Snowdon is a dummy

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The biggest problem you're overlooking is your fear against the reality of any Middle Eastern individual getting a VISA to come to the US. We have more violence by Americans against Americans than from terrorists.

While I totally do agree that the threat of terrorism is way overstated that does not mean that we should turn our back on a very likely base for future terrorist attacks.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

We'll never 'turn our backs' on terrorists, no matter which country they originate from. That's the reason why we have the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence services that monitor the world.

1 Reply

From the article Walter left a link to, after 2016, most of the troops will leave and the ones who stay will be in an advisory role at the US embassy.

Quote:

The Pentagon plans to take the lead role in advising and training Afghan forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan, with Italy also operating in the east, Germany in the north and Turkey in Kabul.

But by the end of next year, half of the 9,800 American troops would leave Afghanistan. The rest would be consolidated in Kabul and Bagram, and then leave by the end of 2016, allowing Mr. Obama to say he ended the Afghan war before leaving office.

America’s NATO allies are expected to keep about 4,000 troops of their own in Afghanistan in 2015. The allies are expected to follow the American lead in consolidating and withdrawing their troops.

The United States could still have military advisers in Kabul after 2016 who would work out of an office of security cooperation at the United States Embassy. But the administration has not said how large that contingent might be and what its exact mission would be.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That's the reason why we have the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence services that monitor the world.

LOL................

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I know they're a joke, but that's about all we have. You can share your bright ideas with our government - which they will not listen to. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You seem to be in a bind. The tools most of those agencies use are surveillance of which you seem to disapprove in large part. Yet you don't think we should go to wars to try and fight terrorism.

The main reason I support the first is because I prefer not to have so much of the latter. However, I have already agreed if mass data collection does not work for the purpose it is designed for, we should not do it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
What part of the Geneva convention lets us pretend there is a battlefield when no such battlefield exists?

There is no pretending. The entire world is a battlefield.

If that is the case the the US is violating the Geneva convention by holding POWs in an area close to a battlefield.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You are confused! The Constitution provides us with the assurance of privacy. It doesn't protect terrorists, only American citizens. To perform a search on anyAmerican, any agency in this country must get a Search Warrant.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You are still in a bind between the two you object to.

Furthermore, the constitution does not provide us with the assurance of privacy. The fourth amendment provides us with the assurance from unreasonable search and seizure. I don't pretend to knowledgeable enough to know how US surveillance system will ultimately be judged by the Supreme Court. If they judge it to be lawful, then it will be, after all, the courts are "all we have." If they don't, then it won't be.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Sorry but the rulings of the SC means sometimes that they at this moment in time will not support the plain words of the constitution in some regard or other not that the plain words and spirit of the constitution does not ban some actions by the government.

Let see a few examples come to mind as in the SC allowing for decades separate but equal between the races or allowing Japanese Americans to be put into camps or.............

Massive spying without warrants and probable cause is unconstitutional no matter what the rulings of the SC might be.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
What part of the Geneva convention lets us pretend there is a battlefield when no such battlefield exists?

There is no pretending. The entire world is a battlefield.

If that is the case the the US is violating the Geneva convention by holding POWs in an area close to a battlefield.

If anyone wishes to organize an effort to place the detainees on the surface of the sun, I'm all for it.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Massive spying without warrants and probable cause is unconstitutional no matter what the rulings of the SC might be.

But that is not what is going on here. They do have probable cause. A lot of times they get warrants too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

They do have probable cause. A lot of times they get warrants too

You can not get probable cause for massive spying on the bulk of citizens.

By one of Snowden released anything that go over the net that is encrypted is capture for example and my encrypting a file that I am sending to my wife is not probable cause that we are doing anything illegal.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I doubt very much many understand what "probable cause" means.

Quote:

prob·a·ble cause
nounLAWNORTH AMERICAN
reasonable grounds (for making a search, pressing a charge, etc.).

and

Quote:

probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You can not get probable cause for massive spying on the bulk of citizens.

There is no requirement for probable cause when simply recording all data without looking at it. Probable cause only becomes necessary when they want to look at the data after it is recorded.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is no requirement for probable cause when simply recording all data without looking at it. Probable cause only becomes necessary when they want to look at the data after it is recorded.

Oh so they can break into your home and seized your papers or even " just" copy them for that matter but as long as they promise not to look at those papers that is just fine under the constitution?

Somehow I question that such would meet the word secure in the 4 amendment.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh so they can break into your home and seized your papers or even " just" copy them for that matter but as long as they promise not to look at those papers that is just fine under the constitution?

Probably not. Physically entering a home is a step beyond electronic intercepts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Probably not. Physically entering a home is a step beyond electronic intercepts.

Why is taping into your communications any less of an invasion of your rights and privacy then doing a black bag job on your home?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Why is taping into your communications any less of an invasion of your rights and privacy then doing a black bag job on your home?

Not sure why. That's just how society developed. Intrusions into the home are seen as a grave violation. That's why we have an easier time of it getting the courts to recognize our right to have guns for self defense in the home than we do our right to have guns for self defense out in public.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You miss the whole idea of what privacy is about. LOL

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know