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.

 

POLITICS: New law would outlaw anyone revealing US eavesdropping programs

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
ATSNN members voted NO to this article citing bias. The truth hurts I guess. Are facts considered bias?

Maybe Bush and his fascist entourage are ATS members.

A few personal observations here, if you will:
One, having said what you did, this ATSNN submission deserves all the 'no' votes that can be mustered.
Two, grab a tissue.
Three, the truth us subjective, and claim that the "truth hurts" simply amounts to your taking those 'no' votes a weeeeee bit toooooo personally.
Four, your taking all those 'no' votes just a weeee bit tooooo personally caused you to then spout the absolute and 'a' typical term fascist entourage, like a little fascist dictator who is not getting what he wants. How ironic, huh?
Five, refer back to #one.





seekerof




posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Who is going to find it unconstitutional Grady? the Bush administration?


The supreme court with two of Bush buddies appointees.
and supporters.

The justice department?


Gonzales would love to put a gag order to everybody in America, you know I am Latina but Gonzales so far to me is a shame to my Latino heritage when it comes to the rights of citizens in this countries, American born and immigrants.

I got enough with his big involvement with the patriot act, the defining of enemy combatant, the treatment of the detainees in Cuba and the surveillance of American citizens.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Seekerof,

When you allow the community to vote article submissions in, it sets up the potential for abuse. It is very easy for Bush to have a few dedicated ATS trollers to vote NO on any and all article that may discuss him in a negative light. Not saying that's what happeneing, but potentially it could happen.

I don't understand why anyone would vote NO to this article. Especially here on a conspiracy forum.

I suspect deliberate motives to undermine ATS voting. I am not looking at is as a personal attack, im more looking it as a conspiracy to undermine ATS voting by people who deliberatly want to supress the article as much as possible. COINTELPRO if you will.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]


df1

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

GradyPhilpott
If the program is found to be unconstitutional, any laws regarding its protection would be null and void. Until that time, the bill makes perfect sense. Everyone should relax.

I would agree with you excepting for the fact that the federal judiciary has become little more than political whores in black robes.

Relax? It has been time for Americans to get real PO'd and upset for a long time, yet our citizens continue to slumber.
.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
You know, posting a news article in this forum is always a traumatic experience for the nonexperienced.

The author probably doesnt know the ropes. He/She should be cut some slack.

Now that you are forgiven, thanks for the article.


Just remember, you must post it as if you were reporting for Fox news...fair and balanced. No bias.

Good luck in the future.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
marg, you ought to give the smilies a rest. I get motion sickness reading your posts.

The system works often to the disappointment of the administration as demonstrated by the port deal. My opinion is that the Bush administration studied the legality of the program and determined that it was legal and the courts will uphold that, but only because it is legal, not because of coercion by the administration.

The program is so limited in its scope that it involves very few people and relative to the risks imposed by terrorists, it seems only prudent. Bush maintains that the program is covered by the war powers act and that is good enough for me. If the courts decide otherwise, that will also be good enough for me.

We can't have a dictatorship without a dictator. Bush will be succeeded in 2009 and we can begin the cycle all over again. I'd like to say that it is time for another Democrat President, just so the left could feel better about themselves, but I'm doubtful that that time has yet come. It hardly matters. Isn't the world supposed to end in 2010?



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Grady,

The Federal US code specifically says that "you cannot eavesdrop on communications that a US party are a privelage too"

-and-

"the president could only conduct wiretaps without warrants preceding 15 days the declaration of war".

The surveilannce program was OBVIOUSLY in violation of federal law. As far as constitutionality, the constitution states "all persons will be safe in their persons and possesions from unreasonable search and seizure unless upon probable cause and a court order". There is no court order involved in Bush's eavesdropping program, and neither was there any proven probable cause (the protest groups, journalists, etc.).

Grady I just don't see where you come from. Sorry.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
When you allow the community to vote article submissions in, it sets up the potential for abuse.

Yeah, perhaps so, but that was taken into consideration when the ATSNN submissions voting system was concieved.
As such, abuse is inherent in everything, is it not?
If it is, then the ATSNN submission voting system acts as an equalizer, thus, being the best implement of all the 'other' considered evils.




It is very easy for Bush to have a few dedicated ATS trollers to vote NO on any and all article that may discuss him in a negative light.

Your concern is valid....about as valid as there being dedicated ATS members taking the shape and form of Democrats or anti-Bush trollers, who simply post up anything to seemingly discuss Bush in a negative light, huh? So basically here, your point is what? Because it is blantantly obvious what your intentions were in creating this ATSNN submission. Having said that, and taking into consideration your above mentioned "concern"--->in reverse, you are not a Democrat or anti-Bush troller are you?




seekerof

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
[edit on 11-3-2006 by tommyb98201]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Sorry Grady but you see the smilies that is how I am, always happy and smiling.

Now for the legality of such a bill I don’t have a problem with War powers if we were fighting a real war Grady.

But the war that Bush has created was of his own design under his own personal agenda and he has taking our country down with it.

That I don’t agree with, and under that personal war he has abuse his presidential powers and has give to his administration more powers that are needed.

Tell me Grady when enough is enough regarless of who the president is, when you will put a stop at something that is obviously for the benefit of his administration and the cronies behind it and not for the People of American that elected him.

Tell me please and I will not add any more smilies to my post.

I lied


Whatever the governemt is doing is to benefit any other administration that comes after and then they can blame it on the previous one like they always do.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Seekerof,

I voted for Bush. I thought he had more sense. I learned the hard way.

Seeker, if you disallow community voting on articles we can better guage ATS administrators and better choose if we wish to continue participating in anyd iscussions here. If it was ATS admins that were suppressing articles for their own agendas then people like me would'nt come here. But when it is the community as a whole that is ruining it, I can't really blame anything other then the voting system.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
....when you will put a stop at something that is obviously for the benefit of his administration and the cronies behind it and not for the People of American that elected him.

What is seen as 'bad' or what is 'good' is all subjective, is it not, Marg?
Further, being you were one of those who did not vote for Bush in the past elections, your a bit confused when you cite that something is beneficial for the Bush administration and his cronies and not a benefit for the "People of American that elected him."

As I recall, the polls taken cited that the majority of Americans supported the NSA eavesdropping program. Apparently, that would indicate that there are a multitude of American people who find such a program beneficial.





seekerof

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Actually Seeker the polls that has been done on the issue has given different conclusions depending the way that the questions are asked.

Actually it has to do with who the identity of the people been taped is presented. If the words include Suspected Terrorist or American citizens or People in American you are going to get a different responses for them.

So obviously you only has gone for the polls that had Terrorist, or people in America rather than American citizens

Is quite interesting to see how polls are manipulated for responses so far any poll that say American citizens have a negative highest response to the administration.

If somebody ask me if I agree with taping of Suspected terrorist in the US I will say yes.

If somebody ask me if I agree with taping of possible conversations with terrorist I will said yes.

If somebody ask me if I agree with taping of American citizens in the US I will say no.

Very simple manipulation of questions Seekerorf.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figjam
Welcome to the New World Order where we will do your thinking for you!!



or as i have always called it, the new world odor..."Any people willing to trade their freedoms for security deserves neither." Ben Franklin



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Richard Nixon would have loved this era.
Trust your government, they know what is best for you!

First they came for the whistle-blowers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a whistle-blower.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a question here.....ummm...

okay, we've all sat on these boards and discussed this eavesdropping program, we described it, while we were debating on weather or not it was illegal. sure, the information we used we found in mainstream articles, or articles online, or maybe heard on npr...but we discussed them, we described them...

would we be breaking this law if we continued to do this???


why is it that when articles are posted like this, there is more debate on weather or not the article is worthy than there is the actual news content of the article? you take all the joy out of life!!!


[edit on 11-3-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I really doubt the bill will ever survive the way it is written. Existing law is adequate to cover transgressions such as occurred with the NSA program. If congress wants to iindex the current fine to inflation then go for it, but $1 million seems a little excessive.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23
Richard Nixon would have loved this era.
Trust your government, they know what is best for you!

First they came for the whistle-blowers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a whistle-blower.


So true, so true. And to Dawnstar, notice it is the republicans running like headless chickens trying to defend Bush? Something without a head does not have a brain, therefor can not think for itself, why they turn to Bush&Co for all the answers. If Bush came out and made it a law that 2+2=5 they would say that makes perfect sense and send anyone to jail for saying 2+2=4, because those are evil black gay scientists and don't support Bush so must die.

Just because it is law doesn't make it right. It was LEGAL to own slaves, doesn't make it right, unless you are a republican, then it was. Same with WOmen not allowed to vote, they were for that, thankfully the evil black gay scientists won and women can vote.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Just Say "No Bias"


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I don't understand why anyone would vote NO to this article. Especially here on a conspiracy forum.

Because it violated the ATSNN guidelines for submissions. When I voted "no for bias", I did so according to the specific guidelines for how to vote on ATSNN submissions:


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Use this button to vote no, and send the author an anonymous message that you think the introduction section (first paragraph) is too biased for ATSNN.

To avoid unnecessary confusion in the future, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the guidelines you are supposed to respect instead of making rude, false and unjustified insinuations about members who follow them.

The Scourge Of Democracy


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I suspect deliberate motives to undermine ATS voting. I am not looking at is as a personal attack, im more looking it as a conspiracy to undermine ATS voting by people who deliberatly want to supress the article as much as possible. COINTELPRO if you will.

The best way to keep people from undermining the system is to refrain from undermining it yourself.

It is poor form to submit a news article in clear violation of the posting guidelines and then launch into tirades against those who ask only that you honor them.

You are polluting your own thread with this off-topic nonsense. I recommend taking the issue up in a thread more appropriate to discussion of ATSNN policies in general, and sticking to the topic you started with your news submission.

Making It Illegal To Break The Law

Having hopefully put all that unpleasantness aside, my take on this is that the bill is unlikely to make it into law in its current form, if at all, since it is apparently too vague to pass legislative muster.

Unauthorized disclosure of classified information is already a felony, and those who do it face plenty of legal trouble as it is.

It seems to me that this is more of a made-for-tempest-in-a-teapot affair which will allow those who want to put their spin on the issue to do so while overlooking the questions which lie at the heart of the matter.

My opinion on those questions is straightforward:

1) Unauthorized disclosure of classified information is illegal for good reason.

2) There are procedures established by law already in place that allow individuals who believe information has been classified improperly to have the matter investigated (by Congress if need be) and dealt with without compromising legitimate national security interests.

3) Going public with classified information should only be considered as a last resort, after all legal means have been exhausted. And then, it would be wise to consider why others disagreed with disclosing it rather than unilaterally and singlehandedly deciding to dictate national security policy.

4) Those who violate the law instead of upholding it have the burden of proving that they were justified in doing so.

5) Those who fail to do so are deserving of the punishments determined by law for their crimes.

It is easy to forget what's at stake in this discussion. Protecting civil liberties is vital, to be sure, but civil liberties do not extend to violating positions of trust and potentially endangering the lives of Americans by doing so.

Opinions may reasonably vary on this issue, but these are mine.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join