20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States

[Piscean]

Quote by: Zeebadee My question is, what's so surprising about this?? Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to declare war and allowed the president to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation, SCOTUS has remained silent in the face of a president that condones torture, abolishes habeas corpus, rules by executive order and signing statements, and routinely violates the protections guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. The decline of any civilization will always cause the elite power holders to use every means to maintain their position and status. Our current crop of "public servants" (snicker) are going to do everything in their power towards those ends.

And people wonder why I plan to get the hell out of this country. A frog will sit in a pot of water that starts out cool and gets heated slowly until he boils. I'm no frog.

[Rog]

Quote by: Piscean And people wonder why I plan to get the hell out of this country. A frog will sit in a pot of water that starts out cool and gets heated slowly until he boils. I'm no frog.

It takes one phone call to stop any American citizen from living this country. you may want to start applying for that other citizenship soon.

[grandpa]

Keep in mind, most immigration pigs want to know you will find a job, or have one lined up. Moving is always easier said than done.

Grandpa h.

[Rog]

Quote by: grandpa Keep in mind, most immigration pigs want to know you will find a job, or have one lined up. Moving is always easier said than done. Grandpa h.

Actually if you mention you have a job lined up without the correct paperwork you will not be able to go, it is easier to go in as a tourist and then find a job.

[Piscean]

I know I've been working on a move to Belize and I've come across these issues. That's why I haven't been able to go yet.

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: key wish Reading what you wrote prompted me to look a little deeper into this. I probably would have gotten around to this anyway because I never take the word of a blog without checking the original story. What I found out was that the blog neglected to mention an important facet of the story. It is especially important to the people who just like to say "It all that damn Bush's fault. If you read the Washington post article you find out we started we started preparing for this in 1996 but in a much smaller contingent of marines. Probably because of what you can find in the articles I posted in Iraq war my biggest regret on post #17. Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security I doubt any bush bashers will read the washington times article or the news week articles anyway. They would only put facts into the discussion.

dude, get over the bush/obama or bush/clinton dichotomy, hopefully no enlightened person thinks this is a bush only issue. this is something thats been in the works for a long time, OK wasnt crazy enough

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rortykiller dude, get over the bush/obama or bush/clinton dichotomy, hopefully no enlightened person thinks this is a bush only issue. this is something thats been in the works for a long time, OK wasnt crazy enough

It's not about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about political power.

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: GSM:Xtreme 20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States This doesn't seem to trouble many of my classmates. Sad yes, but what can you expect from a group who thinks their government puts their people first. Also, did anyone see it on the news? I happened upon it on a youtube video. OJ's sentencing is more important I suppose.

Don't forget the military is an arm of the White House. I does not act on it's own. So it's not the military that is the treat but rather the man/women who directs it. This person is called the Commander in Chief, he is also the President of the United States, and it is from that office where any threat, real or perceived, emanates..

[Deadeye]

Quote by: GSM:Xtreme 20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States This doesn't seem to trouble many of my classmates. Sad yes, but what can you expect from a group who thinks their government puts their people first. Also, did anyone see it on the news? I happened upon it on a youtube video. OJ's sentencing is more important I suppose.

You do understand, I'm sure, that you have just articulated the best argument there is for the 2nd Ammendment.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Deadeye You do understand, I'm sure, that you have just articulated the best argument there is for the 2nd Ammendment.

If you're implying that because they have guns the citizens will rise in armed opposition to their political leaders you better think again.

Thanks to bush and cheney and the violations of the constitution they have gotten away with there will never be any organized opposition to federal authority in this country. Your phones are tapped, your emails are being read, even your houses are subject to sneak-and-peek warrantless searches. You have no way to communicate privately, no way to organize. At best, if you're lucky you might get a couple of friends together before you're infiltrated by one or more law enforcement agencies.

[Scribbler1]

Not to mention the unlikelihood that any large number of average citizens are out there who would want to risk getting shot, or even slapped around for that matter.

[Jack]

Your phones are tapped, your emails are being read, even your houses are subject to sneak-and-peek warrantless searches. You have no way to communicate privately, no way to organize.

I'd add to that all the personal information people have entrusted to online entities. We have cooperated in our own lack of privacy.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Zeebadee If you're implying that because they have guns the citizens will rise in armed opposition to their political leaders you better think again.

No, that's not quite what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the government, using the military can potentially usurp our freedoms. Since that is the case then it behoves us to be armed, you know; just in case.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Zeebadee If you're implying that because they have guns the citizens will rise in armed opposition to their political leaders you better think again. Thanks to bush and cheney and the violations of the constitution they have gotten away with there will never be any organized opposition to federal authority in this country.

Your above statement is absolute baloney. The only people who had their phones tapped were people who were in communication with known or suspected terrorists overseas, and who lived where terrorists lived. By listening to those conversations some attacked were avoided and some terrorists were captured.

The average American had no threat whatsoever that his rights were being stepped upon.

No one, no one, no one has proven that his rights have been trodden upon.

Oh, there was that guy who was arrested because they thought that he had a fingerprint on one of the pieces of the bomb that blew up that train in Madrid. He spend ten days in jail. The print wasn' t his. The government paid him $20,000,000. That's two mill per day.

Throw me in that briar patch.

[Jack]

The only people who had their phones tapped were people who were in communication with known or suspected terrorists overseas, and who lived where terrorists lived.

And you know this how? Does it make sense to trust the word of the very people who would be complicit in that activity?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Jack And you know this how? Does it make sense to trust the word of the very people who would be complicit in that activity?

I know this because there have been no complaints otherwise. There have been no lawsuits claiming that people's phones have been illegally tapped because of Homeland Security regulations. There has been nothing whatsoever where anybody whosoever has stated that his phone has been illegal tapped by the feds when working in the anti-terrorist relm.

Have you got that? No one, not one single one.

So where's your evidence that such things have happened?....like ever?

[Jack]

How would anyone know whether or not their phone was tapped? If someone is using a cell phone or wireless phone their conversations can be intercepted from a distance. There would be no indication at all of the intercept. So until the government decided to use the information they've gathered, how would anyone assure themselves they aren't being monitored?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Deadeye I know this because there have been no complaints otherwise. There have been no lawsuits claiming that people's phones have been illegally tapped because of Homeland Security regulations. There has been nothing whatsoever where anybody whosoever has stated that his phone has been illegal tapped by the feds when working in the anti-terrorist relm. Have you got that? No one, not one single one. So where's your evidence that such things have happened?....like ever?

Of course there have been lawsuits. For example:
NSA wiretap lawsuits transferred to California court

A simple Google on wiretap lawsuits will show many other examples.

And further, if illegal wiretapping wasn't going on, why would the telecommunications companies need immunity from wiretapping lawsuits??
Senate Immunizes Telecom Firms From Wiretap Lawsuits - July 9, 2008 - The New York Sun


The technology is already in place, that can't be denied. Do you really think it won't be used for whatever it's capable of??

BTW, your $20 million settlement is actually 2 million. Also,
"Not mentioned in the settlement or the Justice Department statement is the full picture of what FBI agents sought and found during their clandestine search of Mayfield's house: computer drives and documents that were copied, DNA samples taken and preserved on cotton swabs, six cigarette butts, and 355 digital photographs, Lambidakis reports.

The government acknowledged in the settlement that it "performed covert physical searches of the Mayfield home and law office, and it also conducted electronic surveillance targeting Mr. Mayfield at both his home and law office," according to a news release from Mayfield's attorney, Elden Rosenthal.

The settlement allows Mayfield to continue to pursue his challenge of the USA Patriot Act, Rosenthal said. Mayfield claims the act violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows government searches without probable cause that a crime has been committed. "
U.S. To Pay $2M For False Terror Arrest, Oregon Attorney Arrested After Madrid Bombings Settles Lawsuit - CBS News

The point being, of course, is that clandestine searches were, previously to bush, illegal without the proper warrants.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Zeebadee Of course there have been lawsuits. For example: NSA wiretap lawsuits transferred to California court A simple Google on wiretap lawsuits will show many other examples. And further, if illegal wiretapping wasn't going on, why would the telecommunications companies need immunity from wiretapping lawsuits?? Senate Immunizes Telecom Firms From Wiretap Lawsuits - July 9, 2008 - The New York Sun The technology is already in place, that can't be denied. Do you really think it won't be used for whatever it's capable of?? BTW, your $20 million settlement is actually 2 million. Also, "Not mentioned in the settlement or the Justice Department statement is the full picture of what FBI agents sought and found during their clandestine search of Mayfield's house: computer drives and documents that were copied, DNA samples taken and preserved on cotton swabs, six cigarette butts, and 355 digital photographs, Lambidakis reports. The government acknowledged in the settlement that it "performed covert physical searches of the Mayfield home and law office, and it also conducted electronic surveillance targeting Mr. Mayfield at both his home and law office," according to a news release from Mayfield's attorney, Elden Rosenthal. The settlement allows Mayfield to continue to pursue his challenge of the USA Patriot Act, Rosenthal said. Mayfield claims the act violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows government searches without probable cause that a crime has been committed. " U.S. To Pay $2M For False Terror Arrest, Oregon Attorney Arrested After Madrid Bombings Settles Lawsuit - CBS News The point being, of course, is that clandestine searches were, previously to bush, illegal without the proper warrants.

I mentioned the Mayfield insident, but I had forgotten his name. His case was about missapplied finger print data and not about wiretaps.

As for the other cases you site they were about the telephone companies helping the government in their wiretapping program and not info gleened from such wiretaps, per se.

I still stand by my claim that no one has been injured by so called wiretaps directed by the Patriot Act. The government admitted their wrong doing in Mayfield's case and paid him a bunch of money....

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Jack How would anyone know whether or not their phone was tapped? If someone is using a cell phone or wireless phone their conversations can be intercepted from a distance. There would be no indication at all of the intercept. So until the government decided to use the information they've gathered, how would anyone assure themselves they aren't being monitored?

How does one know that by standing on the side walk clapping one's hands isn't actually keeping elephants away?

Same argument.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, how does one know that info gleened by the government from such wiretaps hasn't stopped numerous terrorists attacks? It has been reported several times that some have been thwarted.

So all evidence that we have is that the wiretaps have sometimes actually stopped attacks and there is no evidence that someone's phone has been illegally tapped or that they have been harmed by such theoretical wiretaps.

So considering what we do know; the Pat. Act has been a success and no harm has been done.