Quashing intelligence that makes us less safe...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Sep 3, 2006.

  1. Give me some examples of people who have died, been injured, and/or victims of violent crime etc. directly as a result of a person who is reading the web and/or books.

    The point is the the Klannish types go apeshit over law enforcement having data of gun sales so that law enforcement can look for patterns of gun sales and potential gun dealers who are not doing their jobs to screen guy buyers, but the same moonbat neokons condone spying on citizens by the government.

    Pure duplicity...



     
    #21     Sep 5, 2006

  2. AAA,

    IMO, the DNC and its associated party will self destruct sufficiently in time for the elections.

    Why do I think this way:

    1. The troika leading the party:
    Comrade Chairman Dean;
    Nancy "let's impeach Bush" Pelosi (1); and
    the iconic Ted "can I get any fatter and why is my nose red" Kennedy.

    2. Hillary.

    3. They don't have a message other than "we aren't Bush."

    Seneca

    (1) In fairness Pelosi is no longer advocating impeachment. Instead we have: "So our agenda guarantees that every American will have affordable access to broadband, and we intend to achieve it in five years." That'll pull a lot of voters to the Dems.

    Next will be "a laptop on every desk"
     
    #22     Sep 5, 2006
  3. Arnie

    Arnie

    Uh, the Unabomber comes to mind.

    Please show me where I have condoned spying on citizens.

    Law enforcement CAN trace gun sales. Show me where the law says different.

    What you are so upset about is that special interest groups can't go a fishing expedition. How many guns I own and where I bought them are none of your, or anyone elses business.
     
    #23     Sep 5, 2006
  4. #24     Sep 5, 2006
  5. Pabst

    Pabst

    I don't know of anyone defending the Fed's right to warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Does the President have the right to engage surveillance methods in communications involving foreign nationals? Quite possibly.

    Perhaps LoZZZER can instruct his Pakistani relatives to exert caution in terms of discussed subject matter when calling him in California.


    Reprinted from NewsMax.com

    Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
    FISA Judge: Bush Wiretapping Broke No Law


    In a significant vindication for President Bush, a judge who co-authored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act said Tuesday that the president was duly authorized under the Constitution to order the wiretapping of suspected terrorists - without getting a warrant from the FISA Court.

    Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FISA Court Judge Allan Kornblum said that president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, which critics claim the Bush program violated.

    "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Kornblum, in quotes picked up by the Washington Times.

    Kornblum, who supervised Justice Department wiretap applications to the FISA court for years, is now a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

    Testifying along with four other former FISA Court judges, Judge Kornblum suggested that it would have been irresponsible for Bush to have deferred to the FISA Court.

    "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute," the FISA author said.

    While the Washington Times said Kornblum's testimony indicated that the Bush surveillance program did not violate the law, other media outlets interpreted the judges' comments differently.

    On the same concept of inherent constitutional authority, the Associated Press quoted Kornblum as saying: "I am very wary of inherent authority . . . It sounds very much like King George."

    The AP didn't mention the FISA author's other remarks about Bush having the power to "act unilaterally."

    The New York Times also failed to find vindication for Bush in Kornblum's words, reporting instead that the FISA judges "voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order."

    Instead of Kornblum, the Times focused on the opinion of former FISA Judge Harold A. Baker, who said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else."

    If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, "'the president ignores it at the president's peril," Baker insisted.

    The other FISA judges who testified before the committee were Stanley Brotman of Camden, NJ; John Keenan of the southern district of New York City; and William Stafford of Pensacola, Fla.

     
    #25     Sep 5, 2006
  6. Uh, the Unabomber killed no one by reading either the web or a book.

    Doh!

    Nor did he incite anyone else to such violence by his writings.

    Doh!

    Statistics on gun crime is a different matter....not gun owners who don't engage in crime, not guny purchases by non criminals....information on crimes involving guns, i.e. somebody used a gun in a crime. Not sharing that data, retards the ability of law enforcement.

    Doh!

    Arnie, the shallow end of the gene pool...

     
    #26     Sep 5, 2006
  7. Putz is too stupid to read the fine print, of course.

    suspected terrorists

    There has to be cause to qualify someone as a "suspected terrorist" not just random sweeps.

    Doh!

     
    #27     Sep 5, 2006
  8. Good points. This entire thread is based on a strawman, namely that law enforcement can't trace guns used in crimes. That is obviously not the case, as even a casual viewer of CSI knows.

    What is apparently at issue and what has the moonbats so upset, is the ability of anti-gun rights nazis in the BATF to work hand in glove with gun confiscation groups. They want to data mine gun sales to be able to sue dealers and manufacturers claiming they should have known they were arming criminals. If that is to be the standard for liability, clearly congress should pass a law saying so, but these groups would prefer to use trial lawyers and some nutcase judge to make up law and bankrupt gun dealers and manufacturers.

    You have to wonder about the moonbats. Why are they so obsessed with private gun ownership? We know it's not concerns about crime, because they oppose every measure that fights crime. We know it's not terrorism because they champion the supposed rights of terrorists and fight everything the administration tries to do.
     
    #28     Sep 5, 2006
  9. CSI departments use shared data all the time...

    Not sharing data, in this case, retards the ability to note patterns of gun sales/sellers and frequency of crime.

     
    #29     Sep 5, 2006
  10. Not a paranoia, It happened. You might do a little reading once a while .
     
    #30     Sep 6, 2006