Poindexter? - Page 6

Nic Name · 11-26-2002, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slang

So this brings us to the ruling of Nov. 18, 02. that has set the new rules for the FISA's dealings with "United States Persons"

Coincidentally, the case for the government was argued by Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose wife Barbara Olson was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Good post, slang.

slang · 11-26-2002, 05:37 AM

thank you Nic, that means a lot coming from you...

Nic Name · 11-26-2002, 05:51 AM

Don't be a dumb ass mouth breathing sycophant.

You don't curry favour around here by aligning yourself with a pinko commie Canuck, anyway.

Nic Name · 11-26-2002, 03:26 PM

Quote:

In a free and democratic society like Canada, the interception and monitoring of private communications carries extraordinarily strong symbolic and psychological implications, in addition to the obvious practical ones. Canadians are entitled to feel confident that their communications and on-line activities will not be arbitrarily intercepted or scrutinized.

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by)

George Radwanski
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
November 25, 2002

Does the USA have a similar official?

Cairo · 11-27-2002, 01:10 AM

Hi there slang,
Thank you for keeping your mind open to knowledge in order to think for yourself, unlike some who think the way others tell them to think.

I will try my best to answer all of your questions,
but, man, you have a lot of questions! If I miss one, let me know, K?
The F.I.S.C. has been Judging for Foreign Intelligence since 1976, I believe, so it is
hardly a secret to anyone. The reason activists
call it "ultra-secret" is,
1. Saying that to the American people helps their
cause and support. Shock value of sorts.
2. Transcripts of these hearings are sealed not
public. CIA agents who are risking their lives
undercover to gather intel are revealed in these
hearings, if made public, all these operatives are
dead. Our public courts also protect police officers who are undercover in the same manner,
with the F.I.S.C. all the cases deal with Foreign
Intelligence gathered through infiltration.

You have to keep in mind that F.I.S.C. handles
Foreign Intelligence ONLY. The review court found
that the amended Patriot Act already imposes the
restrictions necessary to uphold the F.I.S.A. and
the Constitution, so no duplication needed.
A non-citizen(Foreigner) of the U.S. has no 4th
Amendment, a citizen of the U.S. does. A non-citizen terrorist can be tracked through F.I.S.C.
A citizen terrorist can be tracked through a Fed. court. The controversy comes into play when a non-
citizen terrorist is plotting with a citizen terrorist. Does the F.I.S.C. lose their ability
to grant tracking the non-citizen because a U.S.
person is involved? That's what the ACLU wants.
Is that in the best interest of America?
The DOJ has always had access over all the courts.
Just as the DOD has access over all the military,
and the SD has access over all States.
Nothing has changed, it's just becoming de-Socialized....and the Socialists will kick and
scream the entire way.

Let me know if I didn't answer them all.
Always a pleasure to talk with you,
I look forward to intelligent replies such as
yours.

Cairo · 11-27-2002, 02:42 AM

Hi Nic Name,
Are you Canadian?....if so, I apologize upfront
for what my 1st Amendment Right is prompting me
to say, I intend this to be taken in the most
respectful way possible.

I just have to say that " In a Socialist society
like Canada..." is more appropo.
Seems to me, this "yes man" propped up by the
Government of Canada is clearly saying, make up
some problems and I agree we need to access private
information, after all, Europe...our Socialist
Sister is doing it!

In a Constitutional Republic like the U.S.,
we have, obviously, our Constitution and the
courts. One single official deciding privacy
is hardly Democratic....or free.

slang · 11-27-2002, 02:48 AM

Hey Nic. You never told me you were a Canadian socialist. A pinko commie I can deal with. A Canadian socialist is over the line.

I'm taking my previous thank you back...:p

slang · 11-27-2002, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cairo
Is that in the best interest of America?
The DOJ has always had access over all the courts.
Just as the DOD has access over all the military,
and the SD has access over all States.

I see your point here and in the short term I would agree that this would be a good thing. History proves to us all that gov't never shrinks. Once the terrorist threat is eliminated, the people working in these depts wont just go home and leave us alone. They will increase their budgets every year as well as take on more people. Once the oringinal reason for the creation of a dept has been dealt with, they find another "evil" for them to chase after. Eventually there will only be 6 adult people in the US that dont work for the government in one way or another.

I think you are patriotic and well meaning but we will never really agree on this issue. You've made your points though and I respect them.

Nic Name · 11-27-2002, 05:49 AM

Hi Cairo,

[passive] I take you comments as well intentioned. [/agressive]

However, if I could be allowed a point of clarification:

Quote:

In a Constitutional Republic like the U.S.,
we have, obviously, our Constitution and the
courts. One single official deciding privacy
is hardly Democratic....or free.

The Privacy Commissioner is not a single official deciding privacy. We also have our Constitution and courts. We also have this Privacy Commmissioner, who is an additional ombudsman with a focus on privacy issues from the perspective of the individual.

He is a voice for the people on privacy issues and has standing to bring action in the federal courts against the government for challenges to behaviour that might be unconstitutional.

I guess in the USA there is the ACLU, which might support a suit by an individual or class. But that doesn't indicate a commitment of the legislature to advocate privacy rights of the individual as a matter of governmental policy, as well as a Constitutional right. I'm not saying the American system is wrong, in this regard. I do understand the separation of the branches of government and checks and balances.

It's good to have discussion of comparative democracies, rather than everyone starting and ending with the premise that the system they were born in is the be all and end all. I'm not evangelical about the Canadian political system. I see aspects that work and many that don't. Likewise, from my limited understanding of the political system in the USA, there is much to be emulated and some things that are less appealing to me.

I'm not arguing a case for one way over the other. Just exploring the differences and discussing points in common and of distinction.

Philosophically, I think that if both our democracies could get a free "constitutional do-over" there might be aspects of each system that are worth keeping for the next hundred years, and others which might be culled and left behind as anachronistic. We don't have to agree on what those are, but it's fun and enlightening to discuss on the merits. I'd abolish the Canadian Senate in a "regulated" heartbeat, if you get my meaning. Could you accept the notion of representation by population? What's with that electoral college that recommends to the Supreme Court which decides who should be President? That might be tweaked!

This thread seemed to me to be a good place to raise one point of difference: that Canada has Radwanski and the USA has Poindexter. On that small point, I'm happy with the Canadian approach to taking care of the privacy of the individual.

slang · 11-27-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

I see aspects that work and many that don't

I have a question you for Nic. How would you rate the Canadian health care system ? On a scale of one to ten, ten being the best, what has been your experience with it?

We here in the US have resisted it for a variety of reasons. Oregon just held a ballot initiative on socialized health care for Oregon only. It failed but I can't find out by how much.

The systems that have been proposed here are frightening.

Nic Name · 11-27-2002, 08:46 AM

Juju and I were just discussing that the other day, so my response is in this thread.

There you'll also find a wonderful discussion Maggie and I were having about the subtle differences between Canadian and US criminal law jurisdictions.

You should have been there. And Cairo, too!

slang · 11-27-2002, 11:00 AM

[passive] I take you comments as well intentioned. [/agressive]

I havent seen anything this funny since Hubris called me a mouth breather.

Cairo · 11-27-2002, 02:45 PM

Fair enough, slang, my friend.

But I'm still not sure of exactly what it is you disagree with me on...is it the actions of the F.I.S.C., or Homeland Security?

The size of Government can shrink, as it has before. During our 8 years under Clinton, he managed to shrink the Military to skeletal proportions, leaving our men and women who protect us on food stamps, in poverty, and a morale lower than their income. While at the same time, encouraging the break up of family by increasing benefits and support to Mary and her 5 kids if she promises to stay single.
Under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush, The Military needs to grow, thanks to Clinton, because protecting the safety of We the People is the Government's purpose. And the endless list of Federal Social(ist) "feel good" programs will shrink. It's not the Government's purpose to give taxpayer money hand over fist to research pig feces, give out condoms, or do the bidding for special interest groups.
So it all comes down to what part of the Government you feel should shrink.

You say,"Eventually there will only be 6 adult people in the US who don't work for the Government in one way or another."
Like in Canada? In a Socialist Country, yes, that is what happens. That is why I fight against it so hard, and do my part to empower We the People!
The question is simple, Do you want the Government to own and control Business, Hospitals, Energy, Transportation, Housing, and Food? Or do you want We the People to own and control it privately?

Cairo · 11-27-2002, 03:51 PM

Thanks for the explanation, Nic Name.
You might want to rethink the Canadian approach to privacy, because anytime a so-called "voice of the people" has his paycheck signed by the Government,
there is a huge conflict of interest involved.
Regardless of my contempt of the ACLU, the Government does not sign their paychecks.
Poindexter is not sworn in to uphold constitutional privacy, John Ashcroft is...so your Radwanski is a glorified John Ashcroft.

The electoral college is a safeguard put into place to stop voting fraud and ballot stuffing from affecting the outcome of the election. The US Supreme Court decided nothing of the kind, contrary to popular DemocRAT belief(they are wrong), the USSC's job is to keep check over State Supremes who fail to uphold it's own State's law on a National based issue(Presidency). Checks and balances.

We have certain procedures that must be followed and adhered to in order to "tweak" the Constitution. Any "free constitutional do over" would set a terrible precedence to go in and chip away at any of it, against the people's will.

You are correct in that no system in the World is the end all, be all. In a perfect World, we humans would be perfect...We're not.

warch · 11-27-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

That is why I fight against it so hard, and do my part to empower We the People!

11-26-2002, 05:51 AM	#78
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Don't be a dumb ass mouth breathing sycophant. You don't curry favour around here by aligning yourself with a pinko commie Canuck, anyway. Last edited by Nic Name; 11-26-2002 at 05:54 AM.

11-27-2002, 01:10 AM	#80
Cairo Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 91	Hi there slang, Thank you for keeping your mind open to knowledge in order to think for yourself, unlike some who think the way others tell them to think. I will try my best to answer all of your questions, but, man, you have a lot of questions! If I miss one, let me know, K? The F.I.S.C. has been Judging for Foreign Intelligence since 1976, I believe, so it is hardly a secret to anyone. The reason activists call it "ultra-secret" is, 1. Saying that to the American people helps their cause and support. Shock value of sorts. 2. Transcripts of these hearings are sealed not public. CIA agents who are risking their lives undercover to gather intel are revealed in these hearings, if made public, all these operatives are dead. Our public courts also protect police officers who are undercover in the same manner, with the F.I.S.C. all the cases deal with Foreign Intelligence gathered through infiltration. You have to keep in mind that F.I.S.C. handles Foreign Intelligence ONLY. The review court found that the amended Patriot Act already imposes the restrictions necessary to uphold the F.I.S.A. and the Constitution, so no duplication needed. A non-citizen(Foreigner) of the U.S. has no 4th Amendment, a citizen of the U.S. does. A non-citizen terrorist can be tracked through F.I.S.C. A citizen terrorist can be tracked through a Fed. court. The controversy comes into play when a non- citizen terrorist is plotting with a citizen terrorist. Does the F.I.S.C. lose their ability to grant tracking the non-citizen because a U.S. person is involved? That's what the ACLU wants. Is that in the best interest of America? The DOJ has always had access over all the courts. Just as the DOD has access over all the military, and the SD has access over all States. Nothing has changed, it's just becoming de-Socialized....and the Socialists will kick and scream the entire way. Let me know if I didn't answer them all. Always a pleasure to talk with you, I look forward to intelligent replies such as yours. __________________ ______________________________ The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World that he didn't exist. Keyser Soze

11-27-2002, 02:42 AM	#81
Cairo Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 91	Hi Nic Name, Are you Canadian?....if so, I apologize upfront for what my 1st Amendment Right is prompting me to say, I intend this to be taken in the most respectful way possible. I just have to say that " In a Socialist society like Canada..." is more appropo. Seems to me, this "yes man" propped up by the Government of Canada is clearly saying, make up some problems and I agree we need to access private information, after all, Europe...our Socialist Sister is doing it! In a Constitutional Republic like the U.S., we have, obviously, our Constitution and the courts. One single official deciding privacy is hardly Democratic....or free. __________________ ______________________________ The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World that he didn't exist. Keyser Soze

11-27-2002, 02:45 PM	#88
Cairo Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 91	Fair enough, slang, my friend. But I'm still not sure of exactly what it is you disagree with me on...is it the actions of the F.I.S.C., or Homeland Security? The size of Government can shrink, as it has before. During our 8 years under Clinton, he managed to shrink the Military to skeletal proportions, leaving our men and women who protect us on food stamps, in poverty, and a morale lower than their income. While at the same time, encouraging the break up of family by increasing benefits and support to Mary and her 5 kids if she promises to stay single. Under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush, The Military needs to grow, thanks to Clinton, because protecting the safety of We the People is the Government's purpose. And the endless list of Federal Social(ist) "feel good" programs will shrink. It's not the Government's purpose to give taxpayer money hand over fist to research pig feces, give out condoms, or do the bidding for special interest groups. So it all comes down to what part of the Government you feel should shrink. You say,"Eventually there will only be 6 adult people in the US who don't work for the Government in one way or another." Like in Canada? In a Socialist Country, yes, that is what happens. That is why I fight against it so hard, and do my part to empower We the People! The question is simple, Do you want the Government to own and control Business, Hospitals, Energy, Transportation, Housing, and Food? Or do you want We the People to own and control it privately? __________________ ______________________________ The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World that he didn't exist. Keyser Soze

11-27-2002, 03:51 PM	#89
Cairo Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 91	Thanks for the explanation, Nic Name. You might want to rethink the Canadian approach to privacy, because anytime a so-called "voice of the people" has his paycheck signed by the Government, there is a huge conflict of interest involved. Regardless of my contempt of the ACLU, the Government does not sign their paychecks. Poindexter is not sworn in to uphold constitutional privacy, John Ashcroft is...so your Radwanski is a glorified John Ashcroft. The electoral college is a safeguard put into place to stop voting fraud and ballot stuffing from affecting the outcome of the election. The US Supreme Court decided nothing of the kind, contrary to popular DemocRAT belief(they are wrong), the USSC's job is to keep check over State Supremes who fail to uphold it's own State's law on a National based issue(Presidency). Checks and balances. We have certain procedures that must be followed and adhered to in order to "tweak" the Constitution. Any "free constitutional do over" would set a terrible precedence to go in and chip away at any of it, against the people's will. You are correct in that no system in the World is the end all, be all. In a perfect World, we humans would be perfect...We're not. __________________ ______________________________ The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World that he didn't exist. Keyser Soze

11-26-2002, 05:37 AM	#77
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	thank you Nic, that means a lot coming from you...

11-27-2002, 02:48 AM	#82
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	Hey Nic. You never told me you were a Canadian socialist. A pinko commie I can deal with. A Canadian socialist is over the line. I'm taking my previous thank you back...:p

11-27-2002, 08:46 AM	#86
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Juju and I were just discussing that the other day, so my response is in this thread. There you'll also find a wonderful discussion Maggie and I were having about the subtle differences between Canadian and US criminal law jurisdictions. You should have been there. And Cairo, too!

11-27-2002, 11:00 AM	#87
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	[passive] I take you comments as well intentioned. [/agressive] I havent seen anything this funny since Hubris called me a mouth breather.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)