It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sigung86
Interesting though that there are so many folks who seem to want the government to have total control. I don't mind that there are things the people should not know. That's reasonable, but when the watchdogs let the fox raid the henhouse... Sometimes you gotta punish the watch dogs.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by sigung86
I will say, however, that I have met people on the other side of the fence - that totally mistrust anybody or anything with the word government associated with them.
That to me is an unhealthy way to live, to put it nicely. You gotta have a balance somewhere in there.
Originally posted by sigung86
The only way the government, in my and Thomas Jefferson's paradigm (more or less) keeps that trust is to be afraid of the people it has to govern for.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Likewise, in my and Madison's paradigm, the people are not deserving of trust, and therefore, the government will dictate what is best for them. Trust is thus secured in direction and security.
seekerof
And you wonder why there are people out there like me who think the government is untrustworthy?
If they truly believe that I am unworthy of trust, then it behooves me to consider that, perhaps, they are unworthy in return. Kind of like, what goes around, comes around.
I won't go off on a rant, but I see that type of mentality a little to open to things like Mussolini, Stalin, Pohl Pott, etc. etc. Notice I didn't mention Hitler... He seems to be too much of a lightning rod.
Kind of wonder if Madison wasn't a bit of a socialist, communist, or at very least, an elitist.
I* mean, seriously, what did Madison ever do beside have a town in Wisconsin named after him????
[edit on 3-1-2006 by sigung86]
Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm sure civil libertarians will up in arms over this, but as long it is just aimed at international terrorism, I have no problem with it and am, in fact, glad it's being done.
[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]
Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.
Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.
Originally posted by sigung86
And you wonder why there are people out there like me who think the government is untrustworthy?
If they truly believe that I am unworthy of trust, then it behooves me to consider that, perhaps, they are unworthy in return. Kind of like, what goes around, comes around.
I won't go off on a rant, but I see that type of mentality a little to open to things like Mussolini, Stalin, Pohl Pott, etc. etc.
Notice I didn't mention Hitler... He seems to be too much of a lightning rod.
Kind of wonder if Madison wasn't a bit of a socialist, communist, or at very least, an elitist.
I* mean, seriously, what did Madison ever do beside have a town in Wisconsin named after him????
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.
Really? Is the entire government in on this plot? Why do they want to take away my rights, anyway?
Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.
It might not be so hard to accept if you had just the tiniest bit of verifiable proof.
You don't have that kind of proof, do you?
Originally posted by PKD
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.
Really? Is the entire government in on this plot? Why do they want to take away my rights, anyway?
Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.
It might not be so hard to accept if you had just the tiniest bit of verifiable proof.
You don't have that kind of proof, do you?
You know, as well as i do, that Bin Laden is a figure head war criminal. I mean really, did you take high school english? 1984 by George Orwell ring a bell? Pay attention a little bit closer. I don't have to means to dig through CNN archives to prove to you that Muhammad Atta was financed 100k through our cia. And do you seriously think that a smoking gun like that would be left for reseachers to investegate?
I like how you took my quote on the illumiati taking our rights away out of context to serve your own non understanding of whats going on here. Certain aspects of the us government are controlled by the shadow government. Really easy concept to understand. Globalism means all countries are running at the same speed. In order for this to take place you must give up some of your rights, so that other third world countries may come up to speed, in terms of agriculture, labor, and overall work production. Industrialization. Consolidation of power means closer control over the globe, which translates to more money for those in the highest ranks of power. Control over all media outlets, means control over your mind. You read newspapers and watch television. All those devices were designed for you. And you absorb them well. Unfortunatley what most people on this website who are looking for proof of conspiracy fail to understand, is that it wouldn't be a conspiracy if it could be proved! Alex Jones proved it in his film The Rise of The Police State. I am not going to go into detail here. Find your self a copy of that documentary if you want further proof.
Originally posted by PKD
Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm sure civil libertarians will up in arms over this, but as long it is just aimed at international terrorism, I have no problem with it and am, in fact, glad it's being done.
[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]
LOL. You ever heard of the Bill of Rights? How about The Constitution? Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights. What many americans fail to realize is just what black ops are. Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept. You've been duped.
ABC News Leak Russ Tice
He told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by dgtempe
Another viewpoint:
Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was "taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution.
That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.
"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.
Another viewpoint II
Hey, that is a swell and sure relevant mention by that Constitutional Law professor, but perhaps she was not fully researched or simply missed this below linked mention. This law, which has gone unmentioned during this entire topic, is a pertinent law, labeled as 50 USC 1802, which would quite possibly indicate that no law was broken.
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
US Code: Title 50, 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order...
In the link provided below [for the quote given], FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, gives the US government wide latitude in warrantless surveillance of international communications even when one point originates in the US, as long as the person in the US does not qualify as a "US person". A "United States person" is then defined:
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Note that a US person must either be a US citizen or someone lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence. If someone resides in the US on a visa and not a green card, they do not qualify, nor do they qualify if they get a green card under false pretenses.
Of additional relevance to FISA and the authorization of warrentless surveillance:
In fact, the only people who need to make this call are the President and the Attorney General, and it doesn't even make the accidental or tangential exposure of communications with US persons a crime. It only requires that the AG ensure that mitigation procedures have been applied to ensure compliance with FISA. The only way that one can violate this law is if the law gets intentionally violated. In other words, one would have to prove that Bush intentionally ordered the surveillance of a qualifying US person.
The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'