| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 816
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:07 pm: | 
|
Dont worry Smarty. Much 'adieu' about nothing...
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:24 pm: |
|
To those who have expressed concern that a group of American citizens plans to offer leaflets that advocate a point of view to other citizens, I think you've helped reinforce the theme of tomorrow's event -- that the Constitution is under attack and needs protection.
But just so you can sleep a little better tonight, let me at least assure you of a couple of logistical aspects of tomorrow's events:
(1) The vigil portion of the event will be very early and very brief and will not take place in either train station. In Maplewood, we'll hold the vigil across the street in the park. In South Orange, near Starbucks where the sidewalk area widens.
(2) We will not leaflet commuters on the platforms. We'll leaflet people at the approaches to the stations.
One basic principle that we always follow is NEVER interfere with the flow of pedestrian traffic and especially NEVER interfere with the entrance to a building, or in this case, the entrance to the train station.
Flyers will be offered to everyone but will be forced upon no one.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 800
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Ok hold on....I was thinking about this on the stairmaster today....
Reading the Bill of Rights is much more than "handing out leaflets..."
Seeking congressional hearings on the wiretaps seems pointless since they are already occuring.
And what are these "protests" INFORMING the public what they don't already know other than a simplisitic perspective on the 4th amendment that has already been offered ad nauseum?
Are these "protestors" going to protect ALL our constitutional rights, including the ones they don't agree with or have problems with?
I am with cmonty on this one. It just seems like the protestors are using the public as a form of physcotherapy (sp).
And are they going to give out free coffee or what!?!?!?!?  |
Oldstone
Citizen
Username: Rogers4317
Post Number: 563
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
you live in maplewood and you need free coffee?
 |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 803
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
That is the least they can do, throw some green to Joyce goshdarnit! |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 385
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Paul, I find it very interesting that it is your premise that our Privacy rights are being invaded; yet the only person/entity so far in 2005/2006 who will be invading my privacy and my personal space happens to be YOU.
Think about that tonight while you prepare your vigil and the expressions of your personal freedoms.
PS. Why don't you put some coupons on the flyers for Free coffee at the cafe, or 10% off of a Tire Rotation or something? |
MBJ
Citizen
Username: Mbj
Post Number: 144
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
"the Constitution is under attack and needs protection".
Oh, the drama!!!! |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Smarty,
Introduce yourself to me tomorrow and I'll buy you a cup of Joyce's green tea. It's much healthier than coffee and it won't worsen your agitation over seeing people handing out flyers, like coffee might. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 804
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Paul-
All due respect but how are we attacking the Constitution? By questioning your motives? Am I not exercising my own right to free speech by doing so? Why can't people seems to remember that free speech is a two way street?
And what mind blowing "alternative perspective are you going to throw in the mix? It appears to me that between your "Iraq" meetings and tomorrow's "vigil" (how silly to call it that)you are just rehasing the same old same old leftist rant on the subject?
And I am still waiting for an answer...are you going to denounce RvW in the name of the US Constitution? Are you going to defend my 2nd amenedment rights to bear arms? Are you going to acknowledge that in respect to the 10th amendment that state rights prevail in our system? Are you going to denounce unethical emminent domain matters? Are you going to address the 4th amendment constitutional clash complications with those of Article 2?
I won't hold my breath....
An American Citizen Too
-SLK
I just had my tires rotated. How about a 10% off coupon for the pet store? Or Coffee! |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Normally I'm annoyed by anyone at the train station who hands out flyers, free newspapers, whatever....Yes, you have the right to do it, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it... But, maybe you'll chase out those I consider even more annoying -- the guys who stand at the top of the stairs smoking cigarettes for as long as possible until the train comes. You can't even get to the train platform without walking through a cloud of smoke now...
But I digress... |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 805
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Anyone on this board catch the 6:30 AM train raise their hand....
-SLK |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Let me get this straight, Mr. Jones. You spent all day going on about the possibility of being handed an unwanted leaflet tomorrow at the train station. You've been literally obsessing for hours about this.
Think about your sense of proportion tonight as you prepare to meet your apparent doom tomorrow morning. |
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 117
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
MoveOn, ACLU, PFAM......do any of you people have jobs? Can't you think of anything better to do with your time. The world would be a better place if we just shipped the whole lot of you down to camp x-ray. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10768
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:54 pm: |
|
How many cops are being assigned to this potential mini riot? Maplewood is changing, isn't it?
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 65
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:18 pm: |
|
I don't plan to participate in the event tomorrow, even though I support the liberal view of Roe, gun control, etc. (By the way, I do not support the abuse of eminent domain).
Still, I have encountered people demonstrating against Roe, for LaRouche and many other things with which I do not agree. Guess what. It makes me happy to see that someone got off their ••• to take part in the political process even though I didn't support their position.
When I was teaching high school history, I invited a member of the John Birch Society to address my class. He runs a business in Union Twp. and I personally like him although I think he is a bit out of focus.
I also had a representative from the C.C.C.P. (U.S.S.R.) delegation to the U.N. address my class to explain how communism was supposed to work.
Are the people who are complaining about the event tomorrow doing so because they are afraid their ideas will not hold up under scrutiny?
I want to hear all sides about ideas and topics of public debate. These include intelligent design, Roe, 2nd. Amendment, trickle down economics and so forth.
For instance, I am now of the opinion that Reagan's economic plan benefited the country even though I was against it when it was introduced.
What else can I learn? What else can other posters here learn?
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Scrotis and others,
Is this group:
http://www.constitutionproject.org/libertyandsecurity/members.cfm?categoryId=3
what you mean by leftist ranters?
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:18 pm: |
|
"Wait, without FDR"s, we wouldn't have had a chance at all of doing what was done: breaking the Purple and Magic codes used by Japan before and during the war. "
Purple was a Japanese diplomatic code used in radio transmissions to embassies. Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens was not required.
|
slipknot (slippy)
Citizen
Username: Zotts
Post Number: 260
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Sylvester you are an arsehole. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
If one guy stands on a corner and tells us what he thinks, he may annoy 99 of us, but he just may get one other person to think about his point of view.
And just perhaps, that one other person, upon reflection, will agree.
And then, maybe, just maybe, that one other person will stand on a street corner....
Thanks Paul.
TomR |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 290
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 1:52 am: |
|
FDR eavesdropped on the Isolationists...US citizens. |
Michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 825
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 1:53 am: |
|
The president starts out with authority to carry out surveillance on a foreign power that has attacked this country," Mr. Schmidt said.
Bush Presses On in Legal Defense for Wiretapping
This is soooo yesterday. Gimme a break !
Truley.... trust me ... ahhh, oohhh, ah, yawn !!!
But , hey, Paul ... that's the great thing about this great country, state , and town you live in. Go for it !!!
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10769
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 4:39 am: |
|
This thread has become a very interesting microcosm of the debate on what rights the Constitution protects and how the document should be interpreted. Fascinating.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10771
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:43 am: |
|
I walked up and introduced myself to Paul this morning. Smarty didn't bother. At 6:10am there were three "Peacenicks" there quietly handing out brochures on the wire tapping controversy.
There were also two NJ Transit police cars there. Paul thought it was a coincidence, but since seeing the police at the station is very rare I am not so sure. One of the police officers seemed really interested in what Paul had to say.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 806
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:52 am: |
|
I met Paul this morning. He seemed what I expected, a nice person with an political opinion different from mine.
While he didn't offer me any coffee, he did remember it was I who was constantly requesting it in jest. He did offer Green Tea though, which I politely declined.
Feeling that we both had to say something political, I gave him the old Voltaire spiel "While I don't agree with what you say...la la la," while he told me I was young (37)and implied I had enough time to "become a clear thinker."
We both shook hands and I told him good luck and to stay warm.
And this ladies and gentlemen, is what makes this country great!
-SLK |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 387
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:02 am: |
|
Glad to see that everybody survived their commute and arrived at their office safely. Let's try not to be so hysterical next time.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 807
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
Paul-
I never said it was only the left ranting over this wiretapping issue since it is obvious that some on the right also have issues with it. But posting one right leaning website doesn't prove anything.
Please remember, you are holding your position under the ACLU/MoveOn.org (and you are Maplewood's rep for the latter) banner so please don't be surprised if I am not expecting more than a left wing rant.
I read your handout and find some of the language ironically funny ("potentially" illegal wiretaps-sounds like Moveon is unsure themselves).
While I am neither affirming or denying the legality of these wiretaps, I just think that those who are having issues with these them from your camp are grossly simplifying the matter. There are numerous constitutional issues at play here.
Again, your camp are also seeking Congressional investigations into the matter when they are already occuring.
I just think you want the Bush Administration to get in trouble over this (and possibly impeached) which I doubt will happen. I honestly believe that Dubya was acting in good faith but that doesn't necessairly mean I am defending their actions.
I predict Congress will decide whether he did something wrong and if he did, will adjust the program accordingly..
Sorry to burst your bubble.
How is that for "clear thinking"? 
-SLK |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 390
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
Bob, not true, I was there, met a fellow (not sure if it was Paul), and decided not to introduce myself as "Smarty Jones" simply because if it wasn't Paul, I would have felt like a complete twit for introducing myself as such. (I've got to do something about this screenname....I used to use my real name until office colleagues googled me and started harrassing me about wether or not my steam-pipes were fixed...perhaps I should stay off-ine altogether, as per Mr. Livingston's post).
Needless to say, it was "Mostly Harmless" (to quote my favorite author), and I do feel I owe Paul and the organizers an appology for over-reaction on the board. I do, however, believe that there is a double-standard for which groups we permit to work outside the train-station, but that's certainly not Pauls problem.
Unfortunately, I was dissappointed when I found the flyer to be un-informative. (Two ambiguos quotes from the American Bar Assoc., and One Quote from Al Gore?) and I was dissappointed because I walked outside to get a flyer with the hope I would learn something new.
Oh well. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:00 am: |
|
So you spent all day fretting that these people handing out flyers would inconvenience and ruin your day and in the end you sought them out for a flyer? |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 391
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:05 am: |
|
Bob, not true, I was there, met a fellow (not sure if it was Paul), and decided not to introduce myself as "Smarty Jones" simply because if it wasn't Paul, I would have felt like a complete twit for introducing myself as such. (I've got to do something about this screenname....I used to use my real name until office colleagues googled me and started harrassing me about wether or not my steam-pipes were fixed...perhaps I should stay off-ine altogether, as per Mr. Livingston's post).
Needless to say, it was "Mostly Harmless" (to quote my favorite author), and I do feel I owe Paul and the organizers an appology for over-reaction on the board. I do, however, believe that there is a double-standard for which groups we permit to work outside the train-station, but that's certainly not Pauls problem.
Unfortunately, I was dissappointed when I found the flyer to be un-informative. (Two ambiguos quotes from the American Bar Assoc., and One Quote from Al Gore?) and I was dissappointed because I walked outside to get a flyer with the hope I would learn something new.
Oh well. |
Flameretardant
Citizen
Username: Flameretardant
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
There was little, if any, "inconvenience" this morning. Leafletters were respectful and not aggressive. A far cry from the obnoxious anti-abortion folks I pass every day in the city as I walk to work. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3053
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:12 am: |
|
SLK: Dubya "acting in good faith" does not excuse him ignoring Congress and breaking the law. Since you favor political aphorisms: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
This is not new for Bush. The flap he is in with his own party leaders over the port management contract is part of the same pattern of behavior. It is astonishing that he did not consult in advance with Frist, Hastert, Pataki, et al to get them on board before he announced the plan. It would have been so easy to provide a unified front, or to have taken their political temperatures in an election cycle year, but instead he charged ahead with no concern about what anyone else might think.
One could take the view Fred Barnes does in his new book on Bush--that this shows great leadership and vision, a damn the torpedoes full speed ahead style of management. Personally, I think it shows a weak leader who hides his speeches from his own advisors and does not even consult with them on key issues--he simply dictates with royal fiat and then they have to scramble to make sense of it to the public and allies. He hangs his own people out to dry, and if they disagree with him (O'Neill, Powell, Snow, etc.) he marginalizes them or pushes them out--he brooks no difference of opinion in the least, which is very weak management.
You may attribute the wire-tapping screw-up to "good intentions". I attribute it to an arrogance of power by Bush that characterizes his entire presidency. I think that is the real issue at stake here. Even Republican leaders are seeing that there is a pattern of behavior that they do not want to be associated with. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 812
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
"Unfortunately, I was dissappointed when I found the flyer to be un-informative. (Two ambiguos quotes from the American Bar Assoc., and One Quote from Al Gore?) and I was dissappointed because I walked outside to get a flyer with the hope I would learn something new. "
I am totally with you on this point Smarty....
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
It was great to meet Scrotis and Bob K this morning. Very amicable, very respectful. Yes, this is what America's all about.
As it turns out, the NJ Transit Police informed us that they were there because of our action. Not sure who called them about it. The police officers were also very amicable, respectful and professional. No problems.
Here's the text of the flyer we passed out (I inserted the quotes. The rest is from MoveOn):
Quote:Protect the Constitution:
Urge an Investigation of NSA Wiretapping
"FISA* does not prohibit foreign intelligence surveillance but merely imposes reasonable regulation to protect legitimate privacy rights. (For example, although FISA generally requires judicial approval for electronic surveillance of persons within the United States, it permits the executive branch to install a wiretap immediately so long as it obtains judicial approval within seventy-two hours. 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f)" -- former FBI Director William S. Sessions et al Jan 9, 2006 www.nybooks.com/articles/18650
"RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association calls upon the President to abide by the limitations which the Constitution imposes on a president under our system of checks and balances and respect the essential roles of the Congress and the judicial branch in ensuring that our national security is protected in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees;
"FURTHER RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association urges Congress to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation to determine: (a) the nature and extent of electronic surveillance of US persons conducted by any US government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with FISA" – American Bar Association House of Delegates Resolution Feb 13, 2006 www.abanet.org/op/greco/memos/aba_house302-0206.pdf..
"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." -- former Vice Pres Al Gore Jan 16,2006 www.libertycoalition.net/gore-speech
Today's Call to Action: Write Your Senators to Demand an Investigation NSA Wiretapping of Americans without a Warrant.
____________________________________
To: Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez
cc: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
From: _________________________________
Subject: Thoroughly Investigate the Wiretapping Program
Dear Senators Lautenberg and Menendez and Attorney General G*onzales:
President Bush admitted to personally authorizing thousands of potentially illegal wiretaps, and he doesn't plan to stop. This abuse of power threatens the very core of our Constitution.
We demand a thorough and independent investigation of the Bush administration's allegedly illegal wiretapping activities, including: (1) appointment of a special prosecutor to respond to any criminal activity that may have taken place, (2) a thorough, meaningful and open Congressional investigation, (3) protection for all whistleblowers who come forward with evidence of wrongdoing in this program.
_____________________________________
Send this letter from MoveOn's website at:
http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw/
Local Contact: Paul Surovell 973-763-9493 / paul4sure@aol.com
*FISA stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which requires court warrants for domestic wiretaps, but allows such wiretaps to be applied immediately if a warrant is obtained 72 hours later.
|
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6822
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Paul,
From reading this thread I was under impression you planned on hijacking the train, holding passengers hostage while launching attacks throughout Maplewood's village. All to delay commuters
Good thing the cops were there to prevent this. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12608
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:22 am: |
|
Maplewood is one town that still has public spaces. I am very thankful for that. More recently-built towns have malls, owned privately. This section is called "soapbox" after the old fashioned one, where anyone could say anything. It's a dying tradition, and I'm glad it still lives in Maplewood.
Smarty, it's a public space, not your personal space. People should (and I gather did) respect your "body buffer" which is about an arm's length around your body.
Some ask what the purpose of a demonstration. It's to raise consciousness and build solidarity, so that further action can take place. Marching in front of the White House doesn't get the administration's attention any better anyway.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 827
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
Tom Reingold-
Good post, but with some exceptions.
If anyone doesn't know what is going on by now regarding these wiretpas then it is really surprising.
Whether right or wrong, most individuals already developed their opinions on the matter of wiretaps and the usual suspects have already taken their usual sides.
And just take a look at above for an example of the flyer distributed yesterday morning. As both
Smarty and I pointed out in earlier posts, all it offers is a simplistic overview of the wiretapping issue-nothing mind blowing new too add to the debate. So the public is learning nothing new on the subject except that wiretaps are constitutionally wrong period. (at least according to Paul/ACLU/Moveon.org).
After reading countless articles from both sides of the debate, I realize that there is much more going on here, constitutionally speaking, than meets the eye. I for one am glad Congress is sorting it out, that is what makes the American political process great. But, don't expect Bush to be impeached over it.
This flyer is also seeking congressional investigations that are already occuring again offering nothing new.
As I told Paul yesterday morning, I may not agree with what he is saying but I will defend your right to say it.
But that doesn't mean I or anyone else shouldn't question his motives either.
-SLK |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
Our flyer was an advocacy piece which tried to make two points -- (1) that President Bush has broken the law by ordering wiretapping of Americans without warrants and (2) that his main argument of why such wiretapping is necessary does not conform with the facts.
We quoted the American Bar Association and former Vice President Gore to make the first point and we quoted former FBI Director William Sessions to make the second.
How many Americans are aware that the ABA has called for an investigation of the NSA wiretapping program? How many Americans are aware that a wiretap can be installed immediately without a warrant under FISA?
I suspect that most people who got the flyer learned something about the NSA program with online links for further details.
If they ultimately agreed that an investigation is needed, they got an online link to send a letter to their Senators and Atty Gen Gonzalez.
For those like yourself who support warrantless wiretaps, or who don't care one way or the other, nothing of consequence, just another commute to New York. Except for that brief glimpse of American democracy in action.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 838
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:28 pm: |
|
"For those like yourself who support warrantless wiretaps, or who don't care one way or the other, nothing of consequence, just another commute to New York. Except for that brief glimpse of American democracy in action."
Paul-
It is not whether I support/care about wiretaps or not. I just think (and this is only my humble opinion) that your side is grossly simplifying the matter and that there are many constitutional issues that need to be sorted out.
I think it is right to ask questions about the wiretaps but I also think Bush was acting in good faith (which doesn't mean he is exempt from wrongdoing).
But kudos to Democracy in action, I congratulate you for that!!!
-SLK |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
Here's why I disagree with your assumption that the President is acting in good faith:
If he were acting in good faith, there is no reason why he would not apply for warrants retroactively with the FISA court.
If the individuals being wiretapped without warrants are suspected of having ties to terrorism, there's no reason why there shouldn't be retroactive applications for wiretaps.
The argument I've heard by Administration supporters is that in these instances, the NSA needs to act "immediately" and doesn't have time to file the applications.
But as former FBI Director Sessions points out, wiretaps can begin immediately under FISA if the applications for warrants are followed up within 72 hours.
The Administration's unwillingness to disclose the names of the purported terrorist suspects to the FISA court suggests to me -- and this is obviously speculation -- that these purported suspects have no connection to terrorists or terrorism.
We have the example of UN diplomats who were bugged by NSA in 2003 during the UN Security Council deliberations on Iraq. This was purely for political motives and had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever.
Unfortunately, our country has a long history of wiretapping and bugging by Government officials for political purposes totally unrelated to national security. The most famous cases being J. Edgar Hoover's wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the Watergate break-in which was an attempt to place bugs in the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.
I suspect -- and again this is speculation -- that the NSA is wiretapping individuals for political purposes in the guise of antiterrorism.
Only a full investigation will reveal whether this is the case. Until then, I think it's a reasonable assumption.
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 6:36 am: |
|
Here's proposed legislation on NSA warrantless wiretapping that you can endorse at:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/page/s/resolution350
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 20, 2006
Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
-------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens.
Whereas the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was ratified 214 years ago;
Whereas the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the American people the right `to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures';
Whereas the Fourth Amendment provides that courts shall issue `warrants' to authorize searches and seizures, based upon probable cause;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has consistently held for nearly 40 years that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a `search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;
Whereas Congress was concerned about the United States Government unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the 1960s and 1970s;
Whereas Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), commonly referred to as `FISA', to provide a legal mechanism for the United States Government to engage in searches of Americans in connection with intelligence gathering and counterintelligence;
Whereas Congress expressly enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and specified provisions of the Federal criminal code (including those governing wiretaps for criminal investigations), as the `exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance ... may be conducted' pursuant to law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f));
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 establishes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (commonly referred to as the `FISA court'), and the procedures by which the United States Government may obtain a court order authorizing electronic surveillance (commonly referred to as a `FISA warrant') for foreign intelligence collection in the United States;
Whereas Congress created the FISA court to review wiretapping applications for domestic electronic surveillance to be conducted by any Federal agency;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 provides specific exceptions that allow the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes (1) in emergency situations, provided an application for judicial approval from a FISA court is made within 72 hours; and (2) within 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended over time by Congress since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States;
Whereas President George W. Bush has confirmed that his administration engages in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans inside the United States and that he has authorized such warrantless surveillance more than 30 times since September 11, 2001; and
Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and House Joint Resolution 64 (107th Congress), as adopted by the House of Representatives on September 14, 2001, together enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), to authorize military action against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, do not contain legal authorization nor approve of domestic electronic surveillance, including domestic electronic surveillance of United States citizens, without a judicially approved warrant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10790
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:45 am: |
|
After the excesses of the Nixon and LBJ years Congress was able to put controls on executive power during the weak Ford administration. Quite a few Bushies, most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld, were officials in the Ford administration and this upset them.
I think during the Bush administration there is a strong effort to resstablish Presidential power because of this. The unitary executive theroy is part of this.
I doubt to many people, even many Bush supporters, feel that Bush is less likely to abuse power than prior Presidents. The FISA provisions aren't all that tough. However, they should keep GWB from reading Howard Dean's email. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
"Feeling that we both had to say something political, I gave him the old Voltaire spiel "While I don't agree with what you say...la la la,"
To the poster above who said what I just quoted, a point of information: it's a great sentence, but Voltaire never said it or wrote it.
It was wrongly attributed to him by a language scholar in the 1940's.
What Voltaire said was (and I admire his clairvoyance and command of vernacular English from way back in the 18th Century):
"I think the Bush administration is brainless, directionless, rudderless, and really sucks."
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 869
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Innis-
cute....who ever said it, I stand by it....
-SLK |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Yes, and I respect you for standing by the sentiment |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
the whole sentiment, with the entire wording I used |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page