THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cyclo: I'll respond more after lunch. But I would quickly note, that those who are seeking to deprive Americans of their liberty, are the reactionaries who fear terrorist attacks. The terrorists have no ability to affect US policy or civil liberties, outside of scaring folks like you into doing it for them.

Without question; when our own country takes away our Constitutional and Civil Rights, the terrorists win.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo: I'll respond more after lunch. But I would quickly note, that those who are seeking to deprive Americans of their liberty, are the reactionaries who fear terrorist attacks. The terrorists have no ability to affect US policy or civil liberties, outside of scaring folks like you into doing it for them.

Without question; when our own country takes away our Constitutional and Civil Rights, the terrorists win.

I also fear hysterical Americans.

I said:

Quote:

Also I fear we at home cannot succeed in protecting ourselves against illegal al-Qaeda immigrants, if we fail to do three things:
(1) Fence our borders with Mexico and Canada inorder to limit illegal immigration;
(2) Monitor without warrants all communications between people in America and people outside America, and between people all of whom are outside America;
(3) Suspend the Privilege of Habeas Corpus for captured terrorists, held in America or in its territories, in accord with Article I, Section 9 of the USA Constitution.

Please be specific. What constitutional or civil rights would be taken away from American citizens or legal residents of America if:

(1) We fenced our borders with Mexico and Canada inorder to limit illegal immigration?

(2) We monitored without warrants all communications between people in America and people outside America, and between people all of whom are outside America?

(3) We suspend the Privilege of Habeas Corpus for captured terrorists held in America or in its territories, in accord with Article I, Section 9 of the USA Constitution?

(4) We prevent terrorists from terminating the legal right to life, liberty, or property of one or more American citizens or legal residents, by doing (1), (2), and (3)?

0 Replies

Number 2. I have a right to make a phone call to my cousin in France without the government monitoring it. They have no probable cause to monitor all communications that go overseas, when one participant is a US citizen.

I of course agree that the border should be closed. The Republicans who are notoriously anti-terrorists, never talk about actually doing this, b/c it would harm their big business allies.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus should apply to all people; it is a document that protects ourselves from ourselves, not just other people.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As for 1), we don't need a fence; we just need enforcement of laws already on the books. We still get thousands of shipping containers coming into our country without them being inspected for WMDs or anything else considered dangerous. Walls do not protect us unless all forms of incoming goods are inspected or are known to be safe.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Number 2. I have a right to make a phone call to my cousin in France without the government monitoring it. They have no probable cause to monitor all communications that go overseas, when one participant is a US citizen.

What makes you think the US government requires probable cause to monitor telephone calls between American citizens in the USA and other persons overseas?

USA Constitution, Amendment IV, wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

USA Constitution, Amendment V, wrote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.

USA Constitution, Amendment IX, wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you think that the people retain the right to private communications? Why do you think that?

I of course agree that the border should be closed. The Republicans who are notoriously anti-terrorists, never talk about actually doing this, b/c it would harm their big business allies.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus should apply to all people; it is a document that protects ourselves from ourselves, not just other people.

Congress has the power delegated by the USA Constitution to suspend the "privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus."

USA Constitution, Article I, Section 9, 2nd paragraph, wrote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As for 1), we don't need a fence; we just need enforcement of laws already on the books. We still get thousands of shipping containers coming into our country without them being inspected for WMDs or anything else considered dangerous. Walls do not protect us unless all forms of incoming goods are inspected or are known to be safe.

Metaphorically speaking, we discover we are in a leaking, sinking boat. It behooves us to seal the leaks as quickly as we can. The best strategy is to seal the larger leaks first, and not wait to seal any of the leaks, until we can seal them all.

The laws on the books do not stop the leaks. They are merely buckets that help us baleout some of the water.

0 Replies

Quote:

What makes you think the US government requires probable cause to monitor telephone calls between American citizens in the USA and other persons overseas?

Telephone and other electronic communications are in all ways equivalent to 'papers and effects.' It has long been recognized that mail cannot be intercepted and opened without a warrant, and certainly not without probable cause to do so; there is no functional difference between a letter, a phone call, and an email.

Quote:

Do you think that the people retain the right to private communications? Why do you think that?

Because I believe in a free country, that's why.

Quote:

Congress has the power delegated by the USA Constitution to suspend the "privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus."

Doesn't mean that they should do so. It removes our protections from what we might do, to ourselves and others.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think protecting the explicit Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property should always be granted higher priority than protecting the alleged right to privacy of international conversations.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I think protecting the explicit Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property should always be granted higher priority than protecting the alleged right to privacy of international conversations.

Privacy IS Liberty. You cannot protect one without protecting the other.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What makes you think the US government requires probable cause to monitor telephone calls between American citizens in the USA and other persons overseas?

Telephone and other electronic communications are in all ways equivalent to 'papers and effects.' It has long been recognized that mail cannot be intercepted and opened without a warrant, and certainly not without probable cause to do so; there is no functional difference between a letter, a phone call, and an email.

International conversations are not equivalent to mail or other personal effects.

Quote:
Do you think that the people retain the right to private communications? Why do you think that?

Because I believe in a free country, that's why.
What if protecting that relatively insignificant right jeopradizes the freedom of our country?

Quote:

Congress has the power delegated by the USA Constitution to suspend the "privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus."

Doesn't mean that they should do so. It removes our protections from what we might do, to ourselves and others.

I agree with the Constitution. I think it should be suspended when in the case of invasion the public safety requires it.

Cycloptichorn

But all of this discussion on the three conditions I stated for enabling us to adequately protect ourselves from terrorists within the United States is academic. I've agreed those conditions are probably not going to be met. So that's why I have concluded that our best strategy is to stay in Iraq until we succeed.

If that stay is into perpetuity, so be it. At least the right to private international conversations will have been protected. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What makes you think the US government requires probable cause to monitor telephone calls between American citizens in the USA and other persons overseas?

Telephone and other electronic communications are in all ways equivalent to 'papers and effects.' It has long been recognized that mail cannot be intercepted and opened without a warrant, and certainly not without probable cause to do so; there is no functional difference between a letter, a phone call, and an email.

International conversations are not equivalent to mail or other personal effects.

Quote:
Do you think that the people retain the right to private communications? Why do you think that?

Because I believe in a free country, that's why.
What if protecting that relatively insignificant right jeopradizes the freedom of our country?

Quote:

Congress has the power delegated by the USA Constitution to suspend the "privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus."

Doesn't mean that they should do so. It removes our protections from what we might do, to ourselves and others.

I agree with the Constitution. I think it should be suspended when in the case of invasion the public safety requires it.

Cycloptichorn

But all of this discussion on the three conditions I stated for enabling us to adequately protect ourselves from terrorists within the United States is academic. I've agreed those conditions are probably not going to be met. So that's why I have concluded that our best strategy is to stay in Iraq until we succeed.

If that stay is into perpetuity, so be it. At least the right to private international conversations will have been protected.

Why are international conversations not equivalent to mail?

What does it matter, where someone is located at on the other end?

The right to privacy is not trivial in the slightest, but extremely important to Liberty.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I think protecting the explicit Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property should always be granted higher priority than protecting the alleged right to privacy of international conversations.

Privacy IS Liberty. You cannot protect one without protecting the other.

Cycloptichorn

Some privacy is a liberty and some is only fancied as a liberty. The right to personal privacy when I am in my abode is a liberty. The right to privacy while driving down a street is not a liberty. Anyone seeing me do it is free to see me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while yelling at personal acquaintances is not a liberty. Anyone overhearing me do it is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while I engage in an international conversation IS NOT A LIBERTY! Anyone overhearing me do it on a telephone extension is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy.

0 Replies

Trying to equate driving to personal communication shows you understand nothing about privacy and the Constitution.

0 Replies

Bush lied when he said they get FISA court approval before wiretapping American citizens. Why should we believe him now?

Bush calls for expansion of spy law so long as that American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.

0 Replies

From consortiumnews.com:

Wiretap Lie

Sometimes, Bush lied even without a clear reason. For instance, during a campaign stop in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004, Bush went out of his way to mislead his listeners on the question of whether he always got warrants when he conducted wiretaps.

"By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Two years earlier, however, Bush had approved letting the National Security Agency use warrantless wiretaps to intercept international calls and other communications made by some Americans.

When Bush's wiretap lie was exposed in December 2005, the White House insisted that Bush had not lied, that his comments related only to roving wiretaps under the USA Patriot Act, an excuse that Bush adopted as his own on New Year's Day 2006.

"I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program," he said.

However, the context of Bush's 2004 statement was clear. He broke away from a discussion of the USA Patriot Act to note "by the way" that "any time" a wiretap is needed a court order must be obtained. He was not confining his remarks to "roving wiretaps" under the Patriot Act. [For Bush's 2004 speech, click here.]

Despite this history of Bush's deceptions, White House spokesman McClellan still flies into a rage whenever news organizations note that Bush has said something that turned out not to be true.

After the Washington Post's disclosure about Bush's bogus bio-war claims, McClellan called the article unfair and noted that Bush made his comments in response to a question, not in a formal speech.

"I saw some reporting saying he had gone out and given a speech about it, and that's not true," McClellan said. "I saw some reporting talking about how this latest revelation was an embarrassment for the White House. No, it's an embarrassment for the media that is out there reporting this."

McClellan said the White House also demanded and got an apology from ABC News for suggesting that Bush touted the supposed bio-lab findings while knowing that the CIA/DIA "white paper" was bogus.

"I talked to one network about it and they have expressed their apologies to the White House," McClellan said. "I hope they will go and publicly apologize on the air about the statements that were made, because I think it's important, given that they had made those statements in front of all their viewers."

Right-wing bloggers also rallied to Bush's defense.

Yet, while it may be impossible to know exactly what's in a person's head when something false is stated - whether the person thinks it's true or knows it's false - Bush's record of deception shouldn't earn him much benefit of the doubt from the American people.

When apologies start for misleading the public on matters of war and peace over the past several years, George W. Bush should be standing near the front of the line.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I think protecting the explicit Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property should always be granted higher priority than protecting the alleged right to privacy of international conversations.

Privacy IS Liberty. You cannot protect one without protecting the other.

Cycloptichorn

Some privacy is a liberty and some is only fancied as a liberty. The right to personal privacy when I am in my abode is a liberty. The right to privacy while driving down a street is not a liberty. Anyone seeing me do it is free to see me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while yelling at personal acquaintances is not a liberty. Anyone overhearing me do it is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while I engage in an international conversation IS NOT A LIBERTY! Anyone overhearing me do it on a telephone extension is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy.

You are making a false equivalence here.

You have a presumed right to privacy in your abode, b/c it is considered unreasonable that someone would be in earshot or visual range unintentionally. There's very little chance that, by accident, you will be overheard or seen running around your house naked - the walls protect that.

While walking on a public street, or in a public place, there's a great chance that you will be seen or overheard. There is a great chance that someone who is merely minding their own business, walking along, will become a part of your conversation/situation unintentionally. It isn't reasonable to expect people not to hear something which is being yelled loudly right next to them; so there's no expectation of privacy.

However, there's close to zero chance that you will be 'accidentally' overheard while making an overseas phone call from the privacy of your home. It would take an active espionage effort on the part of someone in order to intercept your communication; it wouldn't happen on its' own. Therefore, there exists a reasonable right to privacy.

You may not be aware of it, but 'telephone extensions' such as you describe don't really exist any longer. I agree that there are shared/party lines; of course, anyone picking up the phone could overhear you. But, from the privacy of my home, in which I control the extensions, there's no chance of being overheard without an active effort on someone's part to do so.

Liberty: Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. The government has no just reason to invade upon my telephonic conversation (or mail or email) with anyone, whether they are in the country or not. If they have a reason to do so, they should be able to show Probable Cause and get a warrant to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I think protecting the explicit Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property should always be granted higher priority than protecting the alleged right to privacy of international conversations.

Privacy IS Liberty. You cannot protect one without protecting the other.

Cycloptichorn

Some privacy is a liberty and some is only fancied as a liberty. The right to personal privacy when I am in my abode is a liberty. The right to privacy while driving down a street is not a liberty. Anyone seeing me do it is free to see me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while yelling at personal acquaintances is not a liberty. Anyone overhearing me do it is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy. The right to privacy while I engage in an international conversation IS NOT A LIBERTY! Anyone overhearing me do it on a telephone extension is free to overhear me do it, and denies me that privacy.

You are making a false equivalence here.

You have a presumed right to privacy in your abode, b/c it is considered unreasonable that someone would be in earshot or visual range unintentionally. There's very little chance that, by accident, you will be overheard or seen running around your house naked - the walls protect that.

Peeping Toms might disagree with you, if by doing so they would not risk arrest and, if convicted, some jail time.

While walking on a public street, or in a public place, there's a great chance that you will be seen or overheard. There is a great chance that someone who is merely minding their own business, walking along, will become a part of your conversation/situation unintentionally. It isn't reasonable to expect people not to hear something which is being yelled loudly right next to them; so there's no expectation of privacy.

However, there's close to zero chance that you will be 'accidentally' overheard while making an overseas phone call from the privacy of your home. It would take an active espionage effort on the part of someone in order to intercept your communication; it wouldn't happen on its' own. Therefore, there exists a reasonable right to privacy.

Your argument is absurd. The relative level of difficulty encountered invading someone's privacy is not a valid criterion for granting that person a right to that privacy.

You may not be aware of it, but 'telephone extensions' such as you describe don't really exist any longer.

Oh my. I better rip them all out of my house and business. I didn't know they do not exist anymore.

I agree that there are shared/party lines; of course, anyone picking up the phone could overhear you. But, from the privacy of my home, in which I control the extensions, there's no chance of being overheard without an active effort on someone's part to do so.

Liberty: Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. The government has no just reason to invade upon my telephonic conversation (or mail or email) with anyone, whether they are in the country or not. If they have a reason to do so, they should be able to show Probable Cause and get a warrant to do so.

The government monitors these calls via computer at first to determine whether or not they have probable cause for listening more directly. Probable cause is therefore not knowable prior to the call. too many opportunities to save lives will be lost following your criteria

Cycloptichorn

To overhear me in any phone call whatsoever requires nothing more than listening in on an extension to my phone or to the phone(s) of the person(s) to whom I'm talking.

Let's suppose that the right to privacy in all phone calls of any kind were to be explicitly guaranteed by a Constitutional amendment.

I would gladly give up that right for the duration of an emergency or conflict if I thought there were a chance that by doing so I would probably save a life. Lives have already been saved by monitoring only international calls without probable cause being established first.

Because I think that, I cannot understand your concern for giving up your privacy only in international calls. To me, it seems childish or paranoid. Or as Shakespeare might have said about this: much ado about nothing.

0 Replies

Looks who's talking about paranoid. ROFL

0 Replies

Robert Gates

Quote:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The 'A' group (hereafter referred to as 'we') don't believe that we can't win in Iraq, but that we won't win in Iraq. There are a variety of things that we could do to win the war in Iraq; none of them are going to be done, so, I do not perceive success coming from this endeavor.

Liked what your wrote but I have some doubts as to can't and won't. I think we could have won but today I believe we have reached a point of no return; we can't win. There is just to much hate for us. We have killed to many innocent people for the Iraqis to trust or accept us. This Blackwater case is just a long string of many incidences we don't hear about but the Iraqis are all to familiar with.

There's to much corruption in the Iraqi government and our contractors. Our troops are maxed out and can't be there indefinitely. We're getting more resistance in Afghanistan because we let the country go to hell so we could play war games in Iraq. And on top of that we're slowly talking ourselves into attacking Iran. God knows what the consequences of that will be.

It seems everything we're doing is driving us in one direction; lets see how much we can get the Muslims to hate us.

We're heavily involved in two Muslim countries and talking about attacking a third. We're in a no win situation.

And we're making Al Qaeda stronger. The more Muslims hate us the more sympathy and support AQ and any other insurgent groups get.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know