Life At New Animal Farm Won’t Be All That Bad (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/life-at-new-animal-farm-won%E2%80%99t-be-all-that-bad/)

By July, we will come to feel that 2009 will be one of the most upbeat years in our history, as what used to be the news media∗ begins to get behind America and report on all the mysteriously wonderful things that are suddenly taking place.

All the campaign talk of the Great Depression, a Vietnam-like war, and our shredded Constitution will now thankfully subside as the Obama administration assumes office and solves problems with conciliation, dialogue, and multilateral wisdom, rather than shrillness, unilateralism, preemption, and my-way-or-the-highway dogmatism. We will hear that by historical levels unemployment is still not that bad, that GDP growth is not historically all that low, and that deficits, inflation, interest rates, and housing starts are all within manageable parameters. “Depression” will transmogrify into “recession” which in turn by July will be a “downturn” and by year next an “upswing” on its way to boom times.

Indeed, almost supernaturally crises will be solved with the departure of the hated Bush: no more flooding streets from cracked water mains that were a result of a President’s neglect of infrastructure, and no more spontaneous crashes of Mississippi River bridges due to diversions of critical federal aid from cash-strapped states to Iraq. And when the temperatures rise or drop, the wind howls, the clouds burst forth or go away, the snow melts or piles up, it will be, well, nature that caused the havoc, not the current occupant of the White House who failed to sign Kyoto.

As we watch the innocent die from natural mayhem, it will be due to the breakdown of local responders who now suddenly kill people, not federal inaction—except perhaps for an occasional few Bush federal holdovers that have not yet been rooted out. Human nature, of course, now will be seen more culpable, more selfish, as in needlessly resisting wise and caring federal interventions, rather than being inherently noble but shunned by an uncaring Washington. Yes, when dikes collapse and planes collide on crowed run-ways, it will be due to a cruel and unpredictable nature, or intrinsic design flaws, or improper local use and maintenance, or the past President’s nefarious legacy, not current government policies. (But if you still must bash the government, it will be wise to do it in 1950s style of inattentive state and local officials, prone to regional and tribal prejudices, blocking the infinite wisdom of a caring federal government.)

Some military action abroad could be necessary—and necessarily reported on as measured and reluctant, rather than cowboyish and gratuitous. European whining will be a result of miscommunications or the Euros’ unfair caricatures of Americans, not Bush’s alienation of allies. If radical Islam strikes, it will be, well, radical again and sometimes even dangerous, not a figment of neocon pipe dreams. If an administration official quits, goes on 60 Minutes, and writes a nasty tell-all book about Obama’s insensitivity and his government’s directionless ennui, he will be a heretic, a whiner, a turncoat, not a truth teller or brave maverick who blew the whistle in need of a bestseller hyped from NPR to the New York Times. We will come again to hate the filibuster, obstructionist Congressional policies, and the occasional loud-mouthed Senator who voices slurs against our nation in unpatriotic fashion.

Those around Barack Obama understand that precisely those measures most derided during the campaign—wiretaps, the interrogation of prisoners in Guantanamo, the decimation of al Qaida members in Iraq and Afghanistan, overseas detentions—probably account likewise most for the absence of another 9/11-like attack. In other words, as the Obamians privately ignore the media hype about flushed Korans and hundreds of innocents caught in the cauldron of war and unfairly detained, and instead examine the sort of killers who are presently in Guantanamo, the type of intelligence gathering that led to prevention of dozens of planned attacks since 9/11, and those who turned up and were killed or arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will realize how dicey it will be to follow through with campaign rhetoric about Bush, Inc. torching the Bill of Rights, fighting made-up enemies abroad, and generally alienating our allies.

So all that will change for now will be the sudden absence of shrill complaints that we live in an America without a Constitution. Static, same-old, same-old government policy will, of course, be said to have altered radically (”hoped and changed”), but it will also be refashioned in the media as “sober” and “judicious”, as the administration moves “in circumspect fashion” to probe and explore “complex” and often “paradoxical” matters of national security that “indeed at the end of the day have no easy answers”.

Expect much of the same on the economic front. For all the campaign hysteria about greedy Bu:q:q:q:qes who destroyed the economy, Obama realizes that in fact the seeds of the current financial weeds were sown years ago, and watered and fertilized by an array of both Democratic and Republican facilitators in Congress and hacks in government-affiliated mortgage sinecures. So expect the bailouts to continue. We will see Wall Street in about 24 hours after January 20 transmogrified from Gordon Gecko’s habitat into a sort of the old Robert Rubin/Warren Buffet-like necessary institution about which a Sen. Schumer or Chris Dodd can offer invaluable advice and consultation.

Socially, we will get a mix of Maya Angelou, Oprah, and Rick Warren, a rich diversity of therapeutics that appeals to everyone’s popular feel-my-pain tastes. Rev. Wrights and Father Plegers are “that was then, this is now” has-beens (not that they and their Blago-ilk with a memoir or wierd disclosure won’t try to crash the party from time to time), replaced by the bromides of the Purpose-Driven Life. The Left will once again see the U.S. as the last, best hope for mankind, a flawed, often errant nation that nevertheless in its heart always showed the world what was right in the end. “Diversity” and “progressive” themes will replace Bush’s hokey old-time patriotism, as we return to a more nuanced and sophisticated love of country that at last “came home.”

In other words, one can also at last enjoy that nice wood-floored study, tastefully granite-countered kitchen, with plenty of stainless steel appliances, in a mostly un-diverse neighborhood, still send your kids to a mostly predetermined racially-appropriate school, and still make a pretty good salary, drive a comfortably large car (though please—preferably a Volvo or Mercedes SUV rather than a Tahoe or Yukon), and feel like you are out there on the barricades of radical environmental, cultural, and political change (and hope too!).

Al Gore will be courted, get an occasional photo-op head-pat—but when he gets too loud quietly sent back upstairs to the closet. Ditto the uncouth Sharpton and Jackson, snapping pit bulls muzzled and dispatched to the kennels. Jimmy Carter will once again be wierd old jet-setting Jimmy Carter, a meddler, a spoiler, a PR junkie on the verge of senility rather than the principled Nobel laureate of the Carter Center.

Those inside the big house change, the commandments on the barn wall subtly are crossed out and updated, but the farm for us animals stays about the same.

______________

∗ I say used to be the news media, since when they report good news about the Divine Obama we have no idea whether it’s encomium or fact; and if they are ever slightly negative, we don’t know whether the complaint derives from His real error or merely that they are stung by past criticism and ostensibly trying to be periodically balanced. In short, the age of Murrow is over—and the divine era of Augustus with his Livy and Dio is upon us.

I love the harbingers of doom that live at NRO - Although, I don't think even NRO would print this particular piece of Victor's bile...

However they have forgotten that we have lived for 8 years under another, and more telling piece of Orwellian fiction... 1984

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength


I don't believe that Animal Farm is around the corner, but I do believe that we can look forward to finally being free from the constant oppression of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's version of Big Brother government.

Foxpaws will be part of the media spin machine telling us that President Cokehead is awesome and we need to get back to work so we can supply more tax money for the good of the state.

Foxy doesn't even realize she's going to the farm!
KS

Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms. The last 8 years we have been living with newspeak - it's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words by Bush (sorry Eric Blair).

Now, with a black president we have a chance to actually put to rest the most central of the intendments in Animal Farm - could we get to the point where finally it can be self-evident that all men are created equal?

Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms.
Absolutely nonsense. Every element of that statement is simply wrong. It's catchy, it's fun to repeat, but it's completely untrue.

There is no war designed to "never end." And there has not been a systematic removal of our rights by the design of the administration, particularly associated with the war on terror. To perpetuate that campaign point is to perpetuate a LIE.

The last 8 years we have been living with newspeak - it's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words by Bush (sorry Eric Blair).
I'd rather be a man with a clear vision who lacked eloquence than an eloquent speaker with nothing of substance to say.

Bush's effectiveness certainly was hurt by his lack of finese. But, I think this has been overstated. Bush was ultimately quite effective communicating while campaigning and that demonstrates my point. Bush didn't engage in a two four year long Presidential campaigns. He won office, served, and only turned the campaign machine on at the last minute. Conservatives should fault this as an ineffective use of his soap box, but liberals think it was some sign of ignorance.

Now, with a black president we have a chance to actually put to rest the most central of the intendments in Animal Farm - could we get to the point where finally it can be self-evident that all men are created equal?
Good, so now that this issue has been resolved- can we all agree that it's no longer necessary to discuss race, to establish programs or policies that given an institutional advantage to minorities, or allow it to be used as an excuse for failure.

A black man won the highest office in the land, the most powerful position in the world, with a majority of the voting population. Race is now, officially, NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY. Get the word out to the poverty pimps and the race baiters.

Originally Posted by foxpaws
Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms.At least during the Bush administration I was allowed to buy and carry guns. Let's see you spin your way out of explaining Cokehead's actions when he and Hairplugs start pushing more gun control laws. And don't give me some bullcrap about the 2nd Amendment 'collective right' and 'Scalia' ad nauseum. I could do the exact same thing with your fallacious and nonsensical arguments about whatever rights and freedoms Bush has supposedly removed. You can't even substantiate your argument.

Foss---
It'll never happen. The Messiah was at pains to tell the voting public that he's a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
KS
<edit to add> :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Foss---
It'll never happen. The Messiah was at pains to tell the voting public that he's a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
KS

Perhaps you should add a smiley to that to indicate the apparent sarcasm.

There is no war designed to "never end."

As the Ingsoc Party stated in 1984

War is Peace

In 1984 the state was continually at war against an ambiguous enemy. A permanent war. Very similar to our current undefined and apparently unending (during the Bush administration) “war on terrorism.”

War keeps the warmongers in power. In democracies (including ours) only a few leaders have ever been removed during wartime. Let's not look at what is happening to our our poor, our education system, our dismal disaster relief, heck, we are in a war, and that is all that should matter.

"The war is merely an imposture. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is...to keep the structure of society intact. The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the [economy] without raising the general standard of living" 1984, Orwell

The rich get richer, and the poor get to die for their country. What better way to keep everyone where you want them?

War increases the blind loyalty of the citizens. No one wants to look 'unpatriotic' during the time of conflict. It is OK that the Patriot Act is in effect, we need it for our 'protection' Who knows what could have been next - are we going to be tried as traitors for 'thoughtcrimes'?

And there has not been a systematic removal of our rights by the design of the administration, particularly associated with the war on terror.
Ah, time to look at Orwell's third exhortation in 1984

Ignorance is Strength.

I think if you look at our current administration's policy of warrant-less monitoring of phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records, you will see Big Brother at work. Let's look at the bright side though - law enforcement no longer needs to be burdened with such thing as probable cause.

Calabrio did you willing go down the 'it's for our own good' yellow brick road the Bush administration conveniently paved when they explained their reasons for stripping the Fourth Amendment? Maybe you forgot that one of the last 'straws' that brought the colonists to war was a replica of this law that the British enforced in the American colonies - the "writs of assistance' that allowed British soldiers to write their own search warrants. Just like in today's 1984 society our federal agents are allowed to write their own search warrants thanks to the Patriot Act. Warrants that a judge never needs to look at or approve. Odd that we revolted against the monarchy when they inflected this on us, but we were like sheep when the Bush administration did the exact same thing.

And then the Bush administration proceeded to strip away the first amendment as well - our freedom of speech. The Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of an agent written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. So when your banker, post office, lawyer, or doctor is served with that 'agent written' warrant, and they tell anyone they received it, they can be prosecuted for a felony. And if you receive one of these warrants (known as 'national security letters') you aren't even allowed to discuss it with lawyer, or even to answer to a federal judge in a federal courtroom that you received one. The law is requiring you to commit perjury.

And of course the 5th and 6th Amendments got their chance at being dismembered. The Patriot Act has made the writ of habeas corpus meaningless. Now a person can be incarcerated indefinitely without a warrant and without legal counsel if they are labeled "terrorist". Probable cause or proof of terrorist activities are not necessary for apprehension and imprisonment. Forget Miranda, forget the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and forget about having access to your loved ones if you happen to be incarcerated under the Patriot Act.

As Ben Franklin said "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".

And foss - once again, you are putting the cart before the horse. Let's look at gun control if it gets to the floor. You and I will still be allowed to buy and carry guns. I guess you have had your head somewhere down a large bore when it comes to understanding where I stand on the 2nd amendment. ;)

In 1984 the state was continually at war against an ambiguous enemy. A permanent war. Very similar to our current undefined and apparently unending (during the Bush administration) “war on terrorism.”
Misleading. The War on Terror is simply a way of framing things in an ambiguous P.C. way, it's not an unending war. Furthermore, the country has not been in a state of war. The larger operations have had little to no impact on our daily lives, and everything else in far off lands has been covert. So, the analogy doesn't work. This "state of war" nonsense is simply leftist scaremongering and a left-over explanation for John Kerry losing in 2004.

If the public honestly still felt we were in a state of war, they wouldn't have elected Obama.



War keeps the warmongers in power. In democracies (including ours) only a few leaders have ever been removed during wartime.
Again, you've undermined your position here. If the conditions or psychology of a state of war were being thrust upon the public, then the Democrats, widely understood to be weak on defense, would never have gained political power in these past two years.


Let's not look at what is happening to our our poor, our education system, our dismal disaster relief, heck, we are in a war, and that is all that should matter.
Would you like a shovel to continue digging this hole of yours?

I think if you look at our current administration's policy of warrant-less monitoring of phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records, you will see Big Brother at work. Let's look at the bright side though - law enforcement no longer needs to be burdened with such thing as probable cause.
Gross misrepresentation of current laws. I'll extend you the courtesy of just presuming your wrong and not outright lying about it. Because of the hour, I can't go through your rhetoric paragraph by paragraph right now.

However, regardless how you feel about the Patriot Act, you're demonizing it as a "Bush" thing. As though he were solely responsible for it and had applied it through tyranical measures. You fail to note that it was passed by the congress, it expired, and it was reauthorized.

So, who are some of the Senators who voted to reauthorize the bill?
Joe Biden
Barrak Obama
and you're favorite- Hillary Clinton

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3801

The War on Terror is simply a way of framing things in an ambiguous P.C. way, it's not an unending war. Furthermore, the country has not been in a state of war. The larger operations have had little to no impact on our daily lives, and everything else in far off lands has been covert.

Tell that to 140,000 (active troops) families that the war has had no impact on their daily lives or the 4,200 families who have lost a member to the war effort. How about the tens of thousands of soldiers that have been permanently maimed, or the large number of soldiers who are coming home with very damaging psychological problems. And what about the $620,000,000,000 that this war has cost - you don't think that hasn't had an impact on all of our daily lives?

And I think because of our continuing, and appearing to be never ending, state of war is one of the major reasons this country has turned the tables on the Republicans. I didn't state we 'never' remove leaders during wartime - it is rare. And we didn't 'remove' Bush, we held on to him in 2004. Republicans have shown that they don't understand what their continuing support of a increasing unpopular war is doing to them (sounds like the early to mid 70s here?) and the public has finally had enough.

Gross misrepresentation of current laws.
Really - want to point out the misrepresentation? Those are the points of the Patriot Act. How did I misrepresent them? An FBI agent can write out their own warrant (national security letter) have it approved by a superior FBI agent (ah, what happened to the idea of checks and balances in the 4th Amendment?) serve that warrant, and then, if you are served, you aren't allowed to complain or tell anyone (including those same federal judges that were left out of the warrant approval process to begin with). I can feel my rights being trampled on by an act that is wrapped in red white and blue, to appeal to my 'patriotism'. However, Cal, maybe you have been beguiled by the bunting and the false appeal to your sense of flag waving loyalty.

However, regardless how you feel about the Patriot Act, you're demonizing it as a "Bush" thing. As though he were solely responsible for it and had applied it through tyranical measures. You fail to note that it was passed by the congress, it expired, and it was reauthorized.

The Bush administration has continually used the 'unpatriotic' label on those members of congress who don't vote for the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act by its very name defies individuals to disagree with it, for to do so would be "unpatriotic." If you are into Orwellian newspeak - how doublethink is that? Strong arm tactics at their very best are at play here. And I do think it is awful that those you listed (especially Hillary) didn't stand against it. I believe she could have withstood the onslaught of 'unpatriotic' epitaphs placed at her door if she had voted against it. I think only 9 senators voted against it when it was re-adopted. However, aren't many of you Ron Paul fans - and he certainly didn't vote for the Patriot Act.

And shouldn't we be worried about a law that evokes 'patriotism' within its very name? Should our 'patriotism' be legislated, put into law?

And remember, unlike in George Bush's delusional definition of the presidency, his first job is NOT to keep us safe - his first job is to keep us free, by upholding the constitution.

That puts as at the 2nd of the treatises by Orwell in 1984...

Freedom is Slavery.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison

With the strongest military and best technology on Earth, I think that our democracy can stand up to terrorism without stripping away our rights. We then become a slave to our 'freedom', allowing it to be squashed in the name of 'safety'. The founders knew all about oppressive government, and placed the highest value on individual liberty.

Tell that to 140,000 (active troops) families that the war has had no impact on their daily lives or the 4,200 families who have lost a member to the war effort.
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.
But while we can talk about 140,000 active troops, why don't you talk about the 300,000,000 million other Americans. Because we're not talking about the all volunteer military right now.

And, on what could be considered a separate subject, those are the 140k votes that Democrats so often like to see discarded or rejected when their absentee ballots reach their respective polling locations.


And I think because of our continuing, and appearing to be never ending, state of war is one of the major reasons this country has turned the tables on the Republicans.
So you're acknowledging that the graphic scenario you just presented as reality is, even in your own opinion, not taking place.

Would you like a bigger shovel?

Really - want to point out the misrepresentation? Those are the points of the Patriot Act.
Having been through these debates countless times, I don't feel like having to go down that path again. If you want to go through the trouble of providing specific examples, we can address them. Otherwise, you're talking about a specific piece of legislation, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that has not been abused.

The Bush administration has continually used the 'unpatriotic' label on those members of congress who don't vote for the Patriot Act.
First of all, provide some specifics. Who has been called unpatriotic for not supporting the Patriot Act for patriotic reasons. And if you find an example, who made the claim.

And what is your point, that Hillary, Obama, and Biden all supported the REAUTHORIZATION of the patriot act because of name calling by some anonymous,unaffiliated, proxy figure from the Bush administration?

You're argument is fundamentally flawed and discredited the moment you try to frame this civil liberty/patriot act issue in partisan terms.

If you want to talk about federal abuse of power and expansion, that's an excellent issue. Unfortunately, it's one you only embrace when you can attribute some rhetoric to the issue in an effort to smear Republicans. The rest of the time, you embrace large federal government, the expanding concentration of power in Washington, and the erosion of both our civil liberties and responsibilities.

And remember, unlike in George Bush's delusional definition of the presidency, his first job is NOT to keep us safe - his first job is to keep us free, by upholding the constitution.
And the response to this is that you don't keep the country free if you can't keep it strong and safe. All Presidents in times of crisis face this very challenge. Lincoln and Roosevelt both faced these challenges like this too. You knowingly mislead in your efforts to persuade.

With the strongest military and best technology on Earth, I think that our democracy can stand up to terrorism without stripping away our rights.
Explain how we'll do that if we're not legally allowed to utilize any of that technology in order to prevent terrorist attacks? If the government isn't allowed to intercept international phone calls from known terrorists. If they aren't allowed to use face scanning technology in open places. If they aren't allowed to engage in covert surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Using your short sited, flawed logic, the only effective use of that technology is cleaning up the mess afterward and possibly figuring out what happened after the fact....

You seemed to have missed my point entirely.
But while we can talk about 140,000 active troops, why don't you talk about the 300,000,000 million other Americans. Because we're not talking about the all volunteer military right now.

So, your point was - that we aren't affected by the war - correct? Aren't you dancing around my reasons that we are all affected by this war? You and I are incredibly impacted by the immense cost of this war - and the continuing cost that this war will entail. Healthcare and benefits for those veterans that are returning to us physically or mentally damaged will continue to be a burden on the government coffers for decades to come. The amount of foreign aid that we will be pouring into Iraq will be staggering.

And, on what could be considered a separate subject, those are the 140k votes that Democrats so often like to see discarded or rejected when their absentee ballots reach their respective polling locations.
Not just 'considered' but IS a separate subject - trying to throw out some red herrings to detract from this part of the argument? This has nothing to do with the impact of the war on the American people or the ramifications of the patriot act. Sorry - open another thread if you want to discuss this Cal...

So you're acknowledging that the graphic scenario you just presented as reality is, even in your own opinion, not taking place.
Would you like a bigger shovel?

The war does 'appear' to be never ending. From no clear cut idea on how to win the war, or what a 'win' would entail, to never having a exit strategy, the war does appear to be never ending. We captured Saddam - but apparently that was only one of many goals. The American people doesn't know what the current goals are, and so, it looks like the war won't end. There is no shovel here - what constitutes a 'win', and is it feasible within the current parameters of the war we are engaged in?

Having been through these debates countless times, I don't feel like having to go down that path again. If you want to go through the trouble of providing specific examples, we can address them. Otherwise, you're talking about a specific piece of legislation, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that has not been abused.

So, you can't debate this - I understand - it is difficult to debate the 'rightness' of having our rights stripped away for our own good. And then there is always the 'abused' part. Want 'abused'? How about telling me how many international terrorists have been convicted (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2008/2398401.htm) because of the enactment of the 'Un' Patriot Act?

"Very, very few actual terrorists have been identified and prosecuted at all in the United States, since 9/11, in fact the only Islamic terrorist who has been convicted in the United States for attempting to engage in a terrorist act, is Richard Read, the shoe bomber. And of course he wasn't captured through any Patriot Act innovation but simply because an alert airline attendant saw this strange-looking guy trying to light his shoe on a plane flying from the UK to the US. But apart from him, all of the other 'terrorist prosecutions' in the United States have been not for engaging in terrorist activity, not for aiding or abetting terrorist activity, not for attempting to engage in terrorist activity, but they've almost all been under a statute that was expanded by the Patriot Act, that makes it a crime to provide what they call material support to any group that has been labeled terrorist."

So, the answer is ZERO.

But, the department of justice has gotten people to plead guilty, to fold, and convicted many on drug trafficking, white slavery, prostitution, gambling, domestic terrorism and political corruption charges. Now, those are all bad things - but, the law, that was specifically enacted to protect us from international terrorism, is now being turned against our own citizens. How wrong is that?

A few of the court cases that have struck down the Patriot Act (Calabrio, you did request 'specific' examples).

In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power As Unconstitutional (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/18589prs20040929.html)

Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/court-strikes-2.html)

Judges Question Patriot Act in Library and Internet Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/nyregion/03library.html)

Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_sides_with_ACLU_strikes_down_1216.html)

Or, how about the Inspector General's own investigation into the abuses of the FBI regarding a key part of the Patriot Act - the National Security Letters: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html?referrer=email)
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.

First of all, provide some specifics. Who has been called unpatriotic for not supporting the Patriot Act for patriotic reasons. And if you find an example, who made the claim.

"Talking about [democrats] cutting back on the Patriot Act, talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance..." Giuliani said. "I don't know that I've ever seen anything more irresponsible than that."

Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests,

And, once again, since you don't seem to grasp the irony of 'doublethink'. Just naming the act 'Patriot' implies that if you aren't 'for' the Patriot Act then you are 'un' patriotic - The congress certainly understands this - they were afraid of being branded as such if they voted against it. Labeling it as the "Patriot Act" was a stroke of genius on the part of the Bush administration. If it were labeled as the 'Suspension of the first, fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments' it probably wouldn't have made it through congress the first time. But, since truth in labeling doesn't apply to government bills... the American people were duped as well.

If you want to talk about federal abuse of power and expansion, that's an excellent issue. Unfortunately, it's one you only embrace when you can attribute some rhetoric to the issue in an effort to smear Republicans. The rest of the time, you embrace large federal government, the expanding concentration of power in Washington, and the erosion of both our civil liberties and responsibilities.

Ah, I don't remember saying that I believe in an ever expanding federal government - I think I have stated the opposite. And I don't smear all Republicans - duh. I do however think that the current administration has overstepped its bounds when it comes to expanding the executive branch's powers. Heck, you attack FDR on his expansion of executive power, but turn a blind eye to Bush doing the same thing. Both did it to 'save the country' and both were/are wrong.

And the response to this is that you don't keep the country free if you can't keep it strong and safe. All Presidents in times of crisis face this very challenge. Lincoln and Roosevelt both faced these challenges like this too. You knowingly mislead in your efforts to persuade.

I did not mislead - I have stated before (in some thread about the new 'New Deal') I think that FDR overstepped using his executive powers, and it was good when he was reigned in by congress.

Explain how we'll do that if we're not legally allowed to utilize any of that technology in order to prevent terrorist attacks? If the government isn't allowed to intercept international phone calls from known terrorists. If they aren't allowed to use face scanning technology in open places. If they aren't allowed to engage in covert surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Using your short sited, flawed logic, the only effective use of that technology is cleaning up the mess afterward and possibly figuring out what happened after the fact....

If you remove the patriot act - we will go back to allowing the constitution to work 'for' us.

Under the constitution the government is 'allowed' to use all the technology at their disposal -however they need to get warrants - from a judge. The government needs to obey its own regulations of checks and balances. It can intercept all the phone calls it wants, it just needs to prove 'just cause'. They can employ face scanning technology with no repercussions. The Bill of Rights requires the government to follow certain procedures and laws to 'legally allow' them to impinge on our rights.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." James Madison

Point out specifically where the Patriot Act undermines specific provisions in the Constitution. Stop talking in vague terms and assuming things in your statements that are not agreed upon by all involved in the debate. To do so makes your statements leading and deceptive. It suggests either sloppines in your arguments, or dishonesty (or both).

The warrent issue is very specific and does not apply to international communications at all. It only applies to domestic communications. That is per the Constitution (due to it's jurisdiction and separation of powers). Any law that counters that (like FISA) is inherently unconstitutional. Even FISA judges and the people who created FISA acknowledged that fact. The Patriot Act does not undermine the Constitution in any substantive sense.

So, your point was - that we aren't affected by the war - correct?
I merely responded to your claim that we were in some Orwellian state of war. We've both clearly demonstrated that we are not. In doing that, you're eloquently constructed pile of hyperbole collapses. Everything you're saying in this thread has no foundation.

You can continue to flail around and make wild free associations, but it's not going to help you save face.

You also mistaken imply that terrorism should be handled as a criminal offense. This is a mistake, the criminal justice system isn't set up with that purpose in mind. At best, it's designed as a deterrent. To punish for crimes committed. Even the most aggressive 'conspiracy' charges are insufficient at deterring terror. And the system of prosecution and the open nature of the system means that all ongoing investigations and surveillance is compromised.

Anti-terrorism isn't about prosecution after the fact. It's about preventing it. It's about preemptive actions that prevent the act from ever taking place and accumulating the surveillance and intelligence to prevent other instances. This fundamental change in approach is critical to our safety. And it was a significant culture shock for agencies like the FBI to accommodate. We're not building cases, we're preventing crime from happening.

Ah, I don't remember saying that I believe in an ever expanding federal government - I think I have stated the opposite.
You've stated a lot of things, often times, they are contradictory.
Let's not forget, you're the "straight talker" who thinks we need socialism to save capitalism...:rolleyes:

I do however think that the current administration has overstepped...
And in doing so, you've made the Patriot Act a partisan issue, when it was not. It was approved, and then REAUTHORIZED with overwhelming bipartisan support. This included HILLARY, BIDEN, and OBAMA. To imply that it's a Republican abuse of power is empty rhetoric.

Heck, you attack FDR on his expansion of executive power, but turn a blind eye to Bush doing the same thing. Both did it to 'save the country' and both were/are wrong.
I must have been distracted the day Bush opened concentration camps, undermined the legislative branch by trying to stack the judicial bench with brand NEW activist judge seats who would legislate from the bench in his favor, ect, ect.....

They aren't the same. Don't try to dismiss the outrageous abuses of your saint FDR by linking it to a very legal, very constitutional policy that was met with overwhelming bipartisan support.

We can debate policy if you wish, or the fundamental problems of abuse of federal power. But that isnt a Republican issue. It's inherently a Washington, D.C. And if you want to talk about taking away my rights, let's talk about the legislatures who think they have a right to half of my life by taking half to three quarters of my earnings through taxes.

I did not mislead - I have stated before (in some thread about the new 'New Deal') I think that FDR overstepped using his executive powers, and it was good when he was reigned in by congress.
Reigned in by congress? If congress had been any weaker against Roosevelt, he would have hired Stalin as an economic adviser.
It's bad enough in his crippled state he basically handed over a fair share of our defense policy to him..... and his nasty little tendency of hiring communists to sensitive government offices.....

If you remove the patriot act - we will go back to allowing the constitution to work 'for' us.
It still does.

However, without the Patriot Act, we'd have to file for warrants on EVERY phone number a suspected terrorist would be using. This is particularly problematic when you can buy a disposal cell phone at the convenience store and discard it after every call. That Patriot Act enables law enforcement to do surveillance on the individual, and not just the specific phone. It's little details like this that are the core of the Patriot Act, not the rhetoric that you misrepresent.

Well, shag - I am always pleased when the old word "dishonest' is banted about. Let's start with the 4th Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

It ensures that government agents cannot search your house, office or other personal effects without probable cause that you have committed a crime (as verified by the issue of a warrant).

Fourth Amendment requires particularity -- authorities seeking a search warrant, for example, must list what they are looking for and where they are looking for it.

PUBLIC LAW 107–56 section 505 (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot_text.pdf) - The section of the Patriot Act that most directly affects the 4th Amendment

Section 505 authorizes the FBI, using only a piece of letterhead paper signed by a field agent in charge of a local FBI office, to demand private information without court review or approval, without the person being suspected of any crime, without ever having to tell him or her that it happened.

Moreover, the business from which the FBI gets these private records is gagged and prohibited from notifying the targeted individual, so they may never move in court to quash this request or to even question it.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.

The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505 (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf) - which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight - was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech.

The case has not been appealed to the Supreme Court by the government...

Masterful pwnage of lame tired talking points. Well done Cal.

Well, shag - I am always pleased when the old word "dishonest' is banted about. Let's start with the 4th Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

It ensures that government agents cannot search your house, office or other personal effects without probable cause that you have committed a crime (as verified by the issue of a warrant).

Fourth Amendment requires particularity -- authorities seeking a search warrant, for example, must list what they are looking for and where they are looking for it.

PUBLIC LAW 107–56 section 505 (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot_text.pdf) - The section of the Patriot Act that most directly affects the 4th Amendment

Section 505 authorizes the FBI, using only a piece of letterhead paper signed by a field agent in charge of a local FBI office, to demand private information without court review or approval, without the person being suspected of any crime, without ever having to tell him or her that it happened.

Moreover, the business from which the FBI gets these private records is gagged and prohibited from notifying the targeted individual, so they may never move in court to quash this request or to even question it.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

It violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.

The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505 (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf) - which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight - was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech.

The case has not been appealed to the Supreme Court by the government...

The 4th Amendment only applies to domestic communitcations. Bush has said (and all the evidence supports) that he has been getting warrants for those communications.

Unless you can specifically cite domestic communitcations that are unconstitutionally being warrantlessly wiretapped, you are being very gulible and buying into the equivocation of domestic communication as all communication. That is a distortion being perpetuated by the MSM and the various liberal organizations (whose talking points you mindlessly regurgitate, apparently without first examining their credibility).

International communications are not covered under the 4th Amendment for three reasons...

First; the Constitution only has any jurisdiction over the United States and it's citizens. Citizens of another country are not protected by the Constitution and the 4th amendment does not apply to them.

Second; The Bill of Rights, as originally written, is only a restriction on the Federal Legislature (and to a lesser degree the courts). Foreign affairs (and foreign intelligence falls under the area of foreign affairs, Constitutionally) are almost exclusively the realm of the executive branch.

Third; The Katz Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States)is what the courts currently apply to determine weather or not a 4th Amendment violation has occurred. That rule is that there must be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for a communication to be protected by the 4th Amendment. Communications between an American and someone overseas (international communications) are open to being legally wiretapped by a foreign government (in accordance with whatever laws that government functions under), so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in international communications.

Also, I cannot find anything in the law you cite about "criminal" activity. section 505 is under Tile V which is about "Removing Obstacles to Investigating Terrorism". It is focused on and concerned with getting intel on terrorist activity, not criminal activity. You are making assumptions and leading statements again.

And the ruling you cited is a joke and not at all consistent with what the Supreme Court has said. It is blatant judicial activism (by a judge appointed by Clinton in 1999) that is in no way based in the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that, as this article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008376)points out, "that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning such matters." See the case of Smith v. Maryland (1979).

It is pretty clear that the law is not on your side on this issue. Only by spinning, obfuscating and lying can the law even appear to be on your side, here. A panel of FISA judges have already said (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/29/20060329-120346-1901r/)that Bush is within the law on this.

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration sought legal opinions as to the war powers of the president; what they are, there boundaries, etc. This has some relevance to this issue, IMO, as it encompasses the powers of the president in regards to foreign policy (which includes gathering intel on foreign threats). If you are interested, you can read one of these opinions here (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm).

Unless you can specifically cite domestic communitcations that are unconstitutionally being warrantlessly wiretapped, you are being very gulible and buying into the equivocation of domestic communication as all communication. That is a distortion being perpetuated by the MSM and the various liberal organizations (whose talking points you mindlessly regurgitate, apparently without first examining their credibility).
Well, shag - it isn't just for international terrorism, and under the Patriot Act it doesn't have to be just for 'international' communications. There is a famous case (www.justice.gov/archive/ola/testimony/2005/05-05-05_ola_moschella_statement_re_patriot_act_emergenc y_disclosure_provision.pdf) where it was used in a child abduction case in Pittsburgh. The local authorities used a NSL to get the local internet provider to provide information on the child's whereabouts, there was no indication of any international communications. Now, the outcome is wonderful - but, the fact that the forth amendment was ignored is very bad.

There is another case where it was used against a KKK member who was making bombs (http://www.stratfor.com/united_states_quieter_campaign_against_domestic_te rrorists) - once again, a terrible thing, but the fourth amendment just was once again circumvented, a wire tap was installed without a warrant. One that didn't involve any international communications.

There are lots of these shag. Now the crimes are bad, but do we allow the constitution to be ignored? There is a good reason those amendments are there, and they shouldn't be undermined by a 'mere' law.

From the White House New Releases... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060103-3.html)

My name is Ken Wainstein. I'm the U.S. attorney here in Washington, D.C., and I'm here with a number of my U.S. attorney colleagues from around the country. And we just had a meeting with the president about the Patriot Act.

He asked us to give him our input about the importance of the Patriot Act to our investigations and our criminal cases and national security cases around the country.

We told him that we use it each and every day to protect our country against terrorists and criminals, and though there are only 20 of us here today, I can assure you that every other one of the 93 U.S. attorneys uses the Patriot Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts.

The president -- we are very grateful that the president heard out our concerns and we're very grateful that he appreciates the vitality, the centrality of these authorities and importance of these authorities in our efforts to protect the country against terrorists.

It's also important to note, and he recognizes as well, that the Patriot Act has been critical in other non-terrorist criminal cases around the country.

Calabrio, we are in an Orwellian state of war. The Bush administration by declaring a 'war on terror' (as stated by Bush in his Address to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People in Sept 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)) has created a permanent global war (at least permanent as long as GWB is in power). A global war on terror by definition has no end. There will be and always have been terrorists of some type.

George Orwell says, "the consequences of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival." By creating this 'state of war' the Bush administration was allowed to bully the American people and congress into accepting its 'Patriot Act" As shown in 1984 in order to insure their survival, people are willing to give the government more control, so it is in 'some' administration's best interests to keep the 'state of war' intact.

Anti-terrorism isn't about prosecution after the fact. It's about preventing it. It's about preemptive actions that prevent the act from ever taking place and accumulating the surveillance and intelligence to prevent other instances. This fundamental change in approach is critical to our safety. And it was a significant culture shock for agencies like the FBI to accommodate. We're not building cases, we're preventing crime from happening.

One of the reasons the Patriot Act is so unconstitutional because it doesn't contain itself to terrorism. It allows the constitution to be subjugated even in cases where there isn't even a hint of terrorist activity. (See my above post to Shag) And, do you believe in 'pre-crime'? Have you read Philip K Dick? In hopes that we 'might' be safer you are allowing the government to shred the constitution? The government is not above the constitution. The government is not above the people. With your 'faulty' logic Cal, you are saying that our rights are secondary to our safety. They are not.

And in doing so, you've made the Patriot Act a partisan issue, when it was not.
The Patriot Act is a Bush issue - under his watch and direction it was crafted - packaged in red white and blue - shoved through congress - and lauded over and over again. It just so happens he is Republican. The administration gave it to congress just 6 weeks after 9/11 and required a vote on it the next day. The administration told congress it was necessary to combat further terrorist attacks. They built on the fear that was gripping the country to get legislation passed that wouldn't normally be allowed. Now, why in Jefferson's name it ever got through the second time I will never understand - other than having that terrible name, and all the connotations that go with voting against a 'patriot' act. I wrote dozens of letters protesting this when this came up for the second time.

Don't try to dismiss the outrageous abuses of your saint FDR...

And oddly once again you declare that FDR is my 'saint'. Find the place where I blindly extoll the virtues of FDR. And this again has nothing to do with what we are talking about! Find the old FDR thread if you want to drag this all up again.

However, without the Patriot Act, we'd have to file for warrants on EVERY phone number a suspected terrorist would be using. This is particularly problematic when you can buy a disposal cell phone at the convenience store and discard it after every call. That Patriot Act enables law enforcement to do surveillance on the individual, and not just the specific phone. It's little details like this that are the core of the Patriot Act, not the rhetoric that you misrepresent.

Remember, the Patriot Act does not limit itself to terrorist activities. And that phone could be yours, if your sister's date, who had a beer at your house when he dropped off your sister, is suspected to be a money launderer for a small time drug lord. And, then the FBI or local law authorities can continue to monitor your phone just for the fun of it.

There is nothing constitutional about that. I wonder how often on this site another little 'section' of the Patriot Act has been discussed... H.R. 3199 clearly states that "firearms sales records" are now fair game for the FBI, in essence, overturning the prohibition on gun registration. Heck it even infringes on the 'holier than thou' 2nd Amendment.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

Calabrio, we are in an Orwellian state of war.....at least permanent as long as GWB is in power
Please, stop making my points for me....
How can you be in a permanent state of war when the "leader" is only going to be in office for another three weeks and he's handing over the power to his political opposition?

By creating this 'state of war' the Bush administration was allowed to bully the American people and congress into accepting its 'Patriot Act"
So, the Bush administration bullied the American people into voting his party out of the majority in 2006 and 2008 through this Orwellian state of war?

And they bullied "leaders" like Hillary, Biden, and Obama to vote for horribly destructive and unconstitutional measures that have severely undermined our liberty. So, you're saying that Hillary, Biden, and Obama don't make decisions of national security or constitutional significance based on understanding or principle, but purely for political expediency. And these are the people you supported?

One of the reasons the Patriot Act is so unconstitutional because it doesn't contain itself to terrorism.
Noting that terrorism being a tactic, one that is fairly difficult to define, this is an easy claim to make. You're right. But, noting that it is an act that expires and is subject to regular congressional approval, there are checks in place.

Remember, Hillary, Biden, AND Obama all voted to reauthorize it when it expired last time.

Please, stop making my points for me....
How can you be in a permanent state of war when the "leader" is only going to be in office for another three weeks and he's handing over the power to his political opposition?

As I stated it was a 'permanent state' during the Bush administration. They were able to keep us in war, even if we were to decisively win Iraq, the administration had the global war on terrorism to fall back on. A war that would never end during their administration.

So, the Bush administration bullied the American people into voting his party out of the majority in 2006 and 2008 through this Orwellian state of war?

It took that long for the American people to realize what was happening.

And they bullied "leaders" like Hillary, Biden, and Obama to vote for horribly destructive and unconstitutional measures that have severely undermined our liberty. So, you're saying that Hillary, Biden, and Obama don't make decisions of national security or constitutional significance based on understanding or principle, but purely for political expediency. And these are the people you supported?

They bullied everyone on the fallacy of 'patriotism'. The administration played on the people's fear of another 9/11 occurring. They continue to this day to build on that fear.

Noting that terrorism being a tactic, one that is fairly difficult to define, this is an easy claim to make. You're right. But, noting that it is an act that expires and is subject to regular congressional approval, there are checks in place.

Nope with the second 'passing' of the law only about 5% of the provisions (there are about 150 points addressed in the Patriot Act) will ever sunset - the rest are now 'law' and unless repealed by congress will remain intact.

As I stated it was a 'permanent state' during the Bush administration.
How can you have a "permanent state" when there are going to be national elections ever 2 years?
By definition, this isn't permanent. And this point is reinforced when you note that he lost power in '06 and '08.

This point you keep making is so utterly absurd, I can't believe you keep falling back to it.
You are wrong. I know, I'm sure it sounded clever when you first wrote it, but it doesn't work.

It took that long for the American people to realize what was happening.
So, it wasn't really an Orwellian State of War, maybe you should start off by just calling it more of a like an Orwellian Sabbatical....


They bullied everyone on the fallacy of 'patriotism'. The administration played on the people's fear of another 9/11 occurring. They continue to this day to build on that fear.
So- you're saying George W. Bush used made up ghost stories and pretend scarey scenarios to frighten Clinton, Biden and Obama into voting for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
And you wanted these spaghetti spined cowards to lead the country?

Or, perhaps, they were able to determine that the threats to the security of the country are VERY real and that the Patriotic Act is constitutional tool that has proven to be very effective at preventing another attack on our soil? The only scare mongering and manipulation came from the very same Democrats who tried to demonize Bush and the Patriotic Act for political points (IE. FOR POLITICAL POWER) and then, when the time came, voted for it again.



Nope with the second 'passing' of the law only about 5% of the provisions (there are about 150 points addressed in the Patriot Act) will ever sunset - the rest are now 'law' and unless repealed by congress will remain intact.
And, let's again note- the reauthorization was passed in 2006.
The Democrats CONTROLLED THE HOUSE.
The Democrats CONTROLLED THE SENATE.

So, please explain why that the Democrat controlled Congress passed a bill that would perpetuate George W. Bush's tyranical, iron fisted, merciless, grip of the country?

Oh,I remember... because they were afraid that the unknown guy, ignored by the press, running the RNC, might call them "unpatriotic."

No. Because the Patriotic Act has been one of many effective tools of law enforcement for preventing subsequent acts of terrorism within the country. The Democrats used it scare the public and score political points, but they ultimately understood the severity of the threats facing the country and didn't want to be responsible for dismantling an effective constitutional program that has helped keep the country safe.

Foxy, luv, I'm kinda tired of hearing about a 1949 novel, because some of the ideas presented actually have been mirrored a little bit.

I agree that under the color of law, some of our freedoms have been compromised. It's wrong. But because there have been a few instances of over-zealous activities by EVER over-zealous law enforcement, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. As I've said before, I'd rather we'd fight them there than in our back yards.

There was a very telling dissertation on the aims and activities of Islam that appeared here not long ago. I haven't seen it recently but you should thoughtfully re-read it. You have already read it at least once, haven't you?
KS

I agree that under the color of law, some of our freedoms have been compromised. It's wrong.
Personally, I find it absolutely ridiculous for any of these people to try to associate conservatism with Orwellian imagery, at the same time they want the federal government to assume responsibility and over sight of my health care, my personal safety, my income, my property, and assume all of my personal responsibility and have me acquiescing to the will of the state. To the will of the collective because government knows best.

This Patriot Act issue is most often used by Democrats and liberals as a political club to scare the public and attack Republicans with. Yet, when the time came for them to retire it, almost all of them voted to reauthorize it.

There are legitimate issues of federal government expansion and suppression of our rights as individuals that need to be addressed- but to ignore EVERYTHING else and then frame this discussion as though the Patriot Act is the manifestation of all that is wrong and the work of evil, power hungry Republicans is insulting, dishonest, and absolutely disgusting.

Or that the Bush administration has been involved in this massive suppression of our rights is even more ridiculous. How many screaming lunatics in pink shirts have stood outside his house, posing for the cameras as the lead story on the evening news? In an Orwellian state, Bush would have had Cindy Sheehan disappear. In the real world, it was Nancy Pelosi who worked to have Sheehan silenced and marginalized once she ceased to be her useful idiot.

Foxpaws knows full well what she's doing, and frankly, she should be ashamed of herself for doing it.

Foxpaws knows full well what she's doing, and frankly, she should be ashamed of herself for doing it.

OMG :bowrofl:
Why the hell should she be ashamed for expressing her views. :rolleyes:
I guess if we disagree we must be ashamed.

Foxy, luv, I'm kinda tired of hearing about a 1949 novel, because some of the ideas presented actually have been mirrored a little bit.

I agree that under the color of law, some of our freedoms have been compromised. It's wrong. But because there have been a few instances of over-zealous activities by EVER over-zealous law enforcement, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. As I've said before, I'd rather we'd fight them there than in our back yards.

There was a very telling dissertation on the aims and activities of Islam that appeared here not long ago. I haven't seen it recently but you should thoughtfully re-read it. You have already read it at least once, haven't you?
KS

Yes the Islam thread

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=44019

04SCTLS---thanx for the re-posting of that link

Ford Nut---Foxy is far too intelligent to comment as she did. She can't possibly believe what she's been saying

Calabrio---That was perfect

And to all of you who haven't read 1984, Orwell was postulating a take-over by Socialists/Communists. It's absolutely silly to suggest that he had Conservative politics in mind
KS

How can you have a "permanent state" when there are going to be national elections ever 2 years?
By definition, this isn't permanent. And this point is reinforced when you note that he lost power in '06 and '08.

It is 'a constant state of war' within the lifespan of the Bush presidency. Bush created a war on terror that was guaranteed to not end in his presidency. For all intents and purposes, an Orwellian state of war that the people perceive as having no end, and a permanent fixture of the Bush tenure.

So, it wasn't really an Orwellian State of War, maybe you should start off by just calling it more of a like an Orwellian Sabbatical....

I like 'sabbatical' - however, we are in the midst of it, no time off during the Bush years I fear - Big Brother and Big Government grew and grew. We were fooled into believing that the Republicans wanted smaller government, and to protect our constitution, little did we know.

So, please explain why that the Democrat controlled Congress passed a bill that would perpetuate George W. Bush's tyranical, iron fisted, merciless, grip of the country?

As I stated before, I haven't a clue why it got back in the second time. It certainly got a lot more 'no' votes (almost entirely Democrat), but somehow it passed. Even our Colorado Democratic Senator voted for it - aggghhhh.

Unfortunately, unless the law is repealed it isn't up for sunset review until 2013. I don't think they will look at the bill until the sections that need to be reviewed are terminating.

It is a terrible law. It isn't needed or warranted in its current state. Local law authorities are using it against American Citizens with absolutely no ties to terrorism, international or domestic. Heck, it has been used in Cock Fighting cases - Wow - who knows what would happen without the Patriot Act, we might be overrun with radical Islamic chickens....;) (This bit was for you Ken, yes I read the Islamic thread, it used to be a sticky - right - and was labeled as 'required reading for all who enter here'.)

Personally, I find it absolutely ridiculous for any of these people to try to associate conservatism with Orwellian imagery, at the same time they want the federal government to assume responsibility and over sight of my health care, my personal safety, my income, my property, and assume all of my personal responsibility and have me acquiescing to the will of the state. To the will of the collective because government knows best.

And this is how your rights get undermined. Little by little, chunk by chunk. I don't agree with large socialist programs, like socialized health care, and hope it never gets a footing here - but I think that by focusing on that Cal, you overlook another 'real' and immediate threat to the constitution (socialized health care is bad - but not the threat to the constitution that the patriot act is). When laws are passed that allow the constitution to be tossed aside for 'our own good' or 'our own safety' the threat to the constitution is immediate and real. That is true Orwellian.

Alarms need to be sounded - and in a best case scenario the Patriot Act needs to go away. But, if necessary, at the very least it should be used for what we were 'sold' on - that it would only be used against international terrorists. Not protecting Bolinao chickens.

Give me liberty or give me death. Patrick Henry

OMG :bowrofl:
Why the hell should she be ashamed for expressing her views. :rolleyes:
I guess if we disagree we must be ashamed.

No, she expresses her views very eloquently and skillfully.
I take issue when she manipulates reality, uses deceptive imagery and makes a skilled effort to deceive dumb people like you.


And Fox, if you really want to quote the founding fathers, why do liberals always omit ones like this:
The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed. - PATRICK HENRY

And Fox, if you really want to quote the founding fathers, why do liberals always omit ones like this:
The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed. - PATRICK HENRY

Because we 'liberals' are all God hating liberal scum?

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

Her reality or yours ?

Her reality or yours ?

The reality is shared, it's just perceptions that differ.

We share the same reality Cal? I was sure you thought I lived in some pink hued fantasy land populated by unicorns, fairies and rainbows ;)

Well, shag - it isn't just for international terrorism, and under the Patriot Act it doesn't have to be just for 'international' communications. There is a famous case (www.justice.gov/archive/ola/testimony/2005/05-05-05_ola_moschella_statement_re_patriot_act_emergenc y_disclosure_provision.pdf) where it was used in a child abduction case in Pittsburgh. The local authorities used a NSL to get the local internet provider to provide information on the child's whereabouts, there was no indication of any international communications. Now, the outcome is wonderful - but, the fact that the forth amendment was ignored is very bad.

Now you are simply speculating and spouting it off as fact?!

The section of the Patriot Act that you talk about explicitly focuses on intelligence gathering as covered under FISA! do you even know what FISA stands for? It in no way deals with domestic communications. You are intentionally trying to perpetuate the lie that the type of communications in question include domestic communications that would fall under 4th amendment protections. Unless you have more then simple assertions, speculation or obfuscation to prove that claim, you are clearly talking out your ass.

And internet communications are very different from phone communications (landline, or cell). Consider all the identity thefts and products made to counter identity theft; a whole market is built up around countering identity theft. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in internet communications, and no court would reasonably rule that there is. Internet communication would not meet the test established in the Katz Rule and would not fall under 4th amendment protection. The Pittsburg case you cite is a red herring ment to support your obfuscation, nothing more. There in no 4th Amendment issue involved in the case.

There is another case where it was used against a KKK member who was making bombs (http://www.stratfor.com/united_states_quieter_campaign_against_domestic_te rrorists) - once again, a terrible thing, but the fourth amendment just was once again circumvented, a wire tap was installed without a warrant. One that didn't involve any international communications.

Considering that the link you cited doesn't show any article, I am left to trust your interpretation of the case at hand, which your history on this forum has shown would be foolish to do.

There are lots of these shag. Now the crimes are bad, but do we allow the constitution to be ignored? There is a good reason those amendments are there, and they shouldn't be undermined by a 'mere' law.

Do you really not understand the 4th Amendment, or are you just being stuborn? The 4th Amendment doesn't mean that all wiretaps require a warrant. Per the Katz Rule, there has to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for for a search or seizure to be considered "unreasonable" and needing of a warrant. Internet communications have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Any other case you cite needs to prove that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy to invoke 4th amendment protections. Unless you can be specific on the types of communications in the individual cases and weather or not they meet the Katz Rule, you are being too vague to prove anything and only obfuscating things to support your assumptions.

From the White House New Releases... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060103-3.html)

My name is Ken Wainstein. I'm the U.S. attorney here in Washington, D.C., and I'm here with a number of my U.S. attorney colleagues from around the country. And we just had a meeting with the president about the Patriot Act.

He asked us to give him our input about the importance of the Patriot Act to our investigations and our criminal cases and national security cases around the country.

We told him that we use it each and every day to protect our country against terrorists and criminals, and though there are only 20 of us here today, I can assure you that every other one of the 93 U.S. attorneys uses the Patriot Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts.

The president -- we are very grateful that the president heard out our concerns and we're very grateful that he appreciates the vitality, the centrality of these authorities and importance of these authorities in our efforts to protect the country against terrorists.

It's also important to note, and he recognizes as well, that the Patriot Act has been critical in other non-terrorist criminal cases around the country.

Relevance?

They quote you cite here is very vague. It only mentions the Patriot Act, not the specific provisions about wiretapping. He could be talking about any part of the Patriot Act or the act as a whole. It is very vague and unclear in regards to it's relevance to this debate.

How about you stay focused on this debate and not try to misdirect and/or broaden the debate in order to avoid the weaknesses in your argument? We are talking specifically about the wiretapping provisions/modifications to FISA in the Patriot Act.

You are exhibiting a real bad habit of yours here. You obviously regurgitate liberal talking points without examining their validity and reject out of hand conservative talking points without clearly understanding and/or examining them. You clearly have a double standard here.

On the other hand, the conservatives you argue with on this forum, understand both the liberal and conservative talking points better then you do. They have examined them and clearly have very valid reasons for rejecting the liberal talking points; in part or in whole.

Maybe you should take a step back and do a little skeptical research on both ends first.

Why the hell should she be ashamed for expressing her views. :rolleyes:
I guess if we disagree we must be ashamed.


No one is saying anything about the fact that she expresses her view. It is how she expresses and defends her views.

They are two different things.

One example of shameful methods used to express and defend views... mischaraterization to smear and marginalize (like you are doing here). That is something to be ashamed of and avoided. It reflects very poorly on your character; in fact showing a lack of character and decency.

Unless you have more then simple assertions, speculation or obfuscation to prove that claim, you are clearly talking out your ass.
We could be polite adults here couldn't we?

Considering that the link you cited doesn't show any article, I am left to trust your interpretation of the case at hand, which your history on this forum has shown would be foolish to do.

First - sorry about the link that goes to no where - sometimes I am on computers that aren't mine which have 'memberships' to information sites that require payment. Since I don't think I have ever provided a link that didn't go anywhere I find your accusation very insulting shag.

Here is a link that should work - a capture cached of the site..
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:vMe8mNTtuYsJ:www.stratfor.com/united_states_quieter_campaign_against_domestic_te rrorists+Imperial+Wizard+of+the+Ku+Klux+Klan+who+t ried+to+purchase+hand+grenades+to+bomb+abortion+cl inics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I will actually be quite happy to continue this debate if you can refrain from your persistent habit of being rude. I try to never be rude...

All of you have forgotten that foxpaws is an admitted student of Saul Alinsky.

All of you have forgotten that foxpaws is an admitted student of Saul Alinsky.
Well I certainly read his work - it seems like I might have been the only one who did. I even did a little book report in one of the Ayers debates...
I don’t embrace his ideals, nor do I believe in them. I did look at them, and I thought them worth exploring, but in the end, they are flawed, and they undermine personal freedoms, unlike what Alinsky professes to do, which is expand personal freedoms. There is a dirty underbelly within his work – where power just morphs not into power of the people, but power of the powerful. The ones who infect the system are left with the spoils of the system.

I have read Mein Kamph and McCain's Faith of My Fathers as well. What could this say about me? Maybe that I read a lot? :p

However Foss, you certainly bow down at the altar of a self-centered atheist who was a celebrated adulterer, someone who detested Reagan and Truman, a fetishistic who both Hillary Clinton and Alan Greenspan follow, and who replaced the cross with the almighty dollar sign.;)

No one is saying anything about the fact that she expresses her view. It is how she expresses and defends her views.

They are two different things.

One example of shameful methods used to express and defend views... mischaraterization to smear and marginalize (like you are doing here). That is something to be ashamed of and avoided. It reflects very poorly on your character; in fact showing a lack of character and decency.

I didnt know I was addressing you.

Again with the insults. :rolleyes:

Its a new year....almost.
How about a new years resolution not to insult waterboy ?

Maybe some people will post again. ;)
Or do you want this form reduced to the three stooges ?

We could be polite adults here couldn't we?

Is it "polite" to intentionally mischaracterize people and their arguments in an attempt to marginalize; generally being disrespectful to those trying to have a debate here? That is a very common habit in arguing and defending leftist positions on this forum. If they start showing respect and decency toward the opposing views on this forum I will do the same. Until then, I will treat them with the same impolite lack of respect that they do me. To do otherwise is to tolerate and re-enforce their behavior and give them the appearance of a logical victory in the debate when there is none.

Besides, all I am doing is being honest. I am not in any way being underhanded and attempting to marginalize and demonize or distort someone else's position to support my own.

I will actually be quite happy to continue this debate if you can refrain from your persistent habit of being rude. I try to never be rude...

No, you are just accidentally rude...:rolleyes:

You, consistently show a disresepect for those you disagree with by not even caring to accuratly understand their position; instead dishonestly framing it as best to fit your view. How is that not rude?

I only treat anyone on this forum with the same respect (or lack thereof) that they extend to me and my viewpoint.

I didnt know I was addressing you.

Again with the insults. :rolleyes:

Its a new year....almost.
How about a new years resolution not to insult waterboy ?

If the "insults" are truthful, then they are also a valid point. Suck it up, and (ideally) correct the flaw.. If they are not truthful, then defend yourself and point out how they are not truthful.

I have tried to be very kind and defering on this forum; all that gets me is people attempting to mischaracterize and marginalize me and my viewpoint (or those with a similar viewpoint).

I am not going to tolerate that.

And don't try to pin this on me. I am simply responding to the habit of many of those on the left (or arguing leftist views) on this forum using rudeness as an arguing tactic. People start from the point of arguing that Bryan (and anyone who doesn't hold their view) is a "conspiricy seeker" or otherwise a wacko of some sort. They are a "homophobe" if they do not support gay marriage (regardless of their reasons). A "racist" if they do not agree with Obama on certian issue. A fool for believing in God. Should I go on?

It is also a very common tactic by people arguing leftist viewpoints here to attempt to smear and marginalize those they diagree with by mishcharacterizing them and their position. You do that very often.

All those actions are insulting to those you are arguing against and their viewpoint. Any time you claim I am being "insulting" You can tie it back to someone from the left first engaging in one of those rude and dishonest tactics as a means of proving their position.

When I "insult", it is not as a means of proving my position. It is to point out the dishonest and fallacious arguments and tactics used by others. It is simply being bluntly honest, not to smear and marginalize, or verbally bludgon someone into submission and apparent agreement.

Maybe some people will post again. ;)
Or do you want this form reduced to the three stooges ?

If people can't make their argument honestly and logically, and have to resort to dishonest and insulting tactics, then their absence on this forum would be a positive thing.

Apparently that means most of the leftists (or people at least supporting leftist positions) on this forum. There are some exceptions, but they take their time and hold their tounge unless they have a valid point to make, instead of just smearing.

My "insults" are simply blunt honesty. As long as someone is using dishonest, rude and insulting tactics as a means of arguing, you can expect me to continue to call them on it. If that is "insulting", so be it. If they actually show some decency, I will extend them that same decency.

If the "insults" are truthful, then they are also a valid point. Suck it up, and (ideally) correct the flaw.. If they are not truthful, then defend yourself and point out how they are not truthful.

I have tried to be very kind and defering on this forum; all that gets me is people attempting to mischaracterize and marginalize me and my viewpoint (or those with a similar viewpoint).

I am not going to tolerate that.



Insults are insults.
The truth is what one perceives it to be.
I have no flaw I need to correct.
I have no need to defend myself.
There is no excuse for being rude.
But as I have pointed out insults will drive this form into the ground.
Its in the process of this as I type this retort.
There are full members.... gold members hell even one moderator who have sent me a PM,
explaining how they won't post here because of the childish behavior of a few.
Don't kid yourself they are not all lefties.
So insult away until your here by yourself.
How much fun you will have!
You will always be right!
Because there will be NOBODY to debate with.

There are full members.... gold members hell even one moderator who have sent me a PM,
explaining how they won't post here because of the childish behavior of a few.
There it is, appeal to popularity. Well aren't you so special.

Want a cookie?

Does it ever occur to you that I might get some pretty interesting emails about you? :rolleyes:

If the "insults" are truthful, then they are also a valid point. Suck it up, and (ideally) correct the flaw.. If they are not truthful, then defend yourself and point out how they are not truthful.

I have tried to be very kind and defering on this forum; all that gets me is people attempting to mischaracterize and marginalize me and my viewpoint (or those with a similar viewpoint).

I am not going to tolerate that.

And don't try to pin this on me. I am simply responding to the habit of many of those on the left (or arguing leftist views) on this forum using rudeness as an arguing tactic. People start from the point of arguing that Bryan (and anyone who doesn't hold their view) is a "conspiricy seeker" or otherwise a wacko of some sort. They are a "homophobe" if they do not support gay marriage (regardless of their reasons). A "racist" if they do not agree with Obama on certian issue. A fool for believing in God. Should I go on?

It is also a very common tactic by people arguing leftist viewpoints here to attempt to smear and marginalize those they diagree with by mishcharacterizing them and their position. You do that very often.

All those actions are insulting to those you are arguing against and their viewpoint. Any time you claim I am being "insulting" You can tie it back to someone from the left first engaging in one of those rude and dishonest tactics as a means of proving their position.

When I "insult", it is not as a means of proving my position. It is to point out the dishonest and fallacious arguments and tactics used by others. It is simply being bluntly honest, not to smear and marginalize, or verbally bludgon someone into submission and apparent agreement.



If people can't make their argument honestly and logically, and have to resort to dishonest and insulting tactics, then their absence on this forum would be a positive thing.

Apparently that means most of the leftists (or people at least supporting leftist positions) on this forum. There are some exceptions, but they take their time and hold their tounge unless they have a valid point to make, instead of just smearing.

My "insults" are simply blunt honesty. As long as someone is using dishonest, rude and insulting tactics as a means of arguing, you can expect me to continue to call them on it. If that is "insulting", so be it. If they actually show some decency, I will extend them that same decency.

you usually use your insults in a demeaning, self fulfilling way. the way you phrase is to undermine someones credibility. the fault in that is it is usually returned in kind, and then you start with the dishonest parables.

i don't know why it's more aimed at foxpaws(female?) but when she can counter just as well, it starts. the marginalizing, undermining, and at times, just plain whining.

there's no rhetoric like conservative rhetoric.

I'm glad you recognize the truth of your last statement. And perhaps 'Foxy' gets attention because her comments are ALWAYS a display of intelligence even if what she has to say is often fallacious. I, personally, think she usually knows better and is simply being provocative.

Happy New Year To All!!

KS

The truth is what one perceives it to be.

No, the truth is not relative, or personal. If you "percieve" the Earth to be flat, you are wrong and the truth is completely different then what you "percieve".

There is no excuse for being rude.
But as I have pointed out insults will drive this form into the ground.

Then why do you do it? You consistently bait, smear and mischaracterize. That is exceedingly rude and insulting as well as only dragging down the debate.

My "rudeness" or "insults" are a result of calling you (and others) on those tactics. It shines a light on your dishonest, rude and childish actions and actually serves a purpose in the debate in putting those people and their view in perspective, as well as showing that type of behavior won't be tolerated.

There are full members.... gold members hell even one moderator who have sent me a PM,
explaining how they won't post here because of the childish behavior of a few.

:eek:

Don't kid yourself they are not all lefties.

Actually, the vast majority of immature, rude and insulting bahavior in the political section of this forum comes from the left, or at least originates there. It is the MO of the left.

When it comes from the right, it is in response to those rude and insulting tactics and attempting to expose it. It serves a productive purpose.

If you tolerate that kind of rude and dishonest behavior, then the people utilizing it overrun the forum due to the tolerance of those with some degree of decency. So you cannot tolerate it.

you usually use your insults in a demeaning, self fulfilling way.

:confused:

the way you phrase is to undermine someones credibility.

Undermining credibility is a vaild debate tactic, depending on how it is done. Most of the arguments I am responding in an "insulting" manner are aimed at doing that, they just do it in a dishonest and disengenous manner, where my effort to "undermine credibility" is aimed at honestly shining a light on their actions and showing how their own actions undermine their credibility.

the fault in that is it is usually returned in kind, and then you start with the dishonest parables.

Actually, no. The "dishonest parables" are always in response to the rude and/or dishonest actions of others. If you don't agree, then please cite examples.

No, she expresses her views very eloquently and skillfully.
I take issue when she manipulates reality, uses deceptive imagery and makes a skilled effort to deceive dumb people like you.


Your such a nice guy Calabrio


Actually, the vast majority of immature, rude and insulting bahavior in the political section of this forum comes from the left, or at least originates there. It is the MO of the left.


Insulting behavior on this form comes from the far right.
Part of it from you sticking your nose into threads that are no concern of yours.
Just like this one.

Calabrio is busy insulting and you feel the need to jump in.
Displaying the very behavior you claim you can't tolerate.
Like I have said before I am not going to trade insults with you.
You can keep them.
Happy New Year Shag

Insulting behavior on this form comes from the far right.
Part of it from you sticking your nose into threads that are no concern of yours.
Just like this one.

Ah....I started this thread. Look at post #1....who posted that article?

This is a prime example of the difference in behavior. You are being rude and insulting as a byproduct of misleading here and attempting to smear.

Any "rudeness" or "insults" by me (or most conservatives on this forum) come as a byproduct of being honest (bluntly so at times) and not tolerating dishonest and indecent behavior from those arguing against us.

The rudeness and insults from you and others typically supporting leftist positions on this forum (the ones I am responding to) is a byproduct of attempts to decieve, mislead, smear or in some other way use dishonest tactics ment to either trick and/or bully someone into agreement; avoiding honest debate and convincing through reason.

One is the byproduct of honest actions necessary and productive to promoting and maintaining healthy debate on this forum and one is the byproduct of dishonest and decietful actions that take away from the debate.

One set of actions is justifable and one isn't.

BTW, I "injected" myself into a discussion that I had some very relevant points to make and felt some things were being said that warranted being challenged (specifically leading statements regarding the Patriot Act).

If I am not supposed to respond to that, then I am not supposed to respond at all to anything in the political forum here. Now, does this standard only apply to me, or to everyone? Because you came into this thread not offering anything substantive and only mischaracterizing and attempting to smear someone. Rudeness and insulting from the word 'go' with you, it seems. But that is different, right?

How about you impose the same standards on yourself that you want to impose on those you disagree with.

Insulting behavior on this form comes from the far right.Please show proof, and also proof of who is far right.

The section of the Patriot Act that you talk about explicitly focuses on intelligence gathering as covered under FISA! do you even know what FISA stands for?

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Originally passed to allow investigations to collect FOREIGN intelligent Information as it SOLE or PRIMARY purpose. The 'Patriot Act' added situations where FOREIGN intelligent gathering now only needs to be a SIGNIFICANT purpose of the investigation. Cleverly they neglected to define "Significant".

The 4th Amendment states that a search warrant must be based on probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. Investigations under the Patriot Act (the section of the code that expands FISA) are permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign agent or representative, and that is it - they don't have to prove that a crime has been committed or is being committed. But if the target is a US citizen there must be cause to believe that the U.S. citizen's activities involve foreign espionage. Also, the government can't assume that the US citizen is a foreign agent if that information was gathered while observing the person and they were participating in activities protected by the first amendment. So they can't be suspected of being a foreign agent because they went to an Islamic mosque (freedom of religion). Currently it is being used to gather information that has no relevance to foreign intelligence- such as the case of the abducted child or the KKK bomber.

So, shag, is that how you understand FISA and the parts of the Patriot Act that expands upon FISA?

And, earlier (posts 10 and 17) I was referring to section 215 of the Patriot Act - the part that allows the government to look at all types of records, with NSLs, without any court looking at the NSL. They can go into a library with a NSL and ask for a list of everyone who has checked out Weapon Tests and Evaluations: The Best of Soldier of Fortune. Or the FBI can go into a gun store and ask for a list of everyone who has bought weapons in the last year... They can do it with a self generated NSL, without any proof of international terrorism ties.

I don't think I really got into the FISA earlier - maybe...?

Internet communications have no reasonable expectation of privacy
Yes, internet communications are protected by US law...
U.S.C. 3121. Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices
...the term "trap and trace device" means a device or process which captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, provided, however, that such information shall not include the contents of any communication.

They can find out where you go and where you have been, but they are not allowed to use or see the contents of any communication.

However section 212 of the Patriot act overrides this law...

Section 212 (Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb) amended the US Code to stop a communications provider from providing communication records (not necessarily relating to the content itself) about a customer's communications to others. However, should the provider reasonably believe that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person then the communications provider can now disclose this information. The act did not make clear what "reasonably" meant.
A communications provider could also disclose communications records if:
* a court orders the disclosure of communications at the request of a government agency (18 U.S.C. § 2703)

Warshak vs U.S. (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf) does indicate that personal email is no different than a phone call - that privacy is expected, and therefore a warrant is required. It is expected that this case will be appealed to the Supreme court - however, opinion has that it should be upheld in the current court.

From the opinion of the Federal Court of Appeals...
The district court correctly determined that e-mail users maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their e-mails, and we agree that the injunctive relief it crafted was largely appropriate, although we find necessary one modification. On remand, the preliminary injunction should be modified to prohibit the United States from seizing the contents of a personal e-mail account maintained by an ISP in the name of any resident of the Southern District of Ohio, pursuant to a court order issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), without either (1) providing the relevant account holder or subscriber prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, or (2) making a fact-specific showing that the account holder maintained no expectation of privacy with respect to the ISP, in which case only the ISP need be provided prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

So, doesn't it seem that the contents of internet communications are protected by US Code, but the Patriot Act allows that to be overridden?

I am left to trust your interpretation of the case at hand, which your history on this forum has shown would be foolish to do.

Shag - the adult way to approach this would be to ask - "could you please check this link, it seems to go nowhere." If the link cannot be provided you could then tear apart my character.

I'm glad you recognize the truth of your last statement. And perhaps 'Foxy' gets attention because her comments are ALWAYS a display of intelligence even if what she has to say is often fallacious. I, personally, think she usually knows better and is simply being provocative.

Happy New Year To All!!

KS

from concise oxford
rhetoric
n noun the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Ølanguage with a persuasive or impressive effect, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content

conservative and liberal interpretations will never jive, so to call someones comments fallacious, would be from a personal bias, when the arguement being made is intellectual, thoughtful, and has validity.

from concise oxford
rhetoric
n noun the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Ølanguage with a persuasive or impressive effect, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content

I see...

So, when you used the term "rhetoric" in post #46 (assuming that definition), is was a leading statement to trick us into agreeing on a smear or conservative talking points....

Not everyone who read your statement in post #46 assumed that definition of "rhetoric". There are a number of different definitions (http://www.answers.com/topic/rhetoric)that you could have ment, as the original statement was written...

The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
A treatise or book discussing this art.
Skill in using language effectively and persuasively
A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
Verbal communication; discourse.

You left it vague and didn't make it clear what definition you originally were using. To now, in the middle of the debate, change the definition (by narrowing it), is to equivocate and turns the original statement, effectively, into a decietful, leading statement.

conservative and liberal interpretations will never jive, so to call someones comments fallacious, would be from a personal bias, when the arguement being made is intellectual, thoughtful, and has validity.

Weather or not someones argument is fallacious or not has absolutely nothing to do with interpretation, or personal bias. The arguments are pretty cut and dry if you know what to look for.

It is a simple fact weather a statement is fallacious or not. If an argument is fallacious then, by definition, it cannot be valid.

To try and cloud things and say that the logical nature of an argument is purely up to interpretation is to allow for fallacious arguments to be acceptable and for truth and reality to become subjective, for the purposes of debate.

The real world is not like that. There are definate, truths that are not objectives. The few instances where the truth is a matter of perception are exceptions to the rule, but in no way disprove the rule.

In fact, to even come in here and take any strong stance on any issue flies in the face of your whole claim the the truth is subjective (due to the logic of an argument being subjective). You view it as the truth that ID is wrong and darwinism is right, and strongly argue against those claiming otherwise. If the truth is all subjective, then there is no reason to argue your point of view.

If anyone is using "rhetoric" as you defined it (lacking sincerity or meaningful content) it is you when you throw out that platitude that, "to call someones comments fallacious, would be from a personal bias, when the arguement being made is intellectual, thoughtful, and has validity".

it was in response to cammerfe's post on foxpaws. i don't see any fallaciousness within her arguements, so it must be from a different standing that he gains that ideal.
and since he seemed to gather a particular meaning from my quip, i thought i would clarify the intended meaning for him. i thought coming from me, he would assume the lesser meaning. sorry for the confusion.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Originally passed to allow investigations to collect FOREIGN intelligent Information as it SOLE or PRIMARY purpose. The 'Patriot Act' added situations where FOREIGN intelligent gathering now only needs to be a SIGNIFICANT purpose of the investigation. Cleverly they neglected to define "Significant".

FISA, as originally written also covered international communications. In fact, international communications (for the purposes of foreign intelligence) were considered the same as foreign communications, and not covered under the 4th amendment. The Patriot Act didn't change anything in that regard.

It is highly rare to even be able to spy on purely foreign communications, however the opportunities to spy on international communications (where one party is in the U.S.) are very numerous.

The 4th Amendment states that a search warrant must be based on probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

Wrong. Here is the text...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It never says anything about weather or not a crime is about to, or has been committed.

Investigations under the Patriot Act (the section of the code that expands FISA) are permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign agent or representative, and that is it - they don't have to prove that a crime has been committed or is being committed.

considering your injection of assumptions based on speculation into your claims of what the 4th Amendment claims, I would want to see the source of your claims regarding the Patriot Act.

But even assuming what you say is accurate, you are still missing the distinction between terrorism and crime. There are not one in the same. There can be some overlap (domestic terrorism), but the laws and rules that apply to purely criminal behavior don't neccessarily apply to terrorist activities. You continue to assume that they do in everything you argue in this thread. You need to justify that assumption.

If the target is a foreign agent or foreign representative, then he falls outside of criminal law, and matters concerning wiretapping him in his capacity as a foreign agent/representative fall under the purview of foreign intelligence gathering.

Currently it is being used to gather information that has no relevance to foreign intelligence- such as the case of the abducted child or the KKK bomber.

Both of those cases would probably fall under the probably cause exception in the 4th Amendment (I would need to review the cases to be sure). And again, the information gathered may or may not fall under 4th Amendment protections. Phone records are not protected by the 4th Amendment (per the SCOTUS) for instance...

And, earlier (posts 10 and 17) I was referring to section 215 of the Patriot Act - the part that allows the government to look at all types of records, with NSLs, without any court looking at the NSL. They can go into a library with a NSL and ask for a list of everyone who has checked out Weapon Tests and Evaluations: The Best of Soldier of Fortune. Or the FBI can go into a gun store and ask for a list of everyone who has bought weapons in the last year... They can do it with a self generated NSL, without any proof of international terrorism ties.

Again, it is questionable at best, weather these record would actually fall under 4th Amendment protections or not. If they do not fall under those protections, then an NSL is all that is necessary legally, and more then is necessary constitutionally.

Yes, internet communications are protected by US law...

That doesn't mean that they are protected by the Constitution (specifically the 4th Amendment).


U.S. law contradicts itself on this, and the Patriot Act cleared that up. From the link (http://www.justice.gov/archive/ola/testimony/2005/05-05-05_ola_moschella_statement_re_patriot_act_emergenc y_disclosure_provision.pdf) you provided:
Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, Federal law contained no special provisions that would allow electronic communication service providers to voluntarily disclose customer records or communications to Federal authorities in emergency situations. For example, if an Internet service provider (ISP) possessed information that could have prevented an imminent terrorist attack if disclosed to the Govemment, and the ISP ultimately disclosed the information voluntarily, the ISP could be sued civilly by the customer whose records or communications had been released. Providing such information did not fall within one of the statutory exceptions to the limitations on disclosure contained in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), even if that disclosure was necessary to save lives. Moreover, Federal law did not expressly permit an ISP to voluntarily disclose non-content customer records (i.e. a subscriber's login records) to the Government to protect itself against hacking. The law did, however, allow providers to disclose the content of the customer's communications for thisreason. This created an anomaly in the law the right to disclose the content of communications should logically imply the less-intrusive ability to disclose non-content records.
Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act corrected both of the aforementioned inadequacies. First, section 212 amended 18 U.S.C. 5 2702(b)(6) to pennit, but not require, a service provider to disclose either content or non-content customer records to Federal authorities in emergencies involving an immediate risk of death or serious physical injury to any person. Notably, this provision does not obligate service providers to review customer communications in search of such imminent dangers, nor does it impose an obligation to disclose records once the provider becomes aware of an emergency -it is a purely voluntary authority. Second, section 212 amended ECPA to allow service providers to disclose non-content information in an effort to protect their owl rights and property. See 18 U.S.C. 5 2702(c)(3).

Either way, that is US law and not the constitution. It doesn't in any way show that internet communications fall under 4th Amendment protections.

Warshak vs U.S. (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf) does indicate that personal email is no different than a phone call - that privacy is expected, and therefore a warrant is required. It is expected that this case will be appealed to the Supreme court - however, opinion has that it should be upheld in the current court.

I am sure I could find a court case or two to show otherwise. What matters is if those communications fall under 4th amendment proctections; not weather some judge simply says they do. That doesn't mean that they do fall under 4th amendment protections as the amendment was originally written. Courts rule wrongly and judges inject their personal views and political agendas all the time...

Also, just because the content of the communication may be protected by the 4th Amendment, that does not mean that records showing the fact of a communication are also protected under the 4th Amendment. Again, phone records are not protected under the 4th Amendment, for instance...

Shag - the adult way to approach this would be to ask - "could you please check this link, it seems to go nowhere." If the link cannot be provided you could then tear apart my character.

And if I thought you were interested in an honest debate, I would handle it that way. However, you have made it abundantly clear that an honest debate isn't your goal. Instead it seems that you are here to defend your point of view by any means necessary ( when it comes to the tactics used to defend your POV, and the rhetoric used).

When that is made clear, I change my focus to shining a light on your lack of credibility for all to see. So stating why I don't simply take you at word and trust your interpretation of the source you cite is very relevant to that end.

and since he seemed to gather a particular meaning from my quip, i thought i would clarify the intended meaning for him. i thought coming from me, he would assume the lesser meaning. sorry for the confusion.

Ok, so an honest mistake and not an intentional attempt to mislead. Happens to the best of us...;)

And if I thought you were interested in an honest debate, I would handle it that way. However, you have made it abundantly clear that an honest debate isn't your goal. Instead it seems that you are here to defend your point of view by any means necessary ( when it comes to the tactics used to defend your POV, and the rhetoric used).

When that is made clear, I change my focus to shining a light on your lack of credibility for all to see. So stating why I don't simply take you at word and trust your interpretation of the source you cite is very relevant to that end.Dude, get over yourself.

Dude, get over yourself.

:confused: :confused:

I would want to see the source of your claims regarding the Patriot Act.

Shag, earlier in post 17, I included a link to the Patriot Act (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot_text.pdf)...



But even assuming what you say is accurate, you are still missing the distinction between terrorism and crime. There are not one in the same. There can be some overlap (domestic terrorism), but the laws and rules that apply to purely criminal behavior don't neccessarily apply to terrorist activities. You continue to assume that they do in everything you argue in this thread. You need to justify that assumption.

Before we get into a battle royal about the 4th, Shag, I just want to make sure that we both understand the provisions in the Patriot Act (as it currently stands).

'Son of Patriot' - or Patriot Act II (HR 3162 (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.pdf)) expands on the reasons that the government is allowed to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications. Title II deals with expanding the surveillance procedures initially stated in FISA. In Section 202 the government can now intercept communications which relate to domestic computer fraud and abuse offenses. There is also now a section (212) which deals with emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb. Once again, nothing to do with international terrorism, but domestic crime.

Note - that in the italic section the Patriot Act now deals with domestic crime - not just terrorism (both international and domestic).

And again, the information gathered may or may not fall under 4th Amendment protections. Phone records are not protected by the 4th Amendment (per the SCOTUS) for instance...

Note that in both of the sections that I discussed above that the items that the government is dealing with in the Patriot Act are not just the 'records' of the communications - but the actual communications themselves (the bolded text).

I want to make sure that we are on the same page with the sections in the Patriot Act that deal with not only with the 'records' of communications, but the actual 'communications' themselves. As well as the fact that the Patriot Act now includes some areas of domestic crime as well as international/domestic terrorism.

I am sure I could find a court case or two to show otherwise. What matters is if those communications fall under 4th amendment proctections; not weather some judge simply says they do. That doesn't mean that they do fall under 4th amendment protections as the amendment was originally written. Courts rule wrongly and judges inject their personal views and political agendas all the time...

So, Shag, since certainly the founding fathers never foresaw phones or the internet, who should interpret the 4th regarding those new technologies? Isn't that what we have the courts for? And, aren't those 2 technologies equal to letters or the written word from the time of the founders - isn't that the closet analogy we have? Do we not have an 'expected' view of privacy regarding internet communications. You cited Katz earlier, which upheld the idea that a phone call made from a public phone booth was protected by the 4th Amendment. The court did say that there was an expectation of privacy in that case - that the phone call, made from a public phone, was still protected. That it is part of our security of person. That it required a warrant to uphold the Fourth Amendment's protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure. How will internet communications differ from that scenario?

So stating why I don't simply take you at word and trust your interpretation of the source you cite is very relevant to that end.

In every case shag, where you ask me for a link, or an example I always provide one. Since you are debating the Patriot Act - I was assuming you knew the Patriot Act. I thought you knew that the current law goes well beyond international terrorism and now deals not only with domestic terrorism but domestic crime. I also thought that the law was very clear with the fact it encompasses more than the records of communications, it now involves the actual communications themselves. I will try to keep in mind from now on that when I discuss a subject with someone, I shouldn't assume that they know the points of the subject in question.

The reality is shared, it's just perceptions that differ.

Bingo Cowboy.... you got it right.

No, she expresses her views very eloquently and skillfully.
I take issue when she manipulates reality, uses deceptive imagery and makes a skilled effort to deceive dumb people like you.


So is she manipulating reality? Or expressing her views very eloquently and skillfully, her perception of what reality is ?

I think its her perception, what she thinks, she is simply expressing her views ..... therefore she has nothing to be ashamed about cowpoke, even a dumb guy like me can figure that one out.

In every case shag, where you ask me for a link, or an example I always provide one. Since you are debating the Patriot Act - I was assuming you knew the Patriot Act. I thought you knew that the current law goes well beyond international terrorism and now deals not only with domestic terrorism but domestic crime. I also thought that the law was very clear with the fact it encompasses more than the records of communications, it now involves the actual communications themselves. I will try to keep in mind from now on that when I discuss a subject with someone, I shouldn't assume that they know the points of the subject in question.

Actually, the opposite is true here. It is you who has a very bad history of not understanding (or intentionally mischaracterizing) things even when shown through direct sources that your interpretation is wrong and/or naive. There is the example of you claiming the 4th Amendment says something it doesn't. In another thread, you denied the fact that the idea of "substantive rights" stem from the idea of "substantive due process"; go ask any law professor or poli-sci professor and they would tell you that you are wrong. There are countless other examples.

So when you try to tell me I am wrong in my interpretation of something, your simple assertion and/or "paraphrasing" of the document or quote in question is not enough to prove that as that has been shown to lack credibility. If you post a long document, I am not going to read the whole thing just to counter you; especially not at 3:00 in the morning.

You would be better off to literally quote the relevant portions of the document, or the full quote in question. However, I have seen you (intentionally or not) take quotes out of context and/or misinterpret them enough that it is hard to trust that you are not taking something out of context when you do quote it.

So your best bet on that one would be to post the quote that proves your point as well as a link and some sort of general indication where that passage is on longer documents.

While that seems like a lot, it is abundantly clear that I am not the only one who has this lack of trust in your judgement and/or honesty in presenting facts. In fact, the only people who do not seem to have a problem with it are those who already agree with you and have no problem with dishonest and decietful arguments.

Rest assurd, I know plenty about the Patriot Act. I don't argue something here unless I am well versed in that subject. But I am not going to take the time to read through a lot to debate someone who is either incapable or unwilling to have an honest debate. That is a waste of my time.

Originally Posted by foxpaws
In every case shag, where you ask me for a link, or an example I always provide one. Since you are debating the Patriot Act - I was assuming you knew the Patriot Act. I thought you knew that the current law goes well beyond international terrorism and now deals not only with domestic terrorism but domestic crime. I also thought that the law was very clear with the fact it encompasses more than the records of communications, it now involves the actual communications themselves. I will try to keep in mind from now on that when I discuss a subject with someone, I shouldn't assume that they know the points of the subject in question.This condescending, sarcastic nastiness is why I stopped talking to her. It's clear she needs a man.

So is she manipulating reality? Or expressing her views very eloquently and skillfully, her perception of what reality is ?

I think its her perception, what she thinks, she is simply expressing her views ..... therefore she has nothing to be ashamed about cowpoke, even a dumb guy like me can figure that one out.

Ok, are you even capable of not mischaracterizing someone to counter them?

Clabrio made it clear, in the quotes you are responding to, that he takes issue with how she argues; not what she argues. There is a lot that one can do in how they argue that is shameful. Like...intentionally mischaracterizing someone in order to smear them by implication.

Also, she can be manipulating reality (for the purposes of a debate) and express her view very eloquently and skillfully. The two are not mutually exclusive. Your statement about that is a leading, or loaded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions) question.

This condescending, sarcastic nastiness is why I stopped talking to her. It's clear she needs a man.

So do you ;)

So when you try to tell me I am wrong in my interpretation of something,
Rest assurd, I know plenty about the Patriot Act. I don't argue something here unless I am well versed in that subject. But I am not going to take the time to read through a lot to debate someone who is either incapable or unwilling to have an honest debate. That is a waste of my time.

So, where am I wrong about the current law as stated in HR 3162? I would really like to know Shag - I am trying to have an honest debate - using the law in question as the basis. I think we need to find a common ground within the Patriot Act, understanding the different parts of Title II. So, I would really like to understand how you interpret those sections 202 and 212 of 3162. You don't have to read a lot -just those two sections. I thought posting the actual law is a bit much - it is a lot of 'reference this and reference that' and 'legal this and legal that' - it is easy to find them in the pdfs of the laws I posted. Then there isn't mile after mile of stuff that makes these posts harder to read than they already are.

This is what just a portion of section 212 looks like posted here -

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COM-
23
MUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.
24
(a) DISCLOSUREOFCONTENTS.—
25
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2702 of title 18,
1
United States Code, is amended—
2
(A) by striking the section heading and in-
3
serting the following:
4
‘‘§2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer commu-
5
nications or records’’;
6
(B) in subsection (a)—
7
(i) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking
8
‘‘and’’ at the end;
9
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking
10
the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
11
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2)
12
the following: 13
‘‘(C) if the provider reasonably believes
8
that an emergency involving immediate danger
9
of death or serious physical injury to any per-
10
son requires disclosure of the information with-
11
out delay.’’; and
12
(E) by inserting after subsection (b) the
13
following:
14
‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS FORDISCLOSUREOFCUSTOMER
15
RECORDS.—A provider described in subsection (a) may di-
16
vulge a record or other information pertaining to a sub-
17
scriber to or customer of suchservice (not including the
18
contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1)
19
or (a)(2))—
20
‘‘(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
21
‘‘(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or
22
subscriber;
23
‘‘(3) as may be necessarily incident to the ren-
1
dition of the service or to the protection of the rights
2
or property of the provider of that service;
3
‘‘(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider
4
reasonably believes that an emergency involving im-
5
mediate danger of death or serious physical injury to
6
any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
7
‘‘(5) to any person other than a governmental
8
entity.’’.
9

I really am not being condescending or 'nasty', and if I have been I really do apologize. It seemed to me that everyone knew what they were debating here - it has been said that this little subject had been discussed quite a lot. I was interested in your viewpoints on this - because I hadn't been around for the original debate, and it seemed from what I gleaned from some of the older posts that these two points hadn't been drawn into discussion.

I didn't think you wanted law school or op ed opinion in this case, but if you do, I am sure we both can find tons of source along those lines, and this will degrade into your source versus my source. I am more interested in your viewpoints, especially on those two very controversial parts of the current law.

This is from the congressional debate (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju21025.000/hju21025_0f.htm) on the law -
Section 212 amended the law to permit, but not require, a service provider to disclose either content or non-content customer records to Federal authorities in emergencies involving immediate risk of death or serious physical injury to any person. Notably, this provision does not obligate service providers to review customer communications in search of such imminent dangers, nor does it impose an obligation to disclose records once a provider becomes aware of the emergency. It is purely voluntary authority.

Is this more what you wanted? I thought you always wanted direct source - maybe I misunderstood - once again sorry if I did.

And then, as stated before, I think we could have a foundation on which to debate the 4th Amendment regarding the Patriot Act.

This condescending, sarcastic nastiness is why I stopped talking to her. It's clear she needs a man.

Sweetheart, not man, MEN....;)

And its off to enjoy Frost/Nixon so I can wallow in my liberalness and then afterward - I'll work on the whole 'men' thing...

And Ford Nut - :bowrofl: