What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- populist, on 11/08/2007, -7/+90"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
--Samuel Adams- FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Don't know the chap personally, but he makes an awful lot of beer.
- ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and awfully good beer
- EllisAshbrook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"mmm, beer!"
-Me - Vinadetta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Time to get angy
- Vinadetta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Action Alert: Get off your ass and start doing something!! It doesn't matter what, we as a public are sleeping through this Fascist Take over of our government!! If we don't act quickly it will be too late!!!!! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
- Vinadetta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Time for change
- ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How ***** does this government need to be in order for people to act out against it? At what point do we need to be sharpening up our guillotines??? They're doing the all they can to ***** up America before their term expires... but Bob and Sally born again Christian doesn't give a flying *****...they believe that W is "doing the best he can under the circumstances" Seriously, are there any REAL Republicans out there??? America is *****
- FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Don't know the chap personally, but he makes an awful lot of beer.
- aaronrpowell, on 10/10/2007, -36/+4Constitutional protections don't extend outside of the US borders. So if the President wiretaps foreigners talking with US citizens, he's wiretapping foreigns, who don't have constitutional rights. Additionally, the President has complete authority to deal with non-US citizens outside of our borders however he sees fit. There's no balance of powers in that regard. So, while this bill may be disagreeable, it's very likely not unconstitutional.
- populist, on 11/08/2007, -3/+55Actually - it's a little different. The Constitution doesn't apply to citizens. It doesn't apply to foreigners.
It doesn't apply to people at all!
It applies to the federal government.
The Constitution says what the government CAN do, and the Bill of Rights says what it cannot.
There's nothing in there that authorizes them to spy, monitor, or anything of the like - and the fourth amendment is quite clear on requiring warrants.
Without a warrant, any "wiretapping" spying, monitoring, or anything else they want to call it - is in direct violation to the Constitution.
period.- nblsavage, on 11/08/2007, -3/+23It's amazing how many people slept through Civics class isn't it?
- populist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I know I did. My public school sucked. I only learned that as an adult - from Harry Browne....
http://www.harrybrowne.org - nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I was fortunate to have a great Civics teacher - he instilled in me a great distrust of the goverment. Of course he drew the ire of the school and was replaced next year by an ex-marine (who was also the P.E. teacher)
- populist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8ain't that how it works? at least you had something good to start with - consider yourself lucky!
- populist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I know I did. My public school sucked. I only learned that as an adult - from Harry Browne....
- Rsardinia, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15Amen.
- aaronrpowell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2populist-
You're missing the point. If the President can wiretap a foreign call (which he can because it's outside the bounds of the US and he has near total authority outside of our borders), then he can wiretap a foreign call that happens to have an American on the other line. It's just like having the CIA search a house in a foreign country that happens to have Americans in it.
And, yes, the Bill of Rights places limits only the government (directly on the feds and then indirectly and mostly through incorporation via the 14th amendment, on the states) and with the exception of the 13 amendment, which applies to private citizens as well.
As to authorization for spying, the 4th protects citizens but, like I pointed out below, Bush isn't spying on citizens. He's spying on foreigners who happen to be talking to citizens. Secondly, Article II sets out the powers of the President and gives him the "power of the executive." That's about as much guidance as we get. What does "executive" mean? Obviously, the President has a lot of powers and they're not enumerated. The Supreme Court case, US v. Curtiss Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curt ... should give you an idea of just how broadly the President's powers have been interpreted in this area.
The issue is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. The wikipedia article on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surve ... gives a good overview of the subtleties of legal analysis here. It's not a slam dunk either way.
nblsavage-
I don't remember much about my high school civics class, but I did rather well in my constitutional law class six months ago. I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to state with some certainty that saying this bill is clearly unconstitutional is an overstatement.
- nblsavage, on 11/08/2007, -3/+23It's amazing how many people slept through Civics class isn't it?
- EllisAshbrook, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9pwned!
- populist, on 11/08/2007, -3/+55Actually - it's a little different. The Constitution doesn't apply to citizens. It doesn't apply to foreigners.
- wreckosaurus, on 11/08/2007, -5/+74America, it was nice while it lasted.
- ZiggityZhang, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Same goes for the website.
- Tracon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Game over man, game over.
- tdrizzle, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Can someone please tell me what part of the act is "unconstitutional"? I'm just curious before I blindly digg this article.
The article wasn't very helpful in that regard.- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+454th Amendment - 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. - this was in the article.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1You do NOT have the right to call Terrorists in foreign countries.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Actually I can call whomever I damm well please. I don't need a permission slip from mommy.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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. - AndrewJC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I'm perfectly free to speak to whomever I want for whatever reason. There are certain things I'm not allowed to say (government secrets, for example), but I want you to tell me how I'm doing anything unlawful by calling a person (overseas, domestically, it doesn't matter) and saying "Hey, what's up."
The biggest problem with the way Homeland Security operates is that it goes on the assumption that you MUST be doing something wrong and therefore they need to find out what it is. - mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Wrong!
Get a clue, try again tomorrow.
Man, you people are so willing to just give it all away becuase you are scared of "turrists". - NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We do have the right to privacy, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty... therefore this kind of bill, would be against our rights to privacy.
- raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have the right to call whomever I damned well please whether you like it or not. If I want to call UBL, then I have the right to do so if I know how to do so and I can talk to him without my government spying on the conversation because it is none of their goddamned business.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1You do NOT have the right to call Terrorists in foreign countries.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+454th Amendment - 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. - this was in the article.
- Alright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26How do I stop it?
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Call your congresspeople, tell them to oppose it. If you don't know exactly what to say, the EFF has a basic script as an example:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=317&p ...
Its better to say your own thing though. But the main point is to let them know you are a constituent and you oppose it.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Call your congresspeople, tell them to oppose it. If you don't know exactly what to say, the EFF has a basic script as an example:
- g4blows, on 11/08/2007, -1/+47Pretty soon we are going to see the "This act is good" act
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Followed by the "if this act fails the terrorists win" act.
- Xertion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More like the "I love America Act" That gives the President unlimited time to deal with Terrorism. That means until we're safe, and all terrorists are defeated, he can't leave office. After all it would weaken America and leave us open to attack!
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Followed by the "if this act fails the terrorists win" act.
- mwrl, on 10/10/2007, -42/+2It is unconstitutional because a Republican proposed it. We are all supposed to be zombies here and do what the left order says! Now be a good zombie and shout Bush is Hitler AHWWWHAHARAWWWAAA!
Or you could bury it based on blind blias of the left.- soot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17So... let's hear you actually defend it in your own words then.
- 40hands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Yeah we are the blind ones. Have you even read any part of the constitution? My guess is that your just a douche.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The article specified why it is unconstitutional and I even posted the relevant amendment in earlier post. Please feel free to show us where we are incorrect.
- spurtle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13And when a Democrat ends up abusing these powers, what then? This administration is so ***** shortsighted.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7a-freakin-men!
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Oh come now. They never expect another party to take power. What with the voting machines being rigged for their fanboi crushes, they will always have this style of lavish freedom........ /sarcasm
- citizen782, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23Next up, the "Protect the Liberty of America from Islamic Evil Doers and Terror Sponsor Vocal Critic Anti-Patriot Assailant Consolidation of Authority for your Protection Act". And any Senator or House representative who does not vote for this Act is a Heretic endangering your first born sons lives and your daughters virginity. We have the media on stand by to list their names.
- crmypotato, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7This was signed into law in August. Why is this Bush's thing... Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the democrats in control of both houses?
- Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9No, the corps are.
- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Someone really should answer crmypotato's question. Why the hell would the Democrats pass this in the first place? Who voted for it? Isn't this exactly the type of thing that we voted them in to protect us from?
/comment from a Democrat- RP08, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. They are meant to divide and conquer the people. The two party system is a scam. It's really a one party system because no matter who you vote for, you get the same thing.
P.S. Hillary's gonna be worse than Bush.- Xertion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The reason Democrats have been spineless is that they know how (sombunall) Americans, Kings of reading the Headlines to know the whole story, would react to it. What! My representative doesn't want to protect America! Blah blah, ignorant anger, blah blah.
That's why they names these horrible acts the way they do.
- Xertion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The reason Democrats have been spineless is that they know how (sombunall) Americans, Kings of reading the Headlines to know the whole story, would react to it. What! My representative doesn't want to protect America! Blah blah, ignorant anger, blah blah.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Either they're bought or some telephone calls got warrantlessly recorded.
- RP08, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. They are meant to divide and conquer the people. The two party system is a scam. It's really a one party system because no matter who you vote for, you get the same thing.
- SleepingOrange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"And tyranny, [Yale law professor Stephen] Carter concluded in an oft quoted line, does not overwhelm a nation in an instant. No, he wrote, 'tyranny creeps".
Lazarus continues -- "Lately, though, tyranny runs like a cheetah."
The all-to-often forgotten truth. - mc88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29If you don't think the government will use it's power to control Americans through fear, well I just don't know what planet you're living on. With a Democratic majority and a Republican administration, these laws are passed with lightning speed. I can count the members of congress I think are actually honest and trustworthy on one hand, how about you? How much longer are we going to let them feed us this "you need to be afraid, unless you give total control over to the government" *****!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a ***** cliche, it's the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe with humans, but just imagine the potential of a benevolent computer overlord.
- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1Bush Regime? Action Alert?
Ahhh.. the good ole Populist Party of Los Angeles. Aren't these the loons that want to kill the Constitution and revert back to the Bill of Rights?- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Actually this entire argument centers on the Constitution. Mainly the 4th amendment. Nice strawman tho.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution you dumb *****. Not only that but the Bill Of Rights was written after the original articles of the Constitution so if you were to "revert" back to anything you would revert back to the original articles.
I don't normally call people a dumb *****. I'm not the type to publicly degrade people. but when you do not even understand the basics of what your country stands for you are a dumb *****. Read a book. Learn something about your country so I don't have to be ashamed you live in the same country I do.- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It's part of, but the Constitution constitutes quite a bit more of America's law base, in case you've missed the other 17 amendments?
Seriously, before you go off on a rant, make sure you're not the one being a dumb *****. Ok, dumb *****? - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What, in anything that I said, makes you think I don't count the 17 amendments made after the bill of rights as part of the constitution. Did I specifically say that? No. I didn't even mention those amendments.
- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It's part of, but the Constitution constitutes quite a bit more of America's law base, in case you've missed the other 17 amendments?
- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why are you bitching to me about it? It's the Populist Party that seems confused :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_of_Ame ...
"Although quite libertarian in appearance with their calls for adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Populist Party differs from the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party in their proposed solutions to what they call a "failed Constitution." They advocate direct citizen legislation with a “strict adherence to the Bill of Rights serving to protect the liberties of every person.”"
http://www.populistamerica.com/a_populist_america
"In a Populist America, the federal government will obey all ten articles of the Bill of Rights. Not just the ones that the politicians like."
"In a Populist America, any federal employee who violates the bill of rights will be subject to censure, dismissal or even prosecution."
"The Populist Party advocates a direct democracy, but with the assurance of liberty for every person, as codified in the Bill of Rights. "- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Fair enough. If that is the case maybe I'm directing my attacks at the wrong people.
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I didnt see it in the article. But I thought you had to have like 2/3 of the vote to get this passed. How come the democrats helped pass it in the first place?
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8because they are a bunch of spineless jerks
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because they suck just as much as the neo-con Republicans.
- captainbeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Wholly disgusting.
- grassman20, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Well if Bush wants it, then it's GOT to be evil.
- hydroplane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia...
- diazigy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Crap, I could've sworn Oceania was always at war with Eastasia, arg these things seem to keep changing... oh well.
- k3ano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16The 4th Amendment seems to nail this Act down as unconstitutional pretty well. What measures are in place to stop this from happening? I thought it would be impossible to pass something so blatantly unconstitutional through the congress.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The NSA doesn't even know what the 4th Amendment is.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2This is an Action Alert code Alpha Seven. I repeat, Action Alert Alpha Seven, over.
- TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Blame Bush? When are you sheeple going to start holding the Democratic controlled congress accountable for their actions? It is not the President that makes laws, that is power of Congress. Wake the ***** up you sheeple and take your blinders off.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4and that gives Shrub a pass on wanting an illegal law in the first place?
- Brand83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12No regular Joe off the street should consider themselves Dem. or Republican. Its clear now a days that those titles mean nothing unless you sit in a seat of power in the government.
Its a game of poker people... we're just the chips.- AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2exactly. If you look over yonder.....you can see the cow from whence they fell
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's good to see that other people get it. Those words are just labels used to divide and conquer. They use them to get us to bicker with each other in our little groups so that we're not paying attention to what's really going on. The illusion of choice. Don't like the current president? Elect the other party.
Except they're all growing out of the same cesspool and are, in fact, the same exact *****. The parties don't even pretend to believe in their traditional values anymore (well actually, the Democrats still sort of pretend, but they never act on it).
- KillGoreHazFun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I thought the national government want supposed to be for the states.
- speccy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21As a Brit, I have watched your great country lose more and more of it's freedoms under the tyrant called Bush. For your sake, and the rest of the so-called free world, please put a stop to this now, before it becomes too late.
Britain is sleepwalking into a surveillance society. We have an incredible amount of CCTV cameras. We also have draconian laws, such as the Terrorism Act (much like your Patriot Act). All major parties support this, despite it's huge flaws.
Oh, why do I bother? Ignore me.
*drinks more wine*
Cheers everyone!- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It really sucks how ***** we are, doesn't it?
In America, the system has been gamed for decades now. We're at the point where the younger generation sees what is going on and wants to fix it, but a lot of our parents have no issues with just sitting by and letting it happen... they've done so for so long already. Which leaves me pretty pissed that they let our country go to *****. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2At least our parents held mass protests and marches to force the government to listen. The best we can do is bitch online. This generation sucks.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It really sucks how ***** we are, doesn't it?
- pands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8We can sit here at our computers digging these stories about how all our freedoms are going to *****, or we can go out and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!
If you don't care about losing freedom and liberty then feel free to go about your daily lives, but I for one will be taking action - in the real world, not just the digital. - nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Funny how this regime is allowing this type of BS talk to go on...wait this isnt a regime nor are we becoming one. Bury this retarded thread. the moronic drooling idiots of Digg are a waste.
- iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Times 1994 Cheney malquoted iraq quagmire rectify.
Times 09.20.07 times malquoted war ungood rectify.
America is at war with the Middle East. America has always been at war with the Middle East.
Big Brother is watching you.- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2We are at war with Iran. We have been at war with Iran since 1979.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Didn't see any declaration
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2(I was being sarcastic - that is what the neocons are saying right now)
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2We are at war with Iran. We have been at war with Iran since 1979.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1*Reasonable* search ans seizure is legal under the constitution even without a warrant.
In my opinion, a primary criteria of reasonable is how the search impacts the person being watched. Does it hinder or obstruct them in any way?
This wiretapping has absolutely zero effect on any average citizen. Before further measures are taken to investigate specific suspicious activity, a e warrant *is* obtained.
Therefore, warrantless wiretapping is constitutional. As it should be. The goal with government should be to first, minimize the number of laws (in other words, drugs and prostitution and gambling and discrimination *should* be legal everywhere) while giving government the tools it needs to actually enforce the laws on the books. In other words, protect people from being attacked or robbed. The cult of privacy is inherently incompatible with this basic bit of common sense.- raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You sir, are an idiot
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The 4th Amendment says that search warrants will be obtained with probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information. That is what is meant by "reasonable" searches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_t ... - BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I find it odd that why you don't seem to be a social conservative, you do want to put the power in the hand of government, for the good of the state.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Don't give up your freedoms, for security America! You will get neither in the end!
- Xertion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And be deserving of none.
Ben Franklin
- Xertion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And be deserving of none.
- Moklomi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2More liberal ***** *yawn* buried as such. Go ahead and digg me down cause I believe in our government and its leaders and don't support your far fetched ambiguous lies
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5point out the lies. I expect a profound silence from your end.
- RP08, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8bahhh. baaahhhhhhh. baaahhhhhhh
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly my thought when I read "I believe in our government."
It's sad to know that there are people out there who are so stupid they blindly give all their rights away.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly my thought when I read "I believe in our government."
- supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Not only buried, but you are blocked too. You may be talking to the walls soon.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The USA was not created by people that worshiped authority as you evidently do.
- PunchLeftists, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Hopefully we can wire tap the Leftists in this country and have them arrested as the traitors they are.
- timstevens, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Let the PAA pass. Its always wonderful to both protect the country and have the usual hate America crowd pi$$ their collective pants.
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How does this really protect the country?
Let me get this straight, not wanting the government to wiretap everyone's overseas conversations is anti-American? What makes someone a suspected terrorist according to the government. Apparently not much because there is thousands of American citizens (including little children) who are on the no-fly list and have never done anything. Do they have some $1000 hat the government bought from Halliburton that is used to pull the name out of? What a douchebag you are.
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How does this really protect the country?
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@Mokolomi
Dude are you for real? You must be a Christian fundamentalist who just got done reading Romans chapter 13. Get your head out of your ass and grow a pair. - Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's amazing how much the word "Terrorism" can get you now.
- saltmiser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2all you people better stop bitching and fill out the form on the page..
http://www.populistamerica.com/kill_the_protect_am ... - harmonytu, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0http://alibaba2.com/
http://alibaba2.com/map
http://alibaba2.com/map/2
http://alibaba2.com/map/3
http://alibaba2.com/map/4
http://alibaba2.com/map/5
http://alibaba2.com/map/6
http://alibaba2.com/map/7
http://alibaba2.com/map/8
http://alibaba2.com/map/9
http://alibaba2.com/category/action
http://alibaba2.com/category/adventure
http://alibaba2.com/category/animation
http://alibaba2.com/category/biography
http://alibaba2.com/category/comedy
http://alibaba2.com/category/crime
http://alibaba2.com/category/documentary
http://alibaba2.com/category/drama
http://alibaba2.com/category/family
http://alibaba2.com/category/fantasy
http://alibaba2.com/category/film-noir
http://alibaba2.com/category/history
http://alibaba2.com/category/horror
http://alibaba2.com/category/music
http://alibaba2.com/category/musical
http://alibaba2.com/category/mystery
http://alibaba2.com/category/romance
http://alibaba2.com/category/sci-fi
http://alibaba2.com/category/short
http://alibaba2.com/category/sport
http://alibaba2.com/category/thriller
http://alibaba2.com/category/uncategorized
http://alibaba2.com/category/war
http://alibaba2.com/category/western
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is