NSA Phone Records

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
Do you really want to know the difference between you and BB? He uses silly things like facts and laws and reason, while you rely completely on the standard liberal weapons of feelings and rhetoric.

LOL.

Doogie, there are a fair number of issues that I agree with the government or with conservatives on. When they arise, I like to point them out, so that at times like this you might remember them.

That is what is different.

One example is sealing the border. Build a wall! Deploy the national guard! Do what it takes, but stop the flow of illegal immigrants. I don’t think that is a liberal talking point stance, but correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Hey, Vroom. I said you disagree with everything the administration does. The administration DOESN’T want to seal the border. Nice try though.

82

How deluded do you have to be to read what I wrote as saying the “other side” is somehow inhuman.

Who does this sound like to you?

It’s like looking into a mirror for you, isn’t it?

The sad part is, people like you aren’t even consistent:

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/relativism.php

Some people are attracted to moral relativism because they think it represents toleration and liberal thinking. A moral relativist might think that we should not interfere with other people’s lives or moral values. He might think that if there is no objective fact to determine whether abortion is acceptable, then we should not interfere with a woman’s request to have an abortion.

This is actually an inconsistent position. If there are really no objective moral truths, then there is no objective answer as to whether something should or should not be allowed. It is inconsistent to say that there are no objective facts that determine whether something ought to be done or not, and at the same time claim that abortion ought to be allowed, since to make the latter claim is to claim that something indeed ought to be allowed.

When this inconsistency is pointed out, some moral relativists might say that they are only affirming non-interference from their own perspective. But the problem is that from other perspectives, interference might not be undesirable and might even be necessary, and the relativist would then have no way to engage the other party in a rational discussion as to what the right thing to do is. For example, someone might think that abortion is wrong relative to his moral theory, and that all violent means are justified in order to prevent women from having abortions, including the killing of doctors and nurses who might participate in such matters. For a moral relativist, such a position is just as valid as thinking that abortion should be protected, and so no reason can be given to stop any such violent campaign against abortion. The obvious conclusion is that it would be a big mistake to think that moral relativism supports any kind of liberal moral outlook. Under relativism, any non-liberal or absurd position is just as valid as any other.

I know you won’t be honest when you get your results, but go ahead and take 1 minute to find out for yourself.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/rel-quiz.php

[quote]
Wait, perhaps this is a set up for an invasion… dehumanize the enemy and mobilize the troops… take out those damned liberals one way or the other. Okay, I see how it is.[/quote]

More liberal paranoia…

83

Ahahahaha. Talk about a waste of typing. I can’t believe the nonsense you spew… is this required to make the rest of your post look more reasonable?

Doogie, you confuse the issues of loss of lives with danger to your country. Thousands of people die due to auto accidents. Is your country at risk? Thousands of people die of cancer, heart disease or stroke. Is your country at risk? Thousands of soldiers die overseas. Is your country at risk? Thousand of people die in a hurricane. Is your country at risk?

America is large and strong. I am surprised you think it will fall at the loss of few thousand lives. I don’t know how you ever made it through the world wars!

There is risk, I’m not saying there isn’t. However, throwing out scary scenerios is a great way to justify just about any excess. However, if you get to use scary stories, then so should I. Don’t dismiss mine unless you are willing to dismiss yours.

There are ways to increase security that don’t involve unquestioning trust in government authority. Howabout securing the borders? Howabout inspecting incoming shipments? Howabout focusing on improving intelligence assets so that you aren’t invading countries like Iraq on false evidence?

I can accept the fact that you don’t have as big a concern for privacy and the “rights” of citizens as I do, but let’s avoid throwing garbage around in order to make your point.

My points are supported by looking at the excesses of humanity in the past as well as current blatant corruption in government today. How you can suggest that this corruption doesn’t place you at risk is completely beyond me. The effect of this corruption is that the government whores itself out to the highest bidder.

Holy shit. People are making millions of dollars by putting money into the pockets of your elected officials so that they can make fortunes getting contracts to supply the troops. People are putting their friends into important government positions, without regard to qualifications, and citizens lives are certainly put at risk due to this as well.

This isn’t anti-American nonsense, as I’m sure this crap is happening in my government as well (just look at the recent corruption scandal we had as well). How come we turn a blind eye to these types of issues and don’t imagine that they also represent a form of threat to our nations?

Your excess fear with respect to terrorism is simply a way to manipulate you…

84

[quote]doogie wrote:
Hey, Vroom. I said you disagree with everything the administration does. The administration DOESN’T want to seal the border. Nice try though.
[/quote]

Hmm, at least I have my own opinions that aren’t liberal talking points…

85

[quote]doogie wrote:
How deluded do you have to be to read what I wrote as saying the “other side” is somehow inhuman.[/quote]

Doogie, imagining that “liberals” can’t distinguish right and wrong is a fantasy belief. You are “demonizing” liberals with statements like this… which is related to how we “dehumanize” enemies when we go to war.

Do you know what I’m talking about here? I’m taking your statement and showing what it seems to entail… I’m not simply changing the words you used to my own words. You don’t agree with my assessment, howabout you put together a coherent argument?

Strike 1.

Doogie, unless you accept right and wrong as handed down by God, you are going to be branded a moral relativist yourself I’m afraid.

I suspect you have a series of principles and beliefs that you base your opinions of right and wrong on. For some people those beliefs are based in religion, for others they are based in something else.

There might even actually be people out there who believe in the concept of moral relativism. I don’t actually know of any, unless they’d like to step up to the plate and embrace the concept?

However, there is a difference between having more than one viewpoint on the world and having a valid viewpoint for every person in the world. When I say I grant you your opinion, it doesn’t mean that your opinion is also right, it is still wrong from my point of view, but I am able to live with the fact that you are “wrong” on many issues without flipping out.

Strike 2.

Here, for example, there are objective facts to consider. I’ve stated my view on this, and it doesn’t differ from person to person. However, I do allow that other people have a different view than me, and that I willfully live in a democracy and can allow it to make decisions in these matters instead of myself.

There is no relativism involved at all.

Strike 3.

If you can be paranoid about the fall of America due to the loss of a few thousand lives, I can be paranoid about the fall of America due to the slow erosion of civil liberties of all citizens.

Ejection from the game.

86

[quote]doogie wrote:
Good lord, Vroom. You live in a country where Zeb would be a felon for voicing the opinions he has expressed on T-mag about homosexuals. Why are you concerned with our rights when people can’t even voice their religious beliefs where you live?

vroom wrote:
Ahahahaha. Talk about a waste of typing. I can’t believe the nonsense you spew… is this required to make the rest of your post look more reasonable?
[/quote]

Nice dodge.

Seriously, vroom. Why are you so concerned about the U.S.? In your country, I couldn’t legally type on the internet that I think white people shouldn’t be allowed to have jobs. I couln’t legally say I think my neighbor who was pardoned after serving two years for molesting kids should never be allowed to hold a job because he was pardoned. I couldn’t even legally call my own mother and express those views.

[quote]
Doogie, you confuse the issues of loss of lives with danger to your country. Thousands of people die due to auto accidents. Is your country at risk? Thousands of people die of cancer, heart disease or stroke. Is your country at risk? Thousands of soldiers die overseas. Is your country at risk? Thousand of people die in a hurricane. Is your country at risk?[/quote]

You ignorantly described the danger of terrorism as a fairly small issue.

Are any of the stupid examples you just posted intentionally trying to kill people? Is their stated goal to convert or kill everyone in the world?

Is there any danger of cars or hurricanes developing dirty bombs or biological agents capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack?

Are some of our “rights” not already limited to deal with car safety? I have to register my car and get it inspected. I have to pass a test and have a liscense to drive it. I have to wear my seat belt while driving.

Do we voluntarily give up some of our “rights” to combat cancer? I can’t smoke in any public buildings in town. I have to pay a sin tax on every pack of cigs.

Yet letting the government look at phone records that I knew all along were being seen by unknown people is somehow outrageous and puts me in danger of losing my liberty? You’re nuts.

[quote]
America is large and strong. I am surprised you think it will fall at the loss of few thousand lives. I don’t know how you ever made it through the world wars![/quote]

If you are going to discuss things, don’t make up both sides of the arguement.

I’m surprised that you think our freedoms are just going to disappear, even though there have been chicken-littles like you yelling “the sky is falling” for 200 years.

We’ve held our shit together against every challenge we’ve faced for over 200 years under the same Constitution. You live in a country that didn’t have a bill of rights until 1960. Your current attempt at protecting civil liberties wasn’t adopted until 1982! We’ve been at this almost 200 years longer than you.

[quote]
There is risk, I’m not saying there isn’t. However, throwing out scary scenerios is a great way to justify just about any excess. [/quote]

If you were honest, you’d acknowledge that my “scary story” was just a response to Zeb’s “scary story”. I know you can justify about any excess with scary stories. What I get (that you don’t), is that you can justify just about any insufficiency also with “scary stories”. Neither tactic is valid.

[quote]
There are ways to increase security that don’t involve unquestioning trust in government authority. [/quote]

I didn’t realize we had agreed to disband Congress, agreed to disband the Supreme Court, agrred to allow Bush to stay in office indefinitely, and had shut down all media outlets. How did I miss that?

No one is talking about unquestioning trust. We are talking about the legality of a program. If it is illegal, the Supreme Court will strike it down. If whoever is in office at that time refuses to shut down the program at that point, then it will be an issue.

[quote]
Howabout securing the borders? Howabout inspecting incoming shipments? Howabout focusing on improving intelligence assets so that you aren’t invading countries like Iraq on false evidence?[/quote]

Are any of those relevant to the legality of this NSA program? Nope.

[quote]
I can accept the fact that you don’t have as big a concern for privacy and the “rights” of citizens as I do, but let’s avoid throwing garbage around in order to make your point.[/quote]

Vroom, all you have done is throw garbage out. You don’t even understand the issue yet.

And if you were concerned with the “rights of citizens” you would have moved here a long time ago.

[quote]
My points are supported by looking at the excesses of humanity in the past as well as current blatant corruption in government today. How you can suggest that this corruption doesn’t place you at risk is completely beyond me. The effect of this corruption is that the government whores itself out to the highest bidder.[/quote]

All governments always have. All governments always will. Does that have anything to do with this program? No.

Tell me, Vroom, how exactly am I at risk because of this program. Give me a worst case scenario in which some evil government agent decides to destroy me, and uses this program to do it.

Now tell me why this evil genius couldn’t destroy me a million different ways WITHOUT this program.

[quote]
Your excess fear with respect to terrorism is simply a way to manipulate you…[/quote]

Why do you think your fear of merely potential abuses by possible evil government agents is more rational than a fear of people who have repeatedly attacked us and continue to call for our destruction?

87

Okay.

I’m seeing a lot of girlishness has been added to the thread while I’ve been away from the computer here.

This issue isn’t even an issue. Your “rights” have not been “eroded” in any way at all. At all. There has been no invasion of any privacy. Do you own the phone lines or the phone company?

What would be illegal is if the government seized the records of those companies without their permission. But they had permission, as the original story link explained. No harm, no foul.

Let me ask all you whiny girls something:

Is it inconceivable to think that in the near future, there will be many many cameras registering where you drive, where you shop, where you work, where you play… in other words: everywhere you go? Is this some kind of scary thing to you guys? Do you have a “right to privacy” when you are out in public? Do you have the basic and fundamental right for someone NOT to know that you visited your Aunt Susan last Friday?

I can hear you guys already. “That’s WAYYY too much, man! The government would be SOOOO oppressive then!” No they wouldn’t. What I am describing is nothing more than simple investigation that anyone would be perfectly in his rights to do to you at any time. There is no invasion of any privacy whatsoever. If I want to follow you around in public and make notes of everywhere you go, I am violating zero laws.

Think about it.

But I’m sure you guys would be bitching up a storm if this came to pass. :slight_smile:

88

[quote]
doogie wrote:
How deluded do you have to be to read what I wrote as saying the “other side” is somehow inhuman.

vroom wrote:
Doogie, imagining that “liberals” can’t distinguish right and wrong is a fantasy belief. [/quote]

Fuck. Quit making up shit. I said liberals don’t CARE about right and wrong. I know you can distinguish between the two. They just don’t have the integrity to defend “right”. Instead they hide behind moral relativism.

[quote]
You are “demonizing” liberals with statements like this… which is related to how we “dehumanize” enemies when we go to war.[/quote]

What in holy hell are you talking about? I didn’t demonize anybody. I called a spade a spade.

The second part of your sentence is retarded in that it has nothing to do with this conversation and in that it is just more evidence of your moral relativism.

[quote]
Do you know what I’m talking about here? I’m taking your statement and showing what it seems to entail… I’m not simply changing the words you used to my own words.[/quote]

Bullshit.

You are changing my words to yours in order to create the impression that what I said implies what you want it to.

Use my words only and explain how they imply what you claim they do. You injected the word “inhuman” into your analysis of what I was implying. That is crap. You couldn’t reach the conclusions you have based solely on what I wrote.

You changed the words I used to words you wished I had used. That wasn’t an arguement on your part, it was a lie. When you start addressing what I actually said, I’ll respond.

[quote]
Doogie, unless you accept right and wrong as handed down by God, you are going to be branded a moral relativist yourself I’m afraid.[/quote]

From what you’ve said on this thread, you are afraid of your own shadow.

[quote]
I suspect you have a series of principles and beliefs that you base your opinions of right and wrong on. For some people those beliefs are based in religion, for others they are based in something else.

There might even actually be people out there who believe in the concept of moral relativism. I don’t actually know of any, unless they’d like to step up to the plate and embrace the concept?[/quote]

Moral relativism is being too cowardly to not only develop but also to DEFEND your own beliefs on right and wrong. It’s being afraid to judge others. It’s being worried about “dehumanizing” people who cut off the heads of civilian hostages. It’s being exactly like you.

[quote]
However, there is a difference between having more than one viewpoint on the world and having a valid viewpoint for every person in the world.[/quote]

See, this is where you are proving you are a moral relativist. What does “having more than one viewpoint on the world” mean? You think that the morality of an action is dependent upon the person commiting the act. You are afraid to condemn that which you know is evil, and you defend your cowardice by pretending to be “open minded” because you can see things from more than one viewpoint.

It’s not noble to refuse to condemn evil acts. It’s not evil to justify the evil deeds of others based on their background/beliefs/surroundings.

Before you embarrass yourself further, figure out that “morals” and “opinions” are not synonyms.

Views and opinions ARE synonymous. Neither is the same a morals.

For that matter, MORAL relativism is not the same as CULTURAL relativism. You really need to grasp this to continue this discussion.

If you think abortion is morally wrong, but refuse to consider people who perform or get abortions evil because they have different morals, you are a relativist.

Admit it, vroom. You had more points you wanted to make in this post, but you didn’t know what comes after 3.

89

[quote]doogie wrote:
Seriously, vroom. Why are you so concerned about the U.S.? In your country, I couldn’t legally type on the internet that I think white people shouldn’t be allowed to have jobs. I couln’t legally say I think my neighbor who was pardoned after serving two years for molesting kids should never be allowed to hold a job because he was pardoned. I couldn’t even legally call my own mother and express those views.
[/quote]

Really? I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about…

[quote]You ignorantly described the danger of terrorism as a fairly small issue.

Are any of the stupid examples you just posted intentionally trying to kill people? Is their stated goal to convert or kill everyone in the world?

Is there any danger of cars or hurricanes developing dirty bombs or biological agents capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack?[/quote]

Doogie, don’t mischaracterize it. I’m saying the US is in no danger of folding tomorrow because of these issues. I’m not saying there is no danger at all – and you damned well know it.

When the US was much younger and less developed it withstood the effort and losses of WWI and WWII with barely a break in it’s stride.

You are mistaking your anger and distaste for a directed attack for the level of danger to your country that such an attack actually represents. That’s all I’m saying.

Freak out at will.
[/quote]

This is hardly the only thing that your government has been doing. It’s just one in a long line of actions taken to justify ignoring civil rights. Unchecked, over time, these things add up and get abused, are you claiming they don’t? That would make you nuts.

I’m not saying they will dissappear, I am saying that over time, the environment is being created that will make it possible for them to dissappear. Thinking you are invulnerable is precisely the thing that makes you vulnerable.

Ahahahaha. Look, the fact that a bill of rights was not in the constitution does not mean that rules and regulations concerning the treatment of citizens were not well established.

Perhaps if you spent a little less time imagining how much better at being free you are than the rest of the free world, you’d realize that the differences are less significant than the similarities.

Is this the part where I was supposed to bow down to your greatness?

[quote]Howabout securing the borders? Howabout inspecting incoming shipments? Howabout focusing on improving intelligence assets so that you aren’t invading countries like Iraq on false evidence?

Are any of those relevant to the legality of this NSA program? Nope.[/quote]

You miss the point, or ignore it. The reason for being willing to set the modern precedent of trampling civil liberties is under the guise of offering protection to the populace. If the government really wanted to offer such protection maybe it would take steps to actually provide it?

The fact is hasn’t, lends credence to reports that Bush, Cheney & Co have an agenda to push at the limitations on the powers of the presidency. I just happen to feel the dangers of a big brother state are real, not that they are here today.

[quote]Vroom, all you have done is throw garbage out. You don’t even understand the issue yet.

And if you were concerned with the “rights of citizens” you would have moved here a long time ago.[/quote]

LOL!

I did move there a long time ago… and I moved back home too.

[quote]Tell me, Vroom, how exactly am I at risk because of this program. Give me a worst case scenario in which some evil government agent decides to destroy me, and uses this program to do it.

Now tell me why this evil genius couldn’t destroy me a million different ways WITHOUT this program.[/quote]

I’m not talking about personal risk, I’m talking about big risks, form of government risks. While long periods of stability lead one to believe governments are forever, it seems that at some point in time there is a crisis and they morph into something else.

Whether or not that danger will ever be realized is hard to say, but weakening the walls that prevent the government from travelling that road is unwise.

You can disagree all you like, but at least try to disagree with what I’m actually trying to say, not some caricature of it, even if the caricature is much more fun to discuss.

Why? Because you don’t need to infringe on the rights of your own citizens in order to combat the terrorists effectively. Think about that for a minute.

90

[quote]doogie wrote:
Use my words only and explain how they imply what you claim they do. You injected the word “inhuman” into your analysis of what I was implying. That is crap. You couldn’t reach the conclusions you have based solely on what I wrote. [/quote]

Are you drunk?

Use my words only… ahahahahaha! That’s priceless!

I’ll tell you what, when you are able to fathom the concept of analyzing what someone says to determine the import of their words, you get back to me.

91

[quote]See, this is where you are proving you are a moral relativist. What does “having more than one viewpoint on the world” mean? You think that the morality of an action is dependent upon the person commiting the act. You are afraid to condemn that which you know is evil, and you defend your cowardice by pretending to be “open minded” because you can see things from more than one viewpoint.

It’s not noble to refuse to condemn evil acts. It’s not evil to justify the evil deeds of others based on their background/beliefs/surroundings.[/quote]

Come back when you aren’t drunk.

I don’t think the morality of an act changes based on who commits it. Stop being such an idiot.

What I have said to you is that I realize I don’t have the power to run the world the way I see fit, and I have to accept the rules and limitations imposed on me by society.

How you think that means the rules change based on who’s involved I do not know.

However, the fact that I am looking at different principles than you (especially if you don’t know what they are or see them) may mean that my opinion changes for reasons you don’t understand.

I wish you wouldn’t let yourself get brainwashed by this bullshit.

92

I love it when people lecture me on shit and get it all convoluted.

If you think abortion is morally wrong, you are expressing an opinion.

Your opinions are generally shaped or guided by your morals or principles, so play games with respect to separating them all you like, it is meaningless.

I am sure there might be people out there with flexible morals or principles, but again, I don’t know that I’ve ever met such a person.

Any rational thinker will generally have internally consistent opinions which reflect the principles they adhere to. It is possible for a rational thinking to have not considered an issue before and need time to work out the conflicting principles involved.

Pretend otherwise if you wish… but we aren’t born having opinions on every topic that may possibly arise. Sometimes, and it is normal and natural, people learn things that adjust their principles, though as you get older that will happen less often.

Grab a clue!

93

Lothario,

Your posts on this subject are appreciated.

I remember many people SCREAMING that the government hadn’t connected the dots prior to 9/11.

The criticism ran along the lines that the Bush Administration “should have known…”

I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO CONNECT THE DOTS PRIOR TO AN ATTACK!!!

How do they connect them? By collecting the dots.

Let’s break it down. If you collect 5,000,000 people’s phone records spread across the country, you might turn up calls to damascus, tripoli, tehran, etc. Then you focus on those people. You MIGHT JUST uncover a plot in the making.

If this type of program makes my liberal friends (plus Zeb)(I love you, man. However, I ask you to think about who you are agreeing with)) squeamish, I shudder to think of them regaining any real authority.

I encourage bradley, al-a-baby, tme, mazilla, and my other friends to write to their democratic pals. Tell them to make a HUGE ISSUE OF THIS.

Thanks,

JeffR

94

Jeffy:

I think ZEB is suffering from “get off my lawn!” syndrome about this. It’s not that he is “agreeing” per se with those guys, it’s more like he wants to be left alone to do his own thing. Which is good, but maybe he doesn’t realize that logging who you call on your telephone isn’t “invading” anything.

Like I mentioned before, the illegal seizure would be if they violated the privacy of the business entities that provide the telephone services. Those telephone companies have the right to keep their records secret unless they are under subpoena just like any private citizen.

In fact, if anybody actually READS the article that was linked in the first post, one of the major suppliers of telephone service, Qwest, refused to comply with the government’s requests even though the administration played a little hardball with them. To this day, Qwest refuses to hand over the records or comply with the monitoring program.

95

History repeats itself over and over again, people have become too ignorant to look back at the history of the world in issues relating to this abuse of government power.

Fear has always been used by leaders and governments to gain absolute control of their people and for governments to do whatever they pleased

Hitler used the fear of communism to slowly gain absolute power of his state through legal means, Many Germans were frightened of communism and saw Hitler as their protector and gave hitler their support and ultimately gave up their freedoms for so called “security”

During the present it is not the fear of communism but fear of “terrorism.” You know i always hear people saying, hey if you’re a good patriot and don’t affiliate with terrorists you should have no problem with giving up a little bit of your privacy to protect yourself. Well, this is exactly what germans thought during the nazi germany, if you are not affiliated with communists there is no worry of being arrested etc., look what happened to them

Nazi leader Herman Goering once remarked that it was easy to lead people into war, regardless of whether they resided within a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All that was required, Goering said, is for their government to tell them they are being attacked, and [then] denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.?

Sound familiar,
This same idea holds true for gaining power over a people,fear of the unknown whether it is communism or terrorism.

Remember The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny on themselves.

96

Ugh.

More whining.

Will somebody PLEASE explain to me how any kind of law was even close to being violated when the government asked the phone companies to track who calls where and when, and to give them the info – if the phone company doesn’t mind?

There has been zero abuse of any power.

If you want to bitch and moan about your so-called privacy being violated, then direct it to the phone companies who willingly surrendered the info about your calling habits. I could see how this would piss some of you off… LOL Now Uncle Sam knows you’re into tranny phone sex or whatever.

Is this any different than a company selling your name and other personal info to telemarketers? No. But the bonus here is that Uncle Sam isn’t gonna be calling you at dinner time and asking you if you are satisfied with your long-distance telephone service.

Cue the paranoia in three, two, one…

97

Vroom,

Most of this is pointless, because you won’t stay on topic. We were discussing this particular NSA program. We can’t possibly have a reasonable discussion about every possible theoretical ramificatin of every possible theorectical government program enacted in response to Sept. 11.

[quote]doogie wrote:

In your country, I couldn’t legally type on the internet that I think white people shouldn’t be allowed to have jobs. I couln’t legally say I think my neighbor who was pardoned after serving two years for molesting kids should never be allowed to hold a job because he was pardoned. I couldn’t even legally call my own mother and express those views.

vroom:
Really? I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about… [/quote]

Canadian Human Rights Act

  1. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

Protected grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

See, when I originally responded to this I had overestimated you and thought you knew this thread was about the NSA phone records issue.

The border–The issue is being discussed and SLOWLY addressed. It’s an economic issue as well as a security issue.

Inspecting shipments–many more ARE being inspected, but to search them all would be economically crippling

Improving intelligence assets–do you not think this is being worked on as quickly as possible? A prior adminstration cut this way down. It takes time to rebuild. It’s hard to breed little dark skinned, Farsi speaking people.

See, all of these things are being addressed. It doesn’t have to be one thing at a time.

We were talking about the NSA phone records program. How does that possibly morph into “big risks, form of government risks”?

[quote]

doogie wrote:
Use my words only and explain how they imply what you claim they do. You injected the word “inhuman” into your analysis of what I was implying. That is crap. You couldn’t reach the conclusions you have based solely on what I wrote.

vroom:
Are you drunk?

Use my words only… ahahahahaha! That’s priceless!

I’ll tell you what, when you are able to fathom the concept of analyzing what someone says to determine the import of their words, you get back to me[/quote]

All I said was, “Right and wrong? Since when did ANY of you liberals believe in those concepts?”

You didn’t analyze anything. Analyze means
to examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.
To do that, you’d have to USE MY WORDS. You didn’t do that at all. You just said I was “demonizing” liberals and it was related to how we “dehumanize” enemies when we go to war. That is not analyzing.

Yes it does. In fact, regulations to protect your civil rights weren’t actually established nationwide until 1982. Even now, some of the protections may be overridden in certain circumstances by both the Canadian federal government and provincial legislatures. That can’t happen here. NO law here can violate the Constitution.

Do you not have some type of civics class in Canada that you all have to take? Maybe you should spend a couple of weeks away from t-mag and study up on your homeland.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Canada

Although bordering the United States and sharing a similar legal system, the development of civil rights and civil liberties in Canada has followed a different path, in large part because Canada had no equivalent to the U.S. Bill of Rights until very recently. Provincial codes provided for several rights of the kind protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but they did not apply throughout Canada and were far from complete. After World War II, a political movement in Canada championed a Canadian Bill of Rights, and in the 1950s the Supreme Court of Canada issued some rulings that suggested it might develop civil rights concepts on its own. In 1960 the Canadian Parliament enacted a Bill of Rights, but it applied only to the federal government, not to the provinces. Moreover, the Bill of Rights was an ordinary statute that lacked the force of an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

Beginning in the late 1960s, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau initiated a complex political and legal battle that ultimately led, in 1982, to the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Canadian constitution. The charter established a menu of civil rights and liberties similar to those set out in the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the charter expressly provides for the right of judicial review, permitting those who claim that their rights under the charter have been infringed or denied to seek remedies in court. One major difference between the charter and the U.S. Constitution is that some of the charter?s provisions may be overridden in certain circumstances by both the Canadian federal government and provincial legislatures. In the United States, neither Congress nor the state legislatures may pass a law that conflicts with rights protected by the Constitution.

Finally,
did you take the 30 seconds to find out how full of shit you are?

http://philosophy.hku.hk/...ue/rel-quiz.php

98

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Is it inconceivable to think that in the near future, there will be many many cameras registering where you drive, where you shop, where you work, where you play… in other words: everywhere you go? Is this some kind of scary thing to you guys? Do you have a “right to privacy” when you are out in public? Do you have the basic and fundamental right for someone NOT to know that you visited your Aunt Susan last Friday?
…
What I am describing is nothing more than simple investigation that anyone would be perfectly in his rights to do to you at any time. There is no invasion of any privacy whatsoever. If I want to follow you around in public and make notes of everywhere you go, I am violating zero laws.

Think about it.
[/quote]

It disturbs me that you can’t see the inherent difference between a widescale, automated surveillance system for the entire country and an investigation of a single individual, undertaken after a suspect has given law enforcement a reason to be suspicious.

I believe, and perhaps BB can verify this, that a federal court already ruled that there was a difference between warrantless GPS tagging and standard “tailing” in investigations: the limits set by each. As best I remember, the court ruled (again, sorry I don’t have the case and don’t have time to look it up before I leave) that standard police tails are limited by manpower, budget, and other considerations in a way that GPSs are not.

Of course, during my search to find the case I’m speaking of, I found another one in which police dropped a GPS into a man’s luggage and tracked him without a warrant… and the court upheld it. So the courts can’t be relied on for good sense.

It saddens me to know that many people feel the way that you seem to; that most people truly believe that a nanny-state is the best way for everyone to live, that being kept track of twenty-four hours per day is acceptable. It further saddens me that the legislature and courts will succumb to administrative pressure because of views like yours. When I was a child, I really did believe that this was the “land of the free.” Perhaps in some glorious past it was.

99

[quote]doogie wrote:

So some guy gets questioned by people in dark suits? That’s the horror you see coming of this? Wow.[/quote]

I know it’s no big deal. Especially when it’s “some guy.” Hey…I wonder if you would feel that it’s not big deal if it were you?

You know I bet then it would be a big deal.

Try answering questions from neighbors and friends. And what about the local press who grabs a hold of the story? What would you say to them?

Do you think there just might be a stigma attached to your name forever more?

But hey…if it’s just “some guy” who cares…

In addition to this, I also stated that the man could be dragged through a full scale investigation by overzealous prosecutors even though he’s innocent, as a real possibility.

And you are claiming that the ONLY way to do this is to record every freaking phone call in the US?

You see, I have a problem with that.

Good law enforcement should have nothing to do with listening to innocent peoples phone conversations. While they say that they are only noting who is calling whom, it’s a small leap to actually recording the phone conversations themselves.

I wonder would you have a problem with that?

Hey…what’s the difference if you have nothing to worry about right?

[quote]How in your right mind do you balance that against the one guy undergoing the hassle of being questioned. Hell, if it is so terrible to be questioned, why not argue that it would be better to allow the government to unknowingly search everything about the guy without him knowing. That way, he is cleared without the hassle of ever knowing he was a suspect.
[/quote]

You are confused my friend.

I have never stated that the tactics now used by the NSA do not work. I’m sure they work quite well.

In fact, I think the more rights that you trample on the more potential terrorists you will catch.

In fact, here’s an idea for you, since you are not concerned about “one guys” rights.

Why don’t we simply give the government carte blanche to enter any house in the US without warning or warrant and perform a search?

Do you realize that we would catch far more potential terrorists than this silly little watered down NSA phone game?

Look no one would be hurt. And if you have nothing to hide then why not?

Look doogie, it’s not a matter of how effective any particular anti terrorist technique can be. It’s a matter of how effective that it can be without trampling on the lives of innocent people.

If this continues what will be the governments nex step?

When will doogie say “far enough government.”

As to your question about lost rights on another post:

Under the current Patriot Act the government can hold someone if they think that that person is a terrorist, or has anything to do with a terrorist. In addition to that the person has no right to contact a lawyer, or even tell his family that he is being held.

You wanted to know what right that we have lost? Well how about the right to call a lawyer if you are being held by a law enforcement agency?

There’s one down.

How many more do you want to see go by the wayside before you decide that this administration has gone far enough?

Of course it’s just “some guy” (you don’t know) being held in custody with no right to legal council, so it’s no big deal.

(If you want to see some real horrors take a gander at Patriot Act II)

100

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Jeffy:

I think ZEB is suffering from “get off my lawn!” syndrome about this. It’s not that he is “agreeing” per se with those guys, it’s more like he wants to be left alone to do his own thing. Which is good, but maybe he doesn’t realize that logging who you call on your telephone isn’t “invading” anything.

Like I mentioned before, the illegal seizure would be if they violated the privacy of the business entities that provide the telephone services. Those telephone companies have the right to keep their records secret unless they are under subpoena just like any private citizen.

In fact, if anybody actually READS the article that was linked in the first post, one of the major suppliers of telephone service, Qwest, refused to comply with the government’s requests even though the administration played a little hardball with them. To this day, Qwest refuses to hand over the records or comply with the monitoring program.[/quote]

If you don’t think it’s strange to have the government looking over your sholder relative to whom you are calling then I’m sure you’ll be able to swallow the next pill that is forced down your throat.