Poor Scott McClellan
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Right now in a news conference he is trying to defend the Presidummy
administration against evidence it is spying on American citizens in this
country without necessary court approval...and the Repuglifascists were
not able to halt a filibuster against renewal of the unPatriot Act.

"I can't talk about that," McClellan said.




No attacks on this soil since 9/11, gun control has been softened and no one
has been knocking on my door. I say it's pretty damn good.

And everyone should know, email is and never was private. Use PGP if you
want, but even that can be cracked.

Poor Scott McClellan
 

Dan J.S. wrote:
No attacks on this soil since 9/11, gun control has been softened and no one
has been knocking on my door. I say it's pretty damn good.

And everyone should know, email is and never was private. Use PGP if you
want, but even that can be cracked.


So, this means you are in favor of any US gov't agency being
allowed... or encouraged... to spy on citizens by whatever
means the agents find convenient, for any reason the agents
can think of?

DSK

Poor Scott McClellan
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dan J.S. wrote:
No attacks on this soil since 9/11, gun control has been softened and no
one has been knocking on my door. I say it's pretty damn good.

And everyone should know, email is and never was private. Use PGP if you
want, but even that can be cracked.


So, this means you are in favor of any US gov't agency being allowed... or
encouraged... to spy on citizens by whatever means the agents find
convenient, for any reason the agents can think of?

DSK


Only if there is reasonable reason to, that can be proven in court. However,
at the risk of timeliness, some of this spying could be executed without a
court order.

However, if I were to legislate it, I would set aside 20 federal judges that
do nothing but warrants for this exact reason. These judges would approve
warrants in real time. On as needed basis.

That would be my solution.

Poor Scott McClellan
 

So, this means you are in favor of any US gov't agency being allowed... or
encouraged... to spy on citizens by whatever means the agents find
convenient, for any reason the agents can think of?


Dan J.S. wrote:
Only if there is reasonable reason to, that can be proven in court. However,
at the risk of timeliness, some of this spying could be executed without a
court order.


A system such as this would be wide-open to abuse for all
kinds of purposes.

In other words, give the various enforcement agencies a
blank check to spy on whomever they please, whenever they
please.

However, if I were to legislate it, I would set aside 20 federal judges that
do nothing but warrants for this exact reason. These judges would approve
warrants in real time. On as needed basis.

That would be my solution.


That's a little better, but is still a very drastic
weakening of Constitutional protection.

When would you prosecute a gov't agent... or an entire
agency... and throw them in the slammer, hard time, for
breaking a US citizen's Constitutional right to privacy and
security from unreasonable search?

The Bush Administration's answer seems to be 'never'.

DSK

Poor Scott McClellan
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
So, this means you are in favor of any US gov't agency being allowed...
or encouraged... to spy on citizens by whatever means the agents find
convenient, for any reason the agents can think of?


Dan J.S. wrote:
Only if there is reasonable reason to, that can be proven in court.
However, at the risk of timeliness, some of this spying could be executed
without a court order.


A system such as this would be wide-open to abuse for all kinds of
purposes.

In other words, give the various enforcement agencies a blank check to spy
on whomever they please, whenever they please.

However, if I were to legislate it, I would set aside 20 federal judges
that do nothing but warrants for this exact reason. These judges would
approve warrants in real time. On as needed basis.

That would be my solution.

That's a little better, but is still a very drastic weakening of
Constitutional protection.

When would you prosecute a gov't agent... or an entire agency... and throw
them in the slammer, hard time, for breaking a US citizen's Constitutional
right to privacy and security from unreasonable search?

The Bush Administration's answer seems to be 'never'.

DSK


There would be checks in place. For example, I work in the finance industry.
We deal with trades. Each of these trades could be executed in real time,
and you could make a lot of money if you were to do any of the fraudulent
things possible. The SEC does not review each trade, you have compliance
officers in each firm that do. You have spot audits and then you have
history. With these checks and balances it's really easy to find insider
traders, and people that do things they are not supposed to.

So I would use a similar checks and balances system here. Judges would be in
the know on all matters, including secret and top secret files. They would
all know what the other judges are approving. They would also keep a list of
agents or agencies that seem to be over doing certain searches, etc.

Poor Scott McClellan
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dan J.S. wrote:
No attacks on this soil since 9/11, gun control has been softened and
no one has been knocking on my door. I say it's pretty damn good.

And everyone should know, email is and never was private. Use PGP if
you want, but even that can be cracked.

So, this means you are in favor of any US gov't agency being allowed...
or encouraged... to spy on citizens by whatever means the agents find
convenient, for any reason the agents can think of?

DSK


Only if there is reasonable reason to, that can be proven in court.
However, at the risk of timeliness, some of this spying could be executed
without a court order.

However, if I were to legislate it, I would set aside 20 federal judges
that do nothing but warrants for this exact reason. These judges would
approve warrants in real time. On as needed basis.

That would be my solution.

Sounds like an invitation to destroy what little is left of the
Constitution and the rule of law.

--
Annoy Conservatives: Share!

It's the liberals that want to **** on the 2nd amendment... chipping away at
it all the time. From a centrist position, liberals do more to destroy the
constitution than republicans.

Poor Scott McClellan
 

"Dan J.S." wrote:

It's the liberals that want to **** on the 2nd amendment... chipping away at
it all the time. From a centrist position, liberals do more to destroy the
constitution than republicans.

And it's not just the 2nd. Liberals are in full cambat mode against the
1st, 2nd, 7th, 10th...and the Constitution itself. The 9th Circuit has
put the Bill of Rights in real jeopardy.

--
Skipper

Poor Scott McClellan
 

When would you prosecute a gov't agent... or an entire agency... and throw
them in the slammer, hard time, for breaking a US citizen's Constitutional
right to privacy and security from unreasonable search?

The Bush Administration's answer seems to be 'never'.



Dan J.S. wrote:
There would be checks in place. For example, I work in the finance industry.
We deal with trades. Each of these trades could be executed in real time,
and you could make a lot of money if you were to do any of the fraudulent
things possible.

And we all know that fraudulent trades *do* happen, but they
are fortunately rare... and prosecutable.

... The SEC does not review each trade, you have compliance
officers in each firm that do. You have spot audits and then you have
history. With these checks and balances it's really easy to find insider
traders, and people that do things they are not supposed to.

So I would use a similar checks and balances system here. Judges would be in
the know on all matters, including secret and top secret files. They would
all know what the other judges are approving. They would also keep a list of
agents or agencies that seem to be over doing certain searches, etc.


That sounds like an outline of a workable system, but it
depends on firm oversight from the top, *and* the opening of
top-secret files to the inspector-judges, which would be
fought tooth & nail by many. I could go along with something
like this, but I tend to lean towards protection of the
Constitution over chasing the bad guy du jour.

The certainty of prosecution for improper action is the key
here. In the finance world, it's the SEC levying fines
(since the game is about money). In the intel and law
enforcement world, it's about getting tossed in the pit with
the bad guys. No prosecution = no real enforcement.

Regards
Doug King

Poor Scott McClellan
 

WHAT??

Recently revealed that bush called the constitution a 'god-damned piece of
paper'

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just
a goddamned piece of paper!"

Peace out..

--
Computer recommends - Hard drinking calypso poet
"Skipper" wrote in message
...
: "Dan J.S." wrote:
:
: It's the liberals that want to **** on the 2nd amendment... chipping
away at
: it all the time. From a centrist position, liberals do more to destroy
the
: constitution than republicans.
:
: And it's not just the 2nd. Liberals are in full cambat mode against the
: 1st, 2nd, 7th, 10th...and the Constitution itself. The 9th Circuit has
: put the Bill of Rights in real jeopardy.
:
: --
: Skipper

Poor Scott McClellan
 

"pray4surf" wrote in message
. net...
WHAT??

Recently revealed that bush called the constitution a 'god-damned piece of
paper'

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just
a goddamned piece of paper!"

Peace out..

misinformation - thats some satirical web site... stop spreading it