View Poll Results: Is this bill good for America?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security

    4 23.53%
  • No, it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion

    12 70.59%
  • I am not sure

    1 5.88%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

  1. #1

    Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

    By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
    Wed Jul 9, 4:38 PM ET

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_bi_ge/terrorist_surveillance&printer=1;_ylt=At6cbDTQRKjRcFuEKe7n.3Rv24cA[/url]

    Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

    The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

    Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security.

    "This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planing," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

    The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to protect from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed, and all are pending before a single U.S. District court.

    Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

    The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

    "This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

    The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

    Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

    But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

    Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

    Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

    The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

    The measure effectively dismisses about 40 lawsuits that have been bundled together. But at least three other lawsuits against government officials will go forward.

    In one of those cases last week, a judge decided that surveillance laws trumped the government's claim that state secrets were imperiled by the lawsuit. However, the judge said the plaintiff could not use classified government documents it had accidentally received to prove it was subjected to illegal eavesdropping. It must instead use unclassified information to show it was wiretapped without court approval. FISA makes provisions for the use of secret evidence once a case is accepted.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

    Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

    For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

    The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

    The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

    The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

    The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

    The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."

  2. #2
    There is a simple answer to all of this...

    It started a few years back with surveillance of communications going out of and into the country.

    Now its surveillance of that plus communications within the country.

    If this kind of surveillance can be circumvented, then, it's pointless.

    It can be circumvented. Obviously, there must be a way of doing this.

    At some point in the future the temptation will prove to be too great for someone or some body with the inclination to abuse this to resist that temptation.

    It's going to happen. Just a matter of when.

    Therefore, it should be shut down now before we are desensitized to it in the future where it can do far more harm since we will care less about it then than we do now.


    Thanks for the opportunity to give my take on this important issue.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Any bill that the ACLU is against sounds like a good one to me!

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,946
    Absolute ****. Bush would have fit in great in Nazi Germany or communist Russia. Conservative my ass. That both Republicans and Democrats in the senate gave their approval to this demonstrates that neither party is to be trusted anymore...both want to shove government so far up your ass it pops out of your mouth.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2621407]Any bill that the ACLU is against sounds like a good one to me![/QUOTE]

    So, skinheads, the KKK, and fans of ultimate fighting support McCain. What's your point?

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,946
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2621407]Any bill that the ACLU is against sounds like a good one to me![/QUOTE]

    That's because you're either stupid or intellectually lazy...you'd rather just operate on mental cruise control--ask which way the ACLU is voting and vote the opposite. The ACLU is wrong a lot of the time and in its day has defended some true scumbags. But this time they happen to be right. Go ahead though...support big government and unchecked government surveillance of your personal life. Join the Big Brother 1984 party. By the way (while I rarely do this) I just ran a remote scan of temp files on your hard drive. Naughty boy, you are. Shall I post what I found?
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 07-09-2008 at 11:47 PM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;2621572]Absolute ****. Bush would have fit in great in Nazi Germany or communist Russia. Conservative my ass. That both Republicans and Democrats in the senate gave their approval to this demonstrates that neither party is to be trusted anymore...both want to shove government so far up your ass it pops out of your mouth.[/QUOTE]

    Not just any Democrats, Obama specifically showed up to vote for it. McCain didn't cast a vote and Hillary voted no. The wrong woman won the nomination for the Dems. Obama is moving to the right on civil liberties and the left on the economy. If Bush is a Nazi, Obama looks like he will rule like Stalin.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-10-2008 at 05:04 AM.

  8. #8
    [B][SIZE="4"]"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." [/B]
    -James Madison[/SIZE]

  9. #9
    This is an outrage! We are now living in Nazi Germany.

    Sincerely,

    Ignorantjetsfan

    [img]http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/-/c/ted_kennedy_hooters.jpg[/img]

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2621407]Any bill that the ACLU is against sounds like a good one to me![/QUOTE]

    I disagree. They are (IMO) a bit extreme, but they serve a vital function in our society, similar in fact, to the 2nd Amendment.

    I.e. Never Let the Govt. Think It Can Get Away With Whatever It Wants.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2621761][B][SIZE="4"]"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." [/B]
    -James Madison[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    I'm curious.....any Madison comments on Islamic Fundemantalism, Suicide Bombings, Religious Jihad, Treatement of Illegal Combatants in breach of every Law of War, or Terrorism?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2622139]I'm curious.....any Madison comments on Islamic Fundemantalism, Suicide Bombings, Religious Jihad, Treatement of Illegal Combatants in breach of every Law of War, or Terrorism?[/QUOTE]

    Actually there is. And despite a real threat to our democracy, Madison still found the courage to not use these events to exploit Americans into giving the government greater control of their lives.

    .....any Madison comments on Islamic Fundemantalism?,

    well, here is what he had to deal with....

    [I]The Colonial War Against Islam
    By Andrew Walden
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, January 05, 2007

    America has been fighting Islamists for longer than many realize. Even before independence was declared, American ships were pirated and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”—an Ottoman Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. When the colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American ships lost Royal Navy protection. A Revolutionary War-era alliance with France offered French protection to US ships, but it expired in 1783. Immediately, U.S. ships came under attack and in October 1784 the American trader “Betsey” was taken by Moroccan forces. This was followed with Algerians and Libyans (Tripolitans) capturing two more U.S. ships in 1785.

    Lacking the ability to project U.S. naval force in the Mediterranean, America tried appeasement. In 1784, Congress agreed to fund tributes and ransoms in order to rescue U.S. ships and buy the freedom of enslaved American sailors.

    In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

    that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

    Sound familiar?

    In this 1790 satirical piece, his last published letter, Ben Franklin, in the midst of a Congressional debate on slavery, compares the arguments of pro-slavery Southerners (“Mr. Jackson”, a South Carolina delegate) to the arguments of a hypothetical Algerian Muslim “Mussulmen” pirate, Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim. The rationalizations, justifications and excuses of Franklin’s “Sidi” are almost word-for-word those of the Georgia and South Carolina Congressional delegates. The Algerian Islamic “Erika” sect was an allegory to members of the American Christian “Quaker” sect who in 1790 unsuccessfully petitioned Congress, with Franklin’s support, for an end to the importation of slaves from Africa. (Text and link below.)

    Ben Franklin died on April 17, 1790, just 25 days after his letter was published.

    Congress in 1790 did not come up with a means to end the slave trade, much less slavery itself. This is largely because representatives of South Carolina and Georgia threatened secession, which could have led to war or complete or partial dissolution of the Union. As with any appeasement of evil, the problem continued and festered, growing worse until finally a much larger war--the Civil War-- broke out 71 years later causing 600,000 American casualties. Also killed by appeasement were untold numbers of African slaves during the Atlantic crossing or during enslavement.



    And the Muslims? By 1800, the annual tribute and ransom payments first agreed in the mid-1780s amounted to about $1 million--20% of the federal budget. (For fiscal year 2007, 20 percent of U.S. revenues would equal $560 billion.) In May, 1801 Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli, declared war on America by chopping down the flagpole in front of the U.S. Consulate. Seventeen years after appeasement and tribute payments had begun, President Thomas Jefferson led America into the First Barbary War.



    From May of 1801 to June 10, 1805, sailors and Marines of the young American nation fought battles immortalized in a line of the Marine Hymn: “to the shores of Tripoli.” As American forces approached Tripoli on land threatening to capture it, Karamanli suddenly became interested in negotiations. The war ended with a treaty exchanging prisoners, Americans giving Karamanli another $60,000 in ransom and an agreement from the Muslims to cease attacks on U.S. ships.



    But for a Muslim to keep his word to an infidel at the expense of opportunities to expand Islamic power is the Islamic equivalent of a mortal sin. In 1807, Muslim pirate attacks on American ships began anew. As a result Americans led by President James Madison fought Algerians in the Second Barbary War in 1815, leading to another treaty under which the Muslims paid American $10,000 for damages. The Algerian ruler almost immediately repudiated the new treaty after the U.S. departure and again began piracy and the enslavement of captured Christian sailors necessitating an 1816 Anglo-Dutch shelling of Algiers and ultimately the colonization of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881 by France and Libya in 1911 by Italy. By then most of the Islamic world was under Christian domination. With the Ottoman Empire defeated in WW1, secularist Turkish rebels in 1923 overthrew the last Islamic Caliphate, destroying the pinnacle of Islamist power and ending a line of succession allegedly reaching back to Mohammed.



    The trend of Muslim defeat began to reverse after the Second World War even though many Muslim leaders had backed Hitler’s Third Reich. Most Islamic countries became independent of Christian colonial rule between 1946 when Jordan achieved independence and 1971 when Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE finally became independent of Britain. The next year, Muslim terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes and one German police officer at the Olympic Games in what became known as the Munich massacre, an attack which some see as opening the current war between Islam and the West. In an echo of the Barbary Pirates, an airliner was hijacked in October 1972 causing Germany to release to Libya the two terrorists being held for trial in the attack.



    And the Quakers? Today the Quaker “American Friends Service Committee” no longer demands resolute action against slavery. They are on the other side – serving the modern equivalents of Franklin’s allegorical Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim by demanding that America once again appease the Islamists. Their demand for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of Islamist attacks aimed to re-enslave the populations of those countries will get America into a much larger war a lot sooner than the 17 years to took for appeasement to lead to war at the end of the 18th Century.



    Ben Franklin’s use of an imaginary Algerian pirate to satirize a pro-slavery Congressman shows his clear understanding of the danger posed by Islamism. Modern day Americans would do well to consider the lessons of the War with Islamism fought by Thomas Jefferson and again by James Madison and this alternate meaning in Franklin’s final words of warning.[/I]

    [url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A6EBD0E7-C3FF-4D27-94B6-282C1174D2D8[/url]

    Treatement of Illegal Combatants in breach of every Law of War, or Terrorism?

    [I]War of 1812

    JAMES MADISON War Message To Congress
    JUNE 1, 1812

    Without going back beyond the renewal in 1803 of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral nation.

    British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self-redress is assumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign which falls within the definition of war....

    The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects alone that, under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public law and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from everything dear to them; have been dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation and exposed, under the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors, and to be the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren.

    Against this crying enormity, which Great Britain would be so prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations, and that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British Government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements such as could not be rejected if the recovery of British subjects were the real and the sole object. The communication passed without effect.

    British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the pace of our coasts. They hover over and harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless proceedings in our very harbors, and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdiction....

    Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate force and sometimes without the practicability of applying one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea, the great staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets, and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests....

    Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste our neutral trade, the cabinet of Britain resorted at length to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of orders in council, which has been molded and managed as might best suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of British cruisers....

    It has become, indeed, sufficiently certain that the commerce of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but as interfering with the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend that she may the better carry on a commerce with an enemy—a commerce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which are for the most part the only passports by which it can succeed....

    In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that Government.

    Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have been heaped on our country, and such the crisis which its unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been able to avert....

    Our moderation and conciliation have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance and to enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country which owes them protection. We behold our vessels, freighted with the products of our soil and industry, or returning with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful destinations, confiscated by prize courts no longer the organs of public law but the instruments of arbitrary edicts, and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced or inveigled in British ports into British fleets....

    We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

    Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation....[/I]

    [url]http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/ap/War1812.htm#Madison[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-10-2008 at 06:08 PM.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    the only surveillance that should be legal is when the homes of black-American civil rights workers are wiretapped and approved by the whoremongering, pill popping kennedy brothers...


    [QUOTE]On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/garrow[/url]

  14. #14
    I wonder what would have been heard on the wire taps as these events unfolded...:zzz::zzz::zzz:

    [B][SIZE="4"]Iran-Contra affair[/SIZE][/B]

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel with those weapons and receive payment from Israel.

    Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements

    Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[54] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of conspiracy, lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. Arthur L. Liman served as chief counsel for the Senate during the Iran-Contra Affair.[55]

    The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Caspar Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[56]

    In 1992 George H. W. Bush pardoned six convicted administration officials, namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert McFarlane, and Caspar Weinberger.[57]

    George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.[58][59] They include:

    Elliott Abrams:[60] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran-Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
    Otto Reich:[61] head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
    John Negroponte:[62] under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.
    Admiral John Poindexter:[63] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran-Contra, found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
    In Poindexter's hometown of Odon, Indiana, a street was renamed to John Poindexter Street. Bill Breedan, a former minister, stole the street's sign in protest of the Iran-Contra Affair. He claimed that he was holding it for a ransom of $30 million, in reference to the amount of money given to Iran to transfer to the contras. He was later arrested and confined to prison, making him, as satirized by Howard Zinn, "the only person to be imprisoned as a result of the Iran-Contra affair."[64]

  15. #15
    If this kind of surveillance could've prevented 911, would you be for it?


    Personally, I feel like my privacy is much more invaded at the airport, but that's the price we all pay for safety.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2626068][B]If this kind of surveillance could've prevented 911, would you be for it?[/B]

    Personally, I feel like my privacy is much more invaded at the airport, but that's the price we all pay for safety.[/QUOTE]

    [B][SIZE="4"]"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." [/B]
    -Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE]

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2626075][B][SIZE="4"]"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." [/B]
    -Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE][/QUOTE]




    Got any quotes from this century? The times that Ben Franklin lived in were just a tad bit different from today.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2626075][B][SIZE="4"]"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." [/B]
    -Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    It's a nice quote but it doesn't have any application to the world we live in. What does that mean, exactly? No metal detectors in airports? No criminal background checks for new employees? No security checkpoints at political speeches and rallies?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2626075][B][SIZE="4"]"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." [/B]
    -Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    If you are going to keep on using this quote, at least be intellectually honest and use the proper quote, not an edited one that suites your purposes.
    [url]http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=1144[/url]

    Benjamin Franklin and Other Founders Were Principled, Not Stupid or Suicidal

    An emailer opposed to the extension of the Patriot Act (and apparently traumatized by George Orwell's 1984) crudely took exception to my call to renew the Patriot Act for the duration of the War on Terror by simplistically invoking these words--"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"--and misattributing them to Benjamin Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin would be aghast to be misquoted and misused.

    [B]"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759).[/B]

    This motto was attributed to Mr. Franklin in the edition of 1812.

    In a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, however, Mr. Franklin stated that he published this book and denied that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.

    The phrase itself was first used in a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania.

    [B]Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book.[/B]

    With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been attributed to Franklin:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
    "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

    The emailer, of course, missed the key word "essential." Or, worse, deliberately and deceitfully omitted it.

    Is it essential that the government refrain from surveilling for national security purposes telephone calls from abroad to Americans at home, with or without a warrant from a judge, but with the authorization of America's President and Commander-in-Chief, during the War on Terror occasioned by the attacks on America on September 11, 2001?
    NO!

    It is essential that the government surveil for national security purposes such telephone calls, with or without a warrant from a judge, but with the authorization of America's President and Commander-in-Chief, because (1)America's Constitution is not a suicide pact, (2) terrorists have no right under it to privacy in telephoning, (3) an American's usual freedom from warrantless surveillance of telephone calls from abroad does not prevail when the government reasonably believes the telephone calls may involve terrorists plotting to attack America, (4) that freedom is hardly what the Founders considered "an essential liberty" and (5) protecting America from attacks like the September 11 attacks, or worse, is essential, and the time and attention needed to do the job as well as possible should not be wasted or diverted in order to follow time-consuming and, in such circumstance, needless, bureaucratic procedure when it is readily conceivable that terrorists will attack American cities with weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and/or even nuclear, and time is of the essence.

    At the signing of America's Declaration of Independence in 1776, Mr. Franklin did say: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
    He meant that the rebels would either band together as Americans or be hung individually at the gallows.

    Egomaniacs and hedonistic fools did not win America's independence. We Americans of today should not allow egomaniacs and hedonistic fools among us to undermine America during the War on Terror and to endanger the lives of millions of us by treating telephone privacy as supremely important. (The telephone was invented long after America's Constitution was adopted and its Bill of Rights was ratified, so the Founders secured and maintained "essential liberty" without it.).

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    706
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2625219]the only surveillance that should be legal is when the homes of black-American civil rights workers are wiretapped and approved by the whoremongering, pill popping kennedy brothers...




    [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/garrow[/url][/QUOTE]

    I'd rather have whore mongering pill-poppers tapping my phone that war mongering coke heads...but that is just me:D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us