Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[chobie]

Since I have done nothing wrong/illegal, I have nothing to fear. Do you?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

On December 19, the NYT published an expose about pedophilia on the Internet. What is fascinating is a small piece that briefly explained how the NYT conducted it's months-long investigation.

To verify information received from minors and found online, The Times obtained an array of documents, including copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and adult admirers; records of payments to minors; membership lists from Webcam sites that charge fees; and information about companies that facilitate their operation. The Times also examined sites maintained by children and adults, and defunct sites stored in online archives.

To confirm Justin Berry's story, The Times reviewed and obtained access to thousands of pages of evidence, including files he retained on his computer over several years, original documents, financial records, credit card processing data and other information.

All this was done to investigate a particularly heinous crime. And there's no outcry about invasion of privacy or trampling of rights. If pedophilia is worthy of this type of effort, how much more terrorism?

 

[chobie]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You've sure mastered the cliche, haven't you?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You've sure mastered the cliche, haven't you?

Just demonstrating my stranglehold on the obvious. Freedom of speech and all that... or did I miss where that right was taken away by the Administration.

 

[DawnCt1]

On December 19, the NYT published an expose about pedophilia on the Internet. What is fascinating is a small piece that briefly explained how the NYT conducted it's months-long investigation. All this was done to investigate a particularly heinous crime. And there's no outcry about invasion of privacy or trampling of rights. If pedophilia is worthy of this type of effort, how much more terrorism?

Excellent point!

 

[Chuck S]

But the NYT did not say they obtained the "evidence" illegally, nor is the NYT a government agency. If the NYT went to those websites and the websites made the membership lists available to them, that was their choice. The NYT didn't do wiretaps without warrants, did they?

Likewise if Justin Berry gave them permission to search his computers hard drve and freely gave them access to it.

 

[momof2inPA]

I'm sure you form your OWN opinions and that nothing you've said has been influenced in any way, shape or form by anyone else's political leanings or by your own.

Do you derive your discussion subjects and points here from the radio or tv programs you listen to? Really? I can't imagine living my life that way, and I don't think Dawn lives her life that way. That isn't freedom of speech or freedom of thought, but I've never been much of a follower. Perhaps that's why I find the concept of regurgitating talking points so foreign. What do you get out of it? Does it make you feel smarter or more confident in your politics perhaps to repeat what someone else says, day after day? I still don't get it.

I must admit, though, I might repeat what sodaseller says to my husband, but I will surely give him/her credit out of admiration and respect, not pretend it was an original thought. Perhaps if you started all your posts with the caveats "Rush said.." or "In Bill O'Reilly's opinion.." we would be able to attribute your opinions to the correct originators.

 

[momof2inPA]

But the NYT did not say they obtained the "evidence" illegally, nor is the NYT a government agency. If the NYT went to those websites and the websites made the membership lists available to them, that was their choice. The NYT didn't do wiretaps without warrants, did they?

Likewise if Justin Berry gave them permission to search his computers hard drve and freely gave them access to it.

I have no problem with FBI agents going on the internet and pretending to be Al Qaeda to draw out the millions of "deep cover" terrorists lurking around every corner.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

But the NYT did not say they obtained the "evidence" illegally, nor is the NYT a government agency. If the NYT went to those websites and the websites made the membership lists available to them, that was their choice. The NYT didn't do wiretaps without warrants, did they?

Likewise if Justin Berry gave them permission to search his computers hard drve and freely gave them access to it.

When I think about the various terrorist attacks that have been successfully conducted throughout the world before, on and after 9/11/2001, I have some real difficulty in even raising a single eyebrow over this tempest in a teapot. I daresay that if it were President Gore in office today there would scarce be a peep about this.

In September/October 2001 people were clamoring for the Patriot Act and grinning widely as it was signed into law. A few safe, happy terrorist-attack free years later, there is this indignant outcry that everyone's rights are being violated and civil liberties trampled. How soon we forget and become fat, happy, and complacent.

I would choose to violate the civil liberties of those people who choose to conspire with terrorists to commit new terrorist acts against America. For me, it's not that bad a trade-off to preserve the security of several hundred million law-abiding Americans. What alternative do I have: that other party offers no plan other than to extend rights to everyone, including terrorists who seek to destroy this country -- all in the name of making sure everything is ever-so politically correct and sensitive. And in the meantime, folks, get ready for the next big attack because that other party would make sure the gov't. was/is completely hamstrung from doing any investigation or taking any action to prevent another 9/11.

I refuse to try to assuage my conscience by spouting some PC objections to actions that are imminently essential to the security and freedom of this country. If individuals choose to violate the laws and seek to destroy the security of me and my family, I have absolutely no objection at all to violating any and all of their alleged civil and/or constitutional liberties. JMO but those people gave up those rights and freedoms when they decided to attack or work against this country.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Do you derive your discussion subjects and points here from the radio or tv programs you listen to? Really? I can't imagine living my life that way, and I don't think Dawn lives her life that way. That isn't freedom of speech or freedom of thought, but I've never been much of a follower. Perhaps that's why I find the concept of regurgitating talking points so foreign. What do you get out of it? Does it make you feel smarter or more confident in your politics perhaps to repeat what someone else says, day after day? I still don't get it.

I must admit, though, I might repeat what sodaseller says to my husband, but I will surely give him/her credit out of admiration and respect, not pretend it was an original thought. Perhaps if you started all your posts with the caveats "Rush said.." or "In Bill O'Reilly's opinion.." we would be able to attribute your opinions to the correct originators.

I'm really impressed.

 

[momof2inPA]

When I think about the various terrorist attacks that have been successfully conducted throughout the world before, on and after 9/11/2001, I have some real difficulty in even raising a single eyebrow over this tempest in a teapot. I daresay that if it were President Gore in office today there would scarce be a peep about this..

..I refuse to try to assuage my conscience by spouting some PC objections to actions that are imminently essential to the security and freedom of this country. If individuals choose to violate the laws and seek to destroy the security of me and my family, I have absolutely no objection at all to violating any and all of their alleged civil and/or constitutional liberties. JMO but those people gave up those rights and freedoms when they decided to attack or work against this country.

We are talking about the U.S.A., not the world, not Israel, not the Middle East. It's much easier to restrict access to terrorists by securing our borders and investigating those wishing to visit the U.S. than it is in those countries which are closer to the terrorist proving/ growing grounds.

I'm pretty sure Al Gore wouldn't have done this; he seems to have more scruples and character than Bush.

We are talking about giving up MY rights and YOUR rights, not just the rights of the bad guys.

I'm really impressed.

Finally, an original thought?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Finally, an original thought?

Et tu, Brutus?

 

[chobie]

I'm really impressed.

Do you realize that you are the only one laughing at your jokes?

 

[momof2inPA]

Do you realize that you are the only one laughing at your jokes?

Are they jokes? I would explain the true meaning of that quote, but why waste my breath on someone who can't think for herself.

The idea that all these people are spewing talking points and other people's ideas is truly pathetic. I didn't realize how pathetic it was until I just now read Rush Limbaugh's website, and I take back the complement I gave Dawn.

 

[DawnCt1]

The idea that all these people are spewing talking points and other people's ideas is truly pathetic. I didn't realize how pathetic it was until I just now read Rush Limbaugh's website, and I take back the complement I gave Dawn.

I would guess that if you gave me a compliment it was to take something away from someone else. The facts are the facts. You may not like them but I do not have a problem spying on potential terrorists, or "FOTS" (friends of terrorists) who probably aren't American citizens. Closing the boarders will help but it isn't the solution.

 

[sodaseller]

I would guess that if you gave me a compliment it was to take something away from someone else. The facts are the facts. You may not like them but I do not have a problem spying on potential terrorists, or "FOTS" (friends of terrorists) who probably aren't American citizens. Closing the boarders will help but it isn't the solution.

No one does. They just require that someone else make sure that that is what you are actually doing. Unless of course you are claiming that the facilitators of the program are omniscient

 

[chobie]

Are they jokes? I would explain the true meaning of that quote, but why waste my breath on someone who can't think for herself.

The idea that all these people are spewing talking points and other people's ideas is truly pathetic. I didn't realize how pathetic it was until I just now read Rush Limbaugh's website, and I take back the complement I gave Dawn.

You're right; it's not funny. Neither is the eroding of our consitutional rights.

 

[momof2inPA]

I would guess that if you gave me a compliment it was to take something away from someone else. The facts are the facts. You may not like them but I do not have a problem spying on potential terrorists, or "FOTS" (friends of terrorists) who probably aren't American citizens. Closing the boarders will help but it isn't the solution.

Now, Dawn, I've stood up for you before. That's more than you can say for most people on the DIS. I don't have a problem with spying on potential terrorists if the courts agree there is due cause. If the fots are probably not American citizens, being more selective about our visitors and more diligent about protecting our borders is the primary solution- and it's being ignored by this administration.

And I truly believe you are capable of original thought. Steer clear of the Rush talking points, they detract from your message.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Do you realize that you are the only one laughing at your jokes?

Ask me if I care.