Message-ID: <A4516C318C1ACC81D794567F@Paul-Schmehls-Computer.local>
Date: Thu Dec 29 22:43:12 2005
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: complaints about the governemnt spying!

--On December 29, 2005 4:14:12 PM -0500 bruen@...drain.net wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>
>> Yes, because 1) the program isn't illegal
>
>    Well, about five years ago a lwa was passed forbidding *any*
> government employee including the president from such spying seems to
> make it illegal. This is will be determined by the legal and political
> process during the next year or so.
>
No such law was passed five years ago.  I suspect you're referring to FISA, 
which was passed in 1978.  Furthermore, Congress can pass a law which 
restricts the powers of the Executive as they are granted in the 
Constitution, but it would be unconstitutional, if they did, and the 
President would be under no obligation to obey it.  That is the crux of the 
argument, and every court precedent to date has upheld the President's 
position.

>> and 2) the program was top secret.
>> In order for the Times to print the story, they had to encourage people
>> who  had sworn a secrecy oath to break the law.  Then, knowing that what
>> they were  publishing would tip off the terrorists to what the
>> government was doing to  capture them, they published it anyway.
>
>     Your logic is out of sequence. For the Times to convince people to
> talk about it implies that the Times knew about it first. How could that
> be the case if it was top secret? Someone who knew had to have initiated
> it, not the Times.
>
Yes, that's true, for the first one who revealed the secret.  Might be true 
for all of them.  It's certain the Times won't tell us.  It's a secret how 
they got the information.
>
>    I resent being called stupid because I believe in our constitution,
> individual liberty and freedom. My civil rights make my country what it
> is. None of this diminishes the need to protect our country or my
> recognition of this. The only stupidity is thinking it's okay to
> eliminate the values that make this country great. When we give it all up
> we become like any other dictatorship.
>
If the shoe fits.

No values have been given up, except in the fevered minds of people who 
think the government is lurking behind every door.
>
> No need to review the atrocities, but if you want smething to review,
> just look at how Hitler started to remove civil rights in Germany after
> he was *elected* to office.
>
Let me know when America has its Kristelnacht, OK?  Until then, these 
claims are ludicrous.  You haven't given up any rights that you had before 
Bush was elected.  You've just bought the fever swamp paranoia.
>
>> Thousands had died before 9/11, yet the world slept.  Now the world is
>> going  back to sleep, insisting that the *real* problem is repressive
>> governments,  not people who slaughter innocent men, women and children
>> of every race,  creed, nationality and sex without discrimination and
>> without mercy.
>
>    This is not a binary choice, unless your brain only sees black and
> white. It's all shades of grey and lots of colors.

Oh, well please enlighten us.  On the one side you have people who will 
murder anyone who doesn't believe in their "truth".  On the other side you 
have the billions of people in this world who simply want to live their 
lives without being told what to do.  Please tell us where the grey is, 
because the Islamo-facists do seem able to see it.

> We can still defeat
> enemies of our country without sacrificing our values.

Sure we can.  But can we do it with our eyes closed and our ears covered?

> This is the knid
> of thinking that leads to repressive governments.

Oh, please.  No one wants the government out of their business more than I 
do.  In fact, I'm in favor of dismantling entire bureaucracies and 
returning the power and money to local governments.

But I do understand that one of the primary responsibilities of our federal 
government is our safety.

> The US is the only
> super power left and it has more responsibility because of the status -
> which it mostly meets. That does not require that incompetent people use
> easy and possibly illegal means to do their job.
>
No, but it does require an informed citizenry.
>
>    You have a whole bunch of unfounded assumptions here. I believe in our
> civil rights and I believe Al Qaeda should be crushed. I also know that
> the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, except as an excuse.
>
Then you know nothing.  The administration has never tied 9/11 and Saddam 
together.  In fact, they have repeatedly stated that there were no known 
ties between the two.

Howver, the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam were extensive and dated back 
to the early 90's.  All of this is proven and documented.  Did Saddam have 
a direct hand in 9/11?  Not that we know of, but that doesn't mean that we 
could ignore what he was doing.  Furthermore, the UN's corruption and the 
Oil For Food scam were rapidly supplying Saddam with the money and support 
in the UN that he needed to have the sanctions lifted, after which God only 
know what might have happened.
>
>     Liberties are defined a little bit better than this. Try reading the
> Consitution...  I don't understand how you can compare a speeding ticket
> to something like freedom to assemble or freedom of the press.
>
So spend some more time thinking about it.
>
> Here's Article IV:
>
>    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>    and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>    violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>    supported  by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> place
>    to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
Note the use of the modifier "unreasonable".  Its very inclusion presumes 
that there is such a thing as a "reasonable" search and seizure which does 
not require either a warrant or probable cause.

>   You have demeaned the the US and the real values for which it stands in
> your efforts to justify acts which appear to go against the Constitution.
> No amount of cries that the sky is falling is enough to excuse the
> undermining of our rights and freedoms.
>
I'm not the one crying that the sky is falling.  You are.  You're the one 
who is comparing something that you *claim* is illegal but is provably not 
to Hitler's abrogation of civil rights.
>
>    Yes and sometimes those reasons are wrong (eg: slavery, women don't
> get to vote, no one can drink and personal gain). The rules are always
> subject the to the will of the people.
>
Yes, and if you don't like the fact that the administration can spy on 
international communications, then amend the Constitution.

>> We could remove the ID checks for airports and just let the terrorists
>> blow planes up willy-nilly.  I suppose there are some people who
>> wouldn't be too bothered by that, so long as it isn't the plane they are
>> on that's being blown up.
>
>    That sounds good, but you forgot to mention that all the 9/11
> hijackers had ID - legitimate IDs. Checking IDs did not stop the
> hijackers. There are other, better ways to handle it. I have seen 83 year
> great-mothers forced to take off their shoes - oops no bomb there. What
> about the diaper pins being removed from the baby - oops no bomb there
> either.
>
Great.  Present a security plan that will ensure safety on all flights, 
both domestic and international.  Fits right in with the purpose of this 
list and should be very interesting besides.

>   You simply do not know what you are talking about. And because of that,
> people like you and W are failing us.
>
I can back up every statement that I've made with volumes and volumes of 
links to proof - court precedents, documents in the public domain, etc., 
etc.  And you?

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists