17
   

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:02 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Are you saying Congress wrote "secret interpretations"? The feds wrote them? The judiciary? Which part of "the state" are you referring to?

the justice department wrote the secret law, which by definition Obama is responsible for...in congress we have

Quote:
In regard to this program, a Gang of Eight (eight key members of Congress, thirteen in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional Sessions) have been kept informed to some degree:
Speaker of the House: (Dennis Hastert (R-IL))
House Minority Leader: (Dick Gephardt (D-MO); Nancy Pelosi (D-CA))
Chair and Ranking Member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: (Porter Goss (R-FL); Peter Hoekstra (R-MI); Jane Harman (D-CA))
Senate Majority Leader: (Trent Lott (R-MS); Bill Frist (R-TN))
Senate Minority Leader: (Tom Daschle (D-SD); Harry Reid (D-NV))
Chair and Vice Chair of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: (Pat Roberts (R-KS); Bob Graham (D-FL); Jay Rockefeller (D-WV))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

and there is a possibility that some people in the court system outside of the secret FISA court had knowledge of this secret law.

THAT'S IT FOLKS!
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
law abiding citizen" is by definition a citizen who is doing what the state wants them to do... I find your insinuation that rights only apply to those that the state wants to allow to have rights to be deeply offensive.

By "law-abiding" I meant a citizen who is not engaged in terrorist activity, or plans of terrorist action. I really would like to stick to this topic of phone surveillance. And, since I used the term, I am entitled to define and clarify how I am using it. And I was not insinuating the sort of interpretation you have placed on it. You're trying to use me, once again, as a strawman, by trying to distort what I meant. That's getting very tiresome.



hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:07 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
When it comes to highly classified national security information, and how it is gathered, I think there are limits to how much can be disclosed to the general public without compromising and damaging our national security efforts


show me the portion of the constitution that deals with suspension of its provisions in the name of national security. Hell, even two bit dictators tend to have the decency to publicly declare martial law first.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:17 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
By "law-abiding" I meant a citizen who is not engaged in terrorist activity, or plans of terrorist action.


Quote:
It's Congress that handed the feds the surveillance elephant gun, with the Patriot Act, and it's Congress that has to decide whether to ask for the gun back, or insist that it be modified so it can't be used as an "assault weapon" against those not engaged in terrorist activity, or plans of terrorist action..ie the assault weapon must be trained on those engaged in terrorist activity, or plans of terrorist action.


not any better, because this is America not taliban or al qaeda territory. when we stoop to the level of the thugs to "beat" the thugs the thugs win.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
You are referring to NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)--that involved wiretapping of phones and the monitoring of internet activity, like e-mails and text messages, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S.

That's not what's been going on with this current surveillance of Verizon phone customers metadata. You're making a giant, unjustified, leap.

And you are omitting to note that it was followed by The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 .
Quote:
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304, enacted 2008-07-10) is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008


So, you're not exactly up to date, or accurate, in apprising what's going on in 2013.

Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:45 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Not to detract from the scholarship and perspicacity of our Founding Fathers....I'm getting a little tired of the "Founding Fathers" arguments when it concerns current issues, such as those we are discussing in this thread....that, as a nation, we've been fairly good at eventually recognizing our missteps, and taking some measures to correct them as we've moved forward...And, right now, we have amazing technology that the government can harness and put to good use in the interests of national security and the protection of the citizenry. And it's crucial that that power be also accompanied by oversight, and legal limitations, to protect from the crossing of boundaries that define abuse, or misuse, or unconstitutional applications....

The Bill of Rights is not a misstep and the philosophy it expresses is valid forever. It is a fundamental statement about the relationship between government and the governed, as somebody here put it rather well. I have zero faith in oversight, because sooner or later the people in charge will fail in their oversight. I have faith in legal protections of my rights. I feel very sorry for you that the whole thing about the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental rights of people hasn't quite come to your attention.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:46 pm
@firefly,
i need to resource who in congress knew, but we know one intelligence subcommittee member who thinks that he was asking the right questions but got lied to by the executive branch, on march 12 2013 being just one example



if the members other than Feinstein did not know then we know that just about no one in congress knew.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 02:53 pm
So much for Obama's pledge to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:01 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
So, you're not exactly up to date, or accurate, in apprising what's going on in 2013.


And I don't think you are ff because there are many other things capable of being monitored besides terrorist activity. Who is contacting who for example. In the investment banking centres say.

If people can talk in codes then the level of contact might be more useful to know than hearing what they say.

If the government is planning turning us all into slaves of a totalitarian state then we had better rise up to stop it now rather than let it get better organised. The sort of opposition we are seeing to UTAH is coffee-shop opposition. A bit like the opposition to Assad.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:02 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Right! Some people would even say, "Even if you could PROVE that such actions would save millions of lives...I still would object, because my personal privacy is paramount.


The "some people" are perfectly free to make such a remark without being laughed at if they live in a cave with no utility services and no protection from the results of injuries, diseases and the predatory animals of the wild and especially those who don't live with such an idiotic statements.

And there would be no Lola's Coffee Shop.

In fact there would be nobody for the silly sods to say it to.

In a modern western society such people should be made to wear their underpants outside their trousers, on a 3 strikes and your out basis, so that others might be warned peacefully of their near approach.


Great visual suggestion of an appropriate approach to these kind of people, Spendius. We want to be protected from terrorists...but we also need protection from the kind of people who, unthinkingly, would put their supposed rights of privacy above the safety of the general population.

I have to think these people are simply NOT THINKING...that they are just mouthing the kinds of hatred and distrust of government that has become fundamental to so many Americans these days. It is a mantra...not an argument or conclusion.

One can understand this kind of thing in a JTT...someone who loathes America, but the people who suggest they have loyalty and want to return the country to some imagined wondrous days of yesteryear... should know better.

They just cannot be thinking.

"Underpants outside their trousers" is more appropriate than forcing them to wear a sign warning that they are in the area.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Love the idea also that anyone citizen or not can be denial the right to fly with no reason given and no courts or even an administration hearing.

You can filled out a form and ask them to reviewed whatever the reasons that you had been placed on this list but unless you are Senator Kennedy who was able to call the head of the TSA over not being able to fly back to Washington that is it.

Whole groups of average Americans had found themselves on this list including former military people and one poor guy who made his living being an airline pilot.

Took the ACLU a couple of years to get him off the list and back to work with a settlement of 200,000 dollars but still not a clue why he was placed on the list in the first place.

Secret courts are bad enough but when some nameless bureaucrat can stop your free travel for unknown reasons with little or no recourse that should only be ok to such people as Firefly and Frank.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:41 pm
@BillRM,
billy, it's kinda scary that you are arguing my side of things...

I missed the "right to fly" in the bill of rights.

which part was it in again?
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:46 pm
Well if you can't trust the word of a high school dropout, who fled to Hong Kong to make himself sound like James freaking Bond, who can you trust. Perhaps you should stick to face book and online merchants to keep your innermost thoughts and buying habits secret. I sometimes wonder why Julian Assange hasn't managed to woo any North Koreans to download government data and share it with other freedom loving/naive world residents. Never mind, I just remembered. Probably the same reason other countries with nuclear capabilities haven't reached out to the self appointed hero of transparency.

I'm thrilled to live in a country that doesn't interfere with free speech, even when it's coming from some traitorous asshole who pontificates on tropics and brags about access he simply never had. All the rest of you can continue to engage in your hissy fit about how oppressed the American people are here in this country.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:52 pm
@glitterbag,
the government has in the last week admitted enough that that dog wont hunt.

if that is your best arguement then have enough grace to throw in the towel.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 03:58 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

We should also note the difference between "being watched" and "being seen". If cameras are everywhere, or if massive amounts of data are being collected and scrutinized, and you draw attention to yourself, then you are not necessarily being watched, but you may have been seen.

To me there's a big difference between the two.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 04:00 pm
@Rockhead,
The right to travel freely or the liberty to do so should be under the fifth amendment of the constitution even if you do not think so.

And in the case of the airline pilot case his right to earn a living at his trade taken away with no court hearings or due process should also come under the deprived of property rights. Note the government did settle for 200,000 dollars in that case.

Oh the above should also apply to anyone who need to travel by air to earn their livings.

Quote:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 04:03 pm
@BillRM,
flying in an airplane is a privilege.

no matter how spoiled one gets...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 04:06 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

flying in an airplane is a privilege.

no matter how spoiled one gets...

according to the American government so is just about everything else when it comes to Americans. Human rights and fidelity to law are reserved for other people.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 04:12 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
flying in an airplane is a privilege.


LOL will the airline companies themselves surely could refused to carry anyone but not the government ordering the airlines a common carrier not to carry someone that is a horse of another color.

By the way is walking out your door onto the public sidewalk a right that can be taken away without any hearing? Is that a privilege that the government can denial you without a court being involved by your theory?

In other word can the government lock you into your home or at least to your property without a hearing for the rest of your life by banning you from being on public property?
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2013 04:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:


http://aclu-or.org/nofly

The ACLU of Oregon joined the national ACLU and other affiliates in Southern California, Northern California and New Mexico in filing the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and the Terrorist Screening Center in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs on the case are:

• Ayman Latif, a U.S. citizen and disabled Marine veteran living in Egypt who has been barred from flying to the United States and, as a result, cannot take a required Veterans’ Administration disability evaluation;
• Raymond Earl Knaeble, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Army veteran who is stuck in Santa Marta, Colombia after being denied boarding on a flight to the United States;
• Steven Washburn, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Air Force veteran who was prevented from flying from Europe to the United States or Mexico; he eventually flew to Brazil, from there to Peru, and from there to Mexico, where he was detained and finally escorted across the border by U.S. and Mexican officials;
• Samir Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, Abdullatif Muthanna, Nagib Ali Ghaleb and Saleh A. Omar, three American citizens and a lawful permanent resident of the United States who were prevented from flying home to the U.S. after visiting family members in Yemen;
• Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, a U.S. citizen and resident of Portland, Oregon who was prevented from flying to visit his daughter who is in high school in Dubai;
• Adama Bah, a citizen of Guinea who was granted political asylum in the United States, where she has lived since she was two, who was barred from flying from New York to Chicago for work; and
• Halime Sat, a German citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States who lives in California with her U.S.-citizen husband who was barred from flying from Long Beach, California to Oakland to attend a conference and has since had to cancel plane travel to participate in educational programs and her family reunion in Germany.

According to the ACLU’s legal complaint, thousands of people have been added to the “No-Fly List” and barred from commercial air travel without any opportunity to learn about or refute the basis for their inclusion on the list. The result is a vast and growing list of individuals who, on the basis of error or innuendo, have been deemed too dangerous to fly but who are too harmless to arrest.

“Without a reasonable way for people to challenge their inclusion on the list, there’s no way to keep innocent people off it,” said Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “The government’s decision to prevent people from flying without giving them a chance to defend themselves has a huge impact on people’s lives – including their ability to perform their jobs, see their families and, in the case of U.S. citizens, to return home to the United States from abroad.”

ACLU of Oregon Executive Director David Fidanque said that most people assume the no fly list is kept by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but that is not the case.

“It is only the FBI-run ‘Terrorist Screening Center’ which has the authority to take someone off the list,” Fidanque said. “The FBI has refused to provide any opportunity for individuals to find out why they are on the list or to rebut the information that led to the FBI’s decision.”

In addition to Wizner and Choudhury, attorneys on the case are Kevin Díaz and cooperating attorney Steven Wilker with the ACLU of Oregon; Ahilan Arulanantham, Jennie Pasquarella and cooperating attorney Reem Salahi with the ACLU of Southern California; Alan Schlosser and Julia Harumi Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; and Laura Ives of the ACLU of New Mexico.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 07:08:21