We Told You So: Government Spying Has Been Targeting Innocent Citizens, not Terrorists

I might be less skeptical of the government, if it hadn't passed 36,000+ pages of "Patriot Act" with large parts unread, constantly been found guilty of exceeding and abusing it's authority, and actualy shown that all of this was a-needed, and b-effective.

People are still sneaking guns and knives on planes, we just get to wait longer to get on them.

Don't point out that no one's crashed a plane into anything since 9/11. They hadn't done it before that either. I count -5- terrorist attacks, as defined by the US State Department occuring within the US between 1961 and 2003.

Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology
(Only attacks on US Soil/airspace listed)
-First U.S. Aircraft Hijacked, May 1, 1961: Puerto Rican born Antuilo Ramierez Ortiz forced at gunpoint a National Airlines plane to fly to Havana, Cuba, where he was given asylum.
-World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.
- Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995: Right-wing extremists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City with a massive truck bomb that killed 166 and injured hundreds more in what was up to then the largest terrorist attack on American soil.
- Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.
- Anthrax Attacks, October-November 2001: On October 7 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that investigators had detected evidence that the deadly anthrax bacterium was present in the building where a Florida man who died of anthrax on October 5 had worked. Discovery of a second anthrax case triggered a major investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The two anthrax cases were the first to appear in the United States in 25 years. Anthrax subsequently appeared in mail received by television networks in New York and by the offices in Washington of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other members of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a briefing on October 16, "When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it’s a terrorist act."

Looks to me, despite all the "extra" precautions that even before we were pretty damn safe compared to the rest of the world. And that was before it was decided that the government needs to know what books I get out of my local library, and that combat troops were needed to police the US civilian population.
 
Bob, I know you own the board and all, but please try to follow your own rules about rude and or insulting posts. Your opinion isnt any more "correct" than mine, they are both just opinions, and you damn sure aint any smarter than I am. So be a pal, and quit talking down to me, it's getting old. Not to mention that if someone else used a phrase like 'that sort of ignorance" you would ding them for it.

it really is simple Bob, you look at ANYTHING that gives the government more power to monitor the threats and see nothing but the potential for abuse.

glass half empty and all that. a valid, tho pesimistic view. (Not that itis any real suprise, your choice of political candidates shows idealism over the reality that Barr CANT WIN. But you would rather support him, knowing that he will fail, out of idealism. Thats fine, and I dont dog you for it.)

i see the benefits of something that YES is distastefull, but needed.

Our security was a joke. Thats what allowed us to get hit in 01

glass half full, same coin, different side.

And yeah, i dont care WHAT the government does, as long as it ends with the bad guys being DEAD and us being ALIVE

we are in a fight for our lives, our very way of life, you cant or wont see that because you are an idealist, you live in the world of ideals

idealism must be tempered with reality, while reality should be guilded by idealism

in martial arts terms, you are the type of martial artist that would rather die than gouge out someone's eyes.

me? i will do anything and everythign to KILL the guy thats trying to kill me.

I guess it comes from the military mindset of "us" and "them"

i could care less what happens to "them" as long as every single one of "us" comes back alive.


Not to mention that i have more important and pressing matters to occupy my mind, like how to pay my mothers bills, than to sweat the truly silly **** like who is listening into some cell phone call from goatherderstan.
 
95% (my turn of phrase) was already codified in previous law in one form or another. Nobody was wringing their hands over it then. Expand them a bit and call it the "Patriot Act" against the "War on Terror" and now its 1984.

While not perfect by any means Im not loosing much sleep over it. Or digging out my Napolen hat.
 
Originally from the Boston Globe:

http://www.thebluesite.com/archives/000444.html

But where mainstream America sees a reasonable response to terror, others see jackbooted fascism.

Take Section 215 of the Patriot Act, one of the law's most controversial. It allows investigators to obtain records and other "tangible things" in the course of a terrorism investigation. This, the ACLU informs us, means that "the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."

There's just one problem with that scenario: It isn't true.

To begin with, the FBI cannot request any documents or records without first getting judicial permission. That permission must come in the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a federal court specializing in counterterrorism and international intelligence that was created by Congress during the Carter administration. No judge on that court is going to authorize government agents to spy on a citizen merely because of his reading or web-surfing habits. Why not? Because the law forbids it. Which law? Why, the Patriot Act.

"An investigation conducted under this section," Section 215 commands, "shall . . . not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." In case that isn't clear enough, Section 215 says it twice. And for added protection, it directs the attorney general to tell Congress every six months exactly how many court orders have been requested, and how many of those requests have been granted.

What is true of Section 215 is true of the Patriot Act generally: On close inspection, the criticis' sound and fury tends to end up signifying nothing. In the 2-1/2 years since 9/11, Congress has undoubtedly made mistakes. The Patriot Act wasn't one of them.
 
Bob, I know you own the board and all, but please try to follow your own rules about rude and or insulting posts. Your opinion isnt any more "correct" than mine, they are both just opinions, and you damn sure aint any smarter than I am. So be a pal, and quit talking down to me, it's getting old. Not to mention that if someone else used a phrase like 'that sort of ignorance" you would ding them for it.

Why should I follow the rules TF? It's ok for the government to rewrite them and ignore them at will. Why not me? You're also regularly "talking down" to folks here, so pot kettle black and all that.

I'll be blunt, in some area's I -am- smarter than you. In others, you are smarter than I. Such is life. I'm presenting an argument against allowing the government even more access to my private life backed with facts, case studies, and even the governments own documents. Counter it if you can. Your opinion is that it's better to give up freedom for safety. Mine is that you can't give up freedom without destroying hat we are.

As to talking down to you, I'm sorry that's how you are taking this. But I haven't 'dinged' anyone since August, and May before that.

it really is simple Bob, you look at ANYTHING that gives the government more power to monitor the threats and see nothing but the potential for abuse.

Yes, I do.

Because they've repeatedly proven that they can't be trusted with it, that it will be abused, and that it doesn't make us any safer.

glass half empty and all that. a valid, tho pesimistic view. (Not that itis any real suprise, your choice of political candidates shows idealism over the reality that Barr CANT WIN. But you would rather support him, knowing that he will fail, out of idealism. Thats fine, and I dont dog you for it.)

If John McCain represented what I want in a candidate, I would vote for him. If Barack Obama represented what I want in a candidate, I would vote for him. They don't. They -both- supported expanded government involvement in my life, my wallet and neither are what this country needs today. Bob Barr does. He's running, despite knowing full well he won't win, and thousands of others are supporting him, or other 3rd party candidates because we don't want more of the same. We want change.

i see the benefits of something that YES is distastefull, but needed.

It's distasteful, and it's not needed.

Our security was a joke. Thats what allowed us to get hit in 01

It still is a joke.

glass half full, same coin, different side.

And yeah, i dont care WHAT the government does, as long as it ends with the bad guys being DEAD and us being ALIVE

And there in lies the problem. The end does not justify the means.

we are in a fight for our lives, our very way of life, you cant or wont see that because you are an idealist, you live in the world of ideals

idealism must be tempered with reality, while reality should be guilded by idealism

Idealist? Yes. But I'm also a Realist.
I refuse to sacrifice what this country was founded on, for the illusion of safety. I believe in Jefferson's view of a minimalist government, not one that subsidises arrows for kids, and free money for incompetent investors, and the circumvention of long standing rights protections because some few are pissing their pants about the boogyman. Soviet Russia was a pretty safe place. So was Iraq when Sadamn was in power. Unless you broke the law.

in martial arts terms, you are the type of martial artist that would rather die than gouge out someone's eyes.

Last real fight I got into some years back I left teeth marks in 3 locations on his body, and blackened his eye with a rock after the fight went flat.

me? i will do anything and everythign to KILL the guy thats trying to kill me.

I guess it comes from the military mindset of "us" and "them"

i could care less what happens to "them" as long as every single one of "us" comes back alive.

Why come back if the USA is becoming the USSA?

Not to mention that i have more important and pressing matters to occupy my mind, like how to pay my mothers bills, than to sweat the truly silly **** like who is listening into some cell phone call from goatherderstan.
 
They were in VIOLATION of the Patriot Act.

Cant blame the act on that.
 
One other point TF.
If you have a problem with my posts, or think they violate the rules of the site,

Report it.

Unlike our glorious Fuhrer George "Dubya" Bush, and Reichsfuhrer Dick Cheney, I'm subject to the same rules here that you are.

I don't hire "yes" men on staff, have been infracted, and even suspended in the past.
 
They were in VIOLATION of the Patriot Act.

Cant blame the act on that.
Right, so what checks and balances does it have to -prevent- more abuses?

Going "opps" after the fact isn't worth spit, IMHO.
 
Cops violate the 4th Amendment every now and then. The 4th Amendment isnt the problem (no matter what some cops may say :) ).

There is a "remedy" (or punishment) to EVERY law violation. I admit I dont know what the remedy for a PA violation is, but there are some, of that I have no doubt. If they are stiff enough (or applied properly)? I dont know.

More than likely a few FBI agents, probably not the higest ranking, lost their jobs or got sent to the Alaska field station.
 
Last edited:
Bob, I know you own the board and all, but please try to follow your own rules about rude and or insulting posts. Your opinion isnt any more "correct" than mine, they are both just opinions, and you damn sure aint any smarter than I am. So be a pal, and quit talking down to me, it's getting old. Not to mention that if someone else used a phrase like 'that sort of ignorance" you would ding them for it.

I'm tired of this. If you think Bob's post - or any of mine - or any of anyone else's - breaks the rules, REPORT THE DAMN POST. That's what the icon is THERE for. We get dings just like everyone else.

If you think Bob or ANY staff member abuses their position on this board, send an email to [email protected] and the team will review and investigate ALL posts and discussions between said staff member and the reporting member some time back as well as long-time history and make decisions accordingly.

But don't ... don't ... sit there calling everyone who disagrees with you a tin-hatter or national ingrate and then try to lob baseless shots like this at others and accuse others of performing the very deeds you commit in almost every single post.

Report this post so it may be reviewed by staff - that will be much faster than the email.

Thanks.
 
One other point TF.
If you have a problem with my posts, or think they violate the rules of the site,

Report it.

Unlike our glorious Fuhrer George "Dubya" Bush, and Reichsfuhrer Dick Cheney, I'm subject to the same rules here that you are.

I don't hire "yes" men on staff, have been infracted, and even suspended in the past.


Dude, you just Godwinned...............
 
UhDuh. I've used those references repeatedly since 2002.
But, there is a little bit of a resemblence.


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." — Thomas Jefferson

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our` servant, not our master!"
-Thomas Jefferson
 
btw: Google returns about 483,000 for bush hitler on an image search.
Seems I'm not the only one making the comparison.
 
Never said we should "trust the government". But laws and Acts are necessary components of security and justice. Wanting to scrutinize the PA is great, calling it "Orwellian" and dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it isnt.
 
Now of course, I'm just an idealist who lives in a fantasy world where the Constitution means something. It did to men like Thomas Jefferson, who helped write it, and who was president during the forumulative years of our county.

But he's long since dead, and I'm a dreamer.

So you can ignore our words.

Lets see what current sitting United Stated President George W. Bush thinks about it.

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"


It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

Tell that to the men who fell at Normandy.
 
blah blah blah blah

someone needs to switch to de-caff. In the Immortal words of Sgt Hulka, "Chill out Francis" I love how you type like you are just trembling with rage.....IT'S A MESSAGE BOARD, no one came to your church and ripped a loud smelly one.

LOL

jeebus learn to put things in perspective.

You talk as much trash and lob as many insults as any one else. And I am not the only one to have said it, so I aint making it up.

And you know what, i rarely ding anyone. It seems childish to me to go running off to teacher crying that "billy was mean to me"......

I dont have a problem with Bob's posts, but i figure the dude, who is pretty damned rational would want to know how he is comming across. I didnt take it personal.

You should try that.

seriously.
 
Back
Top