20,000 Troops To Be Deployed in United States

[Rortykiller]

I remember when I was in high school there was a cop they added to the school. This cop would patrol our high school, arrest kids, ditchers and pot smokers mostly. This cop didn't work that hard or anything, and he wasn't even particularly unfair. But, now the school has a small police station built inside of it with five cops on duty. A bit excessive, especially considering how much violence has gone down in the high school (prior to the cops coming in). My first year saw dozens of fights and even a school shooting, within a year the trouble makers and bad staff were out. Then the cops moved in, a whole little team of them. Next it will be 5 cops and a Marine.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon No sarcasm intended. Your belief that the government might be wiretaping your phone borders on paranoia.

Honestly, don't you READ what you respond to?
I never said I thought they were tapping everyone's phone, nor did I say I thought they might tap mine. Of course, if they wanted to, they could and Bush's expansion into domestic calls with no court oversight just makes it easier to do.
And the reason I asked if you were being sarcastic was because the statement "Because we know we would never be subjected to a warrantless wiretap. Thats against the law." was just plain idiotic on its face. The baseless assumption that the government would never do anything wrong is too naive to believe, and certainly not based on modern history.
In fact, blind trust is actually the REVERSE of paranoia and in itself is no better an extreme than being paranoid. But in your case it seems you are indeed paranoid about this. You must see terrorists under your bed and because of that trust to government to so whatever it wants while it tells the people they are keeping them "safe".

I prefer a healthy dose of suspicion/cynicism where the government is concerned.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Athena It is not enough to state a social problem. When the problem is stated, the solution must also be stated, or there will be no action. The solution must come through public education as it did in the past, but people don't get it, so they won't mobilize into action.

Witness those in this very forum that not only don't protest unconstitutional government intrusion into our private lives, but indeed welcome it. To them, there IS no problem, therefore no solution or action is needed.

If it's public education that is indoctrinating our people to voluntarily give up their constitutional rights because they don't happen to need them right now, or because of some illusion of "security", then the madrassas of the middle east are only slightly ahead of us.

[key wish]

Quote by: Rortykiller how to get around wire taps, pre-paid phone cards and public phones.... wow.... like everyone didn't already know that!

I didn't say how to get around wire taps rortyk. I said how did we get on this subject.

I am assuming it has something to do with government power and corruption.

[dixon]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Honestly, don't you READ what you respond to? I never said I thought they ...might tap mine.

You seemed to imply it.

Quote by: Scribbler1 My e-mails and phone calls are nobody's damned business except for the recipient's. ....I find it amazing when so many people who don't even like somebody watching them while they EAT have no problem with warrantless wiretaps.

would you not agree?

Quote by: Scribbler1 Of course, if they wanted to, they could and Bush's expansion into domestic calls with no court oversight just makes it easier to do.

What expansion would that be Scribbler? Bush cant use the National security letters to tap a phone in the US any longer. They changed that part of the patriot act. And it wasnt Bush's expansion, it was voted on by Congress.

Quote by: Scribbler1 The baseless assumption that the government would never do anything wrong is too naive to believe, and certainly not based on modern history

The assumption is that they would not tap my phone line, not that they would never do anything wrong.

[key wish]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Since I never mentioned the Patriot Act I can't tell you. I was referring to the actual wiretapping and nothing else, and the way the FISA court, which was created just for this situation was ignored by the administration. Doesn't that tell you something?Nobody had a problem with that, as it was the way they sold the program to us. When they expanded the scope of the monitoring was when people took notice. Otherwise why would Bush demand the telecoms be immune to lawsuits if they were only doing what we approved of in the first place?Of course not. I'm just not some idiot who blindly trusts an untrustworthy government.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Why don't you just look up a timeline of the events at that time instead of arguing in a vacuum. And yes, we have veered off the topic.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. Keep that in mind. But...

I can't find an incidence where the bush administration ignored the fisa courts. I was hoping you could point one out. I had heard rumors of it but never saw anything that wasn't just a rumor.

I felt is was very necessary to protect the telecoms. Not everybody agreed with the program to begin with and it would have been those people who would have sought to interfere with investigations by using the courts to tie things up. Environmentalists do the same thing to keep us from drilling oil, refining gas, building, training the military.... and so on.

The time line doesn't prove anything to me, unless you could point out something specific to me. Vacuum?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dixon What expansion would that be Scribbler? Bush cant use the National security letters to tap a phone in the US any longer. They changed that part of the patriot act.

An extremely naive belief. Phone calls are routed all over the world, a call from Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles might be routed throug India if that was the best solution at the time the call was placed. Fact is, calls can be INTENTIONALLY routed through foreign countries if it helps with collection. In addition, the government is taking advantage of the gray area that VOIP now occupies - is that mere internet snooping, or is it a phone call?

Believe what you want, but there are multiple companies that have developed and are working on new solutions to add to and improve the capabilities of government agencies to snoop. The unlimited funds available for these contracts is the prize. And if those agencies can do it to anyone they can do it to everyone. bush has already demonstrated that legal requirements are not a consideration.

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: dixon You seemed to imply it. would you not agree? What expansion would that be Scribbler? Bush cant use the National security letters to tap a phone in the US any longer. They changed that part of the patriot act. And it wasnt Bush's expansion, it was voted on by Congress. The assumption is that they would not tap my phone line, not that they would never do anything wrong.

as explained dixon, you're arguing against the government's own admittance. They are factually wiretapping you and have been for decades, as I've proven.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon You seemed to imply it.

So what you think I'm implying is a basis for argument? Would it be better just to just ASK me what I mean if you're not clear on it?

would you not agree?

What do you mean? Do I agree that it's okay to be bothered when people watch them eat but not when the government taps your phone? First, it was an observation/comparison and doesn't necessarily require agreement. Second, since *I* wrote it, it's a safe bet I agree with what I wrote.

What expansion would that be Scribbler? Bush cant use the National security letters to tap a phone in the US any longer. They changed that part of the patriot act. And it wasnt Bush's expansion, it was voted on by Congress.

Bush can, and does pretty much anything he wants. The "pesky" Constitution doesn't seem to have an effect on him. And you are again assuming the government and/or the Administration itself will not ignore the rules they must abide by.
And you forget about Bush's infamous "signing statements". He feels no obligation to abide by what he himself signs into law. For example:

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

The assumption is that they would not tap my phone line, not that they would never do anything wrong.

In the manner we are discussing, this lever of surveillance IS wrong, so there is no difference.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: key wish I'm not saying I disagree with you. Keep that in mind. But... I can't find an incidence where the bush administration ignored the fisa courts. I was hoping you could point one out. I had heard rumors of it but never saw anything that wasn't just a rumor.

I'm on my way out the door right now. If you made the effort to look it up, I'll see if I can post something later.

I felt is was very necessary to protect the telecoms. Not everybody agreed with the program to begin with and it would have been those people who would have sought to interfere with investigations by using the courts to tie things up. Environmentalists do the same thing to keep us from drilling oil, refining gas, building, training the military.... and so on. The time line doesn't prove anything to me, unless you could point out something specific to me. Vacuum?

The REASON to protect the telecoms was bogus in the first place. If they were not complicit in an illegal act they wouldn't need "protection". If they were acting legally and at the request of the president, on that basis they had nothing to fear from spurious lawsuits.

[dixon]

Quote by: Scribbler1 So what you think I'm implying is a basis for argument? Would it be better just to just ASK me what I mean if you're not clear on it?.

I just did and you couldnt bring yourself to deny that this is precisely what you meant.

[Jack]

Quote by: key wish I can't find an incidence where the bush administration ignored the fisa courts.

Under Republican control, the last Congress largely ignored the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless domestic spying program. Republicans failed to provide thorough oversight or pass a single surveillance bill. Under Democratic control, Congress is now doing even worse, abdicating oversight and actively undermining accountability for violations of the nation’s surveillance laws. The Senate Judiciary Committee is debating whether to extend “temporary” legislation, passed in August, to enable the government to spy on Americans without warrants. The “FISA Amendments Act” would gut the oversight system established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which subjected domestic spying to review by a special intelligence court. That was the court President Bush defied by ordering warrantless surveillance. One of the court’s judges, James Robertson, resigned in protest, while the attorney general, his deputy and the FBI director all threatened to resign. A federal court also found the warrantless surveillance illegal last year. Yet the Senate is poised to wipe away that history by validating surveillance without warrants or court oversight.

(Emphasis mine)
Letting Bush spy on Americans is unwarranted - Ari Melber - Politico.com

[dixon]

Quote by: Jack (Emphasis mine) Letting Bush spy on Americans is unwarranted - Ari Melber - Politico.com That was the court President Bush defied by ordering warrantless surveillance. ... A federal court also found the warrantless surveillance illegal last year.

Well, the Patriot Act defied the FISA court by clearly giving the president the authority to order warrantless surveillance. Bush is the President who implemented those authorities given by Congress.
And it would probably be more accurate to say that the warrantless surveillance was found to be un Constitutional by the Federal Court. It was CLEARLY legal under the Patriot act and many would argue that the President had the authority even before the patriot act.
President Clinton argued as such in the Aldrich Ames case. Surveiled him, tapped his phones and physically searched his home all without a warrant.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dixon Well, the Patriot Act defied the FISA court by clearly giving the president the authority to order warrantless surveillance. Bush is the President who implemented those authorities given by Congress.

The government can always say warrantless searches are "for foreign intelligence purposes." They can argue an American citizen is somehow allied with an international terrorist group, even if he/she isn't.

Grandpa h.

[Yarn]

Besides the training, I don't see whats novel about this.

The president can already tell the army what to do. He has been able to do that for quite a long time now. Likewise, for our entire history large numbers of our troops have been stationed in the US. These things by themselves therefore, do not trouble me.

On the other hand, engaging the army in routine law enforcement duties would be wrong. But it isn't clear that its been decided that they will perform such duties. Presumably, because of the Posse Comitatus act they would need the approval of congress before they could perform them.

As for the training: non-lethal combat can be useful in counter terrorist operations. As can blocking roads. Forceful crowd control can be useful in situations where the crowd is indestinguishable from the terrorists, and in disaster situations wherein desperation causes rioting.

Nevertheless, the fact that HLS wants military satellites to be used for domestic law enforcement is troubling. As is the fact that all of this brings us one step closer to actually having the army carry out routine law enforcement duties.

As for the merits of using troops rather than police, its probably cheaper since we won't have to hire more people, and troops are stronger combatants than police.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Yarn On the other hand, engaging the army in routine law enforcement duties would be wrong.

Gonna have to find something for them to do when they are kicked out of Iraq.

[Rortykiller]

In is a fact, the CIA has already released documents from decades ago fully detailed how, exactly, every SINGLE phone conversation is tapped. There have even been news specials on how it works, who designed the technology, where the device is located (on the wires), etc, etc. This is not a topic of debate, for the last time, its a fact and I've already posted the evidence. As much as you want to defend fascism dixon, it will kill you one day.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dixon I just did and you couldnt bring yourself to deny that this is precisely what you meant.

You asked me nothing, and I already TOLD you in the previous post you were were dead wrong.

Once again, I said "Honestly, don't you READ what you respond to?
I never said I thought they were tapping everyone's phone, nor did I say I thought they might tap mine."

You're either unable to read or are just flame-baiting. And if you're baiting, don't waste your time trying.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: key wish I'm not saying I disagree with you. Keep that in mind. But... I can't find an incidence where the bush administration ignored the fisa courts. I was hoping you could point one out. I had heard rumors of it but never saw anything that wasn't just a rumor.

As promised:(From the NYT)

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: December 16, 2005WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. (snip) The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

And since the FISA court okays almost ANY warrant asked for, you have to wonder why Bush snuck past them to begin with.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I understand enough. As I already said, the plan was sold to us as exactly what you said, but it was EXPANDED afterwards, and also against the purpose of the FISA courts, which was the reason Bush held firm on not allowing the telecoms to be sued. And exactly how is it you know for sure it WAS only the people you mention? Got an in with the White House, or what?Here's the part where I ask you to show where I actually said "all Americans are having their phones tapped"?Forgive me if I completely dismiss you as a source of info as to what the government does, particularly when it is in secret.Actually I am quite relaxed and looking forward to Christmas, thank you. I wish you the same. Please don't assume I take these arguments as anything other than pleasant diversions. That's what they're here for.

Aahhhh, my connections with the White House are, well; pretty thin. Like very thin. I have seen the place however, and it's nice.

I don't think the Patriot Act ever became more than it was intended to be. As I've said I'm waiting for real evidence that it became more.

As for our discussions they are only just an interesting pass time for me too, and I appreciate your attitude. You must understand, however; that I'm always right.....just ask my wife; she'll tell you.

You have a Merry Christmas too; and a very very happy New Year. We both may need it.