Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[Tigger_Magic]

And you have no lack of arrogance. If the terrorists have their way, we won't be "Athens or Sparta", we will be Atlantis. Were you this concerned when Aldridge Aims' home was broken into for a warrantless search or was it a "good thing" that we caught him. BTW, he actually was an American citizen, unlike many of the alledged victims of the "evil Bush's wiretaps".

Likewise, where was the outrage over Steven Hatfill? I don't recall the NYT shedding any tears over the violations of his civil liberties? Oh yeah, I forgot... it was the NYT's that encouraged that travesty.

Gotta love the conditional "righteous" indignation.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Sometimes, it's painful to read your posts.

Here's a tip: use the Ignore feature. Unless you are a masochist.

 

[KarenC]

This issue reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin. Sorry if I repeat something that's already been posted--I haven't read every post in this thread.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

 

[momof2inPA]

This issue reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin. Sorry if I repeat something that's already been posted--I haven't read every post in this thread.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Someone will accuse you of using a left wing talking point for that.

 

[momof2inPA]

Likewise, where was the outrage over Steven Hatfill? I don't recall the NYT shedding any tears over the violations of his civil liberties? Oh yeah, I forgot... it was the NYT's that encouraged that travesty.

Gotta love the conditional "righteous" indignation.

Straight from the Limbaugh site. Anything else?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Straight from the Limbaugh site. Anything else?

Please provide a link for your assertion.

 

[DawnCt1]

They can't legally re-write the rules to fit their purposes/ their agenda, so they ignore the rules, because they know their "core" will never desert them. This shouldn't be a right vs left issue. It should be an American people vs corrupt government issue. Luckily, enough people on either side on the political arena realize this, that something will be done.

And again, there is absolutely no evidence that any laws were broken. Dead people have no "rights". Information was obtained to protect your right to life.

 

[momof2inPA]

And again, there is absolutely no evidence that any laws were broken. Dead people have no "rights". Information was obtained to protect your right to life.

If they are asserting their right to continue spying on Americans in this manner, they are expressing an intent to commit a crime. Did you want someone to come forward with actual names of people who have been spied on? I have a feeling that wouldn't make you very happy, or would it?

 

[momof2inPA]

Please provide a link for your assertion.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

There's the link for most of your talking points. I can provide the Hannity, O'Reilly, and freeper link, also, if you want to rest your fingers.

 

[momof2inPA]

And again, there is absolutely no evidence that any laws were broken. Dead people have no "rights". Information was obtained to protect your right to life.

They can stop protecting my life, now and start protecting my liberty.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

There's the link for most of your talking points. I can provide the Hannity, O'Reilly, and freeper link, also, if you want to rest your fingers.

I'll attribute this to a lack of communication. Let me try one more time.

Please provide a link to rushlimbaugh.com where he specifically talks about the NYT's role in the violation of Steven Hatfill's civil & constitutional rights.

I'm quite familiar with Rush's web site and after skimming through today's posted material (from his 12/21 show), I cannot find anything about Steven Hatfill. Therefore, I am confused as to why you would assert that my post regarding this was lifted specifically from Rush's web site. As for Hannity, O'Reilly and freeper -- don't read 'em, don't care about them. You specifically mentioned Rush Limbaugh's site so I figure you have a link to the specific article on there that talks about Steven Hatfill and the NYT.

Unless it doesn't exist...

 

[Tigger_Magic]

They can stop protecting my life, now and start protecting my liberty.

That's a nice choice for you. As for me, I'm a little more greedy. I'd prefer to have my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

 

[cardaway]

It is CRAZY to whine about the privacy of terrorists who reside in this country, not necessarily American citizens, when you voluntarily and involuntarily relinquish your privacy everytime you walk out of your front door.

I've whined about nothing Dawn.

 

[DawnCt1]

Likewise, where was the outrage over Steven Hatfill? I don't recall the NYT shedding any tears over the violations of his civil liberties? Oh yeah, I forgot... it was the NYT's that encouraged that travesty.

Gotta love the conditional "righteous" indignation.

That's a man whose life has totally been ruined. I doubt that he will ever get it back. DH met him when he was an instructor at USAMRID, Ft. Detrick. He describes him as a pleasant, straight forward guy, that was probably framed. Certainly he didn't strike DH as a "suspect" and he never bought into the suspicion. Not only were his civil liberties violated but I doubt that he can ever make a living in his area of expertise again. Probably a serious waste of talent that won't be retrieved anytime soon.

 

[Charade]

I too don't buy into the "terrorists in your teapot" conspiracy theories, half because of common sense and half due to the IRA, probably the most organised (ex) terror network the world has ever seen.



Rich::

Perhaps if they were so well organized they were in places you'd never suspect.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

** my apologies ** double posted (and heaven knows, once is more than enough! )

 

[Tigger_Magic]

That's a man whose life has totally been ruined. I doubt that he will ever get it back. DH met him when he was an instructor at USAMRID, Ft. Detrick. He describes him as a pleasant, straight forward guy, that was probably framed. Certainly he didn't strike DH as a "suspect" and he never bought into the suspicion. Not only were his civil liberties violated but I doubt that he can ever make a living in his area of expertise again. Probably a serious waste of talent that won't be retrieved anytime soon.

Hatfill was identified only as a "person of interest." But that didn't stop the NYT's Nicholas Kristof from starting a crusade to have the government investigate every aspect of his life. At that time the NYT certainly didn't seem to think it was such a bad thing to violate the civil and constitutional liberties of an American citizen. And they've all but ignored the aftermath of what they wrought, which as you mentioned was the ruin of Hatfill's life and career. All that because Hatfill (GASP!) supported the war on terror and by association the current administration.

As for me, I am more concerned about the media's (and specifically the NYT) attacks on civil and constitutional liberties than anything wrong or illegal the government has done. A free press is a vital cornerstone of our democracy; a watchdog to alert the public in time of need. But when the press actively participates in the undermining of our rights and freedoms... and few take notice and even fewer still sound an (or any) alarm, then I fear more for our future than any fear generated by alleged abuse of an executive order.

At least with the current level of partisan rancor, I can be assured that the Legislative and Executive Branches will do their utmost to ensure that their checks and balances are firmly in place.

Sadly, there appears to be no check and no balance with the NYT or most of the MSM.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The Constitution provides in Art I, Clause 9 that the writ can be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion. Do not compare perhaps the greatest American, the President largest in spirit, with the President that is the ultimate in smallness of spirit. You have no idea wher you are treading when you bring a secular saint such as Lincoln into the equation

Since you've indicated that Lincoln was such a "secular saint", I wonder if you've ever heard of Clement L. Vallandigham. If not, you should become familiar with him, because he should be a hero to liberals everywhere.

Vallandigham was a conservative politician in the mid-1800's and quite the outspoken critic of President Lincoln and his policies. His primary argument was that "no circumstance, even war, could deprive a citizen of his right to oppose governmental policy freely and openly." (see "Letters of Dissent" by Frank Klement).

Surprisingly, this argument raised a major ruckus in both the media and in Washington. Because Vallandigham refused to back down from his exercise of his constitutional right to free speech and his constant criticism of Lincoln's administration, he was arrested, tried, imprisoned, shuffled off to live in the south and ultimately exiled to Canada -- all with the tacit or direct approval of President Lincoln.

This is a "secular saint"?

 

[Judge Smails]

Since you've indicated that Lincoln was such a "secular saint", I wonder if you've ever heard of Clement L. Vallandigham. If not, you should become familiar with him, because he should be a hero to liberals everywhere.

Vallandigham was a conservative politician in the mid-1800's and quite the outspoken critic of President Lincoln and his policies. His primary argument was that "no circumstance, even war, could deprive a citizen of his right to oppose governmental policy freely and openly." (see "Letters of Dissent" by Frank Klement).

Surprisingly, this argument raised a major ruckus in both the media and in Washington. Because Vallandigham refused to back down from his exercise of his constitutional right to free speech and his constant criticism of Lincoln's administration, he was arrested, tried, imprisoned, shuffled off to live in the south and ultimately exiled to Canada -- all with the tacit or direct approval of President Lincoln.

This is a "secular saint"?

For the record Vallandigham was not imprisoned nor was he exiled to Canada. Lincoln commuted his 2 year sentence (by a military court) and banished him to the South. At the time there was a law that forbade any expression of sympathy for the enemy. Vallandigham deliberately provoked a response by the gov't in a speech on April 30, 1863. He then ran for governor of Ohio from Canada (he was not banished there). Lincoln endorsed his opponent and Vallandigham lost by something like 30%. By June 1864 he was back in Ohio and Lincoln knew it but ignored him. He ran again for public office in 1867 as a state senator but lost. He died in 1871 having been accidentally shot.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Seems like there may be a difference of fact about Vallandigham...

http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm
http://home.mindspring.com/~mtmitchell/Vallandigham.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham