nemesis_juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
Over 200 suspects have been thwarted since its inception.
Oh really? Says who? You've got quite a few problems here: One, you need to show that the new laws actually had anything to do with it. Two, you need to show that they were of any consequence. Three, you need to show that they actually exist. We've already got evidence that the incidents the administration has been pumping up didn't really happen.
quote:
Other notable notables include, but are not limited to
Excuse, but haven't you been paying attention? Tal tried that list and it's already been shot down. Those plots were of no consequence, were not in the US, didn't involve the use of the new legislation, or don't even exist. When that list came out, the very agencies that were supposed to have carried them out had no idea that they had done so.
The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, apparently lied to Congress about the role of the the Americans. When asked by Joe Lieberman if the revamped FISA law helped in the German action, McConnell said, “Yes, sir, it did.”
But there's a little problem with that statement: It wasn't true. The assistance the Americans provided was done BEFORE the FISA process was screwed around with. Instead, it was carried out with all that pesky oversight the Bush Administration claims stands in the way of another terrorist attack.
Once again, we're left wondering just what all this destruction of our Constitutional rights has accomplished. Our old system seems to have been working just fine. What's the problem with oversight?
quote:
I dare say that the Patriot Act, with the employment of the Echelon program and human intelligence, is proving its worth. Unless of course you're cool with more 9/11 style attacks.
Hah! You think I am going to fall for the strawman arguments of fear put forward by this administration? That if we don't do something, the next attack could be in the form of a mushroom cloud? Nice, try, but please.
If you seriously think these laws have done anything, why is it that terrorist activity has
INCREASED over the past six years? If anything, these new laws have made it more difficult to investigate terrorism because by such huge dragnets of spying result in overwhelming numbers of leads that are nothing more than wild goose chases.
quote:
quote:
As if that were the only thing it did. "Most notably"? Please.
This is the theme, yes.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You really have drunk the Kool-Aid©, haven't you?
quote:
quote:
Oh, and by the way...the supposed "information sharing" that the Patriot Act was suppsed to usher in hasn't happened. Remember, while the Department of Homeland Security was recommended by Congress BEFORE the attacks as well as after by the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration never wanted to implement it. They flip-flopped on it and then did precisely what the Bush Administration does: Put cronies in charge rather than anybody with any actual competence and drive.
Source?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Do you seriously not know? The White House is the source. Every single major media outlet covered it.
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a Department of Homeland Security, as many lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of Homeland Security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies, there are more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another. I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under Homeland Security.
So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet level Office of Homeland Security, the White House would still need, in the President's estimation, an advisor on how to coordinate all that myriad of activities the federal government is involved in. So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is, creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever they are.
White House Spokesman, Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02. You seriously don't know this?
quote:
It already proving its worth. You live in San Diego. You and I know that it is the largest West Coast military town in the nation. Unless you're cool with Miramar MCAS, the Coronado bridge, San Onofre power plant, Camp Pendleton MCB, 32nd Street Naval station, North Island naval air station, Lindbergh Field, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Gaslamp District etc, etc blowing up, by all means, oppose it.
(*chuckle*)
There's the attempt to scare me again. You really don't have any evidence, do you? Here's a hint: None of those places are any more secure now than they were before. Have you not been paying attention? The national security estimate for the US was just released and once again, we fail at pretty much every level.
The 2005 investigation into how the nation had fared gave failing grades across the board and said that no actual sharing of information has occurred among the various intelligence agencies. The best grade was an A-, and only one, for work against terrorist financing.
So all of these laws were passed but the only thing we've managed to do with them is to have federal agents infiltrating the Quakers (and every single major media outlet has covered this story, so you have no excuse for not knowing it or being able to look it up. I am not here to do your homework for you.)
All we have to show for it is a list, presented to Congress, detailing the myriad violations of the law carried out by the FBI to spy on Americans (again, you have no reason not to know this as it was covered by every media outlet. Do your own homework.)
quote:
So, on the flip side of the coin, what are some of the instances where civil liberties have been broken as a result of the PA?
Spying on Americans without a warrant, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Sneak-and-peek searches, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Collection of private records without a warrant, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Incarceration without counsel, violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Secret evidence used at trial, violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Torture, violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory.
What more do you need?
quote:
quote:
The Clinton administration was one of the most active administrations regarding the prevention of terror. Clinton never said no.
Then when has Dick Morris, Clinton's own advisor, say that he didn't do it?
Because you've been lied to. It never happened. If you get your news from Fox or NewsMax, you need to realize that they are lying to you. Fox just went to court and won the right to lie during their news broadcasts.
Every time our intelligence sources said they had a bead on bin Laden, Clinton said to go for it. He never, ever said no.
Dick Morris is a hack (even when he was in the Clinton Administration) and nothing he says can be trusted to be reliable.
quote:
quote:
Huh? Do you not know how the FISA law works? You don't need a warrant right now. You can stop the action now and get the warrant later.
Right, its wonderful, because now just the threat gives probable cause.
Huh? "Now"? It was always like that. Do you serioulsy not understand how FISA works? Under FISA, you have to get a warrant.
NOW you don't.
NOW all that needs to be done is have someone in the administration authorize it and it happens with absolutely no oversight. This was the entire reason why FISA was created in the first place: To put in oversight. The new laws have removed that oversight.
quote:
Obviously not illegally since it was passed through legislature.
Incorrect. The FBI admitted that what it was doing was illegal. Do you seriously not remember just six months ago? The report by the FBI that their own lawyers were trying to point out that the spying on Americans the FBI was carrying out was illegal? They gave a list of the infractions. And a judge has thrown out the claim that the FBI can use such exigency letters.
quote:
What do you think will happen to you as a result of the Patriot Act? Help me understand the fear and help me understand what you think the government is doing right now, either to you, or to some hapless guy in Kentucky because I really don't understand the objection.
Jose Padilla: An American, held for years without counsel, no charges, secret evidence, tortured.
Khaled El-Masri: Kidnapped, tortured. Germany has issued arrest warrants for the CIA officials involved.
Maher Arar: Kidnapped, tortured. The Canadian government paid reparations due to their connection with the Americans. He remains on the watch list despite no evidence against him and is barred entry to the US.
I cannot count the number of Americans who are on the "No Fly" list and cannot get off it because they are not allowed to challenge it. That's secret information.
What am I afraid of? I'm afraid that the government will get some bee in their bonnet about somebody, kidnap him, torture him, kill him, and all without any redress.
These laws haven't stopped a single terrorist attack in the US. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US.
These laws have caused people to be tortured around the world, including US citizens.
Which do you think is the more pressing problem? Something that has never happened or something that is?
quote:
I mean, remember the Stasi? That's intrusion! Collecting EVERYONE's urine specimens and recovering the scent of people from adrenal glands, wiring everyone's homes, killing dissenters of Communism, etc, etc... That is an affront to civil liberties, not government agencies being able to act quickly and decisively to provide and protect the very freedom you demand from them.
Hah! As if that's what these laws were doing!
Kidnap and torture isn't "intrusion"? Denied access to counsel and tortured for years isn't "intrusion"? Invasion of privacy isn't "intrusion"?
Tell ya what, n_j, you let me do to you what these laws allow and we'll see if you feel "intruded upon."
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
