Thread: Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

Originally Posted by nittygritty

jbird, Thank you for not getting angry and defensive with what I wrote, I didn't mean it to be taken that way. those 2 books you mentioned I also want to read esp. In Mortal Danger. I have a question though a real searching for answers kind of question here. Americans think, (I feel this way also don't doubt that) we have the best government and constitution they any other government in the world. This is just in theroy, what if Isreal, had our same constitution and bill of rights. We know that Isreal has some of the best intelligence out there,they go above and beyond what we would ever dream of to ensure their people's survival. They use any and every tool such as racial profiling in their airport there and here in our country for their passenger airplane's security and safety. They are surrounded by enemies who want to anilialate them from the face of the earth. Their people have given up some of their freedoms in order to survive in their fight on terror, now having said all of that, back to my question, if Isreal had our constitution do you feel, they should maintain strict adherence to that constitution and go out in a big blast of martyrdism for their constitution, then be willing to bend a little in the face of total destruction by thier enemies? Is it really better to allow your children and grandchildren, your whole line of ancestory to die out instead of doing everything in your power to keep these radical islamic fanatics from killing them? Do you think they should give in gracefully and allow themselves to be blown to smithereens because they were more decent then the radicals and refused to fight them on terms where they might have a chance of seeing their childrens future secured? On the part of America, for the life of me, I cannot understand why, if the government makes a mistake and listens in to "my" phone conversatations instead of Jidhadist conversations, how that would be giving up my freedom. If my conversation were innocent the government is not going to do anything about it anyway, they are going to get off the phone, no time to waste on my silly conversations. I fail to see how this one concession, to the fight on terror, is going to totally errode and corrode our constitution.
I may be totally wrong here, it has yet to be proven,any innocent americans conversations have been listened to, the people who bought to lawsuit against the government had no proof their phones had been tapped in this case it was just a suit brought forward to "test" the legalities of what the government did, and the Judge who said it was wrong didn't offer a valid reason it was wrong, that is all in the news now. With all the activist judges we now have, I will not fully understand that it was totally against the constitution until it goes to the Supreme Court for their opinion. I am just one old Indian man, who does not have the arrogance to assume I have total knowledge of our constitution or our government, or the real ability to even be in the class of someone of CrocketsGhost's vast knowledge of the ins and outs of our government and its constitution. I am not trying to start arguments or even bring anyone here to my way of thinking, everyone has to decide for theirselves what is right for them.I guess I am just really on a self search, to see if what I believe and feel is so terribly outside the norm of what other Americans feel! I also want to make clear, I don't want to overturn our constitution or bill of rights! The question about Isreal is just something I have often wondered about if I were in their shoes what or how far would I be willing to go to win at all cost?

Nittygritty, there is not "slight violation" of the Constitution. Either its protections are ironclad or they are non-existent. You choose to roll over when you need big government to protect you, while others of us utterly reject the notion that we cannot have a measure of safety without surrendering our rights to Big Brother.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Ladydrake, it was this quote that I took and take issue with:

Quote:
Their position is no more bs than yours. Neither side is right or wrong. There are pro's and con's to both sides. At least you all still get to make that choice. You should be glad for it.

Ok. Take all the issue you want with it. I stand by what I said. I don't think either side is anymore bs than the other.

Would you have felt better if I'd said, "Yeah, being willing to give up freedom under the guise of wanting to keep your family safe is bs?" And then followed up with, "People who say it's not about hiding something are full of bs"?

No, of course not. Then again, you have still failed to acknowledge that I also defended your (our) side and explained it to the other side why it's not about hiding something. I only needed to do it once because apparently people understood me... they actually read what I said.

As I have pointed out, this "two sides to every story" nonsense has its limits.

There is always two sides to a story, whether you acknowledge that fact or not. Whether you think they are credible or not.

My point was to demonstrate the true nature of the premise of "their" position that you defend as equally valid to the premise that rights are clearly being violated.

Demonstrating the "true nature" of their position by attempting to show me as being illogical and contradictory and accusing me of supporting tyranny. Not buying it. If you want to do that, then direct your remarks to them without singling me out.

Yes, I read your "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" post. You would have been better off stopping there.

Meh, that's your opinion.

It is not your own comments, but those by others that you defend as somehow equally valid to those rooted in the clear verbiage of the Bill of Rights with which I take issue.

Ok, so as before, take all the issue you want with it. Again, I stand by what I said.

Ladydrake, one of the ways that the tyrants have gained as much ground as they have is with a combination of incrementalism and moral equivalency. Either you put your foot down and say, "we are drawing a line," or else you just give up the farm and come back as a sharecropper.

You continue to only focus on your side, you aren't even trying to understand the other side. If they are your enemies as you've claimed, how do you suppose you will defeat them if you do not understand how they think? Instead you would rather hash it out with (as I said before) someone who is actually on your side and for what, because maybe you think you are imparting some wisdom that I think is common sense if one only paid attention? Good going.

From this point on, unless you acknowledge that I did in fact defend your (our) side and must have done a decent job of it because I only had to do it one time, then I see no reason to continue with this. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.


[/quote]

CrocketsGhost
You are a man of great intelliegence and I respect that. You have a much better educated argument then I will ever have. It is just that I see things differently then you do, I don't think that makes me a quitter or a roll over sort of person or a person that just gives up and gives in, if you knew some of my aquaintances you would know better then that. No man is an island Crockett, I don't understand your idea of needing "big Government" to protect me, are we separate form our government? I thought we were the government. None of us alone can attempt to fight these islamist, it will take all of us fighting together to win this war, sadly that is the trouble now, we are a divided country, and divided countries can be conquered. At least half the country feel as I do about the wiretap surveilence program and half feel as you do, we will just have to wait and see who is the winner or if any, are the winner.
I hope you are right Crockett, and that we can have a measure of safety without using these tools we desperately need to protect us and not have to "roll over" and surrender our rights to "Big Brother"in order to be safe, or have a measure of protection, I feel deep in my gut, instinct you would say, we will soon know which of us is wrong, and that day is soon coming. Do you think because I have an instinct to survive, I guess you could say at most cost, not all, that makes me less of a man then you? I am not saying that makes you a lesser man then I either Crockett, please don't think that, I am only saying that to me survival of the fittest is the only reason our race is still somewhat in command of our world, else we would not be here discussing this in the first place, that is just my idea though. Maybe I wish I could be more like you CrockettsGhost, so willing to die or give my life for sake of a legality, you are a noble person Crockett, I concede that to you, however, I cannot change what God has instilled in my very being and that is a great will to survive, all of Gods creatures that includes us, are different, that does not make us any less or more because of that, just different!

For anyone following along with this discussion, I want to make sure that I am being clearly understood. Neither relativism nor absolutism are valid viewpoints when taken to the extreme. There are, however, times that favor one or the other approach. I submit that we are currently so awash in relativism that no law, no principle, no ethic, no premise has any meaning. Christianity is under attack because it is, ultimately, incompatible with any other faith. It holds that one must accept the Messiah's salvation in order to attain eternal life, and so it cannot philosophically co-exist with, say, Buddhism. The positive thing about Christianity is that it does not require philosophical coexistence, because it is content to exist as separate from Buddhism, keeping to its own values and beliefs while Buddhism keeps to its. But we are under the domination of relativists, so the fact that the two cannot be philosophically reconciled is cause for the gradual elimination of Christianity, and that's what we are seeing.

Similarly, the Constitution places ultimate power in the hands of the governed. That is a threat to globalism because globalism is contrary the needs and desires of free men. The absolutism of the protections of the Constitution are an impediment to the plans of the globalists, so those protections must be methodically and incrementally dismantled.

The primary weapon in the dismantling of our dearly cherished religious and political institutions is relativism. It is a concept that nothing is written in stone. There is no taboo that cannot be broken, no law that cannot be bent or disregarded, no property that is inviolate. All hinges on the whim of the State, because the State is a surrogate god.

When my fellow citizens fall for this nonsense, I am incensed. This is a divide and conquer strategy that works by preying upon the fears and prejudices of the populace to turn one citizen against another. Because absolutism is made anathema, each person or group applies his relativism differently, but that is a fatal trap. See, once you have said, "I choose to set aside this law or principle and I believe that everyone else should do the same," you have created a relativist cause for that law or principle to be abandoned. But that is just your isolated submission. At the same time that you are setting aside one fundamental building block of this society, another person with another opinion is choosing to set aside another. According to relativism, you cannot ask everyone else to set aside that which you want set aside unless you are willing to set aside that which the next guy wishes to set aside. Whereas this nation was founded on a principle of self-evident and inalienable rights whereby the abrogation of even one man's rights is forbidden, we have turned the premise upside down such that even a small minority may set the stage for the abrogation of the rights of the majority. It is such a perversion of the intent of the founders as to be almost beyond belief, yet people on this very website accept it in due course.

Folks, you cannot rail against the government for failing to carry out its duties on the one hand and then support its violation of its prohibitions on the other. The government is either bound like the dangerous beast it is by the strictures of the compact with the People or it is not. If it is free to disregard our rights when it sees fit, then it is surely free to refuse to carry out required duties, such as securing the borders, when it sees fit.

This is why I am among the new absolutists whose clear vision is required if we are to get the governmental genii back into its bottle. Once we have restored the reins of power to We the People and gotten the governmental beast back under lock and key, we can again discuss the merits of limited relativism.

CrocketsGhost, all I can say to that is Huh? I will leave LadyDrake to answer to that.

I will leave LadyDrake to answer to that.

Uh ... why?

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Ladydrake, it was this quote that I took and take issue with:

Quote:
Their position is no more bs than yours. Neither side is right or wrong. There are pro's and con's to both sides. At least you all still get to make that choice. You should be glad for it.

Ok. Take all the issue you want with it. I stand by what I said. I don't think either side is anymore bs than the other.

Would you have felt better if I'd said, "Yeah, being willing to give up freedom under the guise of wanting to keep your family safe is bs?" And then followed up with, "People who say it's not about hiding something are full of bs"?

No, of course not. Then again, you have still failed to acknowledge that I also defended your (our) side and explained it to the other side why it's not about hiding something. I only needed to do it once because apparently people understood me... they actually read what I said.

[quote:2066zeng]As I have pointed out, this "two sides to every story" nonsense has its limits.

There is always two sides to a story, whether you acknowledge that fact or not. Whether you think they are credible or not.

My point was to demonstrate the true nature of the premise of "their" position that you defend as equally valid to the premise that rights are clearly being violated.

Demonstrating the "true nature" of their position by attempting to show me as being illogical and contradictory and accusing me of supporting tyranny. Not buying it. If you want to do that, then direct your remarks to them without singling me out.

Yes, I read your "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" post. You would have been better off stopping there.

Meh, that's your opinion.

It is not your own comments, but those by others that you defend as somehow equally valid to those rooted in the clear verbiage of the Bill of Rights with which I take issue.

Ok, so as before, take all the issue you want with it. Again, I stand by what I said.

Ladydrake, one of the ways that the tyrants have gained as much ground as they have is with a combination of incrementalism and moral equivalency. Either you put your foot down and say, "we are drawing a line," or else you just give up the farm and come back as a sharecropper.

You continue to only focus on your side, you aren't even trying to understand the other side. If they are your enemies as you've claimed, how do you suppose you will defeat them if you do not understand how they think? Instead you would rather hash it out with (as I said before) someone who is actually on your side and for what, because maybe you think you are imparting some wisdom that I think is common sense if one only paid attention? Good going.

From this point on, unless you acknowledge that I did in fact defend your (our) side and must have done a decent job of it because I only had to do it one time, then I see no reason to continue with this. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.


[/quote:2066zeng][/quote]
Again you persist with the nonsensical proposition that having "two sides" to a story means that neither can be correct. That is absurd. I can say that 2+2=4 and someone else can say that 2+2=5. We each have an opinion, but only one of them is correct.

What you keep ignoring is that the FACT is that these sorts of intrusions are prohbitied by the Constitution. We are not shackled blindly to the Constitution, but we have lawful means for making changes to it when changes are needed. The proper course, amendment, requires the consent of the governed, as it should be. The other, by which the government capriciously ignores the Bill of Rights, is by definition a usurpation and tyranny. It is such a simple concept.

So the one premise you defend as being somehow "equally correct" is that the government can ignore the constitutional prohibitions agreed upon by the governed and that such a course is acceptable. That is nonsense which. extended to its logical conclusion, means that we are subjects to the government and its whims and not a free people governed by our own consent.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

CrocketsGhost
You are a man of great intelliegence and I respect that. You have a much better educated argument then I will ever have. It is just that I see things differently then you do, I don't think that makes me a quitter or a roll over sort of person or a person that just gives up and gives in, if you knew some of my aquaintances you would know better then that. No man is an island Crockett, I don't understand your idea of needing "big Government" to protect me, are we separate form our government? I thought we were the government.

Well, then you thought wrong. You need to take some time and read the writings of our Founding Fathers, who believed that government was AT BEST a necessary evil. "We" are a republic nation of sovereigns who, by consent, created a corporate entity (the federal government) charged with certain tasks of common necessity for the several states and strictly limited in granted powers and constrained from certain encroachments and usurpations. If you think that "we" are the government, then that is the first major flaw in your premise.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

None of us alone can attempt to fight these islamist, it will take all of us fighting together to win this war, sadly that is the trouble now, we are a divided country, and divided countries can be conquered. At least half the country feel as I do about the wiretap surveilence program and half feel as you do, we will just have to wait and see who is the winner or if any, are the winner.

But you are offering up a false laternative. we can fight the Islamists together without having to surrender our liberties. It is an intentional ploy that allows the Islamists to run amok in order to convince you that they are unstoppable unless you turn this government into the Fourth Reich.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I hope you are right Crockett, and that we can have a measure of safety without using these tools we desperately need to protect us and not have to "roll over" and surrender our rights to "Big Brother"in order to be safe, or have a measure of protection, I feel deep in my gut, instinct you would say, we will soon know which of us is wrong, and that day is soon coming. Do you think because I have an instinct to survive, I guess you could say at most cost, not all, that makes me less of a man then you?

All I am saying is that I appear to have thought this through further than you have. What good is it to win one war (the war against Islamofascists) only to simultaneously lose another (the war against globalism and federal tyranny)? We can win both, but not by being cowed into surrendering rights we will never regain.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I am not saying that makes you a lesser man then I either Crockett, please don't think that, I am only saying that to me survival of the fittest is the only reason our race is still somewhat in command of our world, else we would not be here discussing this in the first place, that is just my idea though. Maybe I wish I could be more like you CrockettsGhost, so willing to die or give my life for sake of a legality, you are a noble person Crockett, I concede that to you, however, I cannot change what God has instilled in my very being and that is a great will to survive, all of Gods creatures that includes us, are different, that does not make us any less or more because of that, just different!

I disagree with your premise that survival of the fittest is what has brought us to the forefront of the nations of the world. What brought us here was respect for law and being a moral and principled people long after most of the rest of the world had fallen into corruption and decadence. As we lose our moral certitude, so do we lose our greatness. After all, is not pretty much every victory by our enemies predicated on paralysing us by convincing us that we do not hold the moral high ground? Isn't that how our enemies try to undermine the War on Terrorism? Isn't how the illegal immigration advocates cow us into submission? They claim that we obtained the lands of this nation unfairly. They claim that we have no compassion for poor people. They claim that illegal immigration is just a symptom of our greed. We CRIPPLE OURSELVES when we lose site of our morals and our guiding principles.

What, I didn't respond to your last post so you try to have a go at me again? Looks like you really are wanting to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Just one question for you though. You talk about how people who support the government support tyranny, right? So, what do you think you are doing when you pay your taxes?

Look, go ahead and quote every single word I've said and have at it. Do your best to tear it apart. I hope you'll feel better when you're done.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

What, I didn't respond to your last post so you try to have a go at me again? Looks like you really are wanting to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Just one question for you though. You talk about how people who support the government support tyranny, right? So, what do you think you are doing when you pay your taxes?

Look, go ahead and quote every single word I've said and have at it. Do your best to tear it apart. I hope you'll feel better when you're done.

Now you are getting desperate. Nowhere did I say that "people who support the government support tyranny." What I have said is tat those who support tyrannical practices in government support tyranny. We have agreed by compact to create a government and to assign to it certain common tasks required by the several states. We have also strictly limited that government in its powers relative to the several states and relative to the individual citizens of those several states. As long as the government is properly discharging the duties assigned to it, it is upholding its end of the agreement that also empowers it to collect taxes in order to pay for the carrying out of its duties.

As for the alternative course whereby government has exceeded its authority and failed to discharge its assigned duties, I can do little better than to refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence, which states with far more eloquence than that of which I am capable the remedies available to an aggrieved people.