That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.



I may be wrong here, but you seem to have taken my use of the word "cases" in the above post to be "court cases". If so, this is my fault for careless wording. In that part of the post, I should probably have written "examples", or "instances".



In these particular cases (and here, yes, these are legal cases), the actions of the federal prosecutors may be unconstitutional. We will have to see as they make their way through the court system. In the final analysis, whether or not something is unconstitutional depends on not on what the US Constitution actually says, but rather what the US supreme Court says it says.

Well, perhaps. Here is what you wrote.



Yes. No arguments there. The Legislature passes law, the Executive implements law, and the Judiciary interprets law. That is one of the reasons I’d like to see a more liberal Chief Executive, as the President nominates the Supreme Court Justices. The U.S. Constitution has never, thankfully, been carved in stone, but rather has been interpreted by seasoned jurists within the context of the United States of the time.

I was thinking perhaps that we might graph the value of the number unwarranted searches and wiretaps (the bad count) divided by the number of searches and wiretaps which had previously been approved by a federal judge (the good count) over time. If the results showed a positive trend line then we could conclude that you concerns were justified. If the trend line was flat or negative, then we could conclude that the situation was, if nothing else, less worrisome than might appear if one’s only source of information was a nearby newspaper.

To really get the goods on the current administration, what would be ideal would be to start the graph in 1997. That way, if there is a change in the slope of the graph from flat or negative to positive starting in 2000 (or thereabouts) and continuing to date, you would have a very strong indication indeed that the problem exists, and that it is unambiguously associated in time with the current occupants of the White House.

Gentlefolk,

On the general subject about the merit or value of foreign intelligence in shaping the decision making process of nations (influencing foreign policy), this item became available just today from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Recognizing there are significant gaps in the Intelligence Community’s Iran reporting, it goes on to recommend stepped up coverage of Iran, including enhancing human intelligence and Farsi-language capabilities and improving intelligence coordination and analysis to eliminate duplication.”

Also, on the role intelligence plays in protecting the border …

etc. etc. etc.

Would that be Pine Gap ?

they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither. ~ ben franklin

Exactly-what I wrote was "If you believe the US government does not engage in illegal wiretappiig without a warrant, one is delusional".

That has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with me: thus, to say that I said it does is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.



This course of action as outlined would be a useful experiment indeed. Hm, does either of us have the time and resources to devote to such a project? (Not just a rhetorical question).

gekkogecko,


That is not what you wrote. Let us look again at what you wrote.

You expressed your opinion clearly “Yes, they do.”
You then expressed your opinion clearly about those who do not agree with you “If one believes otherwise, one is delusional.”
These two declarative sentences equate those who disagree with your opinion as delusional.

No sir, I believe there is no mischaracterization.


Yes sir, I think it would be.


I presume this is your way of saying that you decline to provide evidence to support your claims that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”. Perhaps you believe that unnecessary. I trust you will excuse me if I point out that unsubstantiated claims are less convincing than those backed up by evidence.

I don't think it was Belial...but i cant quite remember all the details as it was ages ago i watched that.....will sniff around later and see if i can find anything on it

This is not an "opinion". This is a statement of fact, one that you yourself acknowledged when you wrote about the frequency of occurrence. That latter part-the frequency of such occurrences-is where we disagreed, and where the aspect of opinion comes in.



There is a mischaracterization, and since you insist on continuing such, I must question your motivations in doing so. To whit, I will further point out that I regard this continued mischaracterization as an offensive trivilization of my position.



No, I was stating exactly the situation here: it would be a valuable exercise to gather the data on the number of warrantless searches that have taken place since the current administration took office, and compare that data with previous occurrences of warrantless searches. However, the obstacles to such data gatherign should be obvious. I honestly don't have the time to devote to such a project on my own. I doubt you do, either. To make it more explicit: I *may* have the time to devote to such data-gathering as part of a colleective effort. Do you, in fact, have the time to work as a team? If so, I suggest we take this to PM, as it's getting too long and detailed for such replies, and also drifting somewhat off the topic of this thread.

wyndhy,

Yes Mam. I agree with both him and you.

The Devil is, however, often found among the details. I wonder which of the many liberties we enjoy today are the essential ones to which the good Mr. Franklin refers.

ssdd

BIBI,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Mr Franklin lived in a simpler, more black and white time.

The ethics of the eighteenth century, like the seventh century Islam the extreme islamists seem to aspire to, have much good in them, but are not appropriate for the 21st Century.

The right to travel where you want at the maximum possible speed is tempered by the needs of society.

We make a million "best choice" decisions which erode freedoms, but allow us to live in a society, not anarchy.

mind reader :x:

i'd say the right to privacy is as essential now as it ever was. privacy is privacy, no matter what era you live in. just becasue it's now more easily possible for communtications to be intercepted does not give them the right to do so. infiltration, training, diplomacy and foriegn policy changes will and could do more for keeping us safe than culling through the billion+ conversations of average people will ever accomplish.

wyndhy,

The right to privacy varies not only by country, but also in time. That may be the reason that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. constitution, they didn’t think it appropriate. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that one existed until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.

Incidentally, while the sentiment "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." is one we both buy into, you may find the link interesting.

What foreign policy changes do you think might help?

gekkogecko,

I am flattered by the suggestion that my concurrence with a claim you made has somehow helped move the claim from opinion toward fact. In all humility however, I must demur. The very best to which our shared agreement could aspire would be to establish the claim as general or common knowledge. As my observations of what you wrote about the delusional states of others offends you, I shall not do so.

In re your proposal for our teamwork: as we do, I believe, share a preferred vision of what some might describe as a more liberal future Administration, (and Congress, for that matter) I have already described the data which would be useful to collect, suggested a sample size (and why), and what I think might be a persuasive display mode. I have even identified an organization which might be in a position to provide the statistics to support your claim. The claim was yours sir, not mine. It is your responsibility to substantiate it.

If you wish people to accept your claims on faith, that is up to you. I am familiar with others who expect that, some periodically.

yes, interesting. paraphrased rather badly, but the sentiment is the same nevertheless and it can still be attributed to mr. franklin.




policy changes...i'm going for a broad idea here... live and let live. no harm, no foul. respect differences. acknowledge existences.
to take a cue from the beginnings of the original massive islamic empire (the ottoman): if you can contribute to our society in a meaningful and productive way, i don't really care what else your goals, ideals or beliefs are. i suppose it's a little late for some of that. the sparks of indignation have ignited and i wonder if there is any going back.

pissing contests. where would the world be without them...?

and let me rephrase to say an expectation of privacy instead of right. but just because it wasn't written into the constitution - as the article points out - does not mean it is not expected or granted, also as the article points out.

In this case, where wiretapping is a necessity of the times in order to protect the Nation from those who mean us harm, the ruling is a win for Osama Bin Laden.

I want the government to do everything in its power to keep us safe. Uncle Sam isn't interested in my calls to Mom or Aunt Sally. Too many of us warp this into a conspiracy so broad and evil that we miss the intent of the act, which is to protect us from terrorism.

The day this wiretapping is bent to include prosecuting non-terrorist acts, such as phone sex, is the day impeachment proceedings and firings take place.

As for the oft quoted Mr. Franklin, I feel his words of counsel are misplaced in this case. I daresay he would agree with the government's program in that intellegence gathering for the purpose of protecting the Nation is indeed a necessary and proper act.

At the risk of provoking my liberal Pixie friends, which I do not wish to do, I would suggest that the protest would not be nearly as vociferous had Mr. Clinton been the one authorizing it under similar circumstances.

I guess that speaks volumes about trust.


As one of your liberal Pixies friends, I have to wonder if any of this would have been at all an issue. It seems 41 and 43 have had the ability to piss off extremist in the middle east like no other presidents have.

for myself...i'm not so sure franklin would have been in favor of the patriot act, but of course we'll never know...the dude's dead :D. i just wanna say that i (mis)quoted him, i did not mean to bring his views into it. i was only expressing my own by stealing his.


MHO:
our government is only in favor of protecting our privacy when it comes to other companies or people or governments. i think that they (our govn't) would prefer to have our personal data, and they'd like to reserve the ability, and the right, to access any part of it that suits them at any time it suits them.

i am not a conspiracy theorist but...:D

the problem is that once a line is drawn it is never completely erased. it might move around, but it never goes away. take income tax for example. it too was begun as a temporary act of govn’t…as a means of raising money to support a war-effort, but over a hundred years later, it remains and it’s spawned its own juggernaut that needs an entire industry of lawyers, accountants and software, not to mention the bureaucracy that is the irs.

the patriot act was also a temporary measure created during "war time", and created in fear - a bad time to make laws - as opposed to a need for money (as income taxes were). BUT, almost as soon as it was passed, the lobbying began for extending it and even making some parts of it indefinite.

if you are an upstanding, moral citizen, the removal of some basic rights granted by the act shouldn't bother you nor will it affect you, but who decides that? they have already begun arresting, questioning, and detaining people for just talking about their views and ideas (the peeps who wondered what would happen if they blew up the holland tunnel, for example). blowing up a tunnel is bad, i know, but they didn’t even have a real plan, money or materials, they were just wondering. i’ve wondered about shit like that. i’ve wondered about shit worse than that.

ever see the movie minority report? :eek:

There is enough for all:

39: Iran hostage crisis

40: Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing

42: World Trade Center bombing

Wasn't Ben a secret agent among other things.

Excellent points, jseal. The Middle East extremists are truly non-discriminatory when it comes to Democrats and Republicans...they hate Americans...all of us.

Never forget that.

I hate it when I have to take my shoes off at the airport because some piece of shit once tried to blow up his shoe. I hate it that we need wiretapping and Patriot Act and our troops overseas. But the world we live in demands such actions for us to be made safe.

I don't agree with Rummy on much but one thing he has right: If we do not fight them there, we will surely fight them here.

In a sense, yes...during the Revolution, he was in France as a diplomat, the true mission being to seduce the French into supporting our little cause...he also functioned as perhaps the first American spin doctor there...

wyndhy,

Yes Mam. Minority Report is good Science Fiction entertainment. Phillip K. Dick was a famous SF author.

The problem of getting the correct balance of liberty and security is intractable. Just how difficult it can be to balance liberties against security can be seen in a Senate bill, S.390, introduced in 1995 with the approval of the Clinton administration. Note that 3 of the 7 cosponsors are generally considered liberals: Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Kerrey, and Sen. Mikulski. The pressures for some apparent action by the government can be very powerful indeed.

The critical assessment of the effort - from the right then, from the left now – always sounds the same.

Laws can be written so that they are time limited. The 1798 Sedition Act had a sunset clause written into it, and was allowed to lapse. If a law does not have a sunset clause, like The Espionage Act Of 1917, it can be more difficult to get rid of. The act was subsequently repealed in 1921.

Of the two techniques, I prefer the first. It require periodic effort to keep it in force, rather than requiring the effort to repeal it. Once the perceived need for the law falls below some minimum, the votes to retain it will also.