Reply With Quote
Virtually impossible.
Why is it that anybody that points out some of your logical fallacies is some form of troll?
Couldn't it possibly be that you were wrong to begin with? Is that even a possibility?
Virtually impossible.
AT&T got sued for wrongfully allowing them access.
a 3-judge court if I'm not mistaken.
Careful.... He'll start thinking of you as a troll too.
It's an expansion of what can be requested under a NSL by the FBI without judicial review, something the Bush DOJ cir scribed to the four specific items mentioned in the law and which excluded the 'electronic transactions' which would include the email addresses one was corresponding with, as well as your browser history.
And reading emails without warrants WAS illegal, until the Telecom Immunity Act retroactively made it ok. Otherwise, why the need for a do ent immunizing the companies that turned this info over to the government?
However, many of argue that the process is still not Cons utionally okey-dokey. The main problem is that it's hard to prove standing; ie. to show that you were harmed. If the Gov spies on your email, how will you know it? And even if you find out, what's to prevent them from claiming "state secrets" and throwing your case out?
I don't see how you can profess to be a libertarian, but you're perfectly fine with the government snooping through email using deep packet inspection without warrants. On top of that, I don't see how you can't be concerned that nearly every NSL gets approved. Is the government just THAT GOOD at picking out criminals, that every person they target is worthy of surveillance?
And surely, they would never abuse their authority... http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/
http://www.talkleft.com/wireservice?...tcom&buid=3042
An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.
His libertarianism is genuine to no one.
It appears to me to still be a 'clarification' as the adminstration has contended.The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization.
Even if it can be considered an expansion, it seems to be a rather slight one and pales in comparison to the Patriot Act.
So continuity, not change.
I'm good with 'Obama is not much/any better than Bush' regarding civil liberties.
He is far worse for civil liberties than Bush.
Yeah, I think the LP went with that more to attract attention.
In what sense?
I'd say he's worse because he talked about how important they were, then went out of his way to try to expand the same policies Bush enacted. At least Bush didn't try to act like unitary executive power was a bad thing.
He wants to national and control things that has no right to.
Like what?
Start paying attention to current events.
I'm not going to bother making a list. If nothing comes to your mind of his actions and remarks, then you won't agree anyway. I'll just be wasting my time.
So you can't list any. I figured as much.
From Bush I can list a few:
- Attempting to abolish Habeas for Guam detainees
- Illegal NSA wiretap program
- Attempting to sidestep the established civilian and military justice system by setting up a parallel special military commissions system.
It's actually a shame Obama continued with the same policies.
They're all the same. They truly are. Whatever is easiest is what is made law. The people get caught up with the sideshow and lose track of what's most important. Kinda how it's easy to distract a dog with a treat.
I though Bush41 was kind of a muddler, happy to be president as his birthright as befits a member of his class and certainly not a true believer Sun Belt Reagan conservative type (and definitely not comfortable with the social cons) and Clinton was more of a boomer striver who lost his lefty idealism along the way and was more than happy to sell out his base to ensure his own political fortunes. In their respective parties neither was truly respected by the pure ideologues, but were put up with because they had won. Either one now looks worthy of a place on Mt. Rushmore compared to the current president and his predecessor.
I do believe that Obama would be much better off with a GOP controlled Congress, or at least one not so dominated by his own party. Whenever that happens (see the Bush43 and 2000-06) then every half baked idea that party has had for the last half century is dusted off and trotted out for passage. Of course, even with such large Democratic legislative control, there are limits to what can be rolled back from the War on Terror.
The national security state that has grown out of 9/11 will never go away, and like other sizable expansions of federal power, this is not truly appreciated for the revolution it represents during contemporaneous time. In retrospect it will be galling, or will be, as always, swept under the flag.
because you say so?
your internet cred is somewhere around...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
