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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

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?....


Maudib is displaying a common thinking disorder that about 35% of Americans suffer from. This notion that "liberals" are responsible for any loss of freedom and that George Bush is seeking only the protection of our nation. Forget about domestic spying, forget about secret prisons or the repeal of habeas corpus. It's those liberals who are taking away our freedom through gun laws.

No matter how many guns you have, if you are denied the basic information of what crimes your leaders are committing, you just won't know who to shoot. You think "liberals" are your enemies while George W. Bush is madly working to surround you with razor wire.

Do you know which American president's administration would not let the FBI compare terror watch lists with the list of gun buyers? Why would Mr. Bush not want to know which terrorists are buying guns? In fact, the Attorney General, that tireless protector of our way of life, forced states to destroy their gun ownership records, just because the NRA, a powerful lobby group, wanted it done.

Do you really believe you're going to fight the forces who want to deny your freedom with your hunting rifle? It just shows how confident the people in power are, that they can so control the free flow of information that it doesn't matter if the population is armed.

This is why it's so important that the people who still believe in freedom (the ones Maudib would call "liberals") have to maintain close ties to the rank-and-file military. This is why it's such a great sign that most of the veterans of the Gulf War and the War in Iraq who are running for public office are doing it as Liberal Democrats. Because when it comes right down to it, we're going to have to take this country back, not through the electoral process (that's been corrupted by Diebold and redistricting), but by standing up en masse.

I remember watching the fall of the Soviet Union, when the soldiers who were being ordered to shoot their own countrymen simply refused and turned their guns on their corrupt and fascistic leaders. That day may yet come to pass here in America. When all the illegal wiretapping, all the secret prisons, all the lies, the deals to sell port operations to state sponsors of terrorism who just happen to be close friends with the G. Bush, will not be enough to supress the desire of ordinary Americans to be free.

Maudib, when that day comes, do you think George Bush or Hannity or Limbaugh are going to protect you? No, you will be seen by them just as the ordinary French patriots were seen by the royalty during the Revolution: as riffraff to be put down. And that's how the royalists that are currently in the White House see you today.




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
For some reason the links associated with this wouldn't work but it is posted on commondreams.org and the article is from the Guardian.


Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.


We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary.

Sandra Day O'Connor
Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vuoto

Originally posted by Muaddib

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?....


Maudib is displaying a common thinking disorder that about 35% of Americans suffer from. This notion that "liberals" are responsible for any loss of freedom and that George Bush is seeking only the protection of our nation. Forget about domestic spying, forget about secret prisons or the repeal of habeas corpus. It's those liberals who are taking away our freedom through gun laws.


Why any common citizen needs an assult rifle is beyond me...it seems more than a little extreme...I am a bonified liberal and proud of it damnit. I have no problem with guns, I personally don't care for them but that is my personal choice one I am not about to deny anyone but the NRA is a crackpot case these days...most of the gun control measures are perfectly reasonable...why not a background check? Why not a waiting period? Anyone who can't wait 48 hours or a week, or even a month to get a gun is already suspect in my book...or for that matter why not a limit on the number of guns you can buy in a month? Lets be honest a person who is buying a bunch of guns unless a bonefied dealer, is again suspect in my book, a right wing militaman or gang member...no the hard right use these common sense controls as a boogie man to scare the simple minded...while I am not accusing muaddip of simple mindedness his notion that only liberals threaten his civil liberities is.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Well close to an answer, but Muadib(Sp?) if the president has sex with a 6 year old girl, then stamps her forehead classified, did he not committ a crime anymore?

Just because he stamps his illegal wiretapping of American Citizens classified doesn't make it not happen, it still happened, he still broke the law, just now has a classified stamped on it.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
If this administration is so above board and honest
and has nothing to hide then why has it classified more stuff as top secret than any other administration in history? Sounds like they are trying to cover their own arses and hide their own crimes to me and to an increasing number of americans...diehard bush supporters are becoming increasingly rare...next thing ya know we'll have to put muaddip on the endangered species list. Oh yes i forgot bush tried to eliminate that as well



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
OK, this is the News Network, let's keep to it's standards.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

www.issues2000.org...
President:
George W bush
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)

Rep. Sr Senator:
John McCain
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)


so your either telling me bush was pro ban or he will just say whatever he has to in order to get the majority vote and really didnt care about our issues anyway.


www.cnsnews.com...
The Republican-controlled Senate has already voted 52-47 to extend the ban, thanks in part to 10 Republicans who broke ranks. Because the March 2 vote came in the form of an amendment to another bill, the legislation was later voted down in an effort to defeat the measure.


appartently majority in the senate rules. it was republican majority and yet it swayed toward banning the gun. so obviously its not such a black and white line like you make it out to be. they gray the area and its pretty obvious what they are doing.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
Well close to an answer, but Muadib(Sp?) if the president has sex with a 6 year old girl, then stamps her forehead classified, did he not committ a crime anymore?


If the president had sex with a six year old he should be punished for that. Anyone who rapes a child, because doing that to a child is not "having sex" it is "rape", should be castrated and put in prison with the prisoners who have been there the longest....

BTW, your allegory is not even close, at all, to what you are trying to suggest.



Originally posted by DevinS
Just because he stamps his illegal wiretapping of American Citizens classified doesn't make it not happen, it still happened, he still broke the law, just now has a classified stamped on it.


First of all, why is it that some people keep trying to portrait wiretaps being done only and mainly to American Citizerns??

I guess when some people are trying to push an agenda they change words around and exagerate more so that American Citizens rise up....

I have asked this before, yet nobody responded so let me ask again.

How many people in here think that American Citizens would make all international calls, or the majority of them?

How many American Citizens will call any group which is related to terrorism in any country?

And one last question...

How many people in here think that the government has enough manpower to listen to All calls being done by American citizens, or even all international calls?.....



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
First of all, why is it that some people keep trying to portrait wiretaps being done only and mainly to American Citizerns??

I guess when some people are trying to push an agenda they change words around and exagerate more so that American Citizens rise up....

I have asked this before, yet nobody responded so let me ask again.

How many people in here think that American Citizens would make all international calls, or the majority of them?

How many American Citizens will call any group which is related to terrorism in any country?

And one last question...

How many people in here think that the government has enough manpower to listen to All calls being done by American citizens, or even all international calls?.....


So, Greenpeace, ACLU, and John McCain, and reporters at American Newspapers aren't American citizens? Also, nice way of not answering the question...

If Bush kills someone, then stamps their body classified, did he not kill them anymore? Is it no longer a crime?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Really the issue shouldn't be has Bush authorized evesdropping on American citizens...the issue is (or should be) why he circumvented the FISA law governing this...after all the law as written gives him ample lee way...personally I feel that his behaviour reflects nothing short than a contempt for the law and more importantly an above the law attitude, which by the way he has all but asserted. That is why it is an important issue and since he tends to hide everything he does behind a wall of secrecy, other than his word which doesn't mean squat, how do we know that he is not spying on american citizens and groups that he does not approve of?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

so your either telling me bush was pro ban or he will just say whatever he has to in order to get the majority vote and really didnt care about our issues anyway.


There is a difference between automatic weapons and assault weapons. Not all assault weapons are automatic, in fact civilians can't own automatic weapons, or also known as machine guns since 1994, and it has been illegal to buy them without federal clearance since 1934.

This 1934 law is known as the National Firearms Act, which anyone who knows a little bit about American history at that time knows why this law was put into effect.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
appartently majority in the senate rules. it was republican majority and yet it swayed toward banning the gun. so obviously its not such a black and white line like you make it out to be. they gray the area and its pretty obvious what they are doing.


Just because there are Republicans who are in favor of banning some weapons doesn't mean they want to take all weapons from Americans.

For example, I am in favor of banning, or not allowing citizens to have "cop killers", or any high powered sniper rifle, bazookas, tanks, and aircraft carriers, among others.... it doesn't mean I want to take all guns and ammunition away from Americans.... I just prefer that no crazy sob, or sobs gets an idea of retaliating for whatever mental condition they might have, and decide to go around with a bazooka/tank/aircraft carrier/destroyer and that this person, or people go postal on civilians....you know what I mean?

But I guess to someone who has their minds set on trying to push an agenda, it doesn't matter.

BTW, you forgot to quote at least one more thing from that excerpt you gave.


President Bush
Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting. (Dec 1999)


Excerpted from link given by Grimreaper.

One last note, this is really going off topic, so let's get back on track.


IMO the addition to the existing law which makes illegal for anyone to give up information on who is being investigated is not a step towards a dictatorship, it is simple common sense.

But who knows, perhaps some members believe that the FBI, the CIA and every Federal Agency should be knocking on the door of people and tell them "hey btw, we are going to be investigating you because we believe that you have ties with terrorism, or you have drug connections", or for whatever reason they are being investigated......

Many reporters now-a-days are doing exactly what I mentioned above; they are forewarning people, and I am more concern when they do this with people who have connection with terrorism as they have done, that they are being watched and in which manner they are being watched.

Anything for a story right? nomatter the consequences, that seems to be the motto of many reporters these days.

Hey, if a story that any reporter gets, which could have been obtained through blackmail, through compensation, or even for retalition or as a political tool by the informant, puts in danger any stake outs//cover operation, and puts at risk the lives of those doing the investigation who cares right?...

It is not the reporter's job, nor is it the fault of some Americans who want this information or otherwise the'll start yelling dictatorship, to keep these people safe, even if the information the reporter gives destroys months of data and undercover work, plus whoever is being investigated could retalite by attacking the agents, since they know they are being watched, who is watching them and how they are doing it.... The reporters shouldn't care about that, as long as they give the story right?... It's their 5 minutes of fame, so who cares....


[edit on 13-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If this administration is so above board and honest
and has nothing to hide then why has it classified more stuff as top secret than any other administration in history?


Or perhaps, just perhaps some terrorists attacked the US like no other terrorists have done before, and they are still threatening to make more attacks.....

BTW....was there any attack on the US by terrorists?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
i dont want guns just for hunting....maybe your support for the government is all trusting but the founders of this country believed we should give that kind of trust to the selective few. thats why they made the second amendment. just because technology has changed does not mean that the interpretation of the law should change.

the second amendment was made in order to combat all threats. you cant combat all threats when you limit the technology of the people who must defend themselves. the government cant have all these weapons and seriously expect the people to fend them off should they start to get greedy and power hungry.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i dont want guns just for hunting....


You can own guns, as long as you don't have any criminal records, for protection, and a lot of people do.

Now, let's see exactly what sorts of weapons you want and why.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
maybe your support for the government is all trusting but the founders of this country believed we should give that kind of trust to the selective few. thats why they made the second amendment. just because technology has changed does not mean that the interpretation of the law should change.


If you actually believe that the forefathers wanted any person to own ships or any advanced technology which allowed mass destruction you are out of your mind. That I remember correctly even back then civilians couldn't own a fully armed and equiped ship, that was for the military to own, not for civilians.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
the second amendment was made in order to combat all threats.


Yes, including the threat of some people going bunkers and wanting to start their own civil war, not only if the government became a dictatorship, which the US government is not. Many Americans are armed, but many Americans do not want to "start a civil war" it is only some groups who want this for their own political motives, and the second amendment was also written to stop this. Any threats foreign and domestic does not mean only the U.S. government and other nations that want to start a war, it also covers the threats of those people, and groups which do not speak for all Americans and who want the needless shed of blood in American soil.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
you cant combat all threats when you limit the technology of the people who must defend themselves. the government cant have all these weapons and seriously expect the people to fend them off should they start to get greedy and power hungry.


So tell me what civilian during the time the Constitution was written or afterwards, and in any conflict the nation had back then, owned a fully equiped and armed military ship, and was allowed to have any civilian ship which was recommissioned to become a military vessel?.....

I am very interested to find out if I am wrong.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Muaddib]


df1

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you actually believe that the forefathers wanted any person to own ships or any advanced technology which allowed mass destruction you are out of your mind.

Hogwash. At the start of the revolutionary war the american navy had fewer than 12 warships. The continental congress overcame this lack of a navy by authorizing privateers to wage war on seas against the brits. Privateers were private citizens that owned warships. Other countries also thought that the founding fathers were out of their minds for trusting their citizens. We need more crazy leaders like the founding fathers instead of the clandestine government we have now which does not trust its citizens. Your view of history and government is not only inaccurate, it is unAmerican.

Wiki or research "privateers" as you wish.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Hogwash. At the start of the revolutionary war the american navy had fewer than 12 warships. The continental congress overcame this lack of a navy by authorizing privateers to wage war on seas against the brits. Privateers were private citizens that owned warships. Other countries also thought that the founding fathers were out of their minds for trusting their citizens. We need more crazy leaders like the founding fathers instead of the clandestine government we have now which does not trust its citizens. Your view of history and government is not only inaccurate, it is unAmerican.

Wiki or research "privateers" as you wish.


Humm, you are in part right. You are talking now about the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which were given to private owners of ships by pretty much every nation on Earth back in those days, specially during wars.

Shall we see exactly how the American private ship owners were made privateers, were drafted into the Navy which allowed them to arm their vessels to fight the war against the Brittish?


The original function of a letter of marque (or Letter of Reprisal) was to right a private wrong. For example, when a Dutch merchant has his goods stolen in Germany, and he cannot gain satisfaction for his loss through legal or diplomatic means, he can be granted a Letter of Marque by the Dutch government. Such a letter allows him to "capture" a German merchant to compensate him for his loss. Since the early 18th century it was no longer in use as a means to right a private wrong. The function of the letter of Marque had changed. These letters were now used by governments, as an instrument of State, to augment the National Navy. This gave the state a naval force which could attack the commerce of the enemy at no cost to public funds. The ships captured had to be brought before an Admiralty Court and tried to ensure they were a legal prize, and not the property of a neutral state.


www.geocities.com...

They were the Navy df1, they could not do as they wished with their ships, they had to attack enemy vessels, and only as long as they were needed.


Privateers

During the War of 1812, America's Second War of Independence, President James Madison attempted to overcome the small size of the US Navy by issuing Letters of Marquee and Reprisal to private ship owners. This document allowed its holder to arm his vessel and act as a privateer, or, in essence, a legal pirate, representing the United States.


Doesn't that sound like a "draft" to you?....

Excerpted from.
www.pride2.org...

BTW, could you tell us what happened to the privateers that wanted to continue their campaigns after the wars ended and without the consent of the U.S. government?

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

Also, if Bush robs a bank, but then stamps classified on the vault, did he no longer rob it?

Still waiting for an answer since the reply is "How dare they report on the government doing something illegal when it was classified!" which brings up the questions I have been asking, just because it is classified does it mean it was no longer a crime, it no longer happened? If so I want to be president, rape a 20 something year old, then when her sister goes to the media about it have her executed for treason since she released classified information since I clearly stamped her sister on the forehead as classified. Wait a minute, I'm not a republican.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
id rather have gun crime then become a slave. plain and simple. if the cost of freedom means having to kill nut jobs every so often i dont really have a problem with that. they want to try and start a civil war then we can kill them, plain and simple. you want a world were all people are peaceful and everyone will play nice and the people in power wont take advantage of its people....sorry but unfortunately our current evolution state wont let that happen.

freedom comes at a price, but the price can never be freedom itself.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

Also,

f Bush robs a bank, but then stamps classified on the vault, did he no longer rob it?






Bank? What bank? There was no bank.

Anyway if there was, it's a state secret.

Look out for the terrorists!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by DevinS
The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

Also,

f Bush robs a bank, but then stamps classified on the vault, did he no longer rob it?






Bank? What bank? There was no bank.

Anyway if there was, it's a state secret.

Look out for the terrorists!!!


lol its more like "the terrorist robbed the bank! they are going to buy a nuclear weapon with it! here, in order to protect you we are going to do a full lock down security check and check every persons home for security purposes, we will also need to hold any person suspected of terrorism for questioning.....go about your daily lives..."



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join