MyFox
 

Demboy08's Blog

by Demboy08 from West Allis

Last Post 55 days, 23 hours Ago


FISA: terrorism and rights
Jul 14, 2008 | 1:17 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

When we give the government power it generally is very hard to take it back.  As a scholar of 20th century history who has studied and written about the rise of dictatorships from liberal democracies. That is why I have become very worried about the new FISA law.  By allowing warrentless wiretapping on Americans we are taking a chunk out of the fourth ammendment and giving the government far more power than it used to have. The same goes for detaining terror suspects at Gitmo which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. Why do we allow the bill of rights to be violated this much? Simple. We fear terrorism above our own civil rights. Many have said that with the globalization which continues we have to give up our rights to deal with terrorism because it is a different sort of threat. But that means that the Democratic Republic which our founders gave us with all its rights which guaranteed our safety is insufficent to fight terror. If we are taking out some of the bill of rights why not just start scrapping the constitution alltogether? The easiest way to be safe from terrorists is to give the government absolute control. If these terrorists hate and fear democracy so much why keep it? That is where our fear of terrorism will ultimately lead to if we continue down this path. This is not about the political parties because both voted for the FISA bill overwhelmingly but about where our country stands. So should we go further down this path or not? This is the classic safety vs. security argument and one side is definitley wining with the passage of FISA is this country headed down the wrong or right path with this? 
16 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last
Happyg read my blog
Jul 14, 2008 | 7:12 AM

Demboy, I noticed you conveniently now state that FISA isn't about political parties. LOL. Couldn't be because your guy OBie voted for it, could it? You're the perfect tool for the DNC. Just educated enough to know the issues, and just blinded enough not to ask for real facts. Maybe it's because you're too young, or maybe because you've bought the sound-bites, but the fact is that when FISA was first introduced in 1978, the world was a much smaller and less technologically sophisticated place. We used land-line phones for a majority of our calls and information transfers. When Al Gore invented the Internet (LOL-Sorry, I couldn't help myself) transfers of information became much more frequent and as a result it was far more difficult for law enforcement to monitor the enemies of this great nation. Our enemies can send 10,000 emails, each with a small portion of a message, or no message at all, only sent to disrupt the process. And people like you want our law enforement officials to go to a FISA judge with each of the 10,000 documents. Let's face it, Al's Internet has taken us way past the limit ability to monitor enemies than ever before. Oh, and bye the way, they laugh their a$$es off everytime someone like you tries to help them.
One other thing, despite liberals hopes and prayers, America will maintain the status of a Republic. It's seems only you and your ilk, are willing to cede our way of life.
Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 14, 2008 | 12:32 PM

Actually it is because a large number of people in both political parties voted for it. Also if we are to maintain a republic how can we with the government violating a part of the rights our republic was born with?
Happyg read my blog
Jul 14, 2008 | 1:03 PM

With each and every post you make you prove once again that "words" have absolutely no meaning to a liberal leaning hack like yourself. Me thinks you need to grow a spine.

Demboy08
Actually it is because a large number of people in both political parties voted for it. Also if we are to maintain a republic how can we with the government violating a part of the rights our republic was born with?
craftyguy read my blog
Jul 14, 2008 | 9:09 PM

FISA is wrong ..Obama proved that by voting for it
Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 14, 2008 | 9:38 PM

Didn't McCain vote for FISA?
craftyguy read my blog
Jul 14, 2008 | 9:42 PM

no he didnt ...he was a real American..he didnt vote at all
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 15, 2008 | 11:07 AM

Let He Who Voted Criticize

Monday, July 14, 2008; A12

The July 10 news story "Obama Joins Fellow Senators in Passing New Wiretapping Measure" reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted for the legislation to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It also stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized his rival for changing positions on the legislation.

No doubt if Mr. Obama had voted against the legislation, Mr. McCain would have said that Mr. Obama was weak on national security.

A pretty nifty position for Mr. McCain, especially considering he didn't feel that it was necessary to show up in the Senate to cast his vote. Was the legislation not important enough, or was he just too busy campaigning? The candidate who doesn't vote shouldn't be able to so easily cast aspersions on the candidate who did.

MARY J. GRACE

Monterey, Calif.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20
08/07/13/AR2008071301715_pf.html
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 15, 2008 | 11:10 AM

"...Inside the White House there [had] been growing fear of criminal prosecution, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that the Geneva Conventions applied to the treatment of the detainees," and that it was this fear that led the White House to demand (and, of course, receive) immunity for past interrogation crimes as part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But Mayer noted one important political impediment to holding Bush officials accountable for their illegal torture program:

An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.

As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it's vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/15/compl
icity/index.html
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 15, 2008 | 11:12 AM

In 2006, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing Bush's illegal NSA spying program. That scandal will fade away this week with the Democratic-led Congress protecting the lawbreakers, covering-up what was done and retroactively legalizing many of the surveillance crimes that were committed.

In the U.S., punishment for lawbreaking is only for "the little people." This country has the largest prison population of any in the world, imprisoning over 2.3 million citizens. But when high-level members of the political establishment commit crimes -- Richard Nixon, the Iran-Contra criminals, Lewis Libby, and the engineers of Bush's illegal spying and torture programs -- the Washington Establishment protects their elite and exempts them from the rule of law.

This week's FISA "revisions" cement this two-tiered system of justice. The nation's largest telecoms broke our spying laws for years, but Congress, awash in telecom money and influence, is about to give them retroactive lawbreaking license.

Why? Because although a crime is a crime when common Americans commit it, the Washington Establishment justifies crimes that are committed by their own as benign "policy disputes" -- or crimes committed "for our own Good."

http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/08/our-full-page-ad-in-t
he-washington-post-against-fisa-bill/
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 15, 2008 | 11:17 AM

"This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/
index.html
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 15, 2008 | 11:19 AM

voodoodog read my blog view my photos
Jul 15, 2008 | 2:58 PM

Jay, Is that Demboy that your your cuddling with in your photo?
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jul 15, 2008 | 7:19 PM

"the ACLU National Security Project"? ha ha ha

Is that kinda like.....The ACLU Lawyer's Code of Ethics? ha ha ha
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 16, 2008 | 7:12 AM

Voodoo dog - That baby is a girl. The underground is as dead as Rock and Roll. Has your system of good old alcoholic values crashed upon you? Don't shoot the altruists - they are playing the best they can. If you can play better - NO PROBLEM! Come on, go on and paint the perfect square, finish college, or re-read this post and try to write it better!
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jul 16, 2008 | 7:29 AM

dFD - We have no idea who the government was spying on. It could be anyone, not just suspected "terrorists." The names have not been released. Who knows, your 4th Amendments rights may have been violated. You could have had a lawsuit and made some money! I heard the government was looking to recruit a gang of rabid online race baiters, and your name came up.

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme
nt04/02.html#1
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last


Write your comment below:




Demboy08

I am a Freshman at UW Madison. I believe in real solutions to real problems. I didn't see the Republicans offering any of them so I a gave the Democrats a chance to do something. I believe both parties are too polarized now to get things done so I think moderates are needed. I am a moderate liberal. I spent months deciding who to support in the presidential election but I finally have decided to vote for Senator Barrack Obama. I love studying world problems, playing tennis, playing video games and now blogging.

Member Since: 5/30/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?