|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
stillnotking"][
| Quote: |
| No. It does not. The US is perfectly capable of obtaining evidence from telecommunications companies. There is a legal procedure for doing this. The executive did not follow it, and chose instead to twist arms through backdoor, secretive channels. Now, why do you think that would be? Why would the government want to conceal its own surveillance activities from the secret court that ordinarily evaluates them, in accordance with the law? Does Al Qaeda have a plant on the FISA court? Or could it be -- just maybe, and bear in mind this is a totally wild hypothesis -- that the executive wanted to collect information that is not strictly germane to the stated goal of "fighting terrorism"? |
Now telephone companies will hesitate to cooperate with the govt because of law suits.
Right now there are 40 lawsuits against telephone companies for helping the govt.
They were trying to protect the US and now they are being sued for it. defending lawsuits is burdensome.
Now it is harder for the govt to get info on terrorists over the long term that means less info will be collected.
the program according to the govt had been very successful in gaining intel.
and now they have to go through a court to get new targets.
this is alll going to take time and some information will probably be missed.
There have been no attacks in the US since 9-11 , I don't think it is for lack of trying.
| Quote: |
| This is not a choice between "life" and "liberty". The federal government already has all the tools it needs to conduct surveillance of terrorist organizations, and absolutely no one is suggesting that it shouldn't do that. It just has to do it under the law, because America is (at least nominally) still a Constitutional Republic, and not an autocracy. |
How do you know it has all the tools already?
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Now telephone companies have to choose between helping the govt protect national security and being sued. |
| Quote: |
| Nope. They had to choose between allowing the executive branch to rifle through their customers' drawers, or asking it to come back with a warrant. If the cops asked your ISP to send them a log of all your internet traffic, and your ISP complied, you would be completely justified in filing suit. |
Takes time. The US is at war.
And all the conversations were not between two Americans talking in the US. It was when one of parites of the conversation was overseas.
It is funny they US can listen to an overseas conversation but if one member of the party is in the US the govt can't.
Actually it is worse than that : They can both be overseas but if the convesation passes through US equipment the govt can't listen w/o a warrant.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Why if those who are the enemy don't like something because it threatens them maybe there is something good about it. |
| Quote: |
| They don't like Judaism, either. Should we all convert? |
That analogy doesn't work.
| Quote: |
| It is, literally, nonsensical to base one's moral, political, or religious compass on the beliefs of a bunch of ignorant savages with no tradition of the rule of law. Automatically opposing anything Hezbollah likes is as ridiculous as automatically approving of it. And, for the record, I seriously doubt Hezbollah has any opinion one way or the other about telecom immunity, has the capacity to understand the issue, or indeed has ever heard of it at all. |
I am sure their fund raisers in the US have an opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You know, no offense, but I probably should have given up this argument when you cited the Declaration of Independence as the Constitution. Your post above is nothing but a regurgitation of pro-immunity talking points; most are factually false, and the rest are non sequitirs. For instance, the contention that getting warrants "takes time". Anyone who has actually read FISA, as opposed to letting Newt Gingrich or whoever read it for them, knows why that is a ridiculous statement. I don't think you're a stupid person at all, but I do think you need to read a lot more on this topic before you'll have an informed opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| You know, no offense, but I probably should have given up this argument when you cited the Declaration of Independence as the Constitution. Your post above is nothing but a regurgitation of pro-immunity talking points; most are factually false, and the rest are non sequitirs. For instance, the contention that getting warrants "takes time". Anyone who has actually read FISA, as opposed to letting Newt Gingrich or whoever read it for them, knows why that is a ridiculous statement. I don't think you're a stupid person at all, but I do think you need to read a lot more on this topic before you'll have an informed opinion. |
Pro-tip: Joo is a nice guy but you're wasting your time when the subject turns to Iran, terrorism, the PATRIOT act or any related subject. He will tire you out.
(no offense Joo) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen, eyes on the ball.
This is not about sex, lies, or videotape. Its about McCain's hypocrisy. He's no maverick, and he'll cave to a lobbyist.
| Quote: |
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the [Senate Commerce] committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell �Bud� Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters � but not the great bulk of television stations � off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with �fear and trepidation� at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson � and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Gentlemen, eyes on the ball.
This is not about sex, lies, or videotape. Its about McCain's hypocrisy. He's no maverick, and he'll cave to a lobbyist.
| Quote: |
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the [Senate Commerce] committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell �Bud� Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters � but not the great bulk of television stations � off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with �fear and trepidation� at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson � and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change. |
|
Not necessarily. He could have had second thoughts and changed his mind independently of the lobbyists. Or do you believe that once having articulated a position, politicians should never change their minds, regardless of what new evidence might come up or second thoughts they may have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if the reporter will get canned for the story? It brings back memories of the misreporting by CBS in 2004. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Gentlemen, eyes on the ball.
This is not about sex, lies, or videotape. Its about McCain's hypocrisy. He's no maverick, and he'll cave to a lobbyist.
| Quote: |
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the [Senate Commerce] committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell �Bud� Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters � but not the great bulk of television stations � off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with �fear and trepidation� at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson � and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change. |
|
Not necessarily. He could have had second thoughts and changed his mind independently of the lobbyists. Or do you believe that once having articulated a position, politicians should never change their minds, regardless of what new evidencemight come up or second thoughts they may have? |
Politicians get excoriated for changing their positions; it's called "flip-flopping". In light of this case, from what Kuros has provided, the 'new evidence' to change McCain's mind came not from a neutral source but from the mouth of his corporate sponsor, Paxson and Paxson Communications, crying out for his assistance.
And he says he's not in the pocket of special interests. 
Maybe 8 years ago was the last time he had sex.  Who cares? Oh right, staunch conservatives do.
He wants to be the "Straight Talker" and change Washington. Hell he's been there for 30 years! Where was his 'change' then? Oh right- keating 5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Pro-tip: Joo is a nice guy but you're wasting your time when the subject turns to Iran, terrorism, the PATRIOT act or any related subject. He will tire you out. |
The strength of dogma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Gentlemen, eyes on the ball.
This is not about sex, lies, or videotape. Its about McCain's hypocrisy. He's no maverick, and he'll cave to a lobbyist.
| Quote: |
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the [Senate Commerce] committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell �Bud� Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters � but not the great bulk of television stations � off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with �fear and trepidation� at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson � and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change. |
|
Not necessarily. He could have had second thoughts and changed his mind independently of the lobbyists. Or do you believe that once having articulated a position, politicians should never change their minds, regardless of what new evidence might come up or second thoughts they may have? |
I don't mind some changes in position. I liked Kerry in 2004. I actually wanted him to be nominated.
But the circumstances are fishy. This guy is supposed to be Captain Ethical, Mr. Anti-Special Interests, The Maverick.
Anyway, for what its worth, I don't think McCain philandered, and I wouldn't care if he did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Pro-tip: Joo is a nice guy but you're wasting your time when the subject turns to Iran, terrorism, the PATRIOT act or any related subject. He will tire you out. |
The strength of dogma. |
Your country wasn't attacked on 9-11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| You know, no offense, but I probably should have given up this argument when you cited the Declaration of Independence as the Constitution. Your post above is nothing but a regurgitation of pro-immunity talking points; most are factually false, and the rest are non sequitirs. For instance, the contention that getting warrants "takes time". Anyone who has actually read FISA, as opposed to letting Newt Gingrich or whoever read it for them, knows why that is a ridiculous statement. I don't think you're a stupid person at all, but I do think you need to read a lot more on this topic before you'll have an informed opinion. |
If the Democrats are correct on this issue then expalin this.
| Quote: |
Listening In
Without protection against lawsuits, are the telecoms less willing to cooperate with government spying efforts?
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:39 PM ET Feb 22, 2008
It's been barely a week since the Democratic-controlled Congress allowed a temporary electronic spying law to lapse. But U.S. intelligence agencies are already encountering problems maintaining and expanding vital operations, the Bush administration claims.
In a letter sent late on Friday to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that in the six days since the temporary law expired, some "partners" in intelligence operations have "reduced cooperation." According to two government officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive material, the "partners" referred to in the letter are (unnamed) U.S. telecommunications companies, who-with administration backing-have been aggressively lobbying Congress for a controversial clause in new electronic spying legislation. The clause would effectively wipe out a series of private lawsuits seeking damages against the telecoms for their cooperation with what civil libertarians and administration critics claim was an illegal expansion of electronic spying against targets inside the U.S.-an expansion authorized by President Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
In their letter, McConnell and Mukasey claim that since the so-called Protect America Act lapsed, partners "have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act."
The letter continues: "Although most partners intend to cooperate for the time being, they have expressed deep misgivings about doing so in light of the uncertainty and have indicated that they may well cease to cooperate if the uncertainty persists."
Mukasey and McConnell say that they are currently "working to mitigate these problems and are hopeful that our efforts will be successful." But they add that unless Congress passes a version of a new electronic surveillance bill, approved by the Senate, which includes the controversial retroactive lawsuit immunity for telecom companies, "the broader uncertainty caused" by the temporary spy law's expiration "will persist." The letter adds that: "This uncertainty may well continue to cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be collecting."
The letter amounts to a stepping-up of pressure on Democrats in Congress--and in the House in particular--to pass a surveillance bill to the liking of the White House and the telecom industry.
A majority in the Senate, with the backing of Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, approved a bill which would extend many provisions of the electronic surveillance law that recently expired. That legislation, which was opposed by a small group of liberal senators, would also give the telecoms the retroactive immunity they are seeking.
The administration and the Senate majority pressured the House to go along with the Senate bill. But the House approved a version which contained additional civil-liberties protections-and omitted any immunity for the telecoms. That left Congress deadlocked; the White House has indicated President Bush will veto any version of a new surveillance law that does not include the immunity provision.
The letter from Mukasey and McConnell does not spell out precisely what kind of new intelligence operations are being thwarted because of the congressional impasse. And administration critics, including Rep. Reyes, have recently accused the administration and its supporters of exaggerating the threat to current intelligence activities caused by the congressional standoff.
Administration critics note that eavesdropping operations undertaken under the intel law which just lapsed are allowed to continue for 12 months after they were first authorized. However, administration officials claim the telecoms are nervous that the situation leaves them with insufficient protection against new private lawsuits.
In a statement released late Friday, Reyes, Rockefeller and several other Democrats lashed out at the White House's tactics. "Further politicizing the debate, the administration today announced that they believe there have been gaps in security since the Protect America Act expired. They cannot have it both ways; if it is true that the expiration of the PAA has caused gaps in intelligence, then it was irresponsible for the President and congressional Republicans to openly oppose an extension of the law. Accordingly, they should join Democrats in extending it until we can resolve our differences." |
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114572/output/print |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Finally, a New York Times apology over this garbage.
New York Times Ombudsman Faults Paper on McCain Romance Story
| Quote: |
The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper�s public editor wrote in Sunday�s online edition.
The editors and reporters were on to a good story about the Arizona senator�s fight against special interests at the same time he had appeared to do a favor for one, wrote Times Ombudsman Clark Hoyt, but charges that the relationship went beyond politics and into romance was a distraction without evidence. He added that Executive Editor Bill Keller�s argument that the story wasn�t about an affair belies the article�s narrative.
�I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide,� Hoyt wrote.
On Thursday, McCain held a press conference to deny charges that he and Iseman, 40, had had an affair nine years ago while she was lobbying for his assistance to get the Federal Communications Commission to rule on her client�s application for approval of the sale of a television station. McCain, 71, who was the Senate Commerce Committee�s chairman at the time, wrote the FCC asking the commissioners to make a decision but did not ask them to rule one way or the other.
McCain, with his wife by his side, answered questions for 15 minutes, and flat out denied a sexual relationship. The focus then turned to the newspaper, which wrote that McCain�s 2000 presidential campaign staff had tried to keep him and Iseman apart for fear their relationship would hurt his campaign.
In Sunday�s post-mortem, Hoyt wrote, �The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately � an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether (McCain aide John) Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance.�
Hoyt said as a result, the newspaper is in the �uncomfortable position of being the story� because �although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics � sex � it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.�
The McCain camp knew for months that the Times had been working on the article, and staffers had been worried that the article could have been a real crusher. In the end, however, the campaign was able to put a positive spin on the story, even using the article as a fundraising tool last week, saying if the so-called liberal New York Times is trying to smear him, then it demonstrates he�s more of a conservative then Republican opponents had suggested.
McCain has been on the hunt for conservative voters during this primary season, and in Washington, D.C., last night, he courted the 22 Republican governors who were in town for a national governors convention. McCain needs to tap into the group�s resources, both in their ability to unify the party as well as their get-out-the-vote organizations ahead of the general election in November.
Still uncertain is which Democratic candidate he likely will be challenging in November. With that in mind, McCain told the governors he is ready to take on either contender.
Referring to promised tax hikes on the wealthy, McCain joked with the governors. �I notice that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama say only on the very rich. I think a lot of people find themselves astonished to find themselves in that category when the Democrats are going to only tax the quote very rich.�
Neither McCain nor his rival Mike Huckabee have any public appearances on Sunday, but McCain came closer Saturday to winning the GOP nomination, picking up additional delegates as a result of voting in American Samoa and Puerto Rico. McCain still needs about 200 more to get to the magic number of 1,191. Huckabee, meanwhile, has 254 delegates, and aware of the mathematical inevitability of McCain�s nomination, went on Saturday Night Live for a comic turn about his knowing when to bow out of the contest. |
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/new-york-times-ombudsman-faults-paper-on-mccain-romance-story/
Left-wing doesn't have to mean sloppy journalism. Hopefully, the times learns from this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
