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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Yes this law is identical to the one already in place, it just imposes tougher penalties.

We want to add laws to shore up our defense against release of classified information, but we dont want to add any laws or procedures that would make it easier for illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping programs to reach the public.

Both are just as important to me.




posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Undermining Argument Through Agreement


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
We want to add laws to shore up our defense against release of classified information, but we dont want to add any laws or procedures that would make it easier for illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping programs to reach the public.

Both are just as important to me.

Damn, I couldn't have put it better myself.


So since we apparently agree on this*, now what?


Oh hey, how about those neocons and liberals!


Just kidding.


Regards,

Majic





*Well, with the sentiment, anyway. I just realized that I would have said "harder" instead of "easier", since illegal and unconstitutional programs are a legitimate matter of public interest, as are all violations of law.



[edit on 3/11/2006 by Majic]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Majic, I think you mean easier.

I should of worded my post to say "to make it easier for illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping programs to be disclosed to the public."

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Also, to republicans saying... "How dare they report on the government breaking a dozen federal laws, and then the same people trying to make it illegal to report on them committing a dozen felonies because it was stamped classified."

Edit: Removed classless comment. This is the News Network, post accordingly.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by intrepid]

Ok, so my post makes sense since I did use a inappropriate situation.

Ok, Bush stamps everything illegal classified, does that mean it didn't happen? Did the Holocaust still happen even if the German Government puts 'classified' on everything? Or since it has been stamped 'classified' it no longer happened, no one died, no crime committed?

[edit on 11-3-2006 by DevinS]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
DevinS
You know too late now, I bet that if Rove has been his advisor he would have advised him to do just that.


I am laughing so hard my stomach hurts.


Edit: Ditto.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
What The People Don't Need Not To Know


Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I should of worded my post to say "to make it easier for illegal and unconstitutional eavesdropping programs to be disclosed to the public."

The wording is a bit tricky even by my convoluted standards (and I work hard at being obtuse
), but to the extent you mean that the public needs to know (indeed, has a right to know) about illegal and unconstitutional behavior on the part of the government, I'm with you 100%.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
This is now a kingdom sprinkled with the "D" word...Where is it all going to stop?

When an ex justice comes out and speaks like she did, a justice praised by the Bush administration no less, it makes my hair stand on edge.


I still say the Port deal was nothing more than a smoke screen for this and the Patriot Act...oh, and the Dick Cheney shooting.

God help us all.




She closed by saying (paraphrase) that it takes a long time to become a dictatorship but better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end. That's Right..Sandra Day O'Connor used the word dictatorship. Not some 'nutty blogger' not some 'left wing lezzy' but the most venerated, praised, widely respected, Justice O'Connor.



This time its not just ME saying crazy things.


[edit on 12-3-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Well? If Germany stamps anything on the Holocaust Classified did it not happen then? Was no crime against humanity committed? Should no one talk about the millions of people slaughtered because it was stamped classified?

Ok, the President has a thing for 6 year old girls, and after having sex with one stamps them 'classified', did he not have sex with her, committing a crime, because he stamped her classified? Should the media not do something, should the courts not do anything about it, because he stamped his illegal act classified?

President goes for a joy ride in a limosuine, runs a bucnh of kids over, then puts classified on all their autopsy reports, did he no longer kill them? Did he no longer committ a crime?

President goes hunting and pulls a Cheney, but kills the person, but then puts classified on the shotgun and the dead body, did he no longer kill someone?

President gives a suitcase with the Nuclear codes to Mexico, a huuuuuge crime, but the suitcase has classified stamped on it, does this mean the President didn't give military secrets to Mexico?

The President has anyone who didn't vote for him rounded up and killed, but before their bodies were thrown in the fire they were stamped classified, did he still not kill 200+million people?


df1

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
Ok, the President has a thing...

President goes for a joy ride...

President goes hunting...

President gives a suitcase....

The President has anyone who didn't vote for him...

Being President isnt necessary. Vice-President is sufficient as we've seen. Hell, being a Senator is good enough, just ask Teddy Kennedy about Chapaquitic. Both political parties are guilty and are likely in bed together.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by df1]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
Well? If Germany stamps anything on the Holocaust Classified did it not happen then? Was no crime against humanity committed? Should no one talk about the millions of people slaughtered because it was stamped classified?

Ok, the President has a thing for 6 year old girls, and after having sex with one stamps them 'classified', did he not have sex with her, committing a crime, because he stamped her classified? Should the media not do something, should the courts not do anything about it, because he stamped his illegal act classified?

President goes for a joy ride in a limosuine, runs a bucnh of kids over, then puts classified on all their autopsy reports, did he no longer kill them? Did he no longer committ a crime?

President goes hunting and pulls a Cheney, but kills the person, but then puts classified on the shotgun and the dead body, did he no longer kill someone?

President gives a suitcase with the Nuclear codes to Mexico, a huuuuuge crime, but the suitcase has classified stamped on it, does this mean the President didn't give military secrets to Mexico?

The President has anyone who didn't vote for him rounded up and killed, but before their bodies were thrown in the fire they were stamped classified, did he still not kill 200+million people?

No, because there are just a few people that know of it, not that few any way but compared to the population of united states it's just a few.
People dont get involved, dont care, and dont know and for them it's a blesing that the population act like this.
Question, is a revolution legal?
So for people to brake free they must brake the law.
Freedom comes at a price, it always has a price, but when it's taken away it's cheap, so easy to destroy something and so hard to create something.
Do you think u'r regular bob or regular joe care about any of this, first to care about it he must know, if he does not know how do you expect him to care?just like a girl, you fall in love with her because you know her.
So for people to fall in love with freedom they must know what it means and what are the laws and what is being taken from them.
I think the people of united states are deep asleep.
That should be worring to you first of all, that should be the number 1 concern, with out the people there is no hope.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It's my assumption that the critics here are forgetting that we are at war and that there are enemy-elements in place on American soil planning more attacks against American citizens.

Oh. Another thing. Some of these enemy elements are more than likely American citizens.

As far as I can see, the critics of this administration(and we know who you are) would more than welcome another attack on innocent people of this nation so it can give you more to talk about. Just think about it. If we didn't have the current programs in place(for God-forsaken moral reasons) and there was another attack, we'd be criticized for not having these programs in place.

In the world of the liberal-thinker, you can't do anything right unless you're one of them!



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
....................
Maybe Bush and his fascist entourage are ATS members.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]


Now that was uncalled for, and i doubt is the truth. i don't see any warnings either...anyways....

My guess is that this is in response to quite a few reporters going out of their way to warn possible terrorists, and known terrorists, about who the federal agencies are tapping and survellying. Such reporters and other people who have done this don't care about national security and would sell their own granmother and entire family for a buck to anyone willing to buy them.

I am astounded that some people really believe that "freedom of speech" means being able to tell terrorists what is being done to investigate them and who is being investigated.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
fight all threats foreign and domestic.
^this was why the second amendment was created, to protect ourselves, even from our own government.

an army of the government cannt take over its people until they are disarmed. you disarm them of their weapons, their freedoms such as speech, and disarm them their freedom to assemble after that. you take away these things and what you have is a dictatorship. yea sure the leaders switch but let us not forget that patriot act is becoming perminate. let us also not forget that the so called enemies are people that we at one time called freedom fighters. its a sad day to see us give up what is given to us as a birth right so easily. if we dont defend our own god given freedoms, whats left to defend?



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I can still go to any gun store and buy almost any weapon I want. I was just talking about it with a police officer I just met last week, but then again I live in a state that is mostly Republican/conservative, if they are taking away your rights to own a weapon it must be because you live in a state that is liberal/democrat. Take a look at what states are trying to impose laws against guns and who is trying to implement these laws if you want to talk about a dictatorship.

BTW whose freedom of speech has been taken away? I can still see people saying anything and everything they want. So I ask again, whose freedom of speech has been taken away?

You want people to be free to tell suspected terrorists they are being investigated so they can be forewarned and act like they are innocent civilians? Is that the freedom of speech I see so many people want to have?

[edit on 12-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
they banned assualt weapons for some time...come on at least bush didnt resign that thank god...one thing he did right.
cali had a sniper rifle banned...no reason whatso ever other then "terrorists could use it"

i dont know about you but its not freedom of speech to me if i can get investigated and wiretapped for it. what do you think we have been arguing about with the patriot act for? i dont feel like being on the suspected terrorist list because i want to organize people to peacefully protest against government actions.

you can take your polls and throw them out the window because polls dont mean jack unless it includes every citizen in the nation.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
And tell us grimreaper797 who has been working real hard to get all sorts of weapons banned, tell us what American group has been going around asking to take away all the legal weapons from the streets?.... Has it been Republicans? has it been Republicans in this administration? Think again.

BTW you don't need polls to find out who is wanting to disarm Americans. Try and gather the facts on all those states which have banned weapons and see what sort of states those are.... i am pretty sure they are not conservative states, but rather states like California, New York, etc, etc.



[edit on 12-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
they banned assualt weapons for some time...


Democrats, some liberals and groups like mother against guns, or whatever is called, are the ones who have done this. in fact this administration allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire, but guess again, since it does not fit with some people's agenda to "rise Americans against the present administration" these same people do not mention these facts.

BTW who was the first president, at least in recent times, who said that the right of Americans to own guns is illustrated clearly in the Constitution?....



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
whos been disarming us or at least wanting to? the government...i dont need a poll or study to tell me that it doesnt matter if they are republican or democrat, most of them are still owned by big business and still having their campaigns mostly paid for by the same people.

you want to know whats really funny? your trying to tell me that democrats are the bad guys....lets remember it takes a majority rule to make anything go into effect. lets also remember that neither ones are the good guys anymore, they havent been since they stopped representing us and started representing the company that donated the most money to them.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
That's your opinion and nothing more. Show me a law passed by Republicans which is taking away your right to own guns, unless you have some sort of criminal conviction in which case of course you don't have a right to own weapons.

Appart from that I see that you still can't, or don't want to respond to my question.

I ask you again in another way, in case you forgot or didn't understand the question.

In what way is your freedom of speech being taken away by this addition to an existing law I might add. ??? Care to respond?

You want to be free to tell suspected terrorists they are being watched?... That's the only thing this addition to a law, which is not a new law btw the law already exists, is puting an end to.

Does the law need some changes? yes it does, and I am certain that it is going to change as it makes it's way through Congress, which is stated in that link which the original poster, nor anyone else who is using this as an excuse to cry dictatorship, bothered to read or mention.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I see this as a crackdown on whistleblowers. Since insiders are where the press get much of its information, it is also an attempt to silence the spread of administration information to the American people. After the press and the television media, will come the bloggers.

Then, possibly, political opponants and protesters.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join