0
kallend

Right to privacy

By kallend, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

jcd11235    0

jcd11235
lawrocket

So monitoring private phone records without notice or the opportunity to object because security requires it is something toy view as consistent with civil rights?



You mean limited monitoring of anonymous non-private metadata with judicial and legislative oversight? No, I don't see that as a violation of privacy or civil rights.

Quote

How about the civil rights of Tsarnaev? Not mirandized.



So what? the material from pre-Miranda interviews won't be admissible in court, i.e., civil rights are preserved.

Quote

The rights of detainees in gitmo? Gitmo is still open, right?



Fair point. I would like to see Gitmo closed, but I recognize that it isn't as simple as shutting it down.

Quote

The assassination of people in foreign lands?



People get killed during times of war. Would you prefer carpet bombing so no one can claim any particular person is specifically targeted?

Quote

How about his refusal to do anything about DADT or DOMA until the courts require him to act?



It's smart, and will (hopefully) ultimately eliminate opportunities for future presidents and congresspersons to enshrine bigotry in federal law.

Etc., etc.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,146

kallend
lawrocket

[Reply]

The rights of detainees in gitmo? Gitmo is still open, right?



And until the Congress stops listening to folks like THIS I expect it will remain open regardless of anything Obama can do.

On 20th May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. In November 2012, the Senate voted 54–41 to prevent detainees being transferred to the United States

Place blame where it's due, Counselor.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
[Reply]Was it Obama who blocked bringing Gitmo detainees to US soil for trial? No, it was Congress. (BTW, I'm pretty disgusted to Gitmo is still open, but if you think the "liberals" are the driving force keeping it open, you are deluded)



Driving force? Why use such terms as that? How about "perfectly content to keep it in operation because I get the benefit and we can blame Bush and the GOP for it?" The same Congress that passed the ACA could have done something. It didn't. Far from it! It reauthorizes and ratifies.

Quote


People get killed when we're at war. That's got nothing to do with civil rights.



The NDA takes it a bit further. Call it the Admin's effort to repeal posse comitatis.

[Reply]Huh? Congress repealed DADT, Obama signed the repeal.



After the Log Cabin Republicans won big in the federal courts and a court order to prevent enforcement of it.

[Reply]Obama stopped enforcing DOMA against the protestation of Congressional Republicans.



No. He is STILL enforcing it. He's not fighting it, though. Take a look at the SCOTUS transcript. Breyer, roberts, Kennedy and kagan indicated their intense displeasure with the Administration's tactics of "oh, we'll just wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice."

Cut the shit. This is a president who ran in his first election with a platform that opposed gay marriage. Not uintil the court told him that DADT was not enforceable did he and congress get off their asses and do something. Then took credit for being so swell to gays.

[Quote]Was it Obama calling for Tsarnaev to be sent to Gitmo and treated as an enemy combatant? No, it was Senate Republicans.

No. It was Obama's Justice Department that made damned sure that Tsarnaev was questioned without being mirandized and denied counsel. Yes - leaks have suggested that Tsarnaev asked for counsel and was denied counsel. Hence, there's a reason why he sang like a bird.

Why didn't you discuss that topic? You wanted to discuss republicans? Everybody knows they don't like civil rights. They're like Facebook - they are so bad because they have no qualms about what they want to do and are doing.

The Democrats are like google - slickly trying to be with everyone but mining data like nobody would believe.

The Obama administration is given carte blanche to fuck with civil liberties. The Republicans won't oppose it because it's what they've wanted all along. Liberals who would oppose it won't do it because it's their guy and he can be trusted to do things on the up and up.

Republicans created it. Dems are running it. Neither will object.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jcd11235    0

jcd11235
normiss

So you're ok with secret warrants and secret judges???



I'd prefer non-secret warrants and non-secret judges, but secret warrants and secret judges are FAR better than no warrants and no judges.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
[Reply]
You mean limited monitoring of anonymous non-private metadata with judicial and legislative oversight? No, I don't see that as a violation of privacy or civil rights.



Were you given notice that your records were being sought so youy could object? Nope? That's called "due process."

Note how pissed the admin (and congress) are that the secret is out. The People know what is going on and are unhappy with it. Yes, this was Bush that started this stuff but we are seeing that nothing pisses off this administration like showing a lack of transparency.

[Reply]So what? the material from pre-Miranda interviews won't be admissible in court, i.e., civil rights are preserved.



Are you high? The right to counsel was denied. Period. The right to remain silent was denied. Those are rights. It's not a "no harm no foul" matter. The rights are dignitary.

Hey, why doesn't the government take away the megaphone from the guy protesting the war in Afghanistan so that the guy supporting the war can talk? But take the protestor out to the desert and let him talk where he won't bother anybody. No harm no foul? Not quite.

[Reply]I would like to see Gitmo closed, but I recognize that it isn't as simple as shutting it down.



Right. It might take a couple of years to get it all worked out. But we also need to start it.

[Reply] People get killed during times of war. Would you prefer carpet bombing so no one can claim any particular person is specifically targeted?



I guess drones are a happy medium. Let's not call it a war, either.

[Reply]It's smart, and will (hopefully) ultimately eliminate opportunities for future presidents and congresspersons to enshrine bigotry in federal law.



It's gutless and purrely done for politics to get reelected. Meanwhile, Sally Ride's partner is denied what she should receive. But no, let's not do the right thing now. That means that someone might do the wrong thing in the future. "Nope. I'm the President and I had this Filobuster proof Congress. But I won't do anything. I'll leave it to the courts to make me do it. Because that's the sort of clear moral message I want to send - I won't do the right thing unless I'm forced to."

Then shine in adulation as "the first gay President."


My wife is hotter than your wife.