COURT: NSA Wiretaps Must End - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 11:49 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
baby boo's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Vague recollection...
baby boo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 12:00 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
My longest text post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
I can't believe you admit to this. Its this kind of nanny state bed wetting mentality that is allowing the erosion of our freedom, the trampling of the constitution, and eventually the downfall of our nation. I'm ashamed to share this country with people like you.

Look at how muddled your thinking is. You don't KNOW if it they would have had enough for a warrant here to stop such an attack but your already willing to give up your freedom. What's the point? You don't want freedom and want to be SAFE (save me from those bad men government), move to somewhere else. America was founded based on an individuals right to these freedoms you so willingly give away. Millions of our countrymen have died defending those freedoms, and you relinquish them because MAYBE they will keep you safe from a terrorist attack? Sickening. Realistically, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack is somewhere around 1 in 10 million but you'll consent to a big brother state in order to avoid it.

Generally you seem like a reasonable person Gregs, I suggest you reevaluate your values.
Re: your third sentence, I could say I feel the same way about you, but I honestly don't. One freedom we have that hasn't been abridged is the right to share this country together with whatever thoughts, feelings and attitudes we want. If you don't agree with that one, the rest are out the window. Nor will I apologize for you feeling ashamed, that's certainly your right as well. But I won't suggest so cavalierly that you move -- again, it's your right to believe as you wish. If you want everyone to think and feel and believe the same...well, that's your choice, too. Personally I like a little diversity.

Turning to the remainder of your response, I don't think it's my thinking that's as muddled as the attempt to summarize it in a quick post on an online forum. Here's a different tack. The essence of my point was that I don't know enough about the facts and details of the UK case against the would-be airline bombers to determine whether, had the same scenario transpired here, our officials would have had enough to obtain a warrant. If so, then our law enforcement officials should get the warrant, period. Case closed. The tougher question is whether the information would not be enough to get a warrant. What would you have them do then? Sit around wringing their hands, hoping the bad guys slip up and give them enough for the warrant? Someplace their has to be a balancing test applied; if there some level of evidence of a major crime, then law enforcement should be granted some leeway, for at least some period of time, to dig in a bit and see if what they have is valid and plays out so that they can obtain a "normal" warrant.

Which in reality is exactly what the Constitution provides; "freedom" is not an all-or-nothing proposition, at least not in the US. While you are correct that "America was founded based on an individuals [sic] right to these freedoms" and that our countrymen have died defending our freedoms, I could suggest that it is your thinking that is muddled. The Constitutional guarantee in this fourth amendment context is not some manner of unfettered individual freedom, but to be free from searches that are unreasonable. The courts have cut down many forests discussing and determining what is "unreasonable" and they will continue to do so (and I'm very glad that we have the disparate branches of government so that law enforcement are not the ones telling us the breadth of our freedoms).

Ultimately this drama will play out as it has since the inception of the United States. As technology and the criminal mind provide different ways for those who would decimate our country to lay the groundwork for their schemes, law enforcement will try new tactics to prevent them. Challenges will be made to those tactics, and the courts will further refine, tinker and hone the fourth amendment to ensure that the balance remains in place.

I've already stated that I'm not trying to throw the fourth amendment away -- which you seem to think I am. However, if in fact our law enforcement would not have had enough for a warrant to have stopped the UK airliner plot had it happened over here, then I do in fact think that there's more room to nibble at the edges of "unreasonable". If you don't agree with that and are sickened by it, so be it. We can agree to disagree and like generations of Americans before us we'll live out our lives regardless. And I would argue that America will be better because we disagree.

And since you raised the issue: am I worried about dying in a terrorist attack? In all honesty, no, not at all. If that's the only issue, then to be honest I'm more worried about dying from some horrible wasting disease like cancer -- which is far more likely, not only for the population in general, but also for those like me who live or work close to a significant "terrorist target". After all, when you come right down to it, dying is just part of living. But terrorist attacks are not like part of life; they are carried out by people so twisted and consumed with hate and distrust that they don't care who they hurt, maim, or kill, and they are so bent that we can't even begin to understand them, even if (we think) we comprehend their motives. That said, they are close to becoming a part of life, and just as insidious -- to me, at least -- is that such actions result in significant changes to our way of life. Who didn't step on a plane for several months after 9/11 without thinking about the possibility? I'm disgusted that I can no longer step on a plane without being frisked, checked, blown on, glared at and herded like cattle -- and still can't carry a mini-leatherman because the 40mm blade might be sharp enough to scar the plastic tray on the seat-back ahead of me. And now I get to have shampoos and lotions leak in my checked luggage because I can't carry them on to the pressurized passenger cabin and I needn't bother bringing a bottle of water to the airport with me. Lovely. I can't wait until similar changes occur for other forms of public transportation.

And I return to what I've said before. I don't have a whole lot of trust where government is concerned -- and particularly so for the legislative branch (their primary goal is getting reelected). And I'm not entirely enthralled with law enforcement (nor would I want their job). Nevertheless, I'll trust the US government and each of it's branches and arms far more than I will those bent against it and our way of life.
Check Codes is offline  
post #93 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 12:27 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
What a bunch of unadulterated horseshit. This is really quite simple. The President is asking for an unlimited right to wiretap. He says he is doing it to fight terrorism, but since he says he doesn't need a warrant, to simply "trust him", that what he says he is doing, is indeed what he is doing. He says he is the first president who is not bound by the Bill of Rights, and does not have to observe the 4th Amendment.

Amercia is founded on a set of "checks and balances". Those obsolete old Founding Fathers, (who were themselves terrorists, by the way, according to the British) did this to keep The Executive Branch, which is the branch that most threatens the liberty of the people and the branch that throughout history has created dictatorships, kingships and every other form of fascism, in check. Now you tell us that we need to go back to system of kingly power, where KING GEORGE tells us that he is doing what is good for us. FUCK THAT! MY FOREFATHERS DIED TO KEEP THAT SHIT OUT OF THIS COUNTRY AND DON"T THINK FOR A FUCKING MINUTE THAT THERE IS NOT MILLIONS OF US WHO WILL DO SO AGAIN IF WE HAVE TO TO STOP YOU FUCKING FASCISTS

Come on man, chill out...we can debate opposite points of view without the bombasitc tone.

I'll say it again - under ordinary circumstances, say pre-9/11, I would find news of illegal wiretaps disturbing...I would find their order by the President directly to be both unprecedented and unwarranted.

Today, in THIS reality, it's not a black-and-white issue. Liberals tend to blast Conservatives for seeing everything as "black-and-white", but they themselves are selective in where they choose to invoke the "Shades of Gray" clause. The protection of our nation against unseen yet very real threats is a unique challenge in history. There is no precedent for this. I've not seen Bush quoted as saying "I'm the first president to whom the bill of rights does not apply", but plainly he is the first president to face such unique and sinister challenges to the security of the nation.

There are "laws" that prohibit people from taking residence or employment in this country without registering with the government. People who break those laws are called "illegal aliens". Liberals are UNBELIEVABLY soft on this issue, citing so many "shades of gray" that the 'mitigating circumstances', etc. require us righties to consider. Well, fair enough - our President has stood firm against the Republican hard-liners (myself included), and offered forth his views on a compromise plan that is fair to everyone. I guess what I'm saying in this regard, is that "turn about is fair play". Be careful which laws you want to see adhered to in "black and white" terms, and how fervently you rail against those whose views aren't as myopic or distorted..

Last edited by Qubes; 08-18-2006 at 12:29 PM.
Qubes is online now  
post #94 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 12:36 PM
Premium Member
 
offroadwarrior's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2006
Vehicle: Nice, Fast, Luxurious.
Location: NY
Posts: 817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Premium Member
That's Teacher...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
I call my dog booboo bear (his name is bear) sorry Boo. Offroadwarrior explain your choice for "cheater".
Ok I got to run and fetch coffee for the TAs and clean the blackboard before the prof shows up, oh I have his bagel ready too.
...with the letters rearranged. I meant no disrespect.

Mi$ter Right.
offroadwarrior is offline  
post #95 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 01:36 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I'm fairly certain this is the reality - those living lives even slightly above suspicion have nothing to fear.

I realize I'm taking a more "realist" approach to the argument, in response to the more "philosophical" tact you've chosen. I'm not doing this to make a fight - philosophically, I agree with you 100,000%. But as a conservative, I tend to be more of a realist, and the reality is that there are LOTS of mitigating factors here which must temper the philosophical goals of our free, liberated society...temporarily, and only temporarily, until the threat has been abated. I hope that makes my point.
That was a very good post on both sides. One thing, however is your choice of "realist". I think that those who believe that we should allow our freedoms to be compromised without strong court or legislative supervision are NOT being realists but instead are being lead somewhat by a belief that we MUST trust the government to be doing what is right for our safety. We MUST trust the Administration, without question, to fight terror at every turn. We MUST trust those who govern, and those appointed by them to only have OUR best interests in mind. That is what lacks realism. That is where I think there is a level of delusion associated with the realism.

We trusted the Administration on WMD's, that was wrong.
We trusted the Administration on Plame, that was wrong.
We trusted FEMA on Katrina, that was wrong.
We trusted DoD on a Military Plan on Iraq, that was wrong.
We trusted the Administration to shrink the economy, that was wrong.

My point is that you cannot just trust an Administration, ANY administration, blindly. They are 1/3 of the government and require strong checks and balances from the courts and Congress. This Administration is trying to get around that by using "National Security" as a screen.

This is looking a lot like the 1950's and Joseph McCarthy and his Red Under Every Bed Panic. People were saying that if you did not believe like Joe you were just a weak, liberal commie wanting to overthrow the United States. Turned out that was just not the case.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #96 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 01:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Actually, bear has his tongue in another bodily orifice. He seems to like it much better there--don't cha mc...?
In an ear? I like aural sex. I can't deny.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #97 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 01:58 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
You too? Every time I tried to stick it in my ex-wife's mouth, she'd turn her head...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #98 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 02:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
You too? Every time I tried to stick it in my ex-wife's mouth, she'd turn her head...
I believe it is a more common problem that advertised. I blame Joe McCarthy.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #99 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 02:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
I believe it is a more common problem that advertised. I blame Joe McCarthy.
It has to be President Bush's fault! Isn't everything?

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #100 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-18-2006, 02:28 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Good point! Aren't blow jobs guaranteed by the Constitution?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    NSA: We are Powerless! rstone Off-Topic 2 08-09-2006 09:37 AM
    Culture of Corruption: GOP aides Iraqi funds theft, White House stonewall on wiretaps FeelTheLove Off-Topic 2 05-11-2006 11:41 AM
    Security Expert Says Microsoft Placed NSA Backdoor In Windows. firstmb Off-Topic 9 04-08-2006 05:01 PM
    EFF suing AT&T for helping NSA illegally spy on Americans MBL87560SEC Off-Topic 2 01-31-2006 10:25 PM
    NYT: NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted firstmb Off-Topic 1 12-23-2005 11:55 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome