Posted on 05/13/2009 6:41:17 AM PDT by MuttTheHoople
May 13, 2009 | In John Frankenheimer's taut 1964 film, "Seven Days in May," the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appalled at a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union, plot a coup d'état to remove the president whom they regard as too soft and naive about the evil of America's enemies. The screenplay by Rod Serling (based on a 1962 novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II) is filled with passionate lines that seem right out of today's talk radio -- "intellectual dilettantes" versus patriotism; America's loss of "greatness"; the superiority of military experience to civilian judgment and governance.
Yes but how is it a violation of your rights? It does nothing to deny you of your rights to due process at all. You seem to assume that just because a type of infrastructure is set up to deal with threats that has a possibility of abuse that it is then automatically a violation of people’s rights. That is a wrong assumption. Almost every government institution has the possibility of being used to abuse the rights of others but that ‘possibility’ does not make it an abuse automatically. If and when an abuse occurs and can be proven then you will have a point but right now you seem to just be paranoid, imo.
Camille is a little behind on the news, or has missed some important tidbits.
Cheney "intruded" into the news recently, most likely because he and others from the previous administration are being threatened with bogus war crime trials in foreign courts.
Since the court of public opinion is the only one that matters these days, Cheney was correct in presenting his case there. It doesn't hurt his case to also use that time to point out the absurdities of the current regime.
Been there, done that...
Good!
I take it your radio is stuck on one station, it has no off button, and you're in a full body cast with no one to care for you who could pull the plug!
I'm getting "turned off" by the pseudo-conservatives on FR whose sensibilities are being damaged from the "shrillness," not to mention repetitiveness, of conservative talk radio just like the liberals.
LOL! I see no need to prove my conservative credentials to the likes of you, who can’t even find the time to post any information about yourself on a FR webpage. That, to me, reeks of ‘troll.’
I’m not the one knocking conservatives as “shrill and repetitive:” you are. Nice try leftard.
1. Liberals, who are now in power in Washington, do in fact hate America and want to dismantle its foundational institutions and liberties, including capitalism and private property.
2. Liberals are in fact rootless internationalists who cravenly appease those who want to kill us.
3. The primary principle of conservatives is in fact love of country, for which we are willing to sacrifice and die.
4. America's identity was in fact forged by Christian faith.
5. Any U.S. soldier, given a gun with two bullets and stuck in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, would use both bullets on Pelosi and strangle the other two.
I have always been far more concerned about the fact that the IRS goes through the records of every cent that I earn or spend than I am about whether the NSA might be listening in when I call someone overseas.
I’d say I hit home, troll.
I almost spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that one.
Obama is pandering to the 90% of black voters who are opposed to gay marriage. His far left wing base is giving him a pass because they know he doesn't really mean it.
WOW! Are you saying that snoops from the NSA did did not violate anyone's rights when they compared notes and cracked jokes on the phone sex conversations of American solidiers talking to their spouses? See here.
See #92.
I’m saying that it’s long been established that the words of our troops to those back home would be monitored. Goes back to WWII.
The gravity of this case was unfortunately overshadowed by feisty comedian Wanda Sykes' clumsy jibes at Rush Limbaugh the next night at the Washington Correspondents Dinner. Sykes (who is usually hilarious) was rushed and inept, embarrassing herself and her hosts. But what Mark Davis did, in irresponsibly broadcasting Feherty's vile fantasy, was an inflammatory political act that could goad susceptible minds down the dark road toward "Seven Days in May."
So Davis' act was an inflammatory political act (which will goad talk radio dummies to murder), while Sykes was just awkward.
How cute.
First off these are not civilians but acting military personnel and are subject to military and National Security laws that certainly differ then the laws civilians live under. If the military wanted to search their locker or person would they need a search warrant? I doubt it.
But even putting that point aside - this does not in any way prove that the NSA wiretapping program is un-Constitutional or is violating anyone’s rights. This story is about individuals possibly abusing the system. If a police officer abuses a civilian’s rights does that mean that the entire system of using police forces is un-Constitutional? Obviously that is absurd just as claiming that just because we discovered some operatives who abused the NSA surveillance program that it would mean the whole program is un-Constitutional or a violation of rights.
When did I question the "entire system of using police force?" I am stunned at the remarkable trust in big government by some on this site. When Obama starts shutting down talk radio will use a similar argument to shrug it off.
As I understand ECHELON, and I have only a smatering, it is not a legal violation of our rights. It does however, violate the sprit of our privacy rights.
So, technically you are correct.
I however, have good reason to be paranoid. So does everyone else.
Where did I claim that you did? I was making an analogy.
I agree with what you are saying. I have no more level of understanding of ECHELON then you do of it I’m sure. It obviously is not something that inspires the ideal of privacy.
I also have no problem with having debate about the merits of such a program. I believe that National Security is very important but we need to debate any and all ideas for enhancing it with our liberty and freedom strongly in mind.
After I wrote my last response to you I was thinking that a good argument could possibly be made that the ECHELON program could have to much potential for being abused. It may not be in and of itself a violation of our rights but the potential for abuse may be greater then the security it is intended to provide.
I am not sure. I will give it more thought I’m sure.
I do agree that we all have a need to be somewhat paranoid when it comes to government power. I’m sorry if my comment to you made it seem as if we shouldn’t be.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your honest answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.