General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbsolutely no snark intended here, but
How do we monitor the religious fundamentalists who want to destroy our country without the use of electronic Surveillance?
And if a Federal Judge approves the surveillance (Probable Cause) how is that against the law?
Or should one just face the realization that we shouldnt be concerned about such things as Security at the expense of the 4th...Kind of Better Dead than Red"
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)which achieves TWO of the Bush/Paul agenda.
Tarnashing dems now for 2014, and making it legal forever.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There never was a 'war on terror'. It was a money laundering operation.
clarice
(5,504 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)by the Bush administration. This was done by using the cover of war to obfuscate where the money was going and giving it only to GOP ran companies.
asjr
(10,479 posts)we go back to the year it started. This was a Bush/Cheney operation with dozens of Republicans cheering them on. I didn't hear much about it until now. But you see, Barack Obama is president now and just about everyone we hear from are calling for his head. Bush/Cheney have many more reasons to have angered the citizens but now the citizens are outraged that someone out there will learn all about them under this president.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Plus its a good way for the supporters of Bush/Cheney to start the next two election cycles off.
cali
(114,904 posts)I suppose you're gung-ho on monitoring Occupy as well.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Thats an answer....Dont have to go all "WTF on everyone...
BTW.....I am a part of that movement..
premium
(3,731 posts)you know, that piece of paper that GWB was so contemptuous of.
cali
(114,904 posts)did you not know that?
And no, I'm not telling you that the 4th Amendment "takes precedence over everything"- whatever the blue fuck that means.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Arent all wars political.?...Suggest you calm down this a.m.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't. but as long as we're making suggestions, why don't you stop posting utter crap?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/28/arrests-alleged-militia-activity-midwest/
Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the group called Hutaree were arrested over the weekend after raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The ninth suspect was arrested Monday night after a search in southern Michigan and was expected to be arraigned Tuesday.
FBI agents moved quickly against Hutaree because its members were planning an attack sometime in April, prosecutors said.
tblue
(16,350 posts)They have already recorded that you posted on DU, that you're reaading it right now. Maybe you don't care. When Pres. Jeb Bush and Karl Rove have free access to what you do, will you still not care?
Stop freaking out about some boogie man. They use that to control you, to make you hand over your liberty and your rights. It's textbook.
And just because something is called legal doesnt mean it's right. Nuremberg taught us that. We all have a duty to resist immoral or unethical laws.
unblock
(52,331 posts)if stopping bad guys were more important than protecting american rights, *the bill of rights would not exist*.
our founders didn't put that in there to make life easy for the government. the third amendment, not much relevant today, was a particular nuisance for the military. the british enjoyed sleeping in whatever house was convenient as they marched through the colonies, and we didn't want our military doing that. well, how did we expect our military to fight indians or the british if they couldn't count on a decent bed wherever they found one?
our founders decided that the military would just have to figure out a way. sleep outside, bring a tent, whatever. they knew it would hamper the military but they decided that it was more important to protect american rights.
same goes for other protections. sure, the need for warrants and probable cause and all that is an annoyance for the police, but they just have to figure out a way to get their job done while protecting american rights.
the notion that curtailing or eliminating rights makes the government more efficient is an tried and true argument used by dictatorships and repressive regimes throughout the world and throughout history. it is, dare i say it, un-american.
so, as a practical matter, terrorists plots get solved the same way other criminal organizations get busted. rewards for tip-offs, undercover infiltration, asking merchants about suspicious behavior (massive purchases of fertilizer, e.g.), wiretaps and searches with warrants where probable cause actually exists, etc.
in fact, no one has yet demonstrated (claimed, but not demonstrated) that this massive searching of non-probable cause data has produced anything of value in terms of stopping terrorist activity, and in particular, shown that it couldn't have been stopped otherwise.
moreover, terrorists are nothing if not adaptable. once they realized the way the government is spying they'll change their tactics, as they always have. they'll stop using the bad keywords. they'll stop doing anything of consequence via email, or at least they'll highly encrypt anything juicy. they'll start doing more single-person terrorist acts that don't require much, if any, spy-able communication.
then we'll be left with all the spying on innocent people and nothing useful for fighting actual terrorism.
finally, if a federal judge approves something, it is technically legal unless and until overruled by a higher court or at least a later court. then again, bad court decisions happen all the time, and in this case the problem appears to be that there is no strong representation for the public or for privacy considerations in this entire process. making the court involvement a bit of window-dressing more than proper oversight. the bottom line is that making something nominally legal doesn't make it right in principle.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Who is trying to undermine women's rights in this nation?
The religious right wingers in legislatures (at the state and federal level.)
Rather than pretend that religious fundamentalists are working outside of our govt, how about dealing with the ones that are there?
What was it the Christian fascists said to Jeff Sharlet? Oh yeah, to paraphrase, it's okay to employ "Stalin" or "Hitler-like" tactics if it gets them what they want. (You can read the whole thing by googling "Jesus Plus One," from Harper's magazine.)
The biggest threat to America from religious fundamentalists is from Christians.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)in order to authorize any necessary surveillance, just as you would expect if you were suspected of a crime.
randome
(34,845 posts)...I was right. busterbrown, you tried. Kudos.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Response to busterbrown (Original post)
Romulus Quirinus This message was self-deleted by its author.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)A nuke in a subway is way different from a car accident.
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #22)
Romulus Quirinus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)As to no snark. Hah. Your entire post is snark and well intended.