bad guy. Let's talk NSA by the way... And no, I am not an ultra conservative, nor am I a liberal. I am a freeman born by the name of Dan. I believe I have the right to a greater or lesser extent to self determnation. I believe that I should be able to live without government interdiction in my life, and I wish the same for you.

I also believe that we, as Americans, have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. How innocent may I feel or think I am when the government can subpoena all types of records, financial and otherwise, tap my phones, jiggle around in my mail, question my family and friends, and those business associates I may have, like my banker, and make this all happen in such a way that the very actions I'm speaking of can be withheld from my knowledge?

Who watches the watchers? And why do we set up a society in such a way that we need watchers to watch the watchers?

My personal feeling is that we are teetering on the brink of the 1984 gig that you speak of as foolishness. Maybe so, maybe not, but at this time, perhaps more than any other, we need to be diligent in our observation of the government. And we need a few good men out there who are, in fact, not swayed by avarice, greed, or the Machavellian twist that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

A personal aside to you. Thanks very much for the debate. I wasn't sure if the para was for para"trooper" or para"legal"...
But after a couple of reads I thunk you was a college student.

Good luck on your career. I seriously would be interested in talking to you in ten years or so and seeing how your views have changed.

I hope for you all the good things you envision. I hope you keep your altruistic view of the world in spite of its' often twisted reality.

And may you never do anything against the citizens of this country that would cause you to have difficulty looking yourself in the eye as you look in the mirror when you are shaving.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

AlJazeera.Net

he US president has said he has no intention of stopping his personal authorisations of a post-September 11 secret eavesdropping programme in the United States, defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

"This is a highly classified programme that is crucial to our national security," President George Bush said in a radio address delivered live from the White House on Saturday.

"This authorisation is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do."

Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA programme, Democratic Senator Russell Feingold said the president's remarks were "breathtaking in how extreme they were".

"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let's not forget that our world changed forever on 9/11. The security and safety we felt, that was molded and guided by a set of laws that worked when we were isolated, is gone forever.


Bull-dada! It was always that way... It was just not that big a thing until it happened to us. Nothing has changed, except you became afraid.

Always that way, was it? If La Guardia and JFK were overbooked, planes routinely parked on the 78th floor of the WTC?:shk:

Everything changed. The one emotion that I have not felt is fear. I have felt intense anger, however. I'll leave the feelings of fear to those who use a ghost argument of stolen/lost rights as a means to make it easier for those who want to kill us.

You say that there is no boogeyman, except in my head. You boast about what you would do if threatened by a hijacker wielding a boxcutter on an airplane. What you purport you would do is no less than any man would do.

But let's change the scenery a bit. Let's put the boxcutter at your throat, and another boxcutter at the throat of your daughter, or wife, or whomever you love more than anyone else (assuming it is not yourself that is most precious to you?
), and twenty rows of seats between the two of you.

Would you then be so proud of all the effort and energy that you had put into fighting extra security measures at the airport, on the premise that the TSA was violating your 4th Amendment right to to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? What comfort would that give you at the moment they killed her? That you fought the good fight?

The rest of your post is, well, nothing more than psychobabble, no more nutritious than a bowl of steam. I don't mean that as a personal insult toward you. You seem like an intelligent enough person. And then you forget one of the basic premises of our legal system and condemn President George Walker Bush
before he is even indicted, with statements such as


"Bottom line... What he did is damnable, illegal, and most certainly, unconstitutional. I hope that in the final analysis that Bush, if he is found guilty of so gross and evil intrusion into the people's lives that has been taken, swings from a tree at sunrise...


Bottom line is, you offer nothing to debate, other than your personal notions of government in a personal Elyssian Fields.



[edit on 17-12-2005 by jsobecky]

[edit on 17-12-2005 by jsobecky]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join