digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

U.S Spy Bill Creates the 'Infrastructure for a Police State'

blog.wired.com — The whistleblower at the heart of a lawsuit against AT&T for illegal eavesdropping says Congress is set to stage a 'coup against the Constitution' as it nears passage of a new spying bill. Former AT&T technician Mark Klein provided internal company documents that he claims show that AT&T spied on the internet inside the United States.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Surferess, on 06/27/2008, -4/+110This is important!
    • AJoseph, on 06/28/2008, -15/+2Okay, yeah I understand that. But what does this REALLY mean? Like what do you, I, and Mrs. Jones down the street have to worry about the implications of this? Does this mean I should be worried that the government knows I bought the new Coldplay CD on Amazon? Am I going to get my door kicked in if I buy a few books from borders about commecial grade fertilizer and then simultaneously download the Anarchist's cookbook?

      Or is it simply a case of really super powerful people just maintaining the status quo? Like if the CEO of Conglomerate ABC wants his son to get into medical school. Does he look up the surfing habits of the members of the Johns Hopkins admissions board and then blackmail or threaten them?

      What are the real implications here? Until I get my door kicked in, or until I hear something in the news about a candidate's porn surfing habits mysteriously surfacing in the press, I'm just going to assume that the only people who have access to this information are NSA employees, who I'm sure must follow some sort of guidelines that are comparable to HIPAA and how the medical establishment have to handle patient's information. I know some NSA employees. They're just work-a-day's like most of the citizens in this country. So really. What do we have to worry about? No one cares about your surfing habits.
      • venicerocco, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6Assume away.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7"Does this mean I should be worried that the government knows I bought the new Coldplay CD on Amazon? "

        That is not the govt's business anyways, so I'd be worried. Private life doesn't mean "private life unless we say otherwise.

        "So really. What do we have to worry about? No one cares about your surfing habits."

        History would like its ***** back.
      • notruth, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You have a RIGHT to privacy. You seriously don't care if that right is violated by an unrestricted body of officials who were elected and sworn in to UPHOLD The Constitution so many of our ancestors honorably died protecting? Your country is being run by men and women who lie to The People they swore to defend, cheat in order to gain political leverage, and steal from the population by joining the side of the fence that pays the best and signing bills that move money up the pyramid to the people who already have more than they know what to do with, and keeps money from trickling down to the people who really need it.
      • fuzzybeard, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6Your naivete is...astounding. I can't think of words strong enough that would be the equivalent of a clue-by-four upside your head.
  • MysteryManIntl, on 06/27/2008, -4/+111This is VERY important!
  • cheezintern, on 06/27/2008, -4/+95Sure is important, we are slowly watching our civil rights go right down the drain (with the help of our elected officials). Retroactive immunity for the telecoms is just disgraceful. George Washington would ***** himself many times over if he were alive to see this happening.
    • sk11, on 06/28/2008, -4/+34George Washington would be sent to gitmo the moment he'd start talking about overthrowing the corrupt and immoral modern American government. He'll sit in a cold, dark cell awaiting torture thinking: "my god, we have become Britain, in the days of her empire." But a few hours of re-education later they'll have him chiming "hail to King George."

      You know what they say: we eventually become our parents.
    • gn0stik, on 06/28/2008, -10/+5Roe V. Wade determined that there are unspoken inalienable rights that all of us have, and that infringing upon them is prohibited under the constitution. Specifically it determined that her right to privacy should not be infringed upon.

      Invoking Roe V. Wade which is a golden calf to politicians, would set them straight.

      Write your congressmen.
    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8I don't know about Washington, but Jefferson sure would be.
      • Izult, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2i think Jefferson would be beside himself with grief personally but that's just me
    • notoneofus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11Retroactive immunity is especially screwed-up considering the ultimate reason: if telecoms think they will face charges, they won't cooperate with the government. Well, duh. They should have that fear, and they shouldn't cooperate on something they know to be unconstitutional.
    • X86BSD, on 06/28/2008, -0/+15Slowly?? Where have you been the last 8 years. Slow is not quite how I would describe our loss of rights.
      Perhaps, shoved in the ass without lube, wrapped in sandpaper in 3 seconds, is a more apt description of how fast and painful our loss of rights has been. And almost as sad as the fact that not a single one of these traitors has been hung (or shot) yet.


    • shellyelliot, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3So let's fight it:

      http://www.breakthematrix.com/strangebedfellows

    • patho, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2to be fair, I wouldn't really blame a man as old as he would be for ***** himself. 276 years is a long time to keep bowels functioning properly.
    • Andysan, on 06/29/2008, -6/+1How about some "rights" genius making a list of all the rights THEY have lost in, say, the last 20 years. The rights that terrorists have lost don't count -- unless of course? The most apparent rights abuse is the failure of Digg whiner's mothers to exercise the abortion right. Just kidding... sort of.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2This started happening a long time ago. Thousands of years actually, but the recent extreme changes towards fascism started in the 60's.
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -4/+1I have a simple question. Why can't a company monitor the activity taking place on equipment it owns and relay that information to anyone they *choose* to? This assumption that *other people* are obligated to maintain your privacy when you interact with them is absurd. They have a right to free speech... there is no possible line of reason that can possibly lead to a law that *gags* a telecom to keep them from relaying information you voluntarily placed in their hands. You have no expectation of privacy because you involved a third party and the telcos *do* have a right to speak.
  • russverney, on 06/28/2008, -6/+30Presidential candidate Bob Barr rips FISA and its supporters:

    see the video on Bob Barr's You Tube page
  • LoJack, on 06/28/2008, -5/+7I thought it was China only.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3It's everybody and anybody with aspirations of grandeur and control.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Haven't you been paying attention?

      Think back to the early days of the industrial revolution.

      Communism, Fascism and Capitalism were ideas that attempted to bring the working class under control of a ruling class. Fascism was all about work camps. Communism was all about communal work managed by a ruling class. Capitalism was all about free markets where industry didn't need to negotiate labor agreements, because they would control all levels of commerce, thus forcing the worker to submit to the system they created.

      In EVERY nation, there are people who are wealthy enough to control the entire system of government. They call it "Vertical integration", and they get to write the laws, call the shots and control labor and profit enormously.

      We'd all love to be worth a few billion dollars, so some of us will even support this system, but the decks are stacked against us. My father has 4 million dollars, but he is still powerless and a subject of the wealthy. He doesn't realize it, he really thinks he is "independently wealthy", but that is self-delusion, not reality.

      Throughout history, the drive has always been to subjugate the many to benefit the few. It will never change so long as people refuse to stop fighting amongst themselves about what is the more comfortable definition of their current plight, and will not recognize reality.

      Greed, avarice and egotism will always be the most powerful human drives. Fairness and equity are weaknesses compared to Greed, even though they are the most productive. People who believe in fairness and equity should never underestimate greed and avarice, and should fight against greed and avarice at every turn in our history.

      But I'm just a person who believes everyone should enjoy our prosperity. Maybe the people who are consolidating our society's wealth really are right. Maybe it should only be held by one half of a percent of our society, and the rest of us should toil and die to give that wealth to them.
      • LoJack, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Wow, what a stunning prose, brought on by just one short remark. Best response I've ever received. Hmmm, let me think...
  • angusm, on 06/28/2008, -5/+101Nothing to see here, folks. Just keep shopping. You can trust us, we're the government. We only spy on the bad guys. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear. This is necessary for your protection. Just keep shopping. Trust us, we're the government. If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear ...
    • denizen42, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2If the government wasn't corrupt to the bone, this would be entirely acceptable!
      • PopcornDave, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5No, it's never acceptable no matter the level or lack thereof when referring to corruption. Not guilty today doesn't mean not guilty tomorrow. It all depends on which morality the government happens to be following at any given time.
    • corbettkroehler, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Time for Obama's blue light special!
    • nzhamstar, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Sounds like Bill Hicks. My god if only he were alive today. He'd have a *****!
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3There's only two people in this world I totally trust: My wife and my 3 year old son. Everyone else...not so much.
  • Rabbittt, on 06/28/2008, -21/+7I don't mean to be a spoiled sport here, but isn't this just normal procedure? Any shock should be when they start striking down some of the thousands of draconian laws, not when they are creating new ones..
    • RRJackson, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I used to maintain a network for a paging center and both the local law enforcement and (very infrequently) the FBI would come in and ask for a copy of the audio files from someone's voice mail. The account holder never had a clue. Here's another one for you. We listened to those files a lot, too. We all had favorites. One guy was always fighting with half a dozen women he had on a string and I'd walk in some days and everyone would be like, "Hey, be sure you check out Guido's account (not his real name...we all called him, "Guido the Killer Pimp") today. Good stuff."

      You don't have any privacy. You're just more comfortable imagining that you do.
      • Rabbittt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Ah, I think I was taken out of context by lotsa diggers.. My point is that the government doing something like this is nothing new.. They write all kinds of liberty-infringing laws.. I was just commenting about people being upset by it.. I mean, the gov't strips liberty on practically a daily basis; what's new about this time? I was being sarcastic, but my point begs the question: When is it going to STOP?
  • FrankHope, on 06/28/2008, -7/+62FTA:
    The Democratic leadership is touting the deal as a "compromise," but in fact they have endorsed the infamous Nuremberg defense: "Just following orders."

    It's not bad enough we have to fight Bush, now Congress has declared War on the American People. And Obama is one of the signers of this Declaration of War. It's time for a New American Revolution!
    http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/06/congre ...
    • aadyss, on 06/28/2008, -9/+1Go ahead Lieutenant Dan. Lead the way.
  • JimmySpaza, on 06/28/2008, -36/+41) Name ONE U.S. citizen who has been spied on by the U.S. Government per these new regulations and powers.

    2) The U.S. Constitution has been largely ignored by politicians in the last 60 years. It all started with the American Civil War where Lincoln disregarded States' rights (regardless of the morality of the cause). Why are you liberals only NOW screaming about Constitutional rights? Where were you when Social Security was set up? Where were you when the U.S. Goverment started dictating how much water can be in my toilet when I flush it? This has been going on most of the last century. Only now when a Republican is doing these things do you whine.

    3) I'll start believing the sincerity of these complainers when they criticize Democrats in Congress the same way they critique Bush.
    • marabout40, on 06/28/2008, -2/+14Hey spaz, did you read frankhope's post right above your head? Or are you too spazzed out to notice?

      Oh and btw, do you understand the meaning of the word "spy?" I think the whole idea is that you don't know you're being watched/monitored/observed etc.

    • obliviousfool, on 06/28/2008, -2/+171) That's the problem. Maybe you didn't follow this in court. The court needed evidence that a specific individuals rights were violated, and the ACLU couldn't produce it because all of this is done at the top levels of secrecy. Until it becomes blatant enough to stir the court's attention, they're going to leave the program be. No one is going to find out what is actually happening behind this veil of secrecy. We'll never know whether rights were violated or not. That's your tax dollars at work!
    • UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -1/+63) I'm so pissed off at Obama for supporting this "compromise" and handing us bs about how he'll keep his eye on the program as president that I've decided to not volunteer for his campaign (as I'd previously planned) and called his campaign asking whether I can get my donation back. I called Pelosi's office and told her I'll be donating to Cindy Sheehan's campaign against her if she votes for immunity. You don't think we're serious about this? We are very serious, doucheface.
    • drakke1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0OK. The Demos are equally complicit in the relentless treachery perpetrated by the white house. The dem leadership is just as owned by the NWO as are the repubs. For those with a bit of experience in the matter Pelosi, for example, comes from the very well known in Maryland D'Allessandro crime family, in bed with Hoyer and the mafia. They are all psychopaths and traitors. Get rid of them all -- by peaceful means, of course.
  • lundeja, on 06/28/2008, -4/+41Better start purchasing some Guy Fawkes masks...
  • allowners, on 06/28/2008, -2/+59It's been a done deal for years now, all that remains is to formalize it. Most Democrats are as guilty as the Republican swine.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7There has never been such a thing as a 'democratic' or 'republican'. The game has always been 'good cop - bad cop'. It has been played for years and anyone that calls it out is labeled by their 'PR' folks as a whackjob conspiracy nut.

      The goal of the camps 'republic/democrat' is to divide the majority into two schools of thought. Not YOUR thought, but theirs. If you don't fall in line with one of the two camps, then your voice will be so tiny it won't really matter anyway.
      • Izult, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3They've invested so much time and energy into this that as a result the American populace is now convinced that they have no option but to vote for the choices that the "major" parties present them with.

        Folks, that's only going to change if WE do something about it. Stop voting straight tickets, stop voting party lines. Figure out which candidate is really going to give you the best "bang for your buck" and research them to the point you know what they had for breakfast yesterday morning. This isn't something you can expect congress, or the president, or the government to fix. When government is the problem it falls to the people to make the repairs.
  • girwen, on 06/28/2008, -2/+20The flippin president threw the constitution into the Chesapeake there ain't nothing to stand in anyones way. "Brave New World"-A Huxley, "A Cool Million" -N West "It Can't Happen Here"-S Lewis "1984" -G Orwell
    • zelig, on 06/28/2008, -6/+4Psst. It is a Democrat-controlled Congress.
      • UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4And they're doing their best to not stand in anyone's way.
      • spawnfree, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Psst. It is a Corporate-controlled Congress.
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2Would you care to explain what the constitutional *actually* has to do with the matter in question?

      When you make a phone call, you are using equipment owned and maintained by a third party. They have a *right* to do whatever they want with that equipment including listen in.

      The telcos have been voluntarily cooperating with the government. They have a *right* to do so. The fourth amendment simply has no bearing when a citizen *chooses* to provide evidence.

      So explain to me... what part of the constitution has any bearing at all on the practice of one private party choosing to allow the government to have access to equipment over which it has ownership and control? Aside of course from the First Amendment which *guarantees* that they have that right and renders laws like the Wire Tap Act invalid.
      • bluesdealer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"When you make a phone call, you are using equipment owned and maintained by a third party. They have a *right* to do whatever they want with that equipment including listen in."

        The telcos don't own your phone, for one.

        While the unfortunate reality remains that some people, such as yourself, believe services like health care and communication should be treated with the same sense of company ownership as your local Greek food restaurant, many others feel differently.
        We believe that our modern world relies on such systems to the extent that no one should own or access our personal information as it exists within these systems.

        After all, it is OUR information, not (insert giant telco's name).
  • uptown, on 06/28/2008, -0/+43How often does government get rid of laws? I mean seriously ... does this happen?

    I get that there's a need to make new laws to address new concerns as civilization evolves, but you never really hear about them getting rid of old laws that don't make sense anymore. The end result seems to be a land where everything has a rule/law/tax/bill/policy/penalty/fee/instruction wrapped around it and life just becomes a daily quest to live your life while not breaking one of these laws (either accidentally or intentionally). The reason I see this becoming a huge concern is that it's becoming increasingly easy to detect and report these violations. Once constant monitoring of phone and internet communication is admitted (I say admitted because I'm convinced it's being done today) and allowed to be used as evidence against US citizens, there's nothing to stop the government from either issuing a penalty for each offense they detect, or using that threat as leverage against that person. It's already happening with speeding-ticket cameras, and RIAA settlement offers. A violation is detected, and the bill (or settlement offer in the RIAA's case) just shows up in the mail ... whether it was actually you that committed the "crime" or not. Direct monitoring of voice and data communications will be even more connectible to an individual. And why wouldn't they? It'd mean more money for the government and it'd be pitched as the best way to protect the people.

    The experiment of Democracy can only be effective when elected officials make decisions factoring in the past, the present and the future well-being of their country and its citizens when making decisions. But too many politicians have fallen for what will make them look good now, or what will win them points with their colleagues today so that they can receive their support to pass their own pet project in the future. Instead of being effective representatives for the people able to govern with the citizens and the country in mind, most politicians now govern worrying more about fund-raising, re-election, and not standing out from the crowd so they they could be picked off by a challenger.

    The nation is suffering from not enough critical thinking ... and the widespread tendency to do whatever is easiest. What is the likelihood that every evening newscast would be covering a story using the same phrases and talking points? What are the chances that every Senator or Representative would actually have the same beliefs about a policy supported by their party? Yet day after day, this is what we see. There's a lack of originality ... a drought of political courage, and an enormous potential to thrust this great nation towards a place where its citizens spend more of their time working to pay higher taxes and penalties just to fund a government that is spending most of their time putting new laws on the books in order to appease a politically active corporation or generate more revenue for the government in a vicious circle.
    • zigzagzz, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9They get rid of laws that protect us and create laws that serve them!
  • lazerus9, on 06/28/2008, -0/+21What then is freedom? The power to live as one wishes.
    Marcus Tullius Cicero
    • aadyss, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2and...to hell with other individuals rights???
      • lazerus9, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Cicero assumed that he was speaking to individuals capable of self control and reason, so, you should just ignore the quote above!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Ah Cicero and his contribution to blind idealism. He forgot to mention the HARD part of freedom, the part about personal responsibility...kinda seems like a lot of people overlook that.
      But hell, socialism's pseudo-freedom is the current fad so what are you gonna do....
      • lazerus9, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3I don't think he was speaking to those as enlightened as you!
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Well, one thing freedom would be is to monitor communications taking place over equipment you own and maintain and, if you so choose, share that information with others.

      The Wiretap Act that prohibits the Telcos from doing this is what is unconstitutional, not the practice of citizens freely choosing to share information with authorities. The government does not have the authority tell these companies what they can and can't do with their equipment nor may they be gagged.
  • dupswapdrop, on 06/28/2008, -1/+54Maybe we should start spying on the government more.
    • santaliqueur, on 06/28/2008, -1/+12Yeah, THAT'S what we need to do.
    • veganima, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1If you spy on the Government and prove they are corrupted they make laws so if you spy on the Government you go to jail. Big companies does not care (they pay them the campaigns)

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/27/2288 ...

      Welcome to the western Fourth Reich.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Everything is already in place to do so. The same people that spy on civilians can spy on those giving the orders just as easily. Just do it and post it.
  • kuantan97, on 06/28/2008, -0/+46Another problem to monitor on the spying front is Eric Prince, founder of Blackwater, opening up his own private spy agency--The Prince Group--to parallel his paramilitary force:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/03/nation/na- ...
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Really, he calls it The Prince Group? I know that's his name, but it's quite Machiavellian. LOL. Mwuahahahahaha!!
      • kuantan97, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4If one good thing can come of such a name it's that it will be easier to target.

        Names like "Central Intelligence Agency" and "National Security Agency" tend to confuse and water down outrage from the "we are the government" folks who see criticism of a government agency as an attack on themselves.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I just read the LA Times article; I threw up in my mouth. This man needs to be stopped and his companies dismantled -NOW!
  • AgentMull, on 06/28/2008, -0/+22But hey, the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional, right? Right....?
    • NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -0/+18Maybe.

      This court is a mixed bag. They did just admit that the second amendment means what it says, but the same court also allowed private property to be stolen and sold just because the buyer would pay more taxes on it.

      -jcr
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5It was only a 5 to 4 ruling. That's barely scraping by.

        Those who support liberty really must go beyond mere constitutional arguments and stand on principles... common sense kind of stuff.
    • Izult, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I used to think so too. The narrow margin that both the habeas corpus and 2nd amendment rulings scraped by... let's just say i'm no longer betting on the supreme court as being the last bastion of sanity anymore.
      • NSResponder, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2The supreme court has made some horrendous decisions in its history. Korematsu, Dred Scott, Kelo, and many others.

        When any branch of government oversteps its authority, we must not rely only on the other branches to hold it in check.

        -jcr
  • krnldmp, on 06/28/2008, -0/+15One of the bigger reasons why this country is in such a sorry state is many of the most proud don't even realize they Have no reason unless they're strongly supporting or taking action in a manner similar to US citizens and employees like Mark Klein. Pledging the flag and bending over to receive your check ain't where its at.
  • eryximachus, on 06/28/2008, -20/+2Funny how it's always a Jew who makes these incredible revelations.

    In any event, I do tire of these alarmist stories on Digg. Seriously, the emotional aspect of the political debate on this site does not bode well for the future of the body politic.

    And guess what? We've been a police state for a long time. There is no possible way anyone - even the members of SCOTUS - could ever hope to understand ever law that currently is on the books in this country. A police state is more than the apparatus of law enforcement, it is the laws themselves. Presently, with Phariseeism being the dominant legal ideology, the law has little relationship with justice or even ethics. This in and of itself results in corruption, just as it did in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.
  • mcsenget, on 06/28/2008, -4/+40When will the rest of the country start to regret that Ron Paul did not get the nomination?
    • jbird32275, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10He's still getting my vote.
    • nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9...after Obama has made excuses for why the huge bases in Iraq (along with lots of people) need to stay?

      ...after McCain steps down due to cancer reoccurrence and his VP (??? Jeb Bush / Leiberman???) steps in?

      ... after they each know at least 3 families living out of their cars??
    • vinod1978, on 06/28/2008, -8/+3Never. Ron Paul definitely has some good qualities but it is too black & white with him. I know he believes that if we get involved with international matters we will only make things worse - and even I a hater of war and using our troops believe that sometimes we do have to go use military force. Think about WWII, or even more current - Darfur, Sudan. Ron Paul votes against sending military support to stop genocide. He also wants to leave the UN, and his whole idea of getting rid of the IRS and supporting government without any income tax is just ridiculous. If it was up to him we probably wouldn't even have things like the FDIC.Government is supposed to do more then just protect us with an Army & deliver our mail.
      • kuantan97, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7"Government is supposed to do more then just protect us with an Army & deliver our mail."

        Others would disagree:

        "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~ George Washington
      • PontifexMaximus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4"Government is supposed to do more then just protect us with an Army & deliver our mail."

        Government is supposed to do what it is mandated to do in our constitution. If we wish for it to do something else, than we can amend the constitution.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I believe kuantan97 covers this with an excellent quote. Should it be this government that takes action? Can't it be a privately funded effort? Let me have control over my money and I will gladly support a plan that diminishes acts of indiscriminate violence and stems the tide of conflict and genocide. I'm right on board the very minute you advocate for my liberty and we choose voluntarily what to support without the threat of force.

        "Think about WWII..."

        I do, and I see that the US supported embargo actions against another nation, Japan, without a declaration of war. Now they're discussing doing the same thing to Iran, which would be casus belli, an act of war.

        There are many things that Ron Paul believes that he chooses not to act upon because he swore and oath to the constitution. It complicates how we discuss this issue. It's like looking at votes without discussing the reasons behind them.

        You make it a point to note Ron Paul's stance on Darfur, but how many other politicians support going in there? Where is the momentum? That hasn't been a very major key in the presidential election.

        All said, nobody in the media discusses the concept of principles as justifications for doing things as opposed to having good intentions. There are most certainly good intentions to stop killing and bring about peace, but when actions are played out in the real world, things aren't always what we expect. Some people expected the US to be greeted as liberators in Iraq. That's not exactly how things turned out.

        Many people consequently believe that Oil is the contributing factor for going into Iraq, and not Darfur, and who would blame them since the factors support that belief.
      • shig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6I don't think the government should have an Army. The temptation to use it has proved too great.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9Obama scares me more than McCain with this stuff. Digg me down or tell me I'm wrong if you can prove it, but if any of this conspiracy type stuff is true, it sure as hell seems to me like Obama is being propped up by Bilderberg type globalists much more than McCain...I'm not sure why, but i really just have a bad feeling about him regardless of how "fresh" and "inspiring" he comes off as.
      You ever think that if there really WAS some kind of conspiracy being run by some of the most powerful people in the world, they would use their power to put THEIR candidate up against a dud(mccain im looking in your direction)? Has it not struck anyone that basically ALL mass movements that gradually strip away personal liberties begin with the notion of a "National Rebirth" and emphatic cries for "Change"?
      I am writing in Ron Paul because tinfoil hat conspiracy or not, he is STILL the only candidate who has proven he answers to nobody but the Constitution, and that's the way it was meant to be. We have better weapons and toys now, but we are really NOT light years away from 230 years ago...the founding fathers were not stupid and they were not just shooting from the hip when writing the Constitution. It was all based on learning from the mistakes of history that had kept repeating themselves up until them. The Constitution is the REAL King, or if you prefer, the God of the secular American Government...that is the most brilliant part of the whole setup. It is a tight, but "wide open" framework for the government which allows the greatest amount of freedom for each person's individual development of any framework before or since. I'm not saying there weren't kinks or whatever (slavery?) but for the most part the thing is ***** brilliant and the most profound testament to Reason and Rationality that I've ever seen.
      So, I'm voting for the one man who is going to leave his God at home and bring the Constitution back to the Oval Office.
      sorry for the not-so-necessary rant...
      • Peko, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I'm halfway with ya.

        "it sure as hell seems to me like Obama is being propped up by Bilderberg type globalists" I'm soberly thinking this is very much true. (Altho I really would rather insert 'Elite Interests' instead of bilderberg.)

        However I would also assume McCain is beholden to the same interests just as much as Obama. People might say McCain a maverick, and he has shown some balls in taking some positions but then he recants himself 2 years later.
      • stephenv, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Misguided idealism sometimes looks like conspiracy.

        It boils down to the reality that someone like Obama would rather reach for the levers (for his own well-intentioned goals) than to try and dismantle the totalitarian machine in the making. One thing that Obama and McCain have in common is their solution for every problem always ends up involving more government control of your life.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Agreed that it is very likely more of a kind of misguided idealism than Barack sitting in office plotting world domination like Dr. Claw.
        ...but...he's a well educated person..Very well educated...and once you get to the substance of the guy's stances on the issues...I dunno. It just worries me. I have the feeling Obama is going to win this thing and be a VERY popular President all while he sets the wheels in motion for the end of American democracy and capitalism as we know it. ..and in spite of what many blind leftist diggers may think upon reading that (something along the lines of "***** yeah i want this to end! thats a great thing wooo barack!), well...ur lucky...ull get ur wish then. the government will take over the job of your parents once you are 18 and we will never be free...
    • aadyss, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1uh, never??
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2It is a good thing that he didn't. Just like those before him that attempted to make similar changes; he would have been assasinated. History proves that statement right. :-
    • robotsound, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3vote bob barr, ron pauls not even in the race. vote the liberterian party.
  • londubh, on 06/28/2008, -1/+20Uhm, we already had the infrastructure for a police state. In fact we had it before the Bush-Cheney cabal came into power. It has only been during their tenure have they begun expanding it and using it. If current airline travel isn't a police state I don't know what is. This bill will probably only entrench that police state even deeper.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4RIGHT. It only takes the right (or perhaps wrong) person to take advantage of the system and twist its powers to despotic ends.
  • btschul, on 06/28/2008, -7/+29Ron Paul was our last chance. You really think Obama will save us from this? Our fate was cemented when Ron Paul dropped out of the running. Enjoy the Totalitarianism!
    • vinod1978, on 06/28/2008, -7/+2Ron Paul definitely has some good qualities but it is too black & white with him. I know he believes that if we get involved with international matters we will only make things worse - and even I a hater of war and using our troops believe that sometimes we do have to go use military force. Think about WWII, or even more current - Darfur, Sudan. Ron Paul votes against sending military support to stop genocide. He also wants to leave the UN, and his whole idea of getting rid of the IRS and supporting government without any income tax is just ridiculous. If it was up to him we probably wouldn't even have things like the FDIC.Government is supposed to do more then just protect us with an Army & deliver our mail.
      • btschul, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Like what? What is it supposed to do besides protect us? WW2 was different than Iraq. The Nazis were a force that was going to take over the world and murder billions and convert the world to communism/totalitarianism. When we go into places like Iraq, Darfur, and Sudan, we just end up making more and more people hate us and we make another terrorist attack more likely. These countries have been fighting with each other over land and religion and who gets to ***** what goat for THOUSANDS of years. Why do we think we can make them get along? Plus, this war isn't about our national security or stopping genocide; It's about OIL. If we were really concerned about security we would have gone into north korea. That crazy bastard Kim jon whatever the ***** he's called is up there testing missiles and saying "Look I want to kill you all see my pretty nukes and missiles I am testing hahahahah I will rule the world" and saddam was like "I don't have any WMD's" but we attacked him anyway.

        Getting rid of the IRS is totally feasible because only about 1/3 of the government's income is from the income tax. If we reduce the size of the government by at least 1/3 and stop fighting wars we can't afford and that we shouldn't be getting involved in, we would be able to eliminate the IRS.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4You just said that a few posts up. Please stop spamming.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6The only time Black and White is good is when it comes to the Constitution.

      I absolutely agree with the government staying out of the business of other countries, especially Darfur (which might I add is an interesting double edged sword type of topic for a Dove like myself to ponder). Such interventions seem like just another aspect of globalization...if there was anything useful(profitable) in Darfur I'm sure it would be the new Iraq and we doves would be protesting AGAINST intervening while our "oh-so-noble leaders" would praise our brave soldiers' unwavering commitment to Freedom for all the people in the world who are fortunate enough to live on exploitable land.
      Just an interesting, somewhat relevant tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involvin ...
      Notice how, aside from the occupations of Haiti and Nicaragua (technically not "wars"), the longest gap between wars in American history just so happens to coincide pretty damn well with the Great Depression. That's really damn unsettling to see how our economy got Banged the one time we kept to ourselves...it's even more worrying when you realize that the War on Terror has picked up where the Cold War (we even went back to Afghanistan!) left off: a public worried enough about dying at any moment to wholeheartedly support blowing ridiculous amounts of money on all this military and defense BS. All these interventions...all these wars..all our world policing...it's all about economics.
      The real question is: Does America REALLY need to be in a constant state of war to support the economy?...Or are there people at the top who are gaming the system for constant profit and punishing us all for having the audacity to keep to ourselves? I'd like to think it's the latter...because then we at least have a chance in hell of fixing this damn nonsense.

      As for the UN, it is a waste and merely a stage on which politicians can look good and further their political careers. I mean it's cool and all...the concept of it and whatnot...I'm down with countries getting together and having open discussions, but we don't really need the U.N. for that, and the concept of "entangling alliances" as Ron Paul would call them immediately makes me think that the only thing more profitable than 2 countries in some kind of state of war is 10 of em. Regardless, the lead-up to the second Iraq war showed how completely irrelevant the organization is anyway.

      As for the IRS, well I'm not going to act like I know my economics well enough to give a legitimate response. This is because my knowledge of the situation consists mostly of information that has been criticized by some (praised by others of course) as a tinfoil hatter conspiracy theory...you know im sure: all that stuff about how the income tax is completely illegal and is actually the way that the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve steals the imaginary interest of its loans to the Government from us. This explanation just seems TOO simple so in spite of the whole Occam's Razor thing I figure that I've only gotten a biased half of the big picture.

      In what I see as an IDEAL setup I do believe that the only thing the government should do is "protect us and deliver our mail." As far as I'm concerned, cut every program that isn't absolutely necessary and bring all our troops home to defend We the People (which will enable us to slash the hell out of defense spending) instead of having the Halliburton types use the American Military as it's own militia. Let businesses do their thing but let's not prove Marx right by making our capitalist government the handmaid of the burgeousie.

      I'm not against social programs and all that stuff either...but I am absolutely against intertwining most social welfare programs with the government. As an ardent supporter of the Individual, to me it is simply regressive of us as human beings to not take up the responsibility ourselves. They take a third of our paychecks and most of us dont think twice about that money or where it's going and just walk around blindly like children with no frickin clue how that money for these trendy liberal "social programs" is going to use.

      AND THEN WE BITCH ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT MISUSES THAT MONEY! HA! It really saddens me that so many people have so little faith in themselves and humanity that they THROW their money at a government that they KNOW is corrupt so as to pay them off for taking up their burden of supporting the greater good of their fellow citizens.

      Screw. Socialism. Give US our hard earned money and let us get off the Governments ***** and do what each and every individual wants to do with it. Let the Government's foray into this territory be something like, say, providing a list or a book full of "Socialist Programs" that are Independent of the Government that we can choose to donate to.

      Maybe this sounds crazy...maybe it is crazy...I'm not Thomas Jefferson and designing governments isn't exactly my strength, but in my mind it is NO surprise at all that to me it seems our decline as a respected, admired, and even economically successful nation has gone hand in hand with the gradual shift of responsibility from the Individual to the Government. Stop bitching about "losing civil liberties and freedom" when "you" frickin shirk off responsibility. That's tryin to have your cake and eat it too. Take your freedom (and the ensuing responsibility) back or forever hold your peace as the forever indignant child of a Parental State.

      THIS is why I'm voting for Ron Paul. THIS is why I would be willing to endure the economic HELL that would break loose if he ever got elected (which he won't, but just saying)
      • btschul, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2***** A dude. That comment was so full of truth and freedom my ***** brain is smoking after reading it.
  • sockpuppets, on 06/28/2008, -3/+21˙ǝdʎʇ ı ƃuıɥʇʎɹǝʌǝ ʇdʎɹɔuǝ ı ʎɥʍ sı sıɥʇ
    • Professr, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Ha, that's nothing! I use rot-26! You can't even read this message, it's so encrypted!
    • corbettkroehler, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Time for Ice T's line from Johnny Mnemonic: he cuts through hard encryption like a hot knife through butter.
    • Peko, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7That looks like arabic. Are you Al Queda? Do you hate freedom?
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3.ʇdıɹɔs ɐʌɐظ ʇɐɥʇ ɹǝqɯǝɯǝɹ bbıp uo ǝ1doǝd ʎuɐɯ ʇɐɥʇ ǝʌǝı1ǝq ı
  • ninjadeathcult, on 06/28/2008, -0/+19another week goes by another attack on the united states constitution and the civil liberties of its citizens, your governemnt will keep at it bit by bit until you guys wake up in a fema camp in a police state wondering how the ***** it happened
    • groo68, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Your one to talk, the U.K. is pretty much the flagship police state.
      • ninjadeathcult, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Firstly im an Australian citizen allthough Australia is no beacon of freedom either, Secondlly I wasnt attacking you personally so dont take it personally , Thirdly I agree that the uk has a lot of the infrastructure of a police state the cctvs etc, But the situation in US seems to be more extreme, I mean they have camps designed for millions of its citizens and presedential directives givving your Presdient dictorial poiwer in the event of a ' Disaster' ..and this does not concern you?????...
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1A telephone companies decision to share what it knows or has access to with the government is *not* a constitutional issue. Every citizen always has the option of providing evidence to the authorities. No warrant is needed when information is *volunteered*.
  • koft, on 06/28/2008, -4/+21Take advantage of our societal situation. Buy guns, lots of them, and plenty of ammo. Learn about guerilla warfare. We are in an energy crisis, and the machine is going to do whatever it takes to survive whether or not you're a part of it. When the ***** hits the fan, would you rather die in a camp starving to death or go out in a hail of bullets taking out a bunch of people?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8I'd rather go out defending the ideals that the United States was founded on rather than taking out a bunch of people.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Frankly, most people don't seem to appreciate or know what the US was founded on, and it's been like that for well over 100 years.

        As things get increasingly worse, you may not have very many choices left, PopcornDave. Hopefully you won't have to compromise your ideals to survive, but other 'sacrifices' may be made in your name.

        I say 'sacrifices' in terms of what the government is willing to do to curb liberty. Real sacrifices are things you choose to live without, typically with an expectation of future gain. When the government says 'we need to make sacrifices', those aren't really sacrifices, but acts of oppression against the people, tricking them into complying with punitive equality.

        Again, I hope you can defend your ideals without resorting to militaristic resistance. But make no mistake: non-violent people are not to blame for responding to the force of an oppressor. That said, non-violent resistance is the best tool a person has in attempt to disarm a hostile force and build sympathy/support.
    • CHANNELOCK, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Im going to get a job with the Post Office
  • Khast, on 06/28/2008, -0/+23It isn't just the USA which is going Police State. We are just following the lead. If you remember your biblical prophecies. It shall be a one world government. (Okay, I am not Christian, but folks, we are definitely headed in that direction...)

    C'mon people, it isn't like it is the end of the world, it is worse...
    • Peko, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Let's try to keep the bible out of this.
      • DavidThaGnome, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Actually as a non church attending individual who has devoted a lot of thought towards the global erosion of the peoples power in the last decade or so, I gotta say the parallels between current events and the bible are nothing less than astonishing if you know at least a bit about each.
  • icantdenythis, on 06/28/2008, -0/+28I feel like everyday this country sends a big "***** you" to our founding fathers and everything they stood for.
    • RonaldLewis, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3This country was 'founded' long before the 'founding fathers' ever step foot upon the soil of this region.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Ronald is actually correct indirectly. It goes back much further to a time when Rome was spreading too thin and the catholic church helped shape and impliment a newer method of control into this aeon. The same people are still in control and always will be. The desired future and the means of which to make that future a reality were documented in depth and have been carried out by the 'hair club for men' for centuries.

      Ok, I was kidding about the hair club for men part.
  • NightRiderkami, on 06/28/2008, -1/+21Goodbye America, it was great while it lasted ;(
  • silicongat, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10Politician scum! Anarchy today!
  • zigzagzz, on 06/28/2008, -2/+15Sheeople will NOT pay attention to this!THIS IS SO HUGE, 80% of Americans are just plain STUPID! My RIGHTS that many DIED for. I'm supposed to be a good model "PATRIOT" and just let our Gov't TAKE THEM. I have a BIG F. U. for our Gov't.
    • RonaldLewis, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I'd wager that closer to 96% of the American population are stupid.

      (And I'm always labeled as being 'arrogant' for telling the truth about our country's stupidity and ignorance.)
      • woobyluv, on 06/29/2008, -1/+0Stupid? Perhaps, but I'd more attribute the state of America to godless apathy.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1According to the amount of diggs you have, the number of people under the age of 13 who read your comment is: 10.

      STAGE 1 OF BLIND LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION: Believing that you are one of a small handful of enlightened people.
      STAGE 2: Getting pissed about it. (rebellion against authority finds its means of expression)
      STAGE 3: Write on liberal websites on the internet about it.
      STAGE 4: Realization that rage filled comments do not change the world as expected.
      STAGE 5: Disillusionment, becomes Real World fan instead.
  • bjflanagan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12I think it's time we all got heroically free with our speech.
  • pyronik, on 06/28/2008, -8/+3speculators are running rampant in the tin foil commodity markets!
    • Intercon, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2You wont be laughing for long, friend.
  • crapmatic, on 06/28/2008, -0/+37U.S Spy Bill Creates the 'Infrastructure for a Police State' - 384 diggs
    Barack Obama Reveals His iPod Playlist - 687 diggs

    Sigh.
    • corbettkroehler, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5Sign O' The Times was more than Prince's best double album!
    • UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Seriously, even Digg now? Even Digg??
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2If someone snuck in the word OBAMA somewhere in the spy bill headline the Obama brigade that's been gaming this site for 9 months woulda had it up to 2k.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Exactly. ;-)
  • Tyrghast, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10*straps in and waits for the announcement of the new Thought Police department*
  • godslayer, on 06/28/2008, -1/+12What? the land of the free?
    Whoever told you that is your enemy?

    Yes I know my enemies
    They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
    Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
    Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
    All of which are American dreams

    -Rage Against the Machine
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3I know some people consider RATM to be some kind of cathartic relief for ignorant teenagers who blindly attack authority while taking no responsibility for their own situation, but that's also a symptom of nanny government itself. It's a projection and reflection on what people think about those young fans of RATM, but it is not the message itself.

      The message is valid. It speaks truth to a situation. Love the RATM for doing so.

    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1Actually, freedom is the ability of the representatives of a company to *choose* to provide information to authorities. The amnesty deal is *protecting* liberty.

      By the way, if you tell your friend something and they turn around and tell the police... were your fourth amendment rights broken? No? Well what's the difference when the telephone company does the same thing?
      • bluesdealer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Why should they have the right to choose to sell our private information?
  • netsql, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7Change = more of the same. Thx O.
  • Liqkhaos, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11I feel that we're beyond the event horizon in this country. We're being sucked into a totalitarian black hole and I just hope that we can come out on the other side someday to restore this country to her former glory.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4You're right, but the biggest problem is that the schools today don't bother to encourage, but rather discourage, critical thinking. Without critical thinking and the ability to analyze a situation, people are just going to do what they're told as long as they have their XBox/PSx and their flat screen tv with HD.

      This is the biggest reason I'm glad that I don't have kids and they won't be subjected to this kind of ***** that nobody but a few seem to care about.
  • spyd3rweb, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3.
  • X86BSD, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8"5,000 armed citizens stormed the Capitol in DC today, summarily executing everyone for the crime of Treason against the United States, its Constitution and Bill of Rights. In an unheard of display of patriotism and love for their country they executed those guilty of the highest level of crime in their country. The absolute most vile display of destruction against the US Constitution ever in it's 200+ year history. Having without a doubt done their duty as Americans they brought the country back under control from a runaway government that no longer feared the people and had nothing but disdain and hatred for its sacred Constitution. The echo of General Washington could almost be heard saying "I am proud of you today, my countrymen" as the shots died down and as the last of the traitors were shot fleeing the building." -The Internet Blogosphere, 6/28/2008

    Now that would be news worth writing about.
    • aadyss, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1 They (the ones summarily executing everyone for he crime of Treason against the United States, its Constitution and Bill of Rights) surely do love freedom. They just hate habeas corpus, trials, human rights etc.
      • X86BSD, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Treason is a high crime punishable by death. They are simply following out the law of the country.
    • MikeFallopian, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0Summary executions in the name of the Constitution... just wow.
    • RonaldLewis, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Worthy news, indeed.

      I am not a fan of violence, however, I believe this is the action Americans must take at some point in the future.
      • aadyss, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0Yep, violate the Constitution in order to preserve the Constitution. Failed logic in college, didn't you? Sounds a little like China and the 'old Russia.'
      • X86BSD, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Have you read the Constitution? Or the papers written about its being written?
        It was written right after the bloody violent overthrowing of Crown forces off this land mass.
        You need your head examined if you think violence is anti-Constitution.

    • DavidThaGnome, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That was great, even if it's not real....it felt nice to think about for a moment and just pretend :)
    • maz2331, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1MSM version on the evening news....

      "5000 terrorists attacked the Capitol today, committing murder and mayhem in an attempted coup...."
  • webcrumb, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8I wonder if we're at the end of a Golden Age, a Renaissance period, teetering on the edge of a new Dark Age of religious and governmental persecution complete with a new round of Inquisitions. I hope not. I sincerely do.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2The "Doomsday/Bad ***** is about to happen" Archetype shows up yet again, except this time instead of the Vengeful God, we have A Shadowy, Evil, Dictator type Politician and or political faction or party. It's kind of a rational modernization of a universal religious archetype...in a way it's kind of the prophesied Anti-Christ.
      ha ha...but seriously, hear me out:
      What is a religion other than a set of principles and worldview that basically form a kind of collective culture and lifestyle?

      What is a given Political Ideology other than a set of principles and worldview that basically form a kind of collective culture and lifestyle?
      Crazy Stuff, I know...
      Past Spread of Christianity+Forced Conversions to the Christian lifestyle = Recent Past/ Current Spread of Democracy/Capitalism+Forced Conversion to THAT lifestyle.

      Basically what I'm saying is that I hope Dick Dawkins didn't spend all the money that insecure Atheists threw at him because the age of TRADITIONAL "religious" crusading and warfare in the West is over. The "West," which initially kicked off the bloody conversion madness of Christianity has now made it's way full circle back to the Middle East with a Modern Atheistic Worldview to impose on them this time.
      So, it seems, Political Ideology has assumed Top Dog status in terms of defining the culture of Most of the "developed" world. Religion is for the most part, in the backseat, regardless of how loud it may yell from there. Essentially, Rational Man has usurped God and you know what?....nothing's changed. There are still forced conversions, still bloody wars...now in the name of Godless(atheistic) political ideologies. (that is of course unless you want to consider the almighty dollar the God of capitalism...but i wont).
      So what does the future hold?...more of the same and Dick Dawkins pulling his foot out of his mouth.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2According to the documentation Nostradamus was given by the Catholic church, the next big change would be in 2012, but I have no idea what that change might be.

      The next significant one after that is supposed to be 2165 if memory serves me correctly.
  • netneutrality, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Hypothetically speaking, what would it take to cause a revolution in America, honestly? Like the question of how many people does it take to start a Mexican wave? (or whatever they're called -- these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience_wave ) So how many would it take to cause a cascade reaction where every free person would deny the government?
    • evilpoptart, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2too much TV and too many drugs. we have been successfully anesthetized.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2It would take (as a starting point) something akin to hacking the TV network in The Running Man.
  • roho76, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8Hey DC use your new rights.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Open carry your firearm, and scare the criminals out of DC, or at least into their respective government building.
  • goffy59, on 06/28/2008, -7/+3***** America.
  • HairyTroll666, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1The real question I want to ask is....

    Why do we need laws to go after Terrorists? Just do it and let the voters decide if it was justified.

    If they are Terrorists.. then just DO IT... tap the phone, do whatever you want... then.. if it comes out that the USA broke laws catching a terrorist we can let the voters decide if it was necessary or not.

    Seems to me that these laws are only for the situations where an innocent person is tapped or harassed.. so that then the USA can say "You can't touch me innocent man.. it was LEGAL."
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Exactly. What do they need to hide behind laws for if what they did was acceptable and just?

      What those hijackers did was illegal. No new laws were needed to cover it. Pretty much all the laws that you need have been written down centuries ago.

      The best laws are consequently the simplest ones. Do no harm. Do not initiate force on others. Voluntary action and consent are the only moral actions.

      No individual can be expected to know all the laws today. Not even the law makers can keep track of these things. It's just a racket for lawyers. Most laws today establish privileged monopoly, legalized racketeering.
    • woobyluv, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Sounds good on the surface, only thing is, what happens when the information fed to the people by the media/govt is manipulated to paint the picture in the minds of voters that THEY want? Then you vote along with it and become an accessory...
  • nidelph, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3when your freedoms are dying you have the *responsibility* to do more than just Digg.

    WRITE YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. When a legislator receives a dozen or so letters from constituents it's considered a landslide. Why? Because nobody cares anymore. We'd rather sit in our online ivory towers and spread a story than actually TALK with the people who are SCREWING UP OUR LIVES.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Some people do not recognize that authority and try to live their lives as they please.

      But yes, there's more that people ought to do than digg, or vote.
    • kuantan97, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Call me a cynic, but I really do believe that more good can come from digging than by begging the sellouts of a garbage system.
    • microchp, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't that be the same as writing to the mafia because one of the hitmen they hired left a mess in your living room?
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN USING THE SERVICES OF A THIRD PARTY.

      As long as the telecoms are *choosing* to cooperate, the fourth amendments simply isn't relevant. No warrants are necessary when evidence is volunteered..
      • bluesdealer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Sure you do. Most people buy service with the expectation of privacy. Most people believe their personal information should not be allowed to be traded without their knowledge and consent. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the government or an identity thief; the principle remains the same.
      • WhiteRaven, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1bluesdealerbluesdealer, you are simply wrong. The First amendment *guarantees* anyone the right to divulge anything they know. And you will not find any guarantee of privacy in any phone or internet contract.

        You are simply, factually *wrong*.
  • PontifexMaximus, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4RON PAUL.
    • evilpoptart, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1SINK THE REPUBLICANS BY VOTING FOR RON PAUL!
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1... SUPPORTERS ARE DELUSIONAL.
  • OohChit, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6""When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." This is the judicial logic of a dictatorship."

    The "wire-tappers" can/will use this for financial gain..
    I hope everyone realizes this.
    It's not just for "terrorists"..
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6I predict that *right now* was the time before things got very ugly.
  • TheRhinoceros, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0What we need to do is fight these bastards at their own game. When the new administration comes to power, then we have to make sure that we repeal this law. Make sure that you let you congressmen and senator know what you think, if you think it'll help.

    The Infrastructure for the police state has existed for awhile, but no-one has attempted in earnest to use it, until now. Bastards.

    Freedom. I would like mine Back please, Congress. Please deliver it ASAP.

    I hope the Senate has more sense than The House did here. I doubt it, but I hope so.

    election-coverage.com
  • venicerocco, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5Democracy and freedom of expression is not the norm. Unless protected, all societies will eventually revert back to their normal state of oppression.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.