Author Topic: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.  (Read 9807 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2007, 10:36:46 PM »
This isn't a real war and there is zero reason to allow these Fascists to take our rights away. There is little chance that we shall ever get them back.

 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2007, 11:22:46 PM »

You're making light of something that anyone willing to take the threat seriously knows to be true. Technology has changed the game. Time is of the essence, and sometimes, we need to act with the "speed of summer lighting"


On the contrary, I take the situation very seriously. I think you and Pete Hoekstra are the ones not taking it seriously. You're seem to be looking for any action that provides the appearance of doing something and the impression of adding to our power, and damned be the consequences because we're fighting a war against foreign enemies. What was that James Madison said? Something about if tyranny comes to this land it will come in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head, but I believe he was correct.

I am almost (but not quite) reluctant to quote from A Man for All Seasons again, but it fits this conversation. Sir Thomas More is having a conversation with his wife, his daughter and his (as I recall) soon to be son-in-law, William Roper. Someone else, a not very nice fellow, has just left the room and the wife insists:
"Arrest him!"

      More: For what?
      Wife: He's dangerous!
      Roper: For all we know he's a spy!
      Daughter: Father, that man's bad!
      More: There's no law against that.
      Roper: There is, God's law!
      More: Then let God arrest him!
      Wife: While you talk he's gone!
      More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
      Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
      More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
      More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

If we give a good gorram about laws and protecting people lives, then we damn well need to be a sight more serious than to cast about for what powers we can give to the government so we can feel protected.

I've watched for a couple of decades now Republican politicians, pundits, et cetera, complain about liberals and socialists and Democrats pushing a "nanny state", pushing policies that unrealistically seek to protect us from the cradle to the grave. And yet now I see Republican politicians, pundits, et cetera, do everything they can to find more government skirts to hide behind. All that talk about smaller government, and when a threat raises its head, the first solution out of these people's mouths is let's give the government more power. What a bunch of intellectually shallow pantywaists.

Okay, perhaps that last sentence is unfair. But not by much. I'm tired of watching talking heads continually repeating "We're at war! We're at war!" as if that is supposed to be some sort of excuse to abandon basic principles of rights and liberty. The terrorists want to kill us. They want to destroy America. Yes, and abandoning principles is not the way to stop them from doing that. We're so afraid of the threat from without that we are falling over ourselves to see who can throw away principles first in the name of security, something we cannot get from the government no matter how much power we hand over.

And you think I'm making light of the situation? Pooh yi. I suggest then you don't even understand what the situation is.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 11:25:45 PM by Universe Prince »
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2007, 12:36:09 AM »

The consequences of missing such communications materialized on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and America responded by creating a terrorist surveillance program so that we were not caught blind again.


That statement is just plain untrue. We already had intelligence indicating a threat. For various reasons (apparently mostly related to inter-agency communication and supervisory incompetence), it wasn't acted upon. But I've yet to see a case made that restrictions on intelligence gathering contributed to the attack.

I'd like to hear about a specific example supporting that proposition, thankyouverymuch.
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8039
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2007, 02:28:04 AM »
I think last year I pointed out several pornsite were shut down and fol;ks here simply din`t care.
this is not entirely an issue about national security.
this is an issue about abuse
the porn subject I just bring up is a perfect example that little by little our rights will get chipped away by things not related to security.
note nobody addressing ways to prevent abuse
ex. wiretapping HAS to be relating to national security


funnything though
you`d think with all this legal freedom we`d of try to stop drug trafficking.
strange how porn is more a priority than drugs

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2007, 02:36:45 AM »
Quote
ex. wiretapping HAS to be relating to national security

No it doesn't. It can be related to national security , but it could also be related to domestic or international criminal activity.


BTW were the pornsites shut down for alledged National security reasons or were they shut down because of some other violations, kiddie porn for example.



yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2007, 02:53:10 AM »



funnything though
you`d think with all this legal freedom we`d of try to stop drug trafficking.
strange how porn is more a priority than drugs

[/quote]   


Here is a clue:  both porn and drugs are multi-billion dollar industries.

Did you think all that profit went to the little black boys on the corner and the creeps in porn stores?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8039
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2007, 03:06:08 AM »
the porn site were continualybeing investigated to the point they just shut down
and it`s not kiddy porn
if it was kiddy porn I wouldn`t even posted
there was no crime commited by the site
it was a bondage story site
and since these folks are naturally submissive
they folded



BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2007, 03:09:43 AM »
Who was investigating them and for what?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8039
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2007, 03:11:37 AM »
Here is a clue:  both porn and drugs are multi-billion dollar industries.

Did you think all that profit went to the little black boys on the corner and the creeps in porn stores?

what are you talking about
porn is not smuggled to the U.S. like cocaine

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8039
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2007, 03:14:51 AM »
Who was investigating them and for what?


abit late to ask that question now
you should of ask me that then
in fact i think you said something like no loss

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2007, 09:56:00 AM »

You're making light of something that anyone willing to take the threat seriously knows to be true. Technology has changed the game. Time is of the essence, and sometimes, we need to act with the "speed of summer lighting"


On the contrary, I take the situation very seriously. I think you and Pete Hoekstra are the ones not taking it seriously. You're seem to be looking for any action that provides the appearance of doing something and the impression of adding to our power, and damned be the consequences because we're fighting a war against foreign enemies. What was that James Madison said? Something about if tyranny comes to this land it will come in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head, but I believe he was correct.

I am almost (but not quite) reluctant to quote from A Man for All Seasons again, but it fits this conversation. Sir Thomas More is having a conversation with his wife, his daughter and his (as I recall) soon to be son-in-law, William Roper. Someone else, a not very nice fellow, has just left the room and the wife insists:
"Arrest him!"

      More: For what?
      Wife: He's dangerous!
      Roper: For all we know he's a spy!
      Daughter: Father, that man's bad!
      More: There's no law against that.
      Roper: There is, God's law!
      More: Then let God arrest him!
      Wife: While you talk he's gone!
      More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
      Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
      More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
      More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

If we give a good gorram about laws and protecting people lives, then we damn well need to be a sight more serious than to cast about for what powers we can give to the government so we can feel protected.

I've watched for a couple of decades now Republican politicians, pundits, et cetera, complain about liberals and socialists and Democrats pushing a "nanny state", pushing policies that unrealistically seek to protect us from the cradle to the grave. And yet now I see Republican politicians, pundits, et cetera, do everything they can to find more government skirts to hide behind. All that talk about smaller government, and when a threat raises its head, the first solution out of these people's mouths is let's give the government more power. What a bunch of intellectually shallow pantywaists.

Okay, perhaps that last sentence is unfair. But not by much. I'm tired of watching talking heads continually repeating "We're at war! We're at war!" as if that is supposed to be some sort of excuse to abandon basic principles of rights and liberty. The terrorists want to kill us. They want to destroy America. Yes, and abandoning principles is not the way to stop them from doing that. We're so afraid of the threat from without that we are falling over ourselves to see who can throw away principles first in the name of security, something we cannot get from the government no matter how much power we hand over.

And you think I'm making light of the situation? Pooh yi. I suggest then you don't even understand what the situation is.



I know just the scene you mean , and it is indeed a very good thought.

But we have always acted as if we hadd the right to spy on other countrys , is there a country where anything a spy does is leagal?

It is not safe to have no spys , and the regulations on these spys need to make some sense.

We can't restrict spys to doing only what is leagal , elese there will be none.

If this regulation actually prohibits the tapping of Osama's phone how is my safety or freedom enhanced by it?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2007, 11:38:50 AM »
Quote
abit late to ask that question now
you should of ask me that then
in fact i think you said something like no loss

That is quite possible. But as i don't remember the posts nor the details i must rely on you to refresh my memory and provide the details.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2007, 01:07:43 PM »

If this regulation actually prohibits the tapping of Osama's phone how is my safety or freedom enhanced by it?


I don't believe anyone objected to tapping Osama's phone. The objection was to doing so without a warrant. No one is suggesting that the intelligence agencies should not have tools to do their jobs. To object to the abuse of power is not to deny there is a legitimate place for government or law enforcement or intelligence gathering.

You're illustrating, probably unintentionally, something I said before. You are essentially subscribing to the notion that without more power U.S. intelligence is unable to do anything to track or find or investigate terrorists. And as I said before, I know of no reason to believe that notion is true.

In any case, I want to counter your question with one of my own. If you allow the government to set aside the principles of individual rights and liberty any time a threat arises, does that really enhance your safety and freedom?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2007, 11:34:13 PM by Universe Prince »
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2007, 09:07:40 PM »
>>This isn't a real war and there is zero reason to allow these Fascists to take our rights away. There is little chance that we shall ever get them back.<<

I remember something about cutting of your nose to spite your face ...

You're peddling nonsense. All your bullshit about rights means nothing compared to the alternative. This issue has been through the courts several times and some have been thrown out as illegal, and others have been deemed legal. It's settled. The Congress just passed a bill outlining  the process. LOOK IT UP. READ IT. My guess is you have no idea what it even says.

So spare me your nonsense about rights and support the governments ability to keep Americans safe from attack from these fascist animals who would love to take your precious rights and choke you with them.

But not to worry. The left/communists are doing their best to remove anything that might actually help us win this war, so just wait to 08' and then you'll see just how dangerous you are.

House Approves Wiretap Bill

Sunday August 5, 2007 3:31 AM

By CHARLES BABINGTON

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, ``Protecting America is our most solemn obligation.''

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals ``reasonably believed to be outside the United States.'' Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that ``foreign intelligence information'' is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don't touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury.

The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

``This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,'' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. ``I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment,'' which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans disputed her description. ``It does nothing to tear up the Constitution,'' said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, ``we go through a process called minimization'' and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

--

The bill is S. 1927.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2007, 12:38:28 AM »

If this regulation actually prohibits the tapping of Osama's phone how is my safety or freedom enhanced by it?


I don't believe anyone objected to tapping Osama's phone. The objection was to doing so without a warrant. No one is suggesting that the intelligence agencies should not have tools to do their jobs. To object to the abuse of power is not to deny there is a legitimate place for government or law enforcement or intelligence gathering.

You're illustrating, probably unintentionally, something I said before. You are essentially subscribing to the notion that without more power U.S. intelligence is unable to do anything to track or find or investigate terrorists. And as I said before, I know of no reason to believe that notion is true.

In any case, I want to counter your question with one of my own. If you allow the government to set aside the principles of individual rights and liberty any time a threat arises, does that really enhance your safety and freedom?


  The reason to beleive it ,is that with lots of warning that uch things might be afoot , a gang of Al Queda operatives ran loose all over the US in the years of 99 ,00 and 01 , attending schools , phoning home and receveing financeing but escapeing notice untill they caused damage in 01. The methods in use earlyer were inadequite ,the methods in use now are better , the evidence beng the dearth of simular attacks .

  After a while of being safe we will become complacent again , and the Attacs will have success again , then the threat to freedom will be the new measures in response?