Re: Will Amnesty International be taking up the case of DavidCarruthers of BetOnSports?

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 7/21/06, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:13:14 CDT, you said:
>
> > Yep. Easy to do after almost 30 years of loosening the restraints of
> > government. Folks like you who depend on the government for your
> > safety should be happy with this sort of thing though.
>
> So that makes it *OK* to not follow the law requiring a FISA warrant?

Yeah. Rights, like muscles, not exercised are gone.

> And why are you assuming I'm in the "happy" group? I tend to side with these
> guys instead:
>
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Really? You gave up your right to defend yourself, your country and
your fellow man's rights. The right that rated the highest for these
"guys", with the exception of freedom of speech and religion!

> Note that he first had a chance to talk to a lawyer on March 3, 2004 - almost
> 2 whole years after being taken into custody.
>
> (I'm not saying he's innocent - he's quite likely guilty.  But at least
> once upon a time, we gave people a fair trial with legal representation,
> after actually *charging* them with something...)

I'll bet that if it was even remotely likely that he wasn't guilty
there would have been more noise about it and he would have been dealt
with quicker. Either way, too late...

> American citizen, captured in Afghanistan in 2001, not charged with anything
> and denied access to lawyers for over 3 years.  This one *did* go all the
> way to the Supreme Court, which finally ruled the Administration had to do
> *something* with Hamdi, like actually charge him with something...

Fuck him. Wrong place, wrong time.


> For those who aren't familiar with northern Virginia: Falls Church is
> close enough to DC that it's a subway stop on the Orange Line - and
> there's 2 stops even further out. Manassas National Battlefield is some
> 30 miles out from the Mall.
>
> Suspending habeus corpus because there's a enemy army entrenched and
> encamped less than 30 miles from your seat of government is *slightly*
> different than doing it because of some ill-defined "terrorist threat".

How close is the pentagon?

> No, you *don't* know I am willing.  And if you were paying any attention
> at all, you should have gotten the impression that I'm almost certainly *not*
> willing.

We've had that discussion. You just don't know what you're talking
about - perhaps a wikipedia entry on yourself, your core beliefs and
your past statements would help you. Obviously you have time to look
up everything that comes up in conversation and you know nothing
about, except those things which you should know about yourself.

> You're asserting that it's perfectly acceptable to hoodwink the population
> in general, by saying that a program is for something, getting the people's
> consent to it on that basis, and then use the assent to do something totally
> different.

Uhhmm... yeah. DUH! Are you truly ignorant of how politicians do
business? You have kids so you can't be that young...

> Is it also acceptable (as a straw man) to raise the Federal income tax rate by
> 0.25% for the stated purpose of paying for upgrades and improvements to the
> Interstate highway system and other transportation upgrades, and then actually
> spending the money on Social Security and Medicare benefits?

Was it a LAW that STATED what monies they were going to raise and what
they were to be spent on? If so, its not acceptable. If you just
believe it because some politician said it was so then you're an idiot
and deserve what you get.

> If it's unacceptable to have a bait-and-switch when it's "just money",
> why should it be acceptable when we're talking about Constitutional rights?

Don't assume how I'll answer. You're not that good.

> > They told us a bunch of stuff about how we need to remain vigilant and
> > fight this war against terrorism until its conclusion... I still don't
>
> "We have always been at war with <terrorists>" - where is the "conclusion"?

What's your point? Terrorism is just the current hobgoblin...

> That should give you pause right there.  But I guess maybe they have *reason*
> to complain when there's a leak indicating they're doing something illegal or
> immoral in the name of "protecting" us....

Governments can not be "moral". Things sometimes need to be secret
because the leaking of that information tips the government's hand or
endangers people. That's just common sense.


> And how, exactly, do you know I *haven't* had a problem with them before now?

Logs of this list should suffice.

> Gleefully? Hmm.. That must have been my evil twin Skippy again.  I've been
> spending the last few years decrying the state of affairs, even on lists
> where it was arguably off topic:  (partial sampling only, restricting
> myself to archives of widely read public mailing lists for the most part).

Because you're a liberal and YOUR rights are getting trampled on. Too
bad, wha - who cares? Those who would be your friends, you have
alienated them with your shortsightedness and just as those people had
warned you, eventually "they" will go too far one day and you'll have
no recourse but to do as they tell you.

> Quoting a past American president - making it quite clear that I think it's
> our moral obligation to question the Administration's actions:

Sure is, where are your posts from before Bush was President? I think
it would be more accurate for you to say, "making it quite clear that
I think it's our moral obligation to question thIS Administration's
actions."

And really, your posts that show you've complained about this
administration before really doesn't disprove my point. We didn't get
to this point overnight - we didn't get here with this administration.
This started with Lincoln and as continued since - sometimes slowing
down, but never reversed completely. Did you not have an opinion
before Bush took office or were things just that great?
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.