Frank, that’s the most ridiculous, asinine statement that’s ever been uttered by subservient, authoritarian do-gooders.

Are you a 5 year old, who must have his life watched over in every aspect? Are you not to be trusted?

What happened to individual responsibility? To assume that it’s ok for the Government to spy or monitor its people’s lives is to live in a fantasy world, that the Government didn’t lie to the people involved in the Tuskegee experiment, or the CIA manipulated governments of the world for America’s interest, but is now coming back to haunt us.

Innocent until proven guilty; Liberty; Free. You can’t have those things with a microscope aimed at you by the Government. Privacy is a basic need for human beings; this “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” crap is for weak minded lemmings. You are the exact opposite of a freedom loving Patriot.

But too many people don’t have the faculties, or energy to contemplate, and understand fully what you’ve written.

But Britney is in a divorce, they do know that much…I feel so much better now.

The real war is the one at home . . . the one that is cloaked in self-preservation and paranoia. It is the true fight that we must confront and wage with all of the ferocity we can muster. It threatens our very destiny.

CBS reports:

Now the issue of telecom immunity to rising to a boil, as the Senate prepares to vote (possibly on Monday) on the FISA bill.

The Senate actually has two versions: one which includes an immunity provision (as written by the Senate Intelligence Committee), and a second without it. It is these two competing drafts which have landed on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

On Friday, Reid announced in the Senate that he would be moving the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) version of the bill to the floor.

Why this didn’t rate a topic on Think Progress I can’t imagine. It does seem to merit a headline and singular stream of commentary.

Call your Congressional reps this morning and demand that NO immunity be considered. It’s an unconstitutional breach of every American’s Constitutional rights. You have a Constitutional right to privacy, not after the fact, but before it occurs. If Congress should decide to amend the Constitution, and thereby your Constitutional rights, Congress must do so before your rights have been violated . . . before you have been deprived of your rights. Congress must have had an opportunity to discuss and decide the matter BEFORE the Constitution has been amended by the Executive and Judicial branches, neither of which has power to unilaterally amend the Constitution. A Constitutional Amendment requires a vote by a majority of the states . . . That includes a vote by you and me.

Did I vote to have my phone tapped, my privacy invaded? Dub’ya (Pelosi and other elected officials may dream that that happened). The public may not be Constitutional scholars (Bush barely reads), but in fact, that’s the law . . . our elected Senators, Representatives and appointed justices are not free to willy-nilly ignore the Constitution. . . if they do . . . if they can . . . this country has far greater problems than Al Quaeda.

Comment by Frank M — December 16, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

That goes for the administration too, right Frank? We can only hope someone was taping anything over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What’s good for the goose….

Wiretapping terrorists – OK, I can see that. But how do we know who is a terrorist.

Wiretap overseas calls – OK, not subject to US Law.

Wiretap narcotics – Well drugs are bad.

Bank records – …etc.

What makes anyone think that Shrub, Giuliani, Abramov, etc. would hesitate for a second to run a company which gathers this info for the government and then surrepticiously look at this data to gain a business advantage (and/or destroy a business or political rival) ?

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite.

It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

[Note: The 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).]

For those who may not remember, Hermann Göring spoke about war and extreme nationalism during the Nuremberg trials in an interview with Gustave Gilbert, a Jewish German-speaking intelligence officer, and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail :

“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Bottom line, in closed societies, this type of surveillance is cast as being about “national security”; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” (Theodore Roosevelt, 1918)

No, I don’t believe its justified. “By seeing that” I meant that may there would be some utility in legally (court supported) monitoring of narcotics trafficking. Didn’t mean to suggest support for the trawling net being deployed.

I have another vocabulary assignment for you guys today. (don’t you just love how much you learn by being here?)

Today’s word is “Quisling”. DO look it up, won’t you??

p.s. – I’d also like to congratulate jmh, chl, and some of our other regular troll-contributors. You have all improved a lot in the areas of vocabulary and usage these last few months. On behalf of the rest of us here, I offer you a sincere “you’re welcome”.

Freedom isn’t free here in East Germany of the United States.

Comment by Frank M — December 16, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

Were you “in” on Clinton’s blowjob? Did any of the events which transpired then and which your ilk twist their collective panties over to this day, involve you in the smallest manner?

I think it’s way past the “slippery slope” phase.
We have done fell off the goddamned cliff.

WTF? What about probable cause?
This is about data mining. And it must be stopped. It will be stopped.
These people who come here a spout “nothing to hide”? It’s only going to get worse for these people. These are people who truly do not understand or appreciate thier freedom.