placelowerplace Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 06:48PM
Agreed!
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 06:48PM
"Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today,
justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the
course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and
brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him. (...)
additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a
simple banner, written on a sheet."
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 06:48PM
And, as one of the people on the panel said,
"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue
the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue
the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a
public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over
again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will
somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.
In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown
here today."
- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor
It was a good day for dissent.
Tiw Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 07:19PM
Ben Franklin? What did he do that was worthwhile other than fly a kite with a
key atached in a thunderstorm?
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 08:19PM
All the NSA or other intelligence agencies have to do is get a court order to
do the tapping, in todays environment do you think a judge would balk if they
say it is necessary? But instead they do it illegally and secretly.
Has anyone considered how much money could be made by tapping corporate
communications? Industrial espionage. Sell the info to the right people, or use
it yourself.
Good for these students they rock!
madmex Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 09:33PM
Tiw ,you oughta go read something.
Fukn Beatifull America...go GoergeTown.
cesiuminjector Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 09:44PM
actually when you think about it, any security has to come at a price of
liberty, and liberty is exchanged for security. They are not opposites exactly
but liberty's opposite entails security as security's opposite is at least
strongly related to liberty. Just because ben franklin said it doesnt mean it is
absolutely correct. Ben was human and fully capable of error despite his many
other accomplishments.
cesiuminjector Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 09:47PM
anynody see the south park with the college students whose proffesors opended
thier eyes - hence the college know it all hippies. They are the worst type of
hippies. and cartman breaks up the massive hippie drum circle by playing slayer
on the central sound system. GOD I LOVE CARTMAN
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 10:01PM
Think about it. Do you think the gommit is interested in your little lame ass
existance? If they did, the IRS would be all over your ass like stink on
poopoo. Wheather you like it or not, your every conversation and/or e-mail have
been monitored for years. I personally do not have anything to hide from them.
I may from my wife and girlfriend but not from them. If YOU are doing something
to endanger my existance, you better believe I would want to know about it just
as you would. Why is it so hard to see some of these things work out pretty
well. If you get away from monitoring everybody, then you have to let them
monitor suspected terrorists. If you go on protecting them, you cannot protect
yourself.
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 10:36PM
anonymous6272=hitler
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 10:44PM
is there a link to this news story somewhere?
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 11:05PM
Security = live.
No security = you die.
cesiuminjector Report This Comment Date: January 25, 2006 11:30PM
this issue asside, i think in this day and age you will be monitored,
investigated, and have your privacy comprimised no matter what you do. The
average american is on camera 36 times a day. Much more if you work in retail or
an office building. the list of survielance goes on and im sure i dont need to
raise any more awareness about this. You could cite plenty examples of your own.
My point is - Why are you bitching about security and privacy when it is
obviously a loosing battle?
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 01:29AM
I found it on a blog:
[
insomnia.livejournal.com]
Duane Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 11:11AM
If it is only used for terrorism I have no problem.
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 11:50AM
Interesting questions.
Does our security really come at the price of our liberty? I feel most secure
when I know my neighbors, and they know me. We share dinners and parties and
drinks, and I know they'll look after my house when I am gone. Is my liberty
compromised by this? And what sort of "security" are we talking
about? The security of "rule of law" such that the streets are quiet
at night, and you don't have to live in a walled compound to be safe? Or the
security that our enormous gummint is eavesdropping on practically every
telephone call and email, and sifting for the next "terrorist attack"?
Since we have random explosions at chemical plants anyway, how is a terrorist
attack really any different than just another random death toll? More people
die on the roads, in cars - by a factor of 10 - than died in the Trade Center
destruction. I feel pretty insecure that my gummint is not doing a damn thing
about that. Then there is fuel security: We are approaching global peak oil.
Our entire lifestyle is insecure. Yet our gummint insists on lining the pockets
of rich friends, and engaging in risky foreign policy. That is not security,
not at all.
As 6272 point out, "your every conversation and/or e-mail have been
monitored for years" ... yet somehow this did not prevent the 9/11 tragedy.
Will increased surveillance - and therefore limits on our dissent of gov't
policy - prevent future 9/11's? What about the foreign policy, over which few
American's really have any say that dictates we isolate America in favor of
making our corporations rich ... isn't that actually to blame for creating the
jihadis (to fight the Soviets in A'stan in the 80s), and subsequently inflaming
their anger by occupying Muslim lands (Iraq, Saudi Arabia) now? Isn't that much
more dangerous and limiting to our liberty than what the gummint proposes (and
does) now, by torturing suspected terrorists and bombing the living hell out of
Muslim lands, creating new radicals willing to give their lives to stop the
occupation?
Cesium is right, we are monitored, tracked and compromised all the time. Is that
a good thing? Should we just "give up" because it is a "losing
battle"? Fucking Google, for all its righteousness in refusing to give
data to the Justice Dept. is interested in "knowing everything" about
its users, and tracks everything you do anyway. Is that the way to a free
future? Is increased gummint surveillance the way to a free future?
If they come for the "eco-terrorists" now, will they come for the
protestors next? And then for you later on down the road, for pirating software
and sharing music? Or illegally uploading "indecent" images to some
random website? Where will this stop?
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 11:53AM
What, Duane, is the definition of "terrorism"?
ToucanSam Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 05:43PM
Well John, the Bush admin. could be one definition.
cesiuminjector Report This Comment Date: January 26, 2006 08:22PM
oh toucansam your so devilishly witty
Duane Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 12:50AM
How it is applied is all I worry about.In the case of terrorism and child
porn,I have nothing against monitoring.
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 05:26AM
See Also:
[
www.plus613.com]
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 05:37AM
Duane, the definition of terrorism is:
"The use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against
individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often
to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Now if we can agree on that, then we can apply this definition to any political
actors to see if they are engaging in terrorism.
More interestingly, a certain thinker has identified 5 types of terrorism, and
=ranked them according to the cost of human lives and property= ; these are:
_Types of Terrorism_
1. *State terrorism* - A nation-state killing civilians
2. *Religious terrorism* - Catholics killing Protestants, Sunnis killing
Shiites, Shiites killing Sunnis
3. *Criminal terrorism* - Mafia, etc.
4. *Pathological terrorism* - insane persons
5. *Private or oppositional terrorism* - Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade,
etc.
Note that state terrorism is the most damaging, and the private group terror,
the one that gets all the press coverage, is the least damaging.
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 05:37AM
Maybe we should work to put checks on state terrorism first, eh?
Duane Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 12:09PM
There is a difference between state terrorism and war in Iraq,and so far no
state terrorism unless you count Waco.Right now the nature of what they were
trying to accomplish with the towers is playing out.That letter is a dying gasp
from these groups of terrorists.They would not want peace unless it was for
there benefit.
cesiuminjector Report This Comment Date: January 27, 2006 03:23PM
john stone i had some asshole political science proffessor spitting speech just
like that - dont be that dumb ass
John_Stone Report This Comment Date: January 28, 2006 04:46AM
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State ... there's a few other examples... Like the
'soft' terrorist war in Latin America during the 80's & 90's, and
USA-supported Pinochet during the 70's, and a few others ... whatever, we're off
topic as Cesium points out.
But Duane, it's about energy, not 'democracy' or anything like that... it's
greed-based action. That's the core of what's going on.
Effective action against international terrorist-guerilla action is not to
conduct a military assault on a particular state, but to do traditional police
leg-work. Investigation, apprehension and court, then jail.
The whole gambit of torturing alleged terrorists undermines our position -- it
makes us the same as them. We don't gain anyone's trust, and therefore our
actions further the cycle of violence.
Is that not obvious?
What would you do, as a Christian?
ToucanSam Report This Comment Date: February 02, 2006 01:42PM
Fight fire with WATER...not FIRE...hmmmmm....
Duane Report This Comment Date: February 03, 2006 11:28AM
Yes,we will throw down our weapons and come home.Next time they try to get
weapons we do nothing,next time they attack we do nothing.Sure we can chastize
them but dont do anything that could only be bad.How bad could it be under
wahabi rule.Sure there is only a few now in the US but the land of plenty can
hold so much more.If we just give them what they want like the french did no
more problem.Those damn spaniards needed a lesson didnt they.Its impossible for
them to effect elections with violence over here.They could never hope to take
anything that we would just give away.Tell me are the suicide bombers in Iraq
sunis,shias,or what?I just want to know who to surrender to when they try that
over here.You guys are so intelligent you should be president,at different times
of course cause it would be like gay marriage.
