[lefty mclefty]

the FISA bill hasn't been approved, the telecom's haven't been granted retroactive immunity for their lawbreaking ways, so the terrorists MUST be burning up the international phone lines plotting another attack, right?.....President Bush, protect us!

[peeb]

Terrorists love civil liberties.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

President Bush, protect us!

He said Jesus will protect you.

Crap!!11!!111... I just knocked over about a hundred DVDs onto the floor! ****!!11!!!1

[subego]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

so the terrorists MUST be burning up the international phone lines plotting another attack, right?

They absolutely are. Freedom has a cost.

I'm personally willing to pay the cost, but denying the cost is delusional.

Sort of like those people who claim their freedoms haven't been eroded because "I'm not a terrorist".

Edit: at least I can get the people who delude themselves into thinking their rights haven't been taken away. I disagree completely with where they're coming from, but the issue is ultimately one of differing priorities when it comes to freedom versus safety.

What you're saying is just batshit every way you slice it.

[Macrobat]

What lawbreaking ways?

Hate to break it to you, but the freedoms guaranteed American citizens in the Constitution do NOT extend to every living thing on the planet.

Despite your conspiracy theory, the only calls monitored were international calls to KNOWN terrorist sponsor nations.

[lefty mclefty]

macro....you believe anything they tell you...that MIGHT be good in the army, but its a simplistic way of operating in this real world of ours....how do you think they took down wall st. super-villian elliot spitzer? oh, right...his hooker was calling from afghanistan. i thank you for your service to the country, but leave the thinking stuff to us eggheads, ok?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it to you, but the freedoms guaranteed American citizens in the Constitution do NOT extend to every living thing on the planet.

Erm, some of them do, some of them don't. By 'thing' I'm assuming you mean 'people'.

[Macrobat]

Erm - no they don't. Which is why it says "Constitution of the United States of America" on top of the document.

It pertains to the United States and IT'S citizens.

Period.

Not Army, Lefty - Air Force - where we were required to think for ourselves.

And you can choose to NOT believe everything they tell you just BECAUSE they told you - which is what you're doing.

Feel free to keep your veiled insults to yourself, btw. The only "egg" associated with your head is the one that's all over your face.

[OreoCookie]

Macrobat, you're wrong.
It's a matter of jurisdiction: if I commit a crime in the US, American law enforcement can apprehend me (if I'm on US soil) and try me. If I'm tried, I'm awarded all legal rights in accordance with US law. I don't have less rights (e. g. no habeas corpus) just because I'm not a citizen. If I'm not it the US anymore, the prosecution relies on bilateral extradition treaties with other countries.

So if a US company (which has to play by US rules) breaks the law by giving away private information of customers, then the company can be held reliable. Even if you're a foreigner, you can sue the that particular telco. In essence, it's a matter of jurisdiction, not citizenship.

[peeb]

Macrobat, you are wrong.

Some elements of the US Constitution address the rights of US citizens (I think you are talking largely about the Bill of Right here?) while others address the rights of people in general.

An example of the 1st case is Amendment 15 - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

An example of the 2nd is Amendment 6 - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Since we're dealing with elements that spell out the relationship between people and the US government here, the 6th does not mean that the US has to intervene to provide this right in the relationships between foreigners and their governments, but that this right applies to all people in their dealings with the US government, not just to citizens.

[tie]

My understanding is that the Constitution only applies when we are not at war. Unfortunately, we are now at war with terrorists. Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and now we are taking the battle to their turf! In the meantime, we have to be willing to play a little dirty...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

My understanding is that the Constitution only applies when we are not at war. Unfortunately, we are now at war with terrorists. Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and now we are taking the battle to their turf! In the meantime, we have to be willing to play a little dirty...

I realise that is a joke, but unfortunately many neocons seem to actually feel that way.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Macrobat, you're wrong.
It's a matter of jurisdiction: if I commit a crime in the US, American law enforcement can apprehend me (if I'm on US soil) and try me. If I'm tried, I'm awarded all legal rights in accordance with US law. I don't have less rights (e. g. no habeas corpus) just because I'm not a citizen. If I'm not it the US anymore, the prosecution relies on bilateral extradition treaties with other countries.

So if a US company (which has to play by US rules) breaks the law by giving away private information of customers, then the company can be held reliable. Even if you're a foreigner, you can sue the that particular telco. In essence, it's a matter of jurisdiction, not citizenship.

No, I am not, since I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about privacy and you are attempting to widen the playing field.

And what you're missing is the FACT that the SCOTUS upheld the FISA warrants, so the Telcoms committed no crime.


And Peeb, the only "neocons" who feel that way are the ones who populate your paranoid delusional fantasies.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, I am not, since I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about privacy and you are attempting to widen the playing field.

Ah, so when you said:

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it to you, but the freedoms guaranteed American citizens in the Constitution do NOT extend to every living thing on the planet.

...what you really meant was:

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it to you, but the privacy guaranteed American citizens in the Constitution does NOT extend to every living thing on the planet.

The problem with this argument is that we are talking about wiretapping of US citizens in the US.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah, so when you said:



...what you really meant was:


The problem with this argument is that we are talking about wiretapping of US citizens in the US.

No, the problem with YOUR argument is that we are NOT talking about wiretapping American citizens, period. That is the semi-successful misdirection campaign waged by Liberals, but the FACT is that we are wiretpping FOREIGN nationals whose calls originate inside the United States.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, the problem with YOUR argument is that we are NOT talking about wiretapping American citizens, period. That is the semi-successful misdirection campaign waged by Liberals, but the FACT is that we are wiretpping FOREIGN nationals whose calls originate inside the United States.

Wake up.
CNN.com - Bush�says he signed NSA wiretap order - Dec 17, 2005

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11."

[Macrobat]

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put your head back in the sand and go back to sleep.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, the problem with YOUR argument is that we are NOT talking about wiretapping American citizens, period. That is the semi-successful misdirection campaign waged by Liberals, but the FACT is that we are wiretpping FOREIGN nationals whose calls originate inside the United States.

Thank you for linking to Wikipedia, that certainly puts my mind at rest. You claim that we are not talking about wiretapping American citizens. I linked to a video of Bush admitting that we were, indeed, talking about that. We're done here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, I am not, since I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about privacy and you are attempting to widen the playing field.

And what you're missing is the FACT that the SCOTUS upheld the FISA warrants, so the Telcoms committed no crime.

And Peeb, the only "neocons" who feel that way are the ones who populate your paranoid delusional fantasies.

FISA applies to Americans and foreigners alike. The central fact is that America needs to have jurisdiction over the telco. I'm not missing anything. Since the OP spoke of `retroactive immunity', it's not just about FISA, but telcos breaking the law (be it FISA or some other law).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put your head back in the sand and go back to sleep.

Did you post the wrong link? That supports peeb's argument, especially the section on President Bush admitting to wiretapping American citizens.