Pentagon Spying on Protestors

[Destino]

so after reading one book you form a new opinion? That is extremely ignorant. You need to have several different sources before forming an opinion.

I think it's safe to assume that this book was not his first look at history in respects to Abe Linocln. The man is a major topic of study in highschool and college history courses. Also to accuse Kilmer of being ignorant, for forming a new opinion based on new information is rather strange don't you think? heh.

My only question with those that call the man a thug and whatever else is this: would it have been possible to preserve the union without the strong arm tactics? Seems that maryland had to be stopped from joining the traitors or else the nations capital would be surrounded by the enemy.

[Kilmer17]

And had he not, we wouldn't be a country today. Perspective, priorities, common sense, and a sense of responsibility are needed to understand these things. No wonder the left can't get it.

Id just like to point out that I have been referred to as "the left" in this thread.

Carry on.

[Kilmer17]

I think it's safe to assume that this book was not his first look at history in respects to Abe Linocln. The man is a major topic of study in highschool and college history courses. Also to accuse Kilmer of being ignorant, for forming a new opinion based on new information is rather strange don't you think? heh.

My only question with those that call the man a thug and whatever else is this: would it have been possible to preserve the union without the strong arm tactics? Seems that maryland had to be stopped from joining the traitors or else the nations capital would be surrounded by the enemy.

I dont accept your premise. It was not his RIGHT to try and preserve the union. In fact, one of the MOST IMPORTANT parts of the FFs vision was that the union of states was VOLUNTARY and that any state could leave anytime they wanted to leave for any reason.

[Destino]

Id just like to point out that I have been referred to as "the left" in this thread.

Carry on.

What size pancho did you want?

[Kilmer17]

What size pancho did you want?

Is there a handshake or something I need to learn?

[Larry]

Do you know how ignorant and paranoid you sound??? I know you're smarter than this Larry; I hope you wrote this in jest. Somehow, I doubt it though. :doh:

You mean, I wasn't shovelling it on thick enough for people to be certain?

Anybody think maybe things have gone too far, when people can advocate a dictatorship, and people aren't sure they're joking?

(Hint: the Committee for State Security is a real organisation, more popularly known by it's initials: KGB.)

[gchwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gchwood

Yeah that about sums it up. It is not illegal for the government to gather intellegence on american citizens. Especially if it is done through legitamate means. I mean I can gather info through public records on my own, so why can't they? That is all they are going to find. Secondly they did not search anything of thiers physically or thier person. That is what the 4th amendment says. Period. I am for strict interpretation of the Constitution, because that is what it says, who are we to say what the Founding Fathers "meant."

Well, aparantly, you are.

You've inserted the word "physical" in the words "shall be free from unreasonable searches".

And you've decided that that the framers meant was that any form of technology that's less than 200 years old is fair game for unlimited use.

(And you've decided that singling american citizens for special government treatment if they disagree with the government is OK, too.)

If they don't know about the searches how can they be defined as unreasonable. And since the founding fathers did not have knowlege of the technology we currently have how can you say that they would be against the use of it? Third the government is not doing anything that you or I couldn't do legally. So why can't they?

Quote:

1)I have permission to check credit checks. Certain Credit checks are illegal without authoriztion and certian ones are legal. Furthermore I can do a social security check to validate a SSN and check previous residencies, without permission.

I'll take your word for it.

Good cuz that is how it is

Quote:

3)Constitution doesn't say that they can't! Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the right to determine what is Constitutional or not but it does. There is alot of government functions that the Constitution authorizes. You can't go against the constitution, doesn't mean you can't do more beyond it

OK, let's take this in sections.

Be my guest

Quote:

Constitution doesn't say that they can't!

Excuse me? What part of "freedom of speach" don't you understand?

Now I understand that the Constitution doesn't outright say that "the Government cannot kill people who disagree with it", but I really think their intent was that "freedom of speach" included "freedom from government retaliation for speach".

Or are you still stuck on "the government allowed them to finish the speach, so the First Ammendment's good."?

Funny I don' t remember mention in that article about the government executing the peanut butter and jelly protesters. Shoot now I am pissed!

They did not in anyway squelch their freedom of speech. They allowed them to meet and protest. They did background checks on them, doesn't mean they kept them from using their first amendment rights.

How the heck did this become a 1st amendment thing? It doesn't even fit!

Quote:

Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the right to determine what is Constitutional or not but it does.

Again, excuse me?

Quote:

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another state;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Where the heck does it say that the supreme court can declare things unconstitutional? John Marshall decided that on his own, which was more unconstitutional, but I don't have a problem with them declaring things unconstitutionl

Quote:

You can't go against the constitution, doesn't mean you can't do more beyond it

Bzzzzttt. Strike three. Thank you for playing High School Civics!

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If it's not in the Constitution, it's prohibited to the government.

It's not a case of anything not mentioned gives the government unlimited authority. It's a case of the government can only do the things that the Constitution says they can

OK since you can only have the constitution and that is it, FISA is as good as toilet paper. The geneva convention is wrong. the monroe doctrine. and every foriegn policy is wrong. You had better pick the right battles, and this one is the wrong one. Shoot that means that if a governor wants to bomb another country he can take his National Guard (because he is who they listen to) and bomb the crap out of them. Good fine lets do it! See how well we work as a country

[Air Force Cane]

"If it's not in the Constitution, it's prohibited to the government."

and you call yourself a liberal?!! :doh:

where in the Constitution does it say abortion must be allowed then?

There are tons of things that are not listed explicitly in the Constitution that the government can do- but if anything EVERY liberal WANTS the government to make up things that are not in the Constitution!

your reasoning is ALL OVER THE PLACE!

[Larry]

How the heck did this become a 1st amendment thing?

It became a "1st amendment thing", when the government decided that "disagreeing with the government" = "probable cause".

It's a "1st amendment thing" when the government decided that disagreeing with the government is justification for special treatment by the government.

It's a "1st amendment thing" when people with Bush t-shirts are allowed to stand on a sidewalk, but people with Kerry t-shirts have to go to a "free speach zone" (a mile away) or be arrested.

When the government decides that there are two sets of rules: One for people who do what they're told, and another for people who speak against it, then it's a "1st amendment thing".

[Larry]

Where the heck does it say that the supreme court can declare things unconstitutional? John Marshall decided that on his own, which was more unconstitutional, but I don't have a problem with them declaring things unconstitutionl

Because that's what judges do. They interpret laws. And the Constitution is a law. (It's the "supreme law of the land". According to the Constitution.)

So guess what happens when Congress passes a law that contradicts the Constituion (or another law)? A judge examines the two conflicting laws and issues a ruling. (The only thing special when the Constitution is involved is: The Constitution always wins the fight. Or at least, it's supposed to.)

[Larry]

OK since you can only have the constitution and that is it, FISA is as good as toilet paper. The geneva convention is wrong. the monroe doctrine. and every foriegn policy is wrong. You had better pick the right battles, and this one is the wrong one. Shoot that means that if a governor wants to bomb another country he can take his National Guard (because he is who they listen to) and bomb the crap out of them. Good fine lets do it! See how well we work as a country

Constitutionally, I'd agree. The only way I can see to make it Constitutional (strictly) is because the Fourth prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Since "unreasonable" isn't defined, I'd say that the way to define it is for the Legislature to create some rules, and for the Executive to then impliment those rules (as proceedures), as reviewed by the Judicial.

Drawback with that reasoning is: It makes The Fourth Ammendment "as good as toilet paper". If Congress can define "unreasonable" as they see fit, then any law Congress passes is Constitutional (on that subject). But, in the absence of anything else in the Constitution on the subject, I don't see any other resolution.

The Constitution specifically authorises treaties, and specifies the proceedure for entering them. And I certainly don't see anything in the Constitution that would make, say, Geneva, unconstitutional (as opposed to any other treaty.)

Bear in mind, we've had Presidents making exactly that claim for 40 years. They claim that the Constitution authorises them to fight a war any place they feel like it, and that Congress' role in the matter is to decide it's officially called a war.

(Personally, I think every one of those Presidents is wrong. That what the framers intended was that Congress would decide if we were going to have a war, and then the President would fight it. But I also think that, in the land of ICBMs, the President really needs permission to respond militarily without waiting for Congress.)

[Kilmer17]

I got a hankerin for some skittles.

Anyone else?

[gchwood]

It became a "1st amendment thing", when the government decided that "disagreeing with the government" = "probable cause".

It's a "1st amendment thing" when the government decided that disagreeing with the government is justification for special treatment by the government.

It's a "1st amendment thing" when people with Bush t-shirts are allowed to stand on a sidewalk, but people with Kerry t-shirts have to go to a "free speach zone" (a mile away) or be arrested.

When the government decides that there are two sets of rules: One for people who do what they're told, and another for people who speak against it, then it's a "1st amendment thing".

you don't need probable cause to do a background check. It is called preventative maintainance. Are you goig to let you car go without changing its oil, or are you going to change it often so that you don't have major damages. The PB&J protesters may have not been dangerous, but the possibility was there. If they had a bomb and no one checked them out you would be in an uproar that the government was not protecting its citizens (beleive it or not the people of Haliburten are US citizens too). The protesters were not silenced or inconvienced. So it was NOT a 1st amendment thing. Sorry you are wrong.

If you want to be upset that they checked public records than so be it. But they did nothing illegal or unethical.

[Larry]

"If it's not in the Constitution, it's prohibited to the government."

and you call yourself a liberal?!! :doh:

where in the Constitution does it say abortion must be allowed then?

1) If I have ever called myself a liberal, I was using sarcasm. "Liberal" is the label that's been slapped on me about 10,000 times, because I keep whining about things like the Constitution, and similar things that Real Man Conservatives think are weak and girlie.

2) The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion.

If you want my off-topic opinion, I'll try to briefly sumarise.

Our laws, and our society, grant people certain rights to make decisions for themselves, but limits those rights. The clasic example is "your right to swing your arm stops at the other guy's nose".

If the fetus is a person, then society has not only the right, but the obligation to protect it. (Things become somewhat more complicated if a "person" is dependant on another for life support. Just because I'm going to die if I don't get a kidney, doesn't allow me to demand that you give me one. However, there's certainly precidemt for society demanding that parents are obligated to meet certain standards of support for their children, even if the parent doesn't want to provide that support.)

However, for hundreds of years (thousands, of you go back pre-USA), a life is considered to be "human" at birth. Try getting a Social Security number for a fetus. Thy claiming you're a citizen because you were concieved in the US. You can't drink just because you were concieved 21 years ago.

(Society is full of various Rites of Passage. All of them are arbitrary, but they're recognised.)

However, ofsetting that tradition is technology. Time was, a person was dead when he stopped breathing. Technology got better, and then a person died when his heart stopped. Later, a person was dead when the brain ceased function (unless it's needed for a GOP fundraiser).

My position on abortion: Society at present defines a life as begining at birth. And maybe it's time to re-consider that.

(OTOH, my other position on abortion: Show me somebody yelling that "life begins at conception", and I'll show you somebody who a) Wants to make sex illegal, Knows they don't have enough votes to make sex illegal, c) Decided that the next best thing is to make sex as dangerous as possible d) Therefore, opposes abortion (and condoms, and sex education), because they want to make sex dangerous. e) Knows that people won't vote to make abortion illegal if the stated motive is to make sex dangerous f) Decided that the way to achieve their goals is to change the definition of "human" so that they can crusade to make sex illegal under the banner of "save helpless babies".)

[Larry]

The PB&J protesters may have not been dangerous, but the possibility was there. If they had a bomb and no one checked them out you would be in an uproar that the government was not protecting its citizens (beleive it or not the people of Haliburten are US citizens too).

So, anybody want to claim that, if some pro-war people had shown up to do a counter-demonstration, they would've been classified as potential threats, too?

When the President has a motorcade route, they don't force people with pro-Bush signs to leave. Only the ones with anti-Bush signs.

And, FWIW, I was a resident of Oklahoma City the day of "the bombing". And my position on that day of "what should the government do to prevent this from happening again" was "nothing".

The "cure" is worse than the "disease".

[gchwood]

Constitutionally, I'd agree. The only way I can see to make it Constitutional (strictly) is because the Fourth prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Since "unreasonable" isn't defined, I'd say that the way to define it is for the Legislature to create some rules, and for the Executive to then impliment those rules (as proceedures), as reviewed by the Judicial.

Drawback with that reasoning is: It makes The Fourth Ammendment "as good as toilet paper". If Congress can define "unreasonable" as they see fit, then any law Congress passes is Constitutional (on that subject). But, in the absence of anything else in the Constitution on the subject, I don't see any other resolution.

The Constitution specifically authorises treaties, and specifies the proceedure for entering them. And I certainly don't see anything in the Constitution that would make, say, Geneva, unconstitutional (as opposed to any other treaty.)

Bear in mind, we've had Presidents making exactly that claim for 40 years. They claim that the Constitution authorises them to fight a war any place they feel like it, and that Congress' role in the matter is to decide it's officially called a war.

(Personally, I think every one of those Presidents is wrong. That what the framers intended was that Congress would decide if we were going to have a war, and then the President would fight it. But I also think that, in the land of ICBMs, the President really needs permission to respond militarily without waiting for Congress.)

My point was that either we have additions to the constitution or we don't we can't pick and choose. I say interpret the constitution strictly (word for word, not as an ambiguous document) and have additions that are not against the constitution, (must have full compliance). I am not saying that the treaties are or are not constitutional. But if we are to only have the constitution as the federal mandate and that is it, then they are.

[gchwood]

So, anybody want to claim that, if some pro-war people had shown up to do a counter-demonstration, they would've been classified as potential threats, too?

When the President has a motorcade route, they don't force people with pro-Bush signs to leave. Only the ones with anti-Bush signs.

And, FWIW, I was a resident of Oklahoma City the day of "the bombing". And my position on that day of "what should the government do to prevent this from happening again" was "nothing".

The "cure" is worse than the "disease".

According to that article they didn't make them leave. Who says that the government doesn't video tape the crowds and put the faces through searches? You can't make assumptions when you don't know. Why should I give a crap if the CIA knows that same thing that my neighbor can find out using the internet? Go to whitepages.com look up someone and then you can find all kinds of records on them, sure to the average person it costs money and to the government it is free that is the only difference.

I ask you this: Would you be upset had I done the background checks using the internet, instead of the government?

[Larry]

According to that article they didn't make them leave. Who says that the government doesn't video tape the crowds and put the faces through searches? You can't make assumptions when you don't know. Why should I give a crap if the CIA knows that same thing that my neighbor can find out using the internet? Go to whitepages.com look up someone and then you can find all kinds of records on them, sure to the average person it costs money and to the government it is free that is the only difference.

Tell me where I can go on the internet to find out if you've ever publicly stated that you disagree with the government.

[Predicto]

And had he not, we wouldn't be a country today. Perspective, priorities, common sense, and a sense of responsibility are needed to understand these things. No wonder the left can't get it.

Damn, can't anyone make a post without a gratuitous dig at the left anymore?

Some people might say that Lincoln did a lot of great, great things, but still criticize some of the things he did. No one is perfect, not even an American Icon Legend like Abraham Lincoln. Some might argue that some of his more tyrannical-appearing actions were not, actually necessary to accomplish his goals, yet still be happy that he did, in fact, accomplish his goals for the sake of our country.

Jeez.

[AlexRS]

I ask you this: Would you be upset had I done the background checks using the internet, instead of the government?

There is a contract between the government and its constituents. That contract is called the Law. Government is allowed to do some stuff, citizens are allowed to do some other stuff.

[gchwood]

Tell me where I can go on the internet to find out if you've ever publicly stated that you disagree with the government.

Lets consider the government a company for a second. Ok they collect information regarding who complains about them. SO!!

The Company I work for documents every complaint and every "suspisious" activity, as well as doing a little of "legal" research, to protect us from harm, usually in the form of lawsuits. We are well within our rights to do so.

So is the government. They have not infringed on an rights. anything that is done in public, is open to the public. Now if the government were stalking these people and setting up cameras in their houses than there would be a huge problem, but the government is searching for public records on people who are demonstrating in public. You choose to publisize your self than you deal with those consequences.

If you wanted to you could find out that I was brought up on Grand theft Auto charges when I was 15 (aquitted), that I graduated in the middle of my class in high school, and that I am an Avid yankees fan. Why? Because that has become public knowledge, it just depends what resources you have as to how deep you can get. But if you don't want your thoughts public don't tell them to someone else.

[gchwood]

There is a contract between the government and its constituents. That contract is called the Law. Government is allowed to do some stuff, citizens are allowed to do some other stuff.

IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW!!!!! I don't know how many times and ways I have to say it. This is Public Record!!! this means that it is available to the public, which means anyone!!! The government can keep records of discenters if it wants, it can't use those to unfairly tax or burden them. But it can keep that knowledge.

YOu are so bent on protecting peoples liberties that you want to take away from the government what anyone else can get. That is freaking nuts!

[AlexRS]

Now if the government were stalking these people and setting up cameras in their houses than there would be a huge problem, but the government is searching for public records on people who are demonstrating in public. You choose to publisize your self than you deal with those consequences.

There is a difference between government looking up your information in a Public Record and government KEEPING THAT RECORD. They are allowed to research public record. They can see who graduated from where, your credit score, whatever.

BUT

They cannot keep records of US Citizens participating in anti-war demonstrations, for example, unless those citizens are suspects and this was authorized by a Judge.

My understanding is that Privacy Laws are for corporations, Bill of Rights and Constitution is for Government.

Also, keep in mind that Corporations can keep their databases because they are paying for them. WE are paying for government's databases.

[AlexRS]

YOu are so bent on protecting peoples liberties that you want to take away from the government what anyone else can get. That is freaking nuts!

Somebody is keeping that information, and somebody is PAYING for storage of that information. Even publically available data has to be stored somewhere. If Government is storing it - that means we are paying for that. That means there are rules and regulations as to what kind of information we are paying them to keep, and what kind of information we are not. In other words, it would be illegal for government to keep publically available information that it is not supposed to.

Looking up publically available information is legal

Storing publically available information is subject to law

[AlexRS]

Now let us revisit the original article:

A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention—although organizer Parkin had previously been arrested while demonstrating at ExxonMobil headquarters (the charges were dropped). But there are now questions about whether CIFA exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

NOTE: never should have been RETAINED.

Checking out the protest was perfectly legal by the government. Checking out who attended it was probably legal as well. Filing and storing a report about it was legal. Yet storing names of participants was illegal.

Do you see the point of contention? Everything is fine unless they keep names of anti-war protesters that are not suspects.

US Citizens have a right to protest government without ending up on some kind of a list. That is all.