Democrats grow a spine... for now

[bascule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071010/pl_nm/usa_security_democrats_dc

 

Democrats refused to grant retroactive immunity to telcos that participated in Bush's illegal spying program, and pushed through a bill that rolls back some of the sickening provisions they passed in August as part of a compromise with Bush and other Republicans, reinstating FISA oversight and requiring 1 year blanket warrants for surveillance involving American citizens.

 

My take (as an avid EFF supporter): ABOUT F*CKING TIME

[Pangloss]

It'll be an interesting about face if it passes. I'm afraid I don't know much about this one at the moment.

[MrSandman]

I'm just curious have you ever talked to a person in the army about the war?

[Pangloss]

I don't understand what you mean, MrSandman.

[MrSandman]

Not you, sry, the guy who made the post I was making my post when you posted yours.

 

Not you him, sry.

[Pangloss]

That's ok, cross-posting happens. Can you explain what you were trying to say to bascule, though? I don't think I understand it in that context either.

[bascule]

I'm just curious have you ever talked to a person in the army about the war?

 

No, but I have a friend in the Marines who's on his second tour of duty in Iraq.

 

Also: how is that remotely relevant to this thread?

[iNow]

No, but I have a friend in the Marines who's on his second tour of duty in Iraq.

 

Also: how is that remotely relevant to this thread?

 

Maybe he was implying that wiretaps with calls to military might somehow be exempt from this law? I dunno... It appears a pre-emptive action to disagree with you about your view of the US and the war... Like you said, not relevant.

 

 

It really is about time. I hope this momentum continues, and I look forward to see how the populace reacts. Will FOX news attack Dems for being "for terrorist conversation?"

[MrSandman]

Yeah, I think I wasn't on the same page. However, it does relate, I've talked to quite a few of the army personal and they think that what saves a life is worth it even if it encourches on people's privacy. Remember, you most likely won't be spyed on.

 

This is off subject, but oh well.

 

I've talked to military personal and close friends that are in the military. I haven't found one yet that didn't think being Iraq was a bad thing, but a good thing. I've talked to a tank engineer and she says that she has definitely seen more good than bad come from the U.S.. She also said that the media was destorting everything, and always looking on the negetive sid of things.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I think I wasn't on the same page. However, it does relate, I've talked to quite a few of the army personal and they think that what saves a life is worth it even if it encourches on people's privacy. Remember, you most likely won't be spyed on.

 

They're fighting for the wrong country maybe? Over here, we're all into freedom and such. We prefer the advantages and disadvantages associated with freedom. One of the disadvantages is fighting terrorism is more difficult in a truly free society, due to our aversion to oppressive government. This means keeping said government from eliminating these civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us.

 

If you're willing to sacrifice freedom, then why live here? Seriously. There are plenty of free societies out there, democratic societies with socialist governments, and perhaps they would love to sacrifice these liberties so you can feel safer.

 

Not meant to be taken offensively, actually. I'm just increasingly confused why people are so adamant about becoming more "euro". If you want that kind of life, go there. Why change our country just because you're afraid of a true free society?

 

I've talked to military personal and close friends that are in the military. I haven't found one yet that didn't think being Iraq was a bad thing, but a good thing. I've talked to a tank engineer and she says that she has definitely seen more good than bad come from the U.S.. She also said that the media was destorting everything, and always looking on the negetive sid of things.

 

I agree with this. Our media is quite taken by romance it seems. They've romanticized Islamic murder cowards to be the fault of the oppressive policies of oil hungry america. While they enjoy the benefits of oil in producing their cameras, computers, broadcast gear..etc - they are hopeful we'll lose very soon.

 

It's a little odd being in this corner because I personally do not believe Iraq is a justified war and do not believe we should have gone, and I want out. At the same time though, I also don't believe the bull coming out of the mainstream media - there's too much disparity between their reports and actual servicemen - as you've seen.

 

I think they're just bent on anti-war and will simply not allow facts to daunt them.

[DrDNA]

Its not a spine. Its a notochord and hold your breath waiting for it to evolve.

 

 

However, it does relate, I've talked to quite a few of the army personal and they think that what saves a life is worth it even if it encourches on people's privacy. Remember, you most likely won't be spyed on.

 

Oh my. Trust big brother that much do we?

 

What tolitarian, fascist, regime are are your friends fighting for over there anyway? I was under the impression that you were refering to the US Armed Forces.

[Severian]

Not meant to be taken offensively, actually. I'm just increasingly confused why people are so adamant about becoming more "euro". If you want that kind of life, go there. Why change our country just because you're afraid of a true free society?

 

That is an intersting take on things. I think if you asked the average European, they would regard Europe as being less likely to infinge the civil liberties of their citizens than the US is. Would you say there is the opposite perception in the US? If so, where do you think it comes from?

[MrSandman]

They're fighting for the wrong country maybe? Over here, we're all into freedom and such. We prefer the advantages and disadvantages associated with freedom. One of the disadvantages is fighting terrorism is more difficult in a truly free society, due to our aversion to oppressive government. This means keeping said government from eliminating these civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us.

 

If you're willing to sacrifice freedom, then why live here? Seriously. There are plenty of free societies out there, democratic societies with socialist governments, and perhaps they would love to sacrifice these liberties so you can feel safer.

 

Not meant to be taken offensively, actually. I'm just increasingly confused why people are so adamant about becoming more "euro". If you want that kind of life, go there. Why change our country just because you're afraid of a true free society?

 

 

 

I agree with this. Our media is quite taken by romance it seems. They've romanticized Islamic murder cowards to be the fault of the oppressive policies of oil hungry america. While they enjoy the benefits of oil in producing their cameras, computers, broadcast gear..etc - they are hopeful we'll lose very soon.

 

It's a little odd being in this corner because I personally do not believe Iraq is a justified war and do not believe we should have gone, and I want out. At the same time though, I also don't believe the bull coming out of the mainstream media - there's too much disparity between their reports and actual servicemen - as you've seen.

 

I think they're just bent on anti-war and will simply not allow facts to daunt them.

 

 

Iraq has been a huge pain in the neck for some time I think that U.S. should try and eliminate the rest of the terrorist. Well as much as possible. I also think that reestablishing their Gov. is good. Too many people think that it isn't, and that we should only care about our country. Now, if we follow their lead our country will probably make even more enemies when a country ask for help. The U.S. is the most powerful and I want it to stay that way. We should be the police of world. I'll write more latter.

[ParanoiA]

Too many people think that it isn't, and that we should only care about our country. Now, if we follow their lead our country will probably make even more enemies when a country ask for help. The U.S. is the most powerful and I want it to stay that way. We should be the police of world. I'll write more latter.

 

We should always put our citizens' consideration above all others. We will always have an ethical responsibility to our countrymen over others.

 

We should not be the police of the world. It isn't morally right to force your neighbor's son to go risk his life for your ideas of "policing". It is wrong to intervene with no specific interest or threat to the country. Iraq was not a threat. It was wrong to invade.

 

When countries ask for help, we should help if we can as long as we're not helping with warfare. We're a generous country and should stay that way. But non-interventionism is preferred as it avoids tangling alliances and wholesale military obligations for generations of americans not even born yet.

[bob000555]

Yeah, I think I wasn't on the same page. However, it does relate, I've talked to quite a few of the army personal and they think that what saves a life is worth it even if it encourches on people's privacy. Remember, you most likely won't be spyed on.

 

Ohhh a chance to pull out my faverout quote

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

-Benjamin Franklin

[Pangloss]

Which of course was no more valid then than it is today, since the Constitution is all about compromise of various freedoms for various securities.

[bob000555]

Which of course was no more valid then than it is today, since the Constitution is all about compromise of various freedoms for various securities.

 

Ah right compromises like "The writ of habeas corpus shell not be suspended." or "The right of the people to secure their persons, properties, and effects shell not be infringed without due processes of law." Checks and balances in the law making processes and compromising over "Certain inalienable rights" are sort of different.

[Pangloss]

Well, and of course they didn't think of a few, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. But whether they're the same or different is a subjective judgement. For example, the slave owners of the Southern states would have been behind that statement 100%! Of course, Northern abolitionists would have viewed that statement exactly the opposite way -- that the South had removed the slaves' right to freedom in exchange for the owners' security. Like I said, a matter of perspective.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Franklin's statement is a valuable insight and a guiding light of wisdom from the past. But clearly either he or his fellow founding fathers didn't view it as an absolute then, and neither should we today.

 

I think if the founding fathers were alive today they would be as split over the issue of national security in the war on terror as we are. Airport security, recording of international phone calls, border security, all these things have valid points on BOTH sides.

 

That's what makes them difficult issues to resolve.

[ParanoiA]

I think if the founding fathers were alive today they would be as split over the issue of national security in the war on terror as we are. Airport security' date=' recording of international phone calls, border security, all these things have valid points on BOTH sides.

 

That's what makes them difficult issues to resolve.[/quote']

 

Nice point. I hadn't thought of that before.

[bob000555]

Well, and of course they didn't think of a few, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. But whether they're the same or different is a subjective judgement. For example, the slave owners of the Southern states would have been behind that statement 100%! Of course, Northern abolitionists would have viewed that statement exactly the opposite way -- that the South had removed the slaves' right to freedom in exchange for the owners' security. Like I said, a matter of perspective.

 

Ownership of slaves had nothing to do with security it was for profit.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Franklin's statement is a valuable insight and a guiding light of wisdom from the past. But clearly either he or his fellow founding fathers didn't view it as an absolute then, and neither should we today.

 

I think if the founding fathers were alive today they would be as split over the issue of national security in the war on terror as we are. Airport security, recording of international phone calls, border security, all these things have valid points on BOTH sides.

 

That's what makes them difficult issues to resolve.

 

Quite the opposite if you look into the history of the constitution you will see that the only argument against the bill of rights was weather it was necessary. The Federalists thought that the rights in the bill already existed and the Anti-Federalists thought it was necessary to specifically protect them.

[Pangloss]

Ownership of slaves had nothing to do with security it was for profit.

 

Sure that's why they HAD slaves, but security (i.e. slave revolt) was an important issue and factored into every single slavery-related debate of the day. Franklin was surely aware of that when he made the statement about freedom and security, as he was one of the most prominent abolitionists of his time. Not to mention an extremely intelligent and insightful guy, and of course witty as all heck. Which of course is why we quote him. (grin)

 

So it's pretty much impossible to conjecture that he wouldn't have considered this angle. But I'm really just guessing about this, having only read two or three Franklin biographies and none of them recently -- I don't recall any of them mentioning this quote in that context, so this is entirely my conjecture. If you have something that suggests the contrary I'm all ears.

 

I'm not criticizing your point of view at all, by the way. If anything you've given me something new to ponder (about Franklin), which I always appreciate.

 

 

Quite the opposite if you look into the history of the constitution you will see that the only argument against the bill of rights was weather it was necessary. The Federalists thought that the rights in the bill already existed and the Anti-Federalists thought it was necessary to specifically protect them.

 

Well we could haggle about the course of the debate, but this would seem to support my point that they saw the value of compromise to freedom for the sake of security. I'm glad we agree.

[pioneer]

If I am not mistaken, isn't the type of spying, they are talking about, limited to phone records, which any descent hacker could also acquire. It does not listen to the call, but if Habbib calls Ben Laden, we look for a record of that, and then get a judge to issue further warrants.

 

Some of the more paranoid airports are more abusive of liberty than that. Yet most are willing to allow their liberities to be manhandled if it saves lives, which may not even be in jeopardy under most circumstances. What the difference is, the former better targets the harrassment. While the latter uses an elephant gun to hunt flies. so everyone is harrassed equally.

 

As far as the Democrats, they are by far, the more busybody party, that likes to institute regulations to control lives and liberties. The only reason they apposed this, at first, is they didn't think of it first. They did not want the other side to get any credit. But they realize this could come in handy if they were able to acquire the Whitehouse. Former President Clinton had a much more intrusive program, which may come back, when the media is more likely to ignor it. The republicans like security. They might go along since they won't mind the US having better data.

[Sisyphus]

That is an intersting take on things. I think if you asked the average European, they would regard Europe as being less likely to infinge the civil liberties of their citizens than the US is. Would you say there is the opposite perception in the US? If so, where do you think it comes from?

 

It depends on who you ask. I think in general, liberals would say the U.S. is more likely to infringe, and conservatives would say European governments are. American Libertarians, of course, would simply deny the existence of Europe entirely.