Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: complaints about the governemnt spying!
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:42:09 -0600
--On December 29, 2005 4:14:12 PM -0500 bruen () coldrain net wrote:
No such law was passed five years ago. I suspect you're referring to FISA, which was passed in 1978. Furthermore, Congress can pass a law which restricts the powers of the Executive as they are granted in the Constitution, but it would be unconstitutional, if they did, and the President would be under no obligation to obey it. That is the crux of the argument, and every court precedent to date has upheld the President's position.On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:Yes, because 1) the program isn't illegalWell, about five years ago a lwa was passed forbidding *any* government employee including the president from such spying seems to make it illegal. This is will be determined by the legal and political process during the next year or so.
Yes, that's true, for the first one who revealed the secret. Might be true for all of them. It's certain the Times won't tell us. It's a secret how they got the information.and 2) the program was top secret. In order for the Times to print the story, they had to encourage people who had sworn a secrecy oath to break the law. Then, knowing that what they were publishing would tip off the terrorists to what the government was doing to capture them, they published it anyway.Your logic is out of sequence. For the Times to convince people to talk about it implies that the Times knew about it first. How could that be the case if it was top secret? Someone who knew had to have initiated it, not the Times.
I resent being called stupid because I believe in our constitution, individual liberty and freedom. My civil rights make my country what it is. None of this diminishes the need to protect our country or my recognition of this. The only stupidity is thinking it's okay to eliminate the values that make this country great. When we give it all up we become like any other dictatorship.
If the shoe fits.No values have been given up, except in the fevered minds of people who think the government is lurking behind every door.
Let me know when America has its Kristelnacht, OK? Until then, these claims are ludicrous. You haven't given up any rights that you had before Bush was elected. You've just bought the fever swamp paranoia.No need to review the atrocities, but if you want smething to review, just look at how Hitler started to remove civil rights in Germany after he was *elected* to office.
Thousands had died before 9/11, yet the world slept. Now the world is going back to sleep, insisting that the *real* problem is repressive governments, not people who slaughter innocent men, women and children of every race, creed, nationality and sex without discrimination and without mercy.This is not a binary choice, unless your brain only sees black and white. It's all shades of grey and lots of colors.
Oh, well please enlighten us. On the one side you have people who will murder anyone who doesn't believe in their "truth". On the other side you have the billions of people in this world who simply want to live their lives without being told what to do. Please tell us where the grey is, because the Islamo-facists do seem able to see it.
We can still defeat enemies of our country without sacrificing our values.
Sure we can. But can we do it with our eyes closed and our ears covered?
This is the knid of thinking that leads to repressive governments.
Oh, please. No one wants the government out of their business more than I do. In fact, I'm in favor of dismantling entire bureaucracies and returning the power and money to local governments.
But I do understand that one of the primary responsibilities of our federal government is our safety.
The US is the only super power left and it has more responsibility because of the status - which it mostly meets. That does not require that incompetent people use easy and possibly illegal means to do their job.
No, but it does require an informed citizenry.
Then you know nothing. The administration has never tied 9/11 and Saddam together. In fact, they have repeatedly stated that there were no known ties between the two.You have a whole bunch of unfounded assumptions here. I believe in our civil rights and I believe Al Qaeda should be crushed. I also know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, except as an excuse.
Howver, the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam were extensive and dated back to the early 90's. All of this is proven and documented. Did Saddam have a direct hand in 9/11? Not that we know of, but that doesn't mean that we could ignore what he was doing. Furthermore, the UN's corruption and the Oil For Food scam were rapidly supplying Saddam with the money and support in the UN that he needed to have the sanctions lifted, after which God only know what might have happened.
Liberties are defined a little bit better than this. Try reading the Consitution... I don't understand how you can compare a speeding ticket to something like freedom to assemble or freedom of the press.
So spend some more time thinking about it.
Note the use of the modifier "unreasonable". Its very inclusion presumes that there is such a thing as a "reasonable" search and seizure which does not require either a warrant or probable cause.Here's Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not the one crying that the sky is falling. You are. You're the one who is comparing something that you *claim* is illegal but is provably not to Hitler's abrogation of civil rights.You have demeaned the the US and the real values for which it stands in your efforts to justify acts which appear to go against the Constitution. No amount of cries that the sky is falling is enough to excuse the undermining of our rights and freedoms.
Yes, and if you don't like the fact that the administration can spy on international communications, then amend the Constitution.Yes and sometimes those reasons are wrong (eg: slavery, women don't get to vote, no one can drink and personal gain). The rules are always subject the to the will of the people.
Great. Present a security plan that will ensure safety on all flights, both domestic and international. Fits right in with the purpose of this list and should be very interesting besides.We could remove the ID checks for airports and just let the terrorists blow planes up willy-nilly. I suppose there are some people who wouldn't be too bothered by that, so long as it isn't the plane they are on that's being blown up.That sounds good, but you forgot to mention that all the 9/11 hijackers had ID - legitimate IDs. Checking IDs did not stop the hijackers. There are other, better ways to handle it. I have seen 83 year great-mothers forced to take off their shoes - oops no bomb there. What about the diaper pins being removed from the baby - oops no bomb there either.
I can back up every statement that I've made with volumes and volumes of links to proof - court precedents, documents in the public domain, etc., etc. And you?You simply do not know what you are talking about. And because of that, people like you and W are failing us.
Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying!, (continued)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! bkfsec (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Leif Ericksen (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Blue Boar (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Michael Holstein (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Leif Ericksen (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Steve Friedl (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! bruen (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 29)
- Re: complaints about the governemnt spying! bkfsec (Dec 29)
- Message not available
- [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemnt spying! fok yo (Dec 29)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemnt spying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 29)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemnt spying! zap zoid (Dec 29)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemntspying! Exibar (Dec 29)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemntspying! zap zoid (Dec 29)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about the governemntspying! Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 29)
- RE: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about thegovernemntspying! Oscar Fajardo (Dec 30)
- Re: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about thegovernemntspying! Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 30)
- RE: [Full-disclosure][WAY OFF TOPIC] complaints about thegovernemntspying! Paul Schmehl (Dec 30)