JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52
  1. #1
    HazeMaster
    Guest

    Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    August 17, 2006

    Federal Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Wiretapping

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Filed at 12:11 p.m. ET
    DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

    U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

    The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

    The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
    The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...veillance.html

  2. #2
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Golden Triangle
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    2,699

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    This is great news! I hope someone will charge George W. Bush for this crime. He stomps all over the Constitution and he keeps on smiling.

  3. #3
    ds_writr
    Guest

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Yeah! It was a rather stupid move for uninhibited power anyway.

  4. #4
    Porn Star DryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Encino
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    396

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Will someone please impeach that motherfucker Bush already??? Or are we going to have to see him disembowling babies on national television before anyone steps up to the plate??? What's it gonna take???

  5. #5

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Yay for democracy!

  6. #6
    I'm not really a doctor. doctorsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,728

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    It's about time this administration starts facing consequences for its actions. They can't just do whatever the hell they want and expect people to stand by and watch.

    Not only should the practice be abolished, but those who allowed it thus far should be charged, including Bush.
    Someone asked me once how I could know that I'm gay if I've never slept with a woman. I've never shoved shards of glass into my eye, either, but I don't have to give it a shot to know that it's not for me.

  7. #7
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

    The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

    We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

    Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

  8. #8
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wichita
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    507

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

    The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

    We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

    Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA
    Thank you, I swear these people that bitch non stop about the NSA doing this piss me off. They're doing this trying to protect human lives. Its not like there are 258375236 people that sit there and listen to every single phone call.

    Fucking idiots piss me off when someone tries to do something to protect others.

    I hope all you people that bitch about the NSA don't get affected by the next terrorist act that they could have stopped. If so then Karma is a bitch eh?
    To the world you may be one person but to one person you may be the world.

  9. #9
    peace and long life
    MidnightPrism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    14,372
    Blog Entries
    13

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA

    from your link:

    Washington's surveillance occurred before the existence of the U.S. Constitution, and the other historical precedents cited by the administration were before the passage of FISA, and therefore did not directly contravene federal law.


  10. #10
    RingToneSpook
    Guest

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    The constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. THAT decision is the one that will clear the way to a democratic dictatorship in the USA.

    The Bush administration has seeded the High Court with a sleeper cell of republican zombies.

  11. #11
    RingToneSpook
    Guest

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    The United States and England play good cop/bad cop with issues of citizen rights and freedoms... to determine the best method for securing the ultimate ideal of federalism.

  12. #12
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Golden Triangle
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    2,699

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Isn't it strange that all you Republicans are for law and order, until one of your guys, George W. Bush, breaks the law. Then it's okay. All Bush had to do was go to the FISA courts (that's the law), but no, he is above the law. Do you guys think the government won't abuse its powers, if it has a chance? Does J. Edgar Hoover or Richard M. Nixson ring a bell?

  13. #13
    Clowns Rule!
    snapcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lexington
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    18,188
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Haze, thanks for posting this.

    I trust everyone will refrain from personal insults for the remainder of this thread?
    <img src=http://www.justusboys.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic44855_3.gif/>

    Visit Snapcat's Amateurs & Funny Nudes Thread!

  14. #14
    Porn Star crlcxll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nice, France
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    464

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    There are legal ways to do this through the FISA in the United States. The White House did not utilise this method. Do you gentlemen who agree with this really want to lower the bar that low? Many people say: "I have nothing to hide". That satement right there is giving up every right they may have. The lower the bar goes, the more the government has the right to do whatever it wants. I simply cannot believe that there are so many Americans who actually believe that anything is okay as long as they think that they are being protected. The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf. The rise of the Third Reich. My father grew up with this in Germany, and that is exactly what the Third Reich did to gain control.

    Is the Constitution of no value to any of you?

  15. #15
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,225
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by crlcxll View Post
    … The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf …

    Hi crlcxll,

    I don’t recognize the term “democratic dictatorship cf.” (Google doesn’t help.) Can you explain the term, please?

  16. #16
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    Ok all you Bush bashers, tell me how your rights were abridged by this NSA program.

    The program uses software to search for common words that may link one to terrorism, and only searches in calls placed overseas. Do you really think the government has any interest in what you are saying on your cell phone? If you are not doing something in the least bit suspicious, why would the government want to listen at all to you? Can you name one person that has been investigated, harrassed or incarcerated from this "gross intrusion on personal liberty"?

    We are involved in a war. One advantage we have is our technology. We need to use this technology to the utmost. Further I would point out that seeking this information is used to protect our most important right - that is the right to life.

    Oh, and PS...Bush isn't the first president to use warrantless searches during a time of war. Apparently, another George, that being George Washington, was thie first in a long line of presidents to use such a tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...nce_in_the_USA
    Whoa!

    So you're argument, in effect, is that because George Washington used intercepted intelligence during the American Revolution and before there was was a United States Constitution, that it's okay for George Bush to toss the United States Constitution because we're fighting some ambiguous "war on terror?"

    This is whas U.S. District Judge Taylor said:

    Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.

    ''It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,'' she wrote. ''The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.''
    I'm not a Bush basher, the guy doesn't need my help to show that he and his entire administration are nothing more than duplicitous demagogues.


    dem&#183;a&#183;gogue also dem&#183;a&#183;gog

    NOUN:
    1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
    In the case of "wire-taps" replace prejudices of the populace with fears of the populace.


    du&#183;plic&#183;i&#183;tous

    ADJECTIVE:

    Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
    Is your logic based upon fear, or some misquided devotion to a President who's so devoid of Leadership that he has to use scare tactics to usurp the U.S. Constitution, and to pussy-whip half the country into going along with his ambiguity and thirst for unfettered power?

    The reason there are "checks and balances" is to ensure that each branch of government is doing what they say they're doing.

    If I get whacked by some terrorist, I would rather die a free American, than to live in fear of what my government is doing in regard to my privacy.

    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  17. #17
    Goula
    Guest

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    Hi crlcxll,

    I don’t recognize the term “democratic dictatorship cf.” (Google doesn’t help.) Can you explain the term, please?
    Perhaps he's thinking of "totalitarian democracy"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy

  18. #18
    Porn Star crlcxll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nice, France
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    464

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    Hi crlcxll,

    I don’t recognize the term “democratic dictatorship cf.” (Google doesn’t help.) Can you explain the term, please?
    People's democratic dictatorship is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong. The phrase is notable for being one of the few cases in which the term "dictatorship" is used in a non-pejorative manner.
    The premise of the "People's democratic dictatorship" is that the Communist Party of China and state act on behalf of the people, but can and do use dictatorial methods in order to remain in power in the face of hostile forces. Implicit in the concept of the people's democratic dictatorship is the notion that dictatorial means are a necessary evil, and that without a dictatorship, the government may collapse and create a situation which is worse than the dictatorship.
    However, some critics of the concept argue that dictatorships are inherently worse than non-dictatorships.
    It was most famously used on June 30, 1949, in commemoration of the 28th Anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. In his speech, entitled "On The People's Democratic Dictatorship," Mao expounded his ideas about a People's Democratic Dictatorship as well as provided some rebuttals to criticism that he anticipated he would face.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_democratic_dictatorship

  19. #19
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by crlcxll View Post
    People's democratic dictatorship is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong. The phrase is notable for being one of the few cases in which the term "dictatorship" is used in a non-pejorative manner.
    The premise of the "People's democratic dictatorship" is that the Communist Party of China and state act on behalf of the people, but can and do use dictatorial methods in order to remain in power in the face of hostile forces. Implicit in the concept of the people's democratic dictatorship is the notion that dictatorial means are a necessary evil, and that without a dictatorship, the government may collapse and create a situation which is worse than the dictatorship.
    However, some critics of the concept argue that dictatorships are inherently worse than non-dictatorships.
    It was most famously used on June 30, 1949, in commemoration of the 28th Anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. In his speech, entitled "On The People's Democratic Dictatorship," Mao expounded his ideas about a People's Democratic Dictatorship as well as provided some rebuttals to criticism that he anticipated he would face.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People&#39;...c_dictatorship
    Sounds like Propaganda to me.

    The Matter of Propaganda

    This isn't an attempt to hijack this thread, but rather an oppurtunity to determine the difference between how those who defend President Bush's wiretapping policies, and the actual facts of the matter.
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  20. #20

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by crlcxll View Post
    There are legal ways to do this through the FISA in the United States. The White House did not utilise this method. Do you gentlemen who agree with this really want to lower the bar that low? Many people say: "I have nothing to hide". That satement right there is giving up every right they may have. The lower the bar goes, the more the government has the right to do whatever it wants. I simply cannot believe that there are so many Americans who actually believe that anything is okay as long as they think that they are being protected. The ground work IS being laid for a democratic dictatorship cf. The rise of the Third Reich. My father grew up with this in Germany, and that is exactly what the Third Reich did to gain control.

    Is the Constitution of no value to any of you?
    A democratic dictatorship never!

    Friendly fascism thats the american way

  21. #21
    Porn Star crlcxll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nice, France
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    464

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    It is NOT propaganda!! It is the definition of democratic dictatorship. And let's just get real here. Bush is a fascist dictator. Bush & Company have been trying to take over the US ever since, and even before, he hijacked the election in 2000.

    Cognitive Dissonance is the operative expression here. People who cannot believe that the government of the United States is moving in a dictatorial way, need to find a way to excuse it and resolve their own internal dissonance, i.e., deny everything in order to believe that you are being protected.... One morning you will wake up to find that you have no civil rights. Bush fills the country with propaganda. Americans don't understand what we know in Europe after having gone through what we have gone through over the decades.

  22. #22
    Porn Star crlcxll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nice, France
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    464

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by naked gent View Post
    A democratic dictatorship never!

    Friendly fascism thats the american way
    Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

    You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.

  23. #23
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,225
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    crlcxll,

    Thanks for providing an explanation for the term “democratic dictatorship.” My newly-formed impression of the concept is that the primary purpose of government is to maintain order while also providing an appropriate focus for the population. In this regard, it is counterproductive for government to entertain (tolerate) internal challenges, as they detract from the efficiency of implementing the government’s agenda.

    Goula’s suggestion of the alternative concept of a “totalitarian democracy” is similarly rooted in collectivism; however, its description seems a bit more inclined to involve either charisma of leadership or the less-attractive component of brute-force.


    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000
    We are involved in a war. … We need to use [our advantage] to the utmost.
    The war in which we are involved is a somewhat broad-based challenge against terrorism. Although our government may use its official capacity to label various groups as “terrorists,” – the term itself is perhaps more aptly used to describe a tactic, rather than any particular organization(s).

    The outcomes of war are certainly tied to the manner in which each respective opponent uses their advantages. If it is reasonable to legitimize the notion that each side of a conflict “needs to use” its advantage to the utmost, how can we be certain that the tactic of terrorism is not regarded as “an advantage” by one or more of the contestants?



    If I get whacked by some terrorist, I would rather die a free American, than to live in fear of what my government is doing in regard to my privacy.
    I reckon some folks simply prefer to embrace a more democratic-dictatorship-style of government that takes care of all the details and provides a certainty of focus, while others are more inclined to demand that the liberties inherent in the Constitution be upheld. Today’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ended with a quote from Justice Warren’s opinion in U.S. v. Robel, circa 1967:



    Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart … It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

  24. #24
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Granted ...... this is a different kind of war than we've faced before in our history.

    Agreed ....... we need to employ the latest technology to detect and thwart our enemies.

    Bogus ........ the President has the power to circumvent our Constitution and be the sole arbiter as to which laws he chooses to obey.

    A Plan ....... examine our current laws in view of this new kind of war and have Congress pass new laws to bring us up to speed where necessary.

    Take ........ away the President's ability to make signing statements that render Congress' laws and the Supreme Court's interpretations of those laws null and void.

    Impeach ... the sonofabitch if he does it again!

  25. #25
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by smelter44 View Post
    Granted ...... this is a different kind of war than we've faced before in our history.

    Agreed ....... we need to employ the latest technology to detect and thwart our enemies.

    Bogus ........ the President has the power to circumvent our Constitution and be the sole arbiter as to which laws he chooses to obey.

    A Plan ....... examine our current laws in view of this new kind of war and have Congress pass new laws to bring us up to speed where necessary.

    Take ........ away the President's ability to make signing statements that render Congress' laws and the Supreme Court's interpretations of those laws null and void.

    Impeach ... the sonofabitch if he does it again!

    I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

    As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread.

    As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?

  26. #26
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

    As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread.

    As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?
    Absolutely!

    Thomas Jefferson said it best:

    "When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

    Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with.

    I'm not about to give up my liberties because someone wishes me harm.
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  27. #27
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by centexfarmer View Post
    Absolutely!

    Thomas Jefferson said it best:

    "When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

    Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with.

    I'm not about to give up my liberties because someone wishes me harm.
    So, you are unwilling to have phone calls monitored going to Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Norrth Korea when may they involve chatter relating to terrorist acts? Is that a liberty that you so need to preserve that you are willing to give up the opportunity to thwart an attack that may kill hundreds or thousands?

    What sacrifices if any would you be willing to make to preserve your life?

  28. #28

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by crlcxll View Post
    Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

    You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.
    Cricxll I think you misunderstood my post. A democratic dictatorship suggests to me a few men pushing a rapid change and I don't believe that is what will happen. Friendly facisim I see as a more gradual change where voters slowly vote away their rights in the name of security.

    We have already started down this road with the creation of the nanny state where just driving your car without a seatbelt on has you running afoul of the state.

    While a dictatorship is not always a top down event it usually is, in america it will come from the bottom up where as Peter Finch put it so well in the movie Network americans will say 'just leave me alone with my t.v. my microwave and my steelbelted radials."

    Technology is creating more ways every year for goverments to keep an eye on us all, I see in that trend far more of a threat to our way of life than anything terrorists can throw at us.

  29. #29
    Just Tryin' to Catch Up!
    ComNavFdgPk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,822

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by centexfarmer View Post
    Absolutely!

    Thomas Jefferson said it best:

    "When the government fears its people, there's liberty. When people fear their government, there's tyrany" -Thomas Jefferson

    Besides terrorists and terrorism aren't something to be feared, but rather to be thwarted and dealt with. ...
    And I'll trot out one of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes (I wish I could quote it exactly, but this is the best I can do):

    Citizens who are willing to surrender some of their rights for the sake of a little bit of safety deserve neither the rights nor the safety.
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

  30. #30
    Porn Star crlcxll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nice, France
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    464

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Naked Agent! I see what you are saying. I did misunderstand what you were previously saying and agree with you completely. It is a slow, insiduous way of "taking over" that most citizens don't even realise.

  31. #31
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    I'll agree with all that you have said except that last item about impeachment. Impeaching a president during a war, now that shows resolve!

    As to signing statements, that is a totally different issue for a different thread. <snip>
    If SCOTUS rules that the President has violated the law and continues to do so, what alternative is left. That is the whole basis of separation of powers, don't you agree?

    While I agree that Presidential Signing Statements might be better suited to a separate thread devoted to it solely, I disagree with your assessment that it is not an integral part of this one. Afterall, what's to prevent the President from invoking it one more time to nullify new Congressional legislation passed to resolve this very issue?

  32. #32
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by smelter44 View Post
    If SCOTUS rules that the President has violated the law and continues to do so, what alternative is left. That is the whole basis of separation of powers, don't you agree?

    While I agree that Presidential Signing Statements might be better suited to a separate thread devoted to it solely, I disagree with your assessment that it is not an integral part of this one. Afterall, what's to prevent the President from invoking it one more time to nullify new Congressional legislation passed to resolve this very issue?
    First, while I wouldn't bet my house on it, I suspect this won't even make it to the Supreme Court. From what I've read, this will probably be overturned in the District Court. However, should it reach the Supreme Court, AND it is upheld, Congress would pass a law granting the President this authority. Even the Democrats agree that this is important, and have pledged to work with Republicans to put forth a functional law. The issue is not that the NSA shouldn't be doing this, just that Congress hasn't given the President authority to do it.

    As to signing statements, most of them relate to add-ons to legislation and interpretations of the statutes passed. This is something else that the courts are going to have to sort out.

  33. #33
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    So, you are unwilling to have phone calls monitored going to Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Norrth Korea when may they involve chatter relating to terrorist acts? Is that a liberty that you so need to preserve that you are willing to give up the opportunity to thwart an attack that may kill hundreds or thousands?

    What sacrifices if any would you be willing to make to preserve your life?


    I never said that I'm opposed to wire-taps. What I am UNWILLING to accept is one branch of the United States Government having carte blanche authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, laws, legal precedents, and tossing out the Bill of Rights, without any oversight. There are checks and balances in place to ensure our liberties.

    What sacrifices am I will to make to preserve my life, or yours?

    Having served in the United States Military, I have put my life on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That was my oath. I never swore an oath to protect and defend the President of the United States, or his foreign policies.

    On the topic of freedom Benjamin Franklin sums up how I feel about those who are willing to toss the baby out with the bath water all in the name of "national security."

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  34. #34
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Thank you for your service to our country! Those of us who have never served, myself included, owe you the deepest gratitude and respect for keeping us safe.

    I guess it is a matter of degree. I just don't see the NSA program as being offensive and intrusive. Now if they were arbitrarily searching to look for other things such as say tax evasion, then I would object.

    As I stated, the final say will be in the courts. And should the upper courts agree with this ruling, both parties in Congress have already gone on record stating they would pass legislation allowing this type of spying...so, in the end, it will be a moot point.

  35. #35
    JUB Addicts kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Posts
    1,348

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    This is yet another example of a plain lack of common sense, written by a President Carter appointee...go figure.

    She seems to think that the "rights" of journalists, attorneys, and "scholars" to talk to Al Quaeda is more important than the safety of American citizens.

    I don't buy into all of your rubbish about the President usurping his Constitutional authority either. Jamie Gorelick, of President Clinton's Justice Department (remember that fabulous attorney on the 9/11 Commission?), testified before Congress in the early 1990s that such surveillance was legal, but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House then.

    Kevina predicts that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.

  36. #36
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by kev View Post
    This is yet another example of a plain lack of common sense, written by a President Carter appointee...go figure.

    She seems to think that the "rights" of journalists, attorneys, and "scholars" to talk to Al Quaeda is more important than the safety of American citizens.

    I don't buy into all of your rubbish about the President usurping his Constitutional authority either. Jamie Gorelick, of President Clinton's Justice Department (remember that fabulous attorney on the 9/11 Commission?), testified before Congress in the early 1990s that such surveillance was legal, but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House then.

    Kevina predicts that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
    Honestly I don't give a flying rats ass which party is in power, if either Republicans or Democrats presume to run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution they're going to run afoul of me.

    Congress passes laws all the time, that doesn't mean that in the longterm that those laws will pass Constitutional muster.

    I believe that one of the duties of Government are to provide for the security of our country. However, I have enough faith within the provisions of the Constitution that security can be provided without my having to give up my (or your) civil liberties to do it.

    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  37. #37
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,013
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    Thank you for your service to our country! Those of us who have never served, myself included, owe you the deepest gratitude and respect for keeping us safe.

    I guess it is a matter of degree. I just don't see the NSA program as being offensive and intrusive. Now if they were arbitrarily searching to look for other things such as say tax evasion, then I would object.

    As I stated, the final say will be in the courts. And should the upper courts agree with this ruling, both parties in Congress have already gone on record stating they would pass legislation allowing this type of spying...so, in the end, it will be a moot point.
    This kind of spying requires the strictest,most careful oversight.I believe that the Administration would be best served by applying for delayed warrants,up to 72 hours after the activity in the most sensitive cases.I don't see the logic in allowing a policy of warrantless searches,without the need to ever receive even a delayed approval -there is too much potential for abuse without direction,limits,and strong oversight ,regardless of whatever party is in control of the White House.It seems to go much farther to shift the power of the federal government toward the executive rather than a balanced,responsible separation of powers throughout our government-most importantly the oversight powers of the Congress.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  38. #38
    Just Tryin' to Catch Up!
    ComNavFdgPk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,822

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Thanks, centexfarmer, for getting the verbatim quote. I've used it before and will (in all probability) have to use it again, so I've saved it on my desktop.
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

  39. #39
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Bush Blasts Court Ruling on Surveillance
    By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
    Friday, August 18, 2006

    CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live." "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld."

    U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.
    "If al-Qaida is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling," Bush said.

    Critics say the surveillance program skirts the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping. The administration has argued that obtaining warrants from a secret court set up under FISA is a time-consuming process unsuited for the government's fast-moving war on terror.

    The judge said the government, in defending the program, appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.
    "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion. "... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
    Just follow the law, Mr. President, or ask for new legislation to be enacted that changes existing law ........ that's all we're asking. It's as simple as that!

  40. #40
    Not a Cabbage
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the tubes
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,422
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    As to some of the other comments on this thread I pose this question: Do you feel your government is a bigger threat than terrorists?
    Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.
    Knowing is half the battle.

  41. #41
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,013
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by beekman001 View Post
    Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.
    While we have to remain vigilant and always insist in strong oversight of the security measures our government engages in,this statement is wrong.Those who wish to destroy our lives cannot be reasoned with,there are no checks and balances where they re concerned.We must not overreact and compromise the freedoms we hold so dear in maintaining our security,but terrorists could cause ,with the variety and sophistication of weapons,either inflict death and destruction or even wreck our economy by disrupting communications.As bad as our government may appear to many here,the terrorists are infinitely worse.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  42. #42
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    538

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by beekman001 View Post
    Of course the government poses a bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could.

    WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

    WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!

  43. #43
    Not a Cabbage
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the tubes
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,422
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

    WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!
    First off I dont buy the "But THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL US!!!! AHHHHH!!!" argument. You're a citizen of the US and as such you may be called on to give your life defending your liberty, try to be a man about it.

    The government is fundamentally as fallable as any human being which is why it is dangerous. The risk is not from someone comming in and "taking away" our rights but from slowly surrendering them for temporary gains in safety, security and civil order. This is doubly dangerous because as we surrender our liberties we give up our principles which destroys our moral authority on the world stage.
    Knowing is half the battle.

  44. #44

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    The only reason why it wouldn't eventually make it to SCOTUS is because SCOTUS refuses the case. It being overturned in a district court is not a roadblock to SCOTUS.

  45. #45
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,256
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by crlcxll View Post
    Go ahead! Live in denial! That is what the Germans did when Hitler and the Third Reich was coming to power. And then.... well, you know the rest....

    You can't even board an aircraft now with a bottle of skin lotion or a bottle of pure drinking water.
    I'm waiting till they make us go naked!

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  46. #46
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,256
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jkirk3000 View Post
    WE have control over our government. We live in a representative democracy, not a dictatorship. If we don't like what our representatives are doing, we can throw the bumbs out. Our system is built on checks and balances...

    WE do not have control over terrorists. Terrorists seek to not only change our way of life but to KILL US!
    That's a load of crap!
    "Throw the bums out" only works if we have a choice who AREN'T bums... which the major parties aren't providing. Now if we could vote "None Of The Above", you might have a case.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  47. #47

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    How does a vote for "none of the above" work anyway? If "none of the above" gets the most vote the seat remains vacant? How is "none of the above" different from just not voting?

  48. #48
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,256
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    How does a vote for "none of the above" work anyway? If "none of the above" gets the most vote the seat remains vacant? How is "none of the above" different from just not voting?
    I don't know if they still do, but Russia had a NOTA option right after the SovUnion fell apart. If NOTA got the most votes, everyone in the race was tossed out and they had to get new candidates, Until an election elected a person, the seat remained vacant.

    The typical NOTA system I'm familiar with allows NOTA to win on a plurality, whereas a candidate has to have an actual majority. Some versions of NOTA would have the office/seat remain vacant until the next election, but that gets iffy when you're dealing with something like Congress, where the seat has to be filled. Are we to shut down Congress for an entire senatorial term, for example? Not that I think we might not be better off if we did, but there are better ways of fixing Congress than just shutting it down, so replacement elections would seem to be the better option.
    So the difference between NOTA and not voting is that not voting equates to letting anyone be elected, whereas NOTA is a vote against all of the names on the ballot; it's a demand for better choices rather than an abdication of choice.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  49. #49

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    I would be interested in seeing how NOTA would work here then. It would've been a nice option in 2004, I'm sure.

  50. #50
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    102,256
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    I would be interested in seeing how NOTA would work here then. It would've been a nice option in 2004, I'm sure.
    And in 2000... and in 1996... and in 1992...

    The place I would really like to see it is in all the local races where there's only one candidate. In such cases, if NOTA won, I'd have a requirement for at least two candidates in the new election.

    I can't remember the source, but I recall a poll taken after one major state election wherein people who hadn't voted were asked, "If you could have voted 'None Of The Above', would you have gone to the polls?", and something on the order of 15% said "Yes!" That's an indication of just how many Americans don't vote because they believe there really isn't a choice worth the effort.
    The place to start would be in a state like Nevada, which has a pretty independent-minded electorate anyway. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work, and once it got going, I think it would spread.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.