RoR: Forum

Your situation is still better than mine.

Post 1

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:09am

No argument there.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:17am

femino, why don't you move to the US?

Post 3

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:52am

"femino, why don't you move to the US?"

A few possible reasons:

Leaving family and friends and position, political barriers leaving China, political barriers entering the United States, finding employment and placement once in the U.S. The effort may fail and perhaps leave the individual and friends and family open to scrutiny.

A formidable list of obstacles for all but the most courageous and determined of individuals.

Perhaps femino sees a chance for a reformed China?

Post 4

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:30pm

How is this not acknowledged by all as a straight-up and flagrant violation of the American Constitution? Why is everyone in the country silent or mincing words on this?

The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The courts have ruled to infinity that this means no telephone wiretaps without court testimony and a judge's order.

Whether it's torturing Muslims or violating citizen privacy, George Bush never fails to destroy freedom as he "defends" it. He usually waves his evil hand, issues a decree (a presidential "order" or "finding" or "memorandum") and all laws just die before him. Did we elect this guy president or dictator?

If the world was remotely rational or just, Bush would have been arrested, impeached, convicted, and jailed for life long ago.

Post 5

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:39pm

a tear of sorrow for femino

Post 6

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:43pm

I am becoming pretty frightened for my own freedoms now

Post 7

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:56pm

Andre, you fail to grasp the administrations interpretation of the word "unreasonable." :-) Not to mention their clever ability to obey the letter of the law, in this case regarding the line "no warrants shall be issued" being interpreted as, "we can do it, as long as we don't issue warrants."

Ethan

Post 8

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:04pm

I'm disgusted with the kneejerk views nearly everyone has expressed on this thread: You guys shoot from the hip accepting the New York Times's version of the story as accurate and truthful. If you are going to have an opinion on the conflict between spying and civil liberties when terrorists are concerned, *at least* read the opposite position from the NYT before forming an opinion. The best source I know of is National Review Online because it has people like Victor Davis Hanson and James Robbins and others.

You simply cannot consume the mainstream media's daily emissions without reading AS FREQUENTLY the rebuttals.

You need to read this article on the NSA story and you will be exposed to a -radically- different view:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp

Phil

PS, It would also be nice if you thought through the practicality of warrant or approval or reporting before vs. afterwards when a lead to a terror attack requires an -instant- response....as discussed in the above article/

PPS, the reason the leftists win is no one does their independent homework and so they end up swallowing everything the mainstream media feeds them.

Post 9

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:07pm

Thanks Philip. I'm surprised at how the liberal media can induce these reflexes.

Post 10

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:15am

Phil,

There are secret and retroactive FISA courts designed to deal with issues of when speed is of the essence. My concern is that Bush follow this procedure. It is important that Bush take wiretaps to court after the fact.

Jim

Post 11

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:30am

Phil,

One cannot trust anything from either side. They all twist words and meanings to suit their own ends. In fact, I would say you should save your disgust. Given the wanton theivery and deception practiced by politicians from both parties and the vast amounts of money seized by force from private citizens and businesses only to be wasted mostly on useless programs and backroom deals and kickbacks, I think you could find a better place to cast your disdain. One side's lies and spin are as bad as the others. Both sides love to be at each other's throats, and typically only come together to ensure another party doesn't cut in on their monopoly of abuse. I refuse to defend either of them.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 12/20, 7:40am)

Post 12

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:32am

This isn't likely to go away for Bush. When presidents stand on the oath of office, commander in chief role, etc. into basically what they want it to be, they ususally get in some trouble. Nixon got in trouble, hell, even Reagan caught some for that.

A sad state of affairs. The media got it from the inside, then broke it to the outside without worrying about what that might do to security. Bush held pat on it and then a day later came out with it. Nice teamwork against terrorism, what the fuck, people?

Post 13

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:25am

Just imagine the post-attack failure analysis: Three thousand more lives and tens of billions of dollars vaporized in an instant�even though Bush was told that in less than an hour some guy named Ahmed who spent �99 and �00 in Afghanistan with Bin Laden, is going to be on the phone receiving attack instructions. Legal methods had disclosed the above. No warrant existed for the conversation expected within the hour. Picture on TV the footage of Bush sawing logs in Texas and Michael Moore�s voice-over: �Knowing what was about to transpire, and knowing that his top job is to protect American lives from foreign threats, Bush sat on his ass for fear of what his political adversaries would say about making the illegal interception. Worried more about his low approval ratings than for innocent American life, George decided to leave us vulnerable, just as he had on 9/11.�

You don�t have to like him, but he is the duly elected (twice now) Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. It is exceedingly easy for me to imagine scenarios under which what he did was simply required.

Even a regular cop can do this. Several exceptions to warrantless, unreasonable searches exist. He can run into your house and bust you up based on simple reasonable belief the evidence exists and will disappear, as for example, when he sees you drive or walk into your house after a pursuit of you after seeing you snatch a purse.

Jon

Post 14

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:56am

He can run into your house and bust you up based on simple reasonable belief the evidence exists and will disappear, as for example, when he sees you drive or walk into your house after a pursuit of you after seeing you snatch a purse.

No doubt that's true. The cop in your story, however, must also be held to account if he bursts into your house and busts you up only to discover you were not a criminal. Bush and every politician should take credit for what they do right and own up for what they do wrong. The article Phil linked to suggests that certain congressional comittee members may have been informed as a matter of policy about actions Bush authorized. That remains to be seen. As things stand, my comments on how both parties suck and are essentially rotten stands.

Ethan

Post 15

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:57am

And: Good to see you around here Jon!

Post 16

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:03pm

Phillip,
Late to the party here, but Bravo! Another plea for objectivity that should not go unacknowledged.

Post 17

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:19pm

Phil,

I echo Jeff's applause. In the years I've known you, you've cast one of the widest nets for information of any Objectivist I know.

Jim

Post 18

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:52pm

From the article I mentioned as helpful to intelligently, factually discuss this:

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

"The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (1) 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of (2) emergency, when he must report immediately.

He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees (3) on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a).

He must also (4) send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f)."

I have numbered above the not one, not two, but FOUR checks and balances ...and oversight by three separate, independent institutions...provided by this law, according to Robbins, to prevent abuse of court-less, warrant-less surveillance.

Does this sound the like the story you read in the New Marxist Times about government running amok and tapping the phones of innocent people in defiance of the law and the courts?

Do I need to explain -again- about not drawing instant conclusions after reading the NYT or listening to CBS or PBS???!!

Jesus!!!

Post 19

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:03pm