Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

Hey, did you hear that your bank transactions were viewed by the Bush Administration without a warrant ... isn't that a surprise?

The 'Swift' operation monitored ATM transactions, wire transfers and credit card payments.

It is a temporary program ... that remains ongoing five years down the line.

The Treasury and Justice Department conferred among themselves and came to the conclusion that looking into financial transactions did not violate any financial privacy laws ... because those laws are 'murky'.


Big Brother is watching .....

 

[Ray]

Hey, did you hear that your bank transactions were viewed by the Bush Administration without a warrant ... isn't that a surprise?

Big deal.

Big Brother is watching .....

Paranoia hits the streets, into your minds it will creep.

I'm reading Ann Coulter's new book. Anyone out there still a democrat?

 

[michaeledward]

Anyone out there still a democrat?

Yep.

Me .....

Proudly standing up for ALL of the Constitution of the United States.

Isn't Ms. Coulter in jail? Something about voter fraud? A felony, if I heard correctly.

 

[Carol]

She's under investigation but hasn't had her day in court yet.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0607coultervote-ON.html

Makes me wonder how often this happens with voters that aren't recognizable celebs.

 

[crushing]

Yep.

Me .....

Proudly standing up for ALL of the Constitution of the United States.

That's cool! I wish more democrats (and republicans) would.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yep.

Me .....

Proudly standing up for ALL of the Constitution of the United States.

Isn't Ms. Coulter in jail? Something about voter fraud? A felony, if I heard correctly.

Not that there are not Republicans that have gone to jail or committed illegal or immoral acts, but before we go off on the pristine Democratic party, do any of these names ring a bell

Gray Davis
James Traficant
President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky
Al Sharpton.
Dick Morris.
Gary Condit and Chandra Levy

 

[michaeledward]

Not that there are not Republicans that have gone to jail or committed illegal or immoral acts, but before we go off on the pristine Democratic party, do any of these names ring a bell

Gray Davis
James Traficant
President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky
Al Sharpton.
Dick Morris.
Gary Condit and Chandra Levy

Do you really want to start name dropping on the corruption issue?

By the Way ... Dick Morris is a Republican ...

But, what I am referring to in this thread is the current power structure in Washington - which, I'm sure you will have noticed, is all Republican - seems intent on disregarding the Constitution.

Your phone records are not private.
Your banking records are not private.
You have no right to a speedy trial.
You have no right to be made aware of the charges against you.

You know , the Bill of Rights thing, after all those signatures.

 

[Carol]

Do you really want to start name dropping on the corruption issue?

By the Way ... Dick Morris is a Republican ...

But, what I am referring to in this thread is the current power structure in Washington - which, I'm sure you will have noticed, is all Republican - seems intent on disregarding the Constitution.

Your phone records are not private.
Your banking records are not private.
You have no right to a speedy trial.
You have no right to be made aware of the charges against you.

You know , the Bill of Rights thing, after all those signatures.

Phone records never were protected under statute, nor are they protected by the constitution. There is much that is, and the laws of lawful intercept state that the federal government must have access with proper warrant to a telephone network. As a manufacturer of telecom equipment, I have to ensure my equipment has this access in a way that suits the local country's laws. My customers have to provide that access to the government when circumstances warrant.

Call Detail Records/billing records have never been protected under the law. In the past they have stayed under wraps because they are instrinsic to how a company makes and generates revenue. They also contain business-critical informatin as to how a carrier's switching resources are used at any given time. Call Detail Records are frequently mined by people internal to the company for reasons of network planning. These records are sacrosanct to a carrier. Should the information fall in to the hands of a competing carrier, the competing carrier would have a tremendous competitive advantage.

From everything that I can see, the phone carriers gave the information up voluntarily to the government. There is no law saying that the carriers must keep the info private. But...given the competitive risks of doing what they did, I can't help but wonder if there is something that I am missing. The telcos are too big for a handful of spooks to rough them up. I can't help but wondering if this was done in exchange for favorable antitrust regulation in the future to make the Big Bells even bigger and give them a chance to step harder on the smaller VoIP carriers like my customers.

 

[Carol]

AT&T will announce a "clarification" of it's privacy policy. Not a change, a clarification of the way they have always done business...according to the Death Star.

----------------------

The new privacy policy is scheduled for release today on the company's Web site. AT&T said it does not share the data with third-party marketing firms, but it cites circumstances under which it shares customer information with the government and law enforcement. For its broadband Internet customers, the company also makes clear that it will collect information about which Web pages its customers view, how much time is spent on each page and what links are clicked on.

"While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the new policy states. "As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201742.html

 

[pstarr]

Your phone calls and financial transactions haven't been private for a long, long time...way before Bush's time.

And your email isn't necessarily private, either. And that's not Bush's doing-

 

[Carol]

Phone calls are indeed protected. That is not to say that the government can't access them, but a specific CALEA warrant must be obtained to lawfully intercept the call under FCC statute.

The billing records for said calls, however, are not protected under the law and may be offered to the government voluntarily by the carrier. FCC statutes only protect the calls themselves, not the tracking, billing, or financial transactions that coincide with telephone service.

 

[mrhnau]

Attack against Sears tower foiled

I'm not sure about everyone, but I'm glad it did not happen. I'm glad they are actively looking for terrorist, rather than going after them after the fact. Sadly, that involves intellegence. As I've mentioned in the past, do I mind someone -possibly- listening in on me ordering a pizza if it -possibly- prevents such a bombing? Not really...

I'm not sure exactly how they were tipped off to these guys. May not have been phone lines. Scary part is most of them are US citizens...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Do you really want to start name dropping on the corruption issue?

By the Way ... Dick Morris is a Republican ...

But, what I am referring to in this thread is the current power structure in Washington - which, I'm sure you will have noticed, is all Republican - seems intent on disregarding the Constitution.

Your phone records are not private.
Your banking records are not private.
You have no right to a speedy trial.
You have no right to be made aware of the charges against you.

You know , the Bill of Rights thing, after all those signatures.

And Ms. Coulter is in the current power structure where?

You seem to be able to bring in any evidence that you want, but if someone brings in something to the contrary you retreat to the current power structure argument and what the post was originally about. But it appears to be ok for you to not follow that rule.

And I am not defending republicans, I will give you list on both sides of corruption.

You started with "Is anyone out there STILL republican?" well to stay entirely true to your post it should be filled with nothing but Yes or no answers.

The fact that you are a Democrat and very likely a party line Democrat makes you antagonistic towards all things republican. It will be interesting in a few years when the Democrats are in power and you find they have not changed a thing you have listed, go against the Constitution and plain break the law.

It will be interesting to see if you are as critical of them.

As for these

Your phone records are not private.
Your banking records are not private.
You have no right to a speedy trial.
You have no right to be made aware of the charges against you.

I'll get back to you.

Face it, if it is a politician whether that be democrat or republican it ain't honest. Nor does that politician care about your best interests.

 

[Don Roley]

Proudly standing up for ALL of the Constitution of the United States.

Strange, I normally do not think of the democrats as standing up too much for the second amendment.

And where were the protests when the Clinton administration started using the carnivore program to actually go through e-mails and such to find key words for further investigation? If we are to decry the examination of who sends what to who and billing info, then certainly going through an e-mail for key words should raise a comment.

 

[michaeledward]

I live in a country where there used to be a 4th Amendment.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin (a scoundrel if ever one existed) who said;

"Gentlemen do not open the letters of other Gentlemen."
​

Or something to that effect. It is the basis of the 4th Amendment. And, today, Mr. Franklin would certainly have included emails (no company spying), cell phone, telephone, and telegraph.

And, actually, there is legislation protecting the privacy of your banking transactions ... enacted by Congress in the mid-70's after the US Supreme Court ruled that such privacy did not exist.

But, really guys, don't trouble yourself with facts.

And no, Coulter is far outside any power structure ... but I did not bring her up, just refuted an argument put forth by another.

 

[Xue Sheng]

michaeledward

Sadly a party line political person whether that is Democrat or Republican is a Zealot or a Fanatic. And there is no talking to or auguring with a fanatic.

And I do believe sir you are a party line Democrat, so discussion with you on any political topic that does not praise the Democratic Party is a waste of time.

And as my "what George Washington believed" example, which you called off topic, although your Ben Franklin example seems to be ok, was saying why political parties can be bad things. People will vote for what is best for their party and that may not necessarily be what is best for the country.

But since you brought Old Ben into this I can only assume you will not tell me I am off the topic againby adding something else he said

"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that
promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain
except death and taxes."

I hope you party is all you believe it is.

Bye

 

[michaeledward]

I'm fairly certain that's the second time in the last three pages in which you, Xue Sheng, have bid me adeiu ... I keep hoping.

I will put this response before you ... in your reference to Franklin, in the last post, I will gladly accept it in the spirit offered. It does seem that times, you prefer to attack the messenger, rather than the message; as you did in calling me a 'party line Democrat' ... which earlier in your thoughts you referred to as a zealot or fanatic.

I take offense at such words, so offered. You may be ignorant of your language choices. They are ad hominem attacks.

Rather than discussing the erosion of the 4th Amendment, which you seem to be casually casting aside because it is neither a death or a tax, you turn your thoughts to a personal attack.

So, if you are presenting evidence to support your position, and I have cast it aside, I am wrong ... and should reconsider. But, if you are presenting evidence to further your attacks on my person or character, I will call to disallow it.

And if you can not discern between the two types of arguments, I will patiently wait for you to catch up.

So which is it .... am I a 'Fanatic' ... or are you pissing on the Constitution?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Classic Democrat.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general,"

Then Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, explaining why Bill Clinton has conducted such searches as well as wiretaps of exclusively domestic targets.

 

[michaeledward]

Then Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, explaining why Bill Clinton has conducted such searches as well as wiretaps of exclusively domestic targets.

Domestic targets ... it is as wrong now as it was then.

You will receive no argument from me concerning Presidential Authority to use the CIA to perform operations overseas.

But, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution is what it says it is ... .

. . . . NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSON OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

​

If that is a 'Classic Democrat', I will proudly wear that label.

And if you used the term in a derogatory manner, you should re-examine your position.