Re: OT: Oops, not quite as good for the Dems as you thought...


Bushwhacker wrote:
bvallely@xxxxxxx wrote:
Bushwhacker wrote:
bvallely@xxxxxxx wrote:
Newport wrote:

room@xxxxxxxxxx (Bushwhacker)
Mikey's "reasoning" (In war, the president is allowed to be a dictator,
listening to anyone's calls,>>>>>

President Bush isn't tapping into an American's phone calls.

Either you or he is lying:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/

"President Bush on Sunday defended his administration's use of wiretaps
on U.S. citizens without a court order, ">>>>

I would say that it's the CNN reporter. Here is what actually
happened: President Bush ordered taps on the phones of terrorists
overseas. Nobody sane has any problem with this. Sometimes the
terrorists call Americans. The attitude is that, once a terrorist
calls an American, then we should simply turn a blind eye to that
conversation. Well, this is insane - every time we get a phone tap on
anyone, we don't have to get a second court order for every person the
observed person gets. When Fat Tony, who's phone is legally tapped,
calls "Z Pizza", we don't need a court order on "Z Pizza".


Wrong. The database includes calls from Americans to Americans.>>>

And yet, you didn't provide a link to back up that position.

checking anyone's banking and other private records,>>>>
Wrong again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the
Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to
financial records from a vast international database and examined
banking transactions involving thousands *of Americans* and others in
the United States, according to government and industry officials.>>>

I don't see the word "private" anywhere in that quote. The information
collected is the sort of stuff that's bought and sold every day of the
week.


So you're arguing that financial records are not private? Well, then,
you shouldn't mind giving us your bank account number, because it's
public knowledge.>>>>

Once a year, I am obliged to send the Federal, State and (depending on
the city) local government a complete record of every penny that I
earned, won, found or was given as a gift. The government regulates
how much I can be given before being penalized. If I write a check for
over 10,000 dollars, the bank is obliged to inform the feds. I'm also
strongly encouraged to tell the feds how much I spend on my houseing
loan, my medical bills, how much I spend on day car,etc.

The record must be so complete that I have the pleasant choice of
spending days figuring out my taxes, or spending hundreds of dollars to
have someone else do it for me.

That being considered, I'm not too fucking concerned about the
terrorist's rights to privacy.



No one's private records are being checked over.

Ho hum. Wrong again:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/26/MNG4PEDMKC1.DTL
"The FBI, using its expanded authority under the anti-terrorism law
known as the Patriot Act, is demanding library records from a
Connecticut institution as part of an intelligence investigation, the
American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.>>>

When one borrows a book from a PUBLIC library, what makes that PRIVATE
information?

You obviously have no concept of private information. >>>

When the government lends a person a book, for free, it's not outragous
that a record of that gift be kept, and surrendered to the government
with good reason.

By your "logic," anyone treated at a public hospital should have their medical records open to examination by anyone.>>>>

Rush LImbaugh's doctors had private practices, but that didn't stop the
thug DA from sending in his goons to grabbing Rush's medical records
on the hopes of finding a crime which would justify his million dollar
manhunt. (He didn't) I don't remember you expressing any emotion over
this gross violation of Rush's privacy other than glee.

If you're not interested about Rush Limbaugh's very basic privacy
rights, then I don't care about the rights of a terrorist to borrow a
book on explosives with impunity.

and especially, tossing anyone into a prison for unstated reasons, for any length of time, with *no* judicial or congressional restraint whatsoever)>>>>

No American has been treated this way.

Apparently you never tire of looking unbelievably -- to be kind --
oblivious.

Here's one story:

http://www.freedomtocare.org/police277.htm>>>>

Let's take a look at this outragous abuse of power, shall we?

"After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed
Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted
us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS
agent apologized.."

Wow. Because the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time ... he
was inconvenienced for an hour and a half and then apologized to. And
THIS is what you consider to be fascist behavior?

and another:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/>>>

PORTLAND, Ore. - Offering a rare public apology, the FBI admitted
mistakenly linking an American lawyer's fingerprint to one found near
the scene of a terrorist bombing in Spain, a blunder that led to his
imprisonment for two weeks.

The apology Monday came hours after a judge dismissed the case against
Brandon Mayfield, who had been held as a material witness in the Madrid
bombings case, which killed 191 people and injured about 2,000
others.>>>

So, let's look over the conditions that you claim this article
confirms:

· "...tossing anyone into a prison for unstated reasons,"

The reasons were stated. They found a fingerprint near the bombing,
and they thought he was a witness.

· "... for any length of time,"

Two weeks.

· " with *no* judicial or congressional restraint whatsoever)"

A judge dismissed the case.

That's your gold-standard "A" material? The best example you can find
of an out of control government abusing rights left and right?



As I said, these are the some of the cases that are *known*.>>>>

And the cases that are "known" were all handled professionally, and
with respect for the person's rights. Did you even bother to read the
articles before you posted them?

Unless someone wrongfully jailed has somehow gotten out, we don't know how much they're being abused.>>>>

Yeah, I guess it COULD be true that someone, somewhere is being abused,
but since you have no evidence that it's happened, why are you stating
this situation as a fact? It COULD be true that Bill Clinton has Vince
Foster's head stored in his freezer, and every Sunday he takes it out
and fucks Vince up the neck - but without evidence, it would be best
not to publicly present this theory as a fact.

These are just a couple of mistakes we know about because they were
released. We have *no* idea how many others are jailed wrongly.>>>

Your own source admits that the accused have the right to a trial, and
that the government has no interest holding innocent people.
And you say "No *American*" as if it's OK to abuse non-Americans. >>>>

It's perfectly all right to abuse non-Americans who want to blow up the
Empire State Building.


But *not* the ones who don't want to.>>>>

Got any evidence that this is happening?

The U.S. ideal is supposed to be that *everyone* is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial.>>>>

Unless you're in trouble with the IRS. No trail there.

Or with the EPA. Their word is pretty much final.

.

Loading