100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 07/30/13 09:24 AM
|
|
On Friday, Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader and a veteran of the Intelligence Committee, and Mr. Hoyer dashed off a letter to the president warning that even those Democrats who had stayed with him on the issue on Wednesday would be seeking changes.
That letter included the signature of Mr. Conyers, who is rallying an increasingly unified Democratic caucus to his side, as well as 61 House Democrats who voted no on Wednesday but are now publicly signaling their discontent. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentum-builds-against-nsa-surveillance.html?ref=politics&_r=2& Nazi Piglosi..... do we expect anything but betrayal from this criminal wench and her henchwoman Diane Fukustien? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we don't need NSA treating people as suspects
citizens do that perfectly well ourselves,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we don't need NSA treating people as suspects citizens do that perfectly well ourselves,,,, You are speaking for yourself I hope? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/30/13 09:28 AM
|
|
no,
its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 07/30/13 10:10 AM
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, You need to get over the fact that our judicial system actually worked for once, drop your racial bias, and comment logically on the topic of the OP And Bradley Manning WAS locked in a 6x8 cell for 13 months suffering cruel and unusual punishment....so don't say it doesn't happen. That's just a lie! And our law enforcers shoot people for getting a pack of cigs from their car, because they are driving a vehicle "like" a suspect vehicle, occupants of the wrong house during a raid, peoples pets and even old men who refuse to take their meds! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Tue 07/30/13 10:03 AM
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, Yes. The NSA does lock people in closets. Those are violations of constitutional rights as it's unlawful search and seizure for the government to tap phones, read emails, and bug homes without a legit warrent. To blanket a warrent for access to every American's private information like the NSA has done is a violation of constitutional rights. That sort of access to personal information can be deadlier than any single act depending on whose hands it falls into. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 07/30/13 10:15 AM
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more!
So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, You need to get over the fact that our judicial system actually worked for once, drop your racial bias, and comment logically on the topic of the OP And Bradley Manning WAS locked in a 6x8 cell for 13 months suffering cruel and unusual punishment....so don't say it doesn't happen. That's just a lie! And our law enforcers shoot people for getting a pack of cigs from their car, because they are driving a vehicle "like" a suspect vehicle, occupants of the wrong house during a raid, peoples pets and even old men who refuse to take their meds! well, if others don't have to 'get over' the fact that certain positions and jobs in our culture come with specific responsibilities and privileges,,,, I guess I don't have to 'get over' the idea that someone being 'suspicious' should give others the right to harass them,, and not having any answer to the question, doesn't make it racist as I said, quite logically, certain positions and jobs bestow specific and unique responsibilities and privileges on people if the idea that 'fearing for our life',,, can be justification for taking life with a regular citizen,, why cant it work for police or any other entity? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, Yes. The NSA does lock people in closets. Those are violations of constitutional rights as it's unlawful search and seizure for the government to tap phones, read emails, and bug homes without a legit warrent. To blanket a warrent for access to every American's private information like the NSA has done is a violation of constitutional rights. That sort of access to personal information can be deadlier than any single act depending on whose hands it falls into. show me the entity that has a 'blanket warrant' to every americans home? show me the document that gives them that authority? read your constitution again 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.[1] ,,,there is that word 'unreasonable' again,, leaves room for interpretation ,, doesn't it? what is not there, is mention of bugs, phone taps, or emails? do they clearly classify as a 'search' of ones home? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. oh,, why don't you guys just accept that the government is working the way its supposed to? lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, Yes. The NSA does lock people in closets. Those are violations of constitutional rights as it's unlawful search and seizure for the government to tap phones, read emails, and bug homes without a legit warrent. To blanket a warrent for access to every American's private information like the NSA has done is a violation of constitutional rights. That sort of access to personal information can be deadlier than any single act depending on whose hands it falls into. show me the entity that has a 'blanket warrant' to every americans home? show me the document that gives them that authority? read your constitution again 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.[1] ,,,there is that word 'unreasonable' again,, leaves room for interpretation ,, doesn't it? what is not there, is mention of bugs, phone taps, or emails? do they clearly classify as a 'search' of ones home? You show me the proof that there's not! Exactly! You can't! No one claimed that the NSA had blanket warrents to bug homes! "Unreasonable" has no room for interpretation! Unreasonable means unreasonable! It's unreasonable for the FISA court to blanket warrent every American's meta data and emails and store them without probable cause! Check YOUR constitution again! Unlawful search and seizure doesn't just apply to homes! Once again you respond without knowing what you are talking about! That is why you will never understand! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. oh,, why don't you guys just accept that the government is working the way its supposed to? lol Why don't you stop being a fool? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. oh,, why don't you guys just accept that the government is working the way its supposed to? lol Why don't you stop being a fool? yall first,,,, IM just applying the logic put forth to different situations if its foolish to apply it here, than perhaps its foolish when others apply it elsewhere,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/31/13 12:59 AM
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? I read it,, it doesn't address any of my questions about 'suspecting' people or being 'suspected' it talks about 'unreasonable' searches,,, which implies, to me , that some searches are therefore 'reasonable' which is the foundation for my questions,,,,,,once 'suspicion' is determined ,,rather by a citizen, a cop, a government entity what is a 'reasonable' course of action for them to take to try to confirm or eliminate the suspicion? |
|
|
|
|
