Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- From: "HEMI-Powered" <none@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:46:17 GMT
HeyBub added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....
HEMI-Powered wrote:
Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White
House in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but
we cannot. I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional
law expert, but my simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill
of Rights and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
amendment strongly suggests that the post-9/11 Big Brother
changes brought about by FISA being emasculated and this
thing people think is the Patriot Act has pretty much
destroyed the Bill of Rights.
The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything
else. In times of war, interception of enemy and potential
enemy communications is common sense.
I'm afraid it does not, HeyBob. No one, not even the CinC, is
above the law in this country as most people - and the courts -
believe. Trouble is, when Congress, scared blind by the 9/11
disaster and believing there really were WMD in Iraq authorized
unprecedented war powers and essentially abrogated the Bill of
Rights with both the USA PATRIOT Act and a hasty gutting of FISA,
overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive package of new CinC powers,
it didn't take this president long to figure out that he could
thumb his nose at the law, Congress, the UN, and the American
people with impunity. Many have tried from both sides of the
aisle during some 1,200 separate Congressional hearings to get
anyone in the Bush White House to even admit to knowing they
broke the law, much less do anything about it. However - and this
is VERY important - Congress and the American people have also
failed 100.000% to actually pin a criminal law offense on the
president or any of his appointees nor has there been the least
evidence to support an impeachment in the House.
Now, back to Article II. As you know - or should know - the base
powers of the Constitution as originally written did not pass
muster with the States and failed to be ratified, hence the Bill
of Rights was hastily added a year or so later. The Bill of
Rights does not GRANT new or modified power to any branch of the
Federal government, it LIMITS the power. Take a look at the 10th,
which sums it up this way "powers not specifically granted to the
federal government or prohibited therein are reserved for the
several states or the people." This has come to be known as the
"states rights" Amendment and is very powerful to augment the 1st
Amendment's right to "peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievance" but ASSUMES that a president
actually abides by his oath of office, the ENTIRE Constitution,
and the vast body of precedent case law, which our current CinC
has utterly failed to do for almost 7 years now.
Now, in past wars, presidents have slid past the Bill of Rights
such as when FDR interned not only legal Japanese aliens but both
naturalized and native born Japanese-Americans in what amounted
to be American concentration camps, after first confiscating all
their wealth and property with no compensation ever. But, back to
today, I have watched interviews with several current Supreme
Court Justices, but not the 2 appointed by President Bush of
course, that definitively say that while the Court does take a
strong stand on national defense and gives a sitting president
broad discretion in time of war, they do NOT - and have NOT -
granted special immunity. AFAIK, for example, the internment of
the Japanese was never challenged in court. What made that such
an egegious assault on these citizens rights was that neither
German-Americans or Italian-Americans were interned and pretty
much none were even interrogated. So, expediency and lack of
diligence by the people and the courts may well allow a rogue
president to tromp on people's rights. That can be very, very
necessary in narrow instances but we must be ever vigilant lest
wartime powers somehow get perverted and carried over once war is
won. And, the so-called War on Terror is unlike ANY previous war
in that we are not fighting organized combatants wearing uniforms
of a sovereign nation, we are fighting at best insurgents who are
religious extremists and sectarian enemies. In short, we are
fighting terrorists with al Qaeda who obey no laws and we are
fighting a civil war in Iraq that has basically been going on for
some 1,200+ years.
Now, besides what this
Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot
On, there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the
millions, of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened
by the bully boys and girls.
No first class mail has ever been opened without a warrant.
It not only has been, it continues to be opened. Sometimes with a
warrant, more often not. One mod to FISA lengthened the time to
get a FISA Court Warrant from 72 hours to 30 days but even that
wasn't enough for this president. Some 30%, probably more, of all
domestic surveillance NEVER even has an application for a
warrant. And, if 1st class mail is being opened, who would know?
Now, in fairness, I cannot categorically prove that this is going
on any more than you can prove the negative hypothesis that NONE
is being opened. It is a danger the American people must
recognize and reach some balance on wrt THEIR rights to privacy
vs. the "rights" of our real or peceived enemies.
And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
central tracking takes effect.
It's not to facilitate centralized tracking, although that is
certainly one of its features. The secure driver's license act
is designed to make sure terrorist don't get valid
identification. Several of the 9-11 highjackers held
seemingly-valid state-issued drivers' licenses.
It isn't designed for intelligence, maybe, but it certainly
facilitates easy access. There is an opt out clause in the law
but if state(s) do choose to opt out, then their driver's
licenses cannot be used for such things as ID for boarding an
airliner, buying a fire arm, and other such things, so
essentially, the states find themselves in a Hobson's Choice.
But, again, since the current Administration uses stone-walling
and obfuscation to avoid fessing up to their true intentions,
nobody really knows what this new law does or does not truly
intend, do they? No, I think not.
it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
citizens of this great country, the United States of America,
will be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations
reminiscent of those required of French citizens during the
Nazi occupation of France for nearly 5 years.
No, you can travel anywhere you like. You just can't do it on
an airplane or by driving a car (for now).
I know you can travel anywhere you like - NOW - what I was
talking about was the very short leap from where we are today
with simplistic photo ID to being required to carry "papers" that
identify us, where we live, and where we are allowed to travel.
And again, it saddans and angers me that the same president that
would like to impose total control on his own citizens appears to
be in bed with this nutbag Vincente Fox and is doing NOTHING to
stem the tide of illegal aliens nor making ANY attempts to
identify the ones already here and deport them.
I'm afraid your logic doesn't wash. The old cop's trick "you'llI'll end this rant
by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at
all what is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct,
and the horror of civil libertarians everywhere is
well-founded then it may well come to pass that the Feds
break down the door to our homes, arrest us, and confiscate
our PCs because they've been monitoring our E- mails, Usenet
posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are some
perverted terrorist planning an attack.
The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an
attack. Follow that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a
perverted terrorist planning an attack, we'll get you. Why do
you think almost no attacks have taken place since 9-11?
talk to us if you have nothing to hide" just won't do. Either
American citizens have their Bill of Rights freedoms, rights, and
protections or they do not. Just because 20 terrorists got past
the FBI in 2001 is not, not, NOT any justifcation whatsoever to
abrogate the freedoms, rights, and protections of some
300,000,000 citizens, made even more outrageous by the de facto
granting of rights to illegals that even citizens no longer
enjoy! The time has come to either stand up for our
Constitutional rights by electing leaders who can defend this
country AND defend civil liberties, or we simply roll over and
let Big Brother take over.
--
HP, aka Jerry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- References:
- Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- Prev by Date: From Administrator to new user?
- Next by Date: howto let asigned user login destinated workstation
- Previous by thread: Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- Next by thread: Re: Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
