Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

"Does it matter if a rubber stamp was created as a rubber stamp or was turned into one?"
Of course it does. If the law says the judges are supposed to rule in accordance with a certain criteria, and they just approve without bothering to read the requests, then the judges are at fault and should be sacked.

If the law says the judges have no real authority, but are supposed to fake reviews, then the law is at fault.

I have said all along that I have objected to PATRIOT ever since it was passed, and still do. However, just because it's a bad law doesn't mean everybody working with it or walking by where it's printed are out to intentionally rob the populace of its rights.

[rstrong]

Back in the 1980s the Daniel Ellsberg was charged in 1971 under the Espionage Act as well as for theft and conspiracy for copying the Pentagon Papers. The trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct against him, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court.

For the two years he was under indictment, he was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures.

Today, the government actions that got the case thrown out of court are legal. As the Daily Show said (to the President) the other day "No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."

And today, Snowden would not be allowed out on bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado, in total isolation conditions described by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”

That by itself is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying from the United States.

What the Ellsberg and Snowden cases have in common is that the information they leaked would hardly come as a surprise to other governments. The damage was in letting the American people know what their government was doing. In Ellsberg's case it was the lies used to justify a war, and in Snowden's case it's the mass domestic spying. Both were aiding the enemy only if the enemy was the American people.

What's interesting is where they're different: In 1971 the US was in the middle of the Cold War. It faced an enemy not just with ICBMs, nuclear submarines and bombers, but an enemy with the best spy agency on the planet. A spy agency with near-infinite resources, money, training and professionalism compared to today's terrorists. AND the US had a rate of domestic bombings, hijackings and terrorism at least equal to today.

And yet the US didn't throw out the protections for privacy and against search and seizure during the Cold War. Whistle blowers had the protection of the courts. Wire tapping without a court order - from a REAL court - was illegal and had consequences. There was no large-scale holding people indefinitely without trial, let alone torturing them.

Americans didn't feel that it was justified during the Cold War, and compared to the Soviets, today's terrorists are nothing. But today - the REAL government policy that Snowden violated, was in making sure that Americans weren't asked.

[O Really]

Some of you may be interested in this... http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester ... %20york%22

Winter 1991
Search Warrants, Motions to Suppress and Lost
Cases: The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule in
Seven Jurisdictions

It's pre-9/11, has nothing to do with terrorists, but is a comprehensive study of the effect of the "Exclusionary Rule" and its effect on convictions. The Exclusionary Rule is the "teeth" to protections under the Fourth Amendment, saying that if evidence is unlawfully obtained, it can be excluded in trial.

One interesting part is in item (4) in the (edited for length, but nothing important changed) excerpt below: quote "warrant applications were rarely rejected by judges or magistrates." So what would be an acceptable number of rejections by FISA to look like they're actually doing their job?


" SEARCH WARRANT STUDIES
Richard Van Duizend and his colleagues at the National Center for State Courts examined the search warrant process in seven cities across the country, and both dispelled and confirmed a number
of myths associated with that process. For example, the researchers found that (1) search warrants were sought in relatively few cases; (2) warrants were diverse in their types of cases; (3) judge-shopping occurred by some law enforcement applicants; (4) warrant applications were rarely rejected by judges or magistrates; and (5) warrant applications were often based on unsworn hearsay from anonymous informants.

The study concluded that search warrants properly administered and supervised . . . can protect privacy and property rights without significantly interfering with the ability of police officers to conduct thorough and effective investigations of criminal activity.... Moreover, it was evident to us that the exclusionary rule, though seldom invoked, serves as an incentive for many police
officers to follow the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment as defined in their jurisdiction."

[O Really]

Interesting discussion regarding rejection of an FBI request to install spyware...
http://www.ediscoverylawinsights.com/20 ... -computer/

[Guest]

Now, please explain to us why in the world I have any duty to keep secret an unsolicited PM sneakily attacking others behind their back, why I should do so when the poster is lying though his teeth...and why you are so goofily offended when the target of the unsolicited sneaky attack from racist Partisan62 was you?...

This bitch sure whines a great deal, doesn't she? The quote above by "ex-member" shows how stupid Vrede is. The poster's commitment to no longer insult others

I've never made any such "commitment". You just showed how whiny and "stupid" you are. Thanks.

The poster "ex-member", not you, makes the commitment to not insult. Comprehend much?

sounds more like an attitude change, not a denial of identity. Such nuance is, of course, lost on a two dimensional idiot like Vrede. She obviously can't debate unless she plays it dirty and despicable, even now.

Gee, if you hadn't edited out so much you wouldn't be so confused over the fact that I never had a duty to keep secret an unsolicited PM sneakily attacking others behind their backs and that Partisan62 was a complete idiot to expect me to keep his slobbery whisperings secret when I could prove he was lying.

No, you are a bitch for revealing a message marked PRIVATE, your lame excuses notwithstanding. You ignored my point that there was no lie by "ex-member" and you were too stupid to recognize this, so you revealed a PRIVATE message and proved yourself untrustworthy. Stop making excuses (such as your lie that you were defending others who were somehow "sneakily attacked", or the concept of "duty" which we know is foreign to you) and admit you screwed up.

If one has the skill and intelligence to debate, then who the hell cares what screen name is used or who is or isn't registered.

That Vrede whine is just the coward's way out.

If one has the skill and intelligence to debate, why use multiple screen names and be too cowardly to register?

It's an ANONYMOUS forum, you idiot! Screen names are meaningless anyway. Call me anything and you'll still lose.

Besides, if "ex-member" sent Vrede a PM and then posted under the name "ex-member", he had to KNOW that she knew who he was, right?

Duh, you've made no point. "ex-member" then tried to lie about being Partisan62 in the open forum. He is that dumb.

Are you so stupid to think that he somehow just forgot what he had just told you in a PRIVATE message? Really? Are YOU that dumb?

Vrede got baited into a test of character and proved that she can't be trusted.

Gee, if you hadn't edited out so much you wouldn't be so confused over the fact that I never had a duty to keep secret an unsolicited PM sneakily attacking others behind their backs and that Partisan62 was a complete idiot to expect me to keep his slobbery whisperings secret when I could prove he was lying.

It's a hoot that cowardly attacks on others behind their backs are now a "test of character", I'm gonna have to remember that one.

Wow, you are still a dumbass. Is your memory so short that you don't recall what Partisan/ex-member posted directly to Ombudsman and Crockhunter on this forum? Or you? Don't be ignorant enough to proclaim that a little vitriol in a PRIVATE message was anything different that what was publicly posted by the same person.

If you had any integrity at all, you wouldn't have revealed the PM. Stop making excuses; you just look ridiculous.

[O Really]

The Exclusionary Rule is a great thing but trial with evidence based on the snooping is just one of the ways that snooping can be used against a citizen. By the nature of our secret war, open court is avoided whenever possible. And, there's little relation between standard, specific criminal warrants and the wide-ranging, broad warrants being granted by the FISA court. Plus, there's no need for judge-shopping when 12 of the 14 are Republicans appointed by the likes of Rehnquist and Roberts.'

...Similarly, warrant-based investigations led to an arrest almost two-thirds of the time...

Far, far higher than the FISA ratio.

I'm not sure how much relevance we can give to a 22 year old paper based on data from the mid 1980s, anyhow. A lot has changed in domestic law enforcement since then, mostly to the detriment of civil liberties.

That study has no direct relevance except to demonstrate that even before PATRIOT, warrants were rarely refused, conviction rate was not significantly affected, and bad cops falsified evidence.

[O Really]

It really comes down to this: none of us garden-variety citizens knows the entire truth. But one can join the right-wing in adopting an us/them-government-is-the-enemy perspective, or you can start with the perspective that the government IS us - warts and potential abuses and all. I choose the latter. If one chooses the former, then no amount of explanation, disclosure, or even mea culpa would ever be sufficient.

[Ombudsman]

Government is not the enemy. Militarism and the national security states are the enemy of America, humanity, the planet, and even good government.

Good god. I'm starting to see where the wing nuts get their stereotypes.

[Ombudsman]

Speaking of wingnuts, look who is in utter denial:

...Yes we have discussed at length your ignorance as to what the War Dept. has done to us:
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ims#p25342
Rather, I have and you've run away from it...

As you did the rest of the post above.

And I've addressed your illogical comment but you keep running from logic.

[Guest2]

Note: This is my last response to the poster too cowardly to register or any other "Guest". It's a pain in the butt to accommodate their cowardice by cutting and pasting a conversation that cannot be quoted pending approval.

It's just pathetic that Partisa62/ex-member is playing this childish game.

Run, coward, run. I'm still here. And you are still wrong and still stupid. On the PM, you lose. On having integrity, decency and ultimately
any value in the human race, you lose.

Even in this "childish game", you lose.

[Guest2]

Note: This is my last response to the poster too cowardly to register or any other "Guest". It's a pain in the butt to accommodate their cowardice by cutting and pasting a conversation that cannot be quoted pending approval.

Well, if he's going to make it so easy to quote and paste by repeating his stupid whining while ignoring almost an entire post demonstrating how stupid and whiny he is, maybe I'll make an exception.

It's just pathetic that Partisa62/ex-member is playing this childish game.

The quote above by "ex-member" shows how stupid Vrede is. The poster's commitment to no longer insult others

The poster too cowardly to register's commitments clearly are not to be trusted.

No, you are a bitch for revealing a message marked PRIVATE, your lame excuses notwithstanding.

On the poster too cowardly to register's bizarre planet, the poster too cowardly to register would not turn in a pedophile because the pedophile, without getting any prior secrecy commitment at all, revealed his pedophilia in "PRIVATE".

Looks like I guessed correctly, ick.

You ignored my point that there was no lie by "ex-member" and you were too stupid to recognize this, so you revealed a PRIVATE message and proved yourself untrustworthy.

Lie, again:

...I'm, therefore, not the poster that you seem to think that I am.

It's a scream that you're whining on and on about "stupid", "commitment", "plays it dirty and despicable", "intelligence", "coward's", "test of character...can't be trusted", "bitch", "duty", "dumbass" and "untrustworthy" when the whole issue is about an unsolicited PM, Partisa62's "stupid" assumption that sending a PM binds the unwilling recipient in any way, and then being so foolish as to lie about his ID to the same unwilling PM recipient that had proof of the lie.

Stop making excuses (such as your lie that you were defending others who were somehow "sneakily attacked", or the concept of "duty" which we know is foreign to you) and admit you screwed up.

Grow up, you are the "dumbass" that got busted. Don't be such a whiny "bitch" about it. Even Ombudsman, who you lacked any "intelligence" in citing since he did far worse to you, finally posted that he didn't mind my posting your PM. Opps, you missed that in saying he seemed "to agree" with you, didn't you?

It's an ANONYMOUS forum, you idiot! Screen names are meaningless anyway.

See post starting "Note", "you idiot!"

Plus, you ducked the question, "coward": If one has the skill and intelligence to debate, why use multiple screen names and be too cowardly to register?

Still ducking.

Call me anything and you'll still lose.

You have a rich fantasy life, Partisan62 had a habit of unilaterally declaring victory, too.

Are you so stupid to think that he somehow just forgot what he had just told you in a PRIVATE message? Really? Are YOU that dumb?

I am truly baffled why ex-member was so "dumb" as to lie to me in open forum denying what he told me in an unsolicited "PRIVATE" message. It sure was really, really, really "dumb", almost as "dumb" as continuing to remind us how "dumb" it was. Thank you, I chuckle every time.

Wow, you are still a dumbass. Is your memory so short that you don't recall what Partisan/ex-member posted directly to Ombudsman and Crockhunter on this forum? Or you? Don't be ignorant enough to proclaim that a little vitriol in a PRIVATE message was anything different that what was publicly posted by the same person.

That doesn't change the fact that you elaborated in your PM, or that you were such "a dumbass" as to think I cared a bit about your opinion of them.

If you had any integrity at all, you wouldn't have revealed the PM. Stop making excuses; you just look ridiculous.

If you had any brains at all, you wouldn't have assumed that your wishes are my mandate, wouldn't have sent a PM without prior assurance that it would remain private, wouldn't have lied about your ID in open forum, and wouldn't keep reminding us how stupid you were. You just look ridiculous . . . to my continuing glee. Thank you.

Thank you, again.

You have a rich fantasy life, Partisan62 had a habit of unilaterally declaring victory, too.

Only a nasty old troll like you would try to lie her way out of such treacherous behavior. Of course, you have demonstrated your continued "glee" as you support the cold blooded murder of unborn children, so why am I surprised at all. You are right that I should never have assumed integrity in a person as vile and stupid as you. God help your supposed "friends"; do they know that you will betray them? Or have you already?

Typical of a soulless, immoral liberal, you have earned the moniker "skank".

skank noun \ˈskaŋk\ a person and especially a woman of low or sleazy character.

How's THAT for a definition?

[neoplacebo]

Gee, I thought they changed Article II, Section 2 to "....Commander AND chief...." quite some time ago. Must have been a dream......

[neoplacebo]

I would imagine that force feeding video is quite marvelous for the America haters. It makes me feel shame.

[UnLurker]

It's just pathetic that Partisa62/ex-member is playing this childish game...

If you had any brains at all, you wouldn't have assumed that your wishes are my mandate, wouldn't have sent a PM without prior assurance that it would remain private, wouldn't have lied about your ID in open forum, and wouldn't keep reminding us how stupid you were. You just look ridiculous . . . to my continuing glee. Thank you.

Thank you, again, please continue proving how whiny and stupid you were and are. I'm pleased that you finally found a dictionary for oh so selective use, it's a scream that you were so skanky and stupid as to lie about your ID in open forum and insist on reminding us of it for post after post. It's my pleasure to assist you, really.

I never betray friends. You were deluded, as usual, in thinking that you were ever anything but a slaver-loving, Big Brother-cheerleading enemy, and you remain deluded in thinking that your slobbery whisperings in my ear ever conferred a responsibility on me just because you wished one existed.

Your nonsensical, whiny and definition-challenged diversion to a different topic is pitied and ignored.

Be careful what you wish for......skank.

[ex-member]

I will stand behind all of my PMs should they be revealed. But, that's easier for me to say than Partisan62 since, though I make mistakes which I rapidly correct, I'm not so dishonest as to intentionally lie here like Partisan62, the skank, did. Plus, I'm not so dumb as to assume that an unsolicited attack PM to a longstanding opponent is automatically gonna be kept "PRIVATE" just because I wish it that way, like Partisan62 was.

All I did was send a message to Vrede marked PRIVATE. This is done all of the time on this forum. It is the honor system concerning what is done with the message. I knew that when I sent it; I guess I wrongly assumed that even liberals have some sense of honor about them. What the receiver of the PM does with it reflects on the receiver, not the sender, regardless of the content of the message.

Vrede is fond of screaming about failing "definitions" in her posts. I guess she doesn't practice what she preaches:

pri·vate (prvt) adj. Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret

[Ombudsman]

I will stand behind all of my PMs should they be revealed. But, that's easier for me to say than Partisan62 since, though I make mistakes which I rapidly correct, I'm not so dishonest as to intentionally lie here like Partisan62, the skank, did. Plus, I'm not so dumb as to assume that an unsolicited attack PM to a longstanding opponent is automatically gonna be kept "PRIVATE" just because I wish it that way, like Partisan62 was.

All I did was send a message to Vrede marked PRIVATE. This is done all of the time on this forum. It is the honor system concerning what is done with the message. I knew that when I sent it; I guess I wrongly assumed that even liberals have some sense of honor about them. What the receiver of the PM does with it reflects on the receiver, not the sender, regardless of the content of the message.

Vrede is fond of screaming about failing "definitions" in her posts. I guess she doesn't practice what she preaches:

pri·vate (prvt) adj. Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret

But you have no honor. Yes it was tacky of her, as a moderator to post it. It was even tackier to pretend she never had then run when I posted a link to it. But it's not illegal, or immoral, or even unethical. It's just tacky. Being that you're such a dick, no one really cares that she did however I'm sure no one trusts her so you sort of won the battle anyway.

[neoplacebo]

I'm too busy with Bank of America to get into Chevron. I don't buy their gas, though. Maybe the environmentalists should subpoena the GPS records of the Chevron geologists and engineers. Ah, Bank of America is calling......

[O Really]

Yeah, I know - right? Russia has such a stellar record of support and cooperation with human rights activists - especially those wanting to have access to its spies.

[O Really]

"Whistleblower" maybe as long as he's in country. But heading for places like China and other countries that like the US even less and sharing potentionally harmful information with them kinda changes the parameters.

[O Really]

I don't know. Depends on the circumstances. Conversely, why would a person, simply because they identify themselves as a "human rigts activist" get greater access to a fugitive than any body else?