This Is Not America

[Fenian_Bastard]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/04/memo_justified_warrantless_sur.php

Jesus, this guy would have drafted an opinion allowing Fredo to shoot people from the north portico.

 

[OTD]

Everything I've read about Yoo says that he pretty much thinks the constitution is so much two-ply Charmin.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

No-o. This is not . . .shalalalala

A little piece of you
The little peace in me
Will die
For this is not america

Blossom falls to bloom
This season
Promise not to stare
Too long
For this is not a miracle

There was a time
A storm that blew so pure
For this could be the biggest sky
And I could have
The faintest idea

Snowman melting
From the inside
Falcon spirals
To the ground
So bloody red
Tomorrows clouds

A little piece of you
The little piece in me
Will die
For this is not america

There was a time
A wind that blew so young
For this could be the biggest sky
And I could have the faintest idea

This could be the biggest sky
This could be a miracle

 

[alleyallen]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

 

[Boomer7]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

Because it's a check, it's a balance -- it gets in the way of the administration doing whatever it wants to do, with no oversight. Cheney has spent the better part of 40 years trying to remove accountability from the executive branch. By and large, he's succeeded.

 

[NightOwl]

Cheney has spent the better part of 40 years trying to remove accountability from the executive branch. By and large, he's succeeded.

That's the scary part. Cheney is one scary monster.

I always wonder if he knows the Super Secrets that you just can't tell the American people for reasons of intense national security, but then I take a **** and remember that he's just another corrupt ******* out to control the world for his own big, fat wallet.

**** Cheney could't give a crap about you or I.

I can't wait until he's gone, gone, gone.

 

[amraeder]

This is exactly why people vote for Ron Paul.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

 

[cranberry]

Cheney has spent the better part of 40 years trying to remove accountability from the executive branch. By and large, he's succeeded.

That's the scary part. Cheney is one scary monster.

I always wonder if he knows the Super Secrets that you just can't tell the American people for reasons of intense national security, but then I take a **** and remember that he's just another corrupt ******* out to control the world for his own big, fat wallet.

**** Cheney could't give a crap about you or I.

I can't wait until he's gone, gone, gone.

I can envision Cheney looking out an airplane window with that mother****ing smirk on his face as nuclear holocaust takes place below.

 

[alleyallen]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

Then why would anyone, especially someone who supports this administration, be against going the legal route to catch suspects?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

Then why would anyone, especially someone who supports this administration, be against going the legal route to catch suspects?

What fun is that?

 

[cranberry]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

Then why would anyone, especially someone who supports this administration, be against going the legal route to catch suspects?

You people just aren't afraid enough to appreciate the need for more unchecked executive branch power. Haven't you been paying attention? We've been at code reddish orange for seven years now and you're just not getting the gravity of the situation. The Jack of Clubs is still out there.

 

[Ace]

George W. Bush gives diversity hiring a bad name, dammit.

 

[andyouare?]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

Then why would anyone, especially someone who supports this administration, be against going the legal route to catch suspects?

That's the thing. I read a Washington Post article about a FISA judge who said he never turned down a request in all his years. He even mentioned pulling over in his car on a cell phone to approve a request right after 9/11.

So why do they do it? My guess is because they don't want anyone to know what they're doing. They leave absolutely no trail behind. And that's scary.

Now, maybe it really is nothing more than the usual monitoring of suspicious targets that none of us would disagree with. Or...maybe they're watching me right now! But by circumventing the FISA court it brings up all these questions and fuels the fire of conspiracy nuts.

 

[alleyallen]

OK...Serious question here. I'm going to read up on it myself, but what's the opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? How secure would it be, from an intel standpoint?

The reason I ask is if it's a secure way to get the warrants without tipping off suspected terrorists, then why would anyone be against the need for these warrants?

AA --
The FISA court -- and the FISA law -- is as secure as it gets. (It was a favorite bogeyman of people like me for a lot of years, before the current bunch of brigands got in there and made it look like something the ACLU designed.) First of all, FISA says nothing about calls originating outside the US that come into the US. Tap away, it says. Second, if the government thinks the circumstances are so dire that it needs a tap now, it can do so for 72 hours on its own BEFORE getting a warrant from the FISA court. Third, the court's proceedings are held in secret, it's membership are federal judges whose names are not known, and it never turns down a request for a warrant. I think it's done it twice since 1978.

Then why would anyone, especially someone who supports this administration, be against going the legal route to catch suspects?

That's the thing. I read a Washington Post article about a FISA judge who said he never turned down a request in all his years. He even mentioned pulling over in his car on a cell phone to approve a request right after 9/11.

So why do they do it? My guess is because they don't want anyone to know what they're doing. They leave absolutely no trail behind. And that's scary.

Now, maybe it really is nothing more than the usual monitoring of suspicious targets that none of us would disagree with. Or...maybe they're watching me right now! But by circumventing the FISA court it brings up all these questions and fuels the fire of conspiracy nuts.

Exactly my point, right there. Well said. What's odd is that the reason people supply when supporting this surveillance ... namely that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about ... could definitely be used AGAINST the government as well.

 

[hockeybeat]

Giving this administration carte blanche to monitor anyone they suspect of being a terrorist is like giving a fat kid the keys to the candy store.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

The supporters of this administration claim that with advances in technology and the way things happen so quickly the time it takes to get a warrant from the FISA court could be time they don't have.
And hey, we haven't been attacked since 9-11, so they must be doing something right.

 

[Ace]

The supporters of this administration claim that with advances in technology and the way things happen so quickly the time it takes to get a warrant from the FISA court could be time they don't have.
And hey, we haven't been attacked since 9-11, so they must be doing something right.

That one may need the blue font.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

The supporters of this administration claim that with advances in technology and the way things happen so quickly the time it takes to get a warrant from the FISA court could be time they don't have.
And hey, we haven't been attacked since 9-11, so they must be doing something right.

That one may need the blue font.

One of these days I'll learn how to use it.

 

[Ace]

The supporters of this administration claim that with advances in technology and the way things happen so quickly the time it takes to get a warrant from the FISA court could be time they don't have.
And hey, we haven't been attacked since 9-11, so they must be doing something right.

That one may need the blue font.

One of these days I'll learn how to use it.

It's good stuff, but I'm afraid hondo and Yawn will use it as their signature.