Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calling a Spade a Spade
Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last
To: The Documentary Lady
I've been going through my files to see if I can find the FReeper who said that.

Great. Now I have to bookmark this article so I can remember who said that...

51 posted on 12/04/2001 12:55:26 PM PST by Fintan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: LiberalBassTurds
Unfortunately, it appears many of his diehard supporters from that time can't find it within themselves to do the same for President Bush now.

I was never a supporter of Bill Clinton. Everything I said about him and Janet Reno above was entirely sincere. I simply reserve the right to hold Bush to the same standards I held Clinton to.

53 posted on 12/04/2001 1:14:53 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Amen. Much praise for posting this. Now to get it leaked into the papers.
54 posted on 12/04/2001 1:17:27 PM PST by Angry Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeEveryman
Exactly what gizmo do you have that will identify the funding, planning, and institution of a nuclear device in downtown Chicago without eroding any Constitutional Rights????

There's no such thing. There is also no gizmo to do that while eroding Constitutional rights. The dichotomy you've set up, between survival and liberty, simply doesn't exist.

In short...to you, are the deaths of millions an acceptable collateral damage of remaining able to continue your "banking in private?" Are you willing to see entire cities disappear from the planet in your country so that your email messages are not recorded by a third party? Can you accept the loss of major Fortune 500 companies within seconds in exchange for someone taking your picture as you enter a football game. Just asking...

You speak as if having freedom (i.e. being Americans) will make those thing happen. It won't, nor will the lack of freedom prevent them.

55 posted on 12/04/2001 1:18:48 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Picture what Clinton might have done, through crass political manipulation of the crisis. It would have been an excuse for a federal power grab.

I'm picturing it and the only thing I can come up with is what Bush has done.....

56 posted on 12/04/2001 1:22:40 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Doom
Big difference, one is an honorable gentleman. The other one, I can't remember how many wives she had, and there's Waco, the cuban boy who wanted freedom, the stonewalling of the clinton investigation,.....
57 posted on 12/04/2001 1:33:46 PM PST by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: Mercuria
You can damn well bet if the Pervert was around, he'd have no problem having his henchmen implement torture against whomever 'they' decide has done something wrong....he sure as hell wouldn't have a problem eavesdropping on attorney client relations or priest penitent relations....FBI files sound familiar? Terry Lenzer? Larry Flynt?

Aren't we glad the GOP doesn't do this sort of stuff.

59 posted on 12/04/2001 2:13:04 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
You classify this as tongue in cheek against the current WH occupant? Whatsa matta wid yu....doncha no General Hospial ain't a reflecshun of the reel wurld! Git yerself cot up on currint events!
60 posted on 12/04/2001 2:22:01 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"He might have gone further, letting federal law enforcement track what content a person accesses over the internet, and, in his boundless desire to have unlimited authority over ordinary people, he might have required a lower standard of proof than probable cause. Maybe the only requirement would be that it's relevant to an investigation."

In the 1960's, a federal agency known as DARPANET created the original internet connection backbone with public taxpayer funds. As universities and later corporations later clamored for access to this system, contracts were signed (voluntarily) which continued to treat data traffic on this backbone as open, public information (traffic originating from an ISP that is connected to one gateway isn't prohibited from view by the other gateways or backbone repeaters - and in fact the very nature of reading the address that is encoded on each TC/PIP "packet" REQUIRES that every piece of data on the internet be reviewed by every piece of equipment which the data passes over/through). Today, this internet backbone connects all internet gateways (ISP's connect to the gateways).

Thus, learned people consider internet data traffic to be public information. The situation of Carnivore is therefor similar to police officers watching public traffic on freeways, except that Internet traffic can be encrypted by those who desire privacy to prevent searches with far better accuracy than can be done with cars.

Of course, there will always be the Chicken-Littles of the world crying that the sky is falling on the bill of rights whenever a police officer watches traffic on either an interstate freeway or an internet information super-hiway...

61 posted on 12/04/2001 3:17:11 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Southack
In the 1960's, a federal agency known as DARPANET created the original internet connection backbone with public taxpayer funds. As universities and later corporations later clamored for access to this system, contracts were signed (voluntarily) which continued to treat data traffic on this backbone as open, public information (traffic originating from an ISP that is connected to one gateway isn't prohibited from view by the other gateways or backbone repeaters - and in fact the very nature of reading the address that is encoded on each TC/PIP "packet" REQUIRES that every piece of data on the internet be reviewed by every piece of equipment which the data passes over/through). Today, this internet backbone connects all internet gateways (ISP's connect to the gateways).

I know all of this. Your point?

Thus, learned people consider internet data traffic to be public information. The situation of Carnivore is therefor similar to police officers watching public traffic on freeways, except that Internet traffic can be encrypted by those who desire privacy to prevent searches with far better accuracy than can be done with cars.

Source.

Of course, there will always be the Chicken-Littles of the world crying that the sky is falling on the bill of rights whenever a police officer watches traffic on either an interstate freeway or an internet information super-hiway...

Free government is founded on suspicion, not confidence.

62 posted on 12/04/2001 3:26:42 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Did you know that "calling a spade a spade" is politically incorrect up the wazoo? Some poor schmuck used that term in a Sacramento Council board meeting and an African American on the board had a HUGE HISSY FIT accusing the schmuck of racism and on and on it went. Big cat fight. The African American board member ended up having to apologize (sort of). Thought you'd like to know for what it's worth. And I always thought they were talking about CARDS! For victory & freedom!!!
63 posted on 12/04/2001 3:33:04 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I've provided you with sources in the past, however, you've never demonstrated that such sources are capable of swaying your biased, preconceived notions. It would seem that you merely ask for sources as a bluff in the hopes that no one provides them, as it certainly seems otherwise pointless to do so.

Therefore, if you dispute that each packet of internet data traffic must be read by every piece of hardware which it passes through (i.e., public), then you are welcome to debate that point in any manner in which you seem fit.

And if you don't dispute it, then no source is needed.

64 posted on 12/04/2001 3:38:22 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
It is nice to see someone here that is calling the Piper's tune.
65 posted on 12/04/2001 3:50:13 PM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

It is nice to see someone here that isn't calling the Piper's tune.
66 posted on 12/04/2001 3:52:02 PM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Thank you Mr. Anarchy. I hate Clinton, but everything and everyone in the Gov. is not a jack booted thug. Indeed, the public doesn't have a clue as to the extent of crime in this country. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. In general, there is a lot of incompetancy, misguided Dem. programs, etc. But all are Americans, and have mothers, fathers and children as I presume do you. Therefor I would truct their judgement not to act imprudently more than yours.
67 posted on 12/04/2001 3:59:32 PM PST by Henchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Farson
Goodness, another Libertarian who joined FR at almost the same time as A.J...

Sure am glad that you agree with him.

< Chuckle >

68 posted on 12/04/2001 4:00:38 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I wasn't a libertarian when I signed up.
69 posted on 12/04/2001 4:04:49 PM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: John Farson
Sounds like you started out on the right foot, then.
70 posted on 12/04/2001 4:25:21 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I've provided you with sources in the past, however, you've never demonstrated that such sources are capable of swaying your biased, preconceived notions. It would seem that you merely ask for sources as a bluff in the hopes that no one provides them, as it certainly seems otherwise pointless to do so.

I'm sure that's exactly why you're showing no sources.

Therefore, if you dispute that each packet of internet data traffic must be read by every piece of hardware which it passes through (i.e., public), then you are welcome to debate that point in any manner in which you seem fit.

There's a difference between a piece of hardware and a person. No doubt, though, 200 posts from now you'll be saying I deny that packets of information are read by the hardware they go through.

71 posted on 12/04/2001 4:30:59 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"There's a difference between a piece of hardware and a person. No doubt, though, 200 posts from now you'll be saying I deny that packets of information are read by the hardware they go through."

Why leave such ambiguities to chance? Why not just state, unequivocably, that you either think that all internet packets are read by all machines (regardless of who owns each machine) that they cross, or not?

Is it really so difficult for you to take a black or white, firm stand on a single point?

72 posted on 12/04/2001 4:36:36 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Why leave such ambiguities to chance? Why not just state, unequivocably, that you either think that all internet packets are read by all machines (regardless of who owns each machine) that they cross, or not?

Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people.

73 posted on 12/04/2001 4:47:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
Think about what A.J. is trying to make you aware of, if Clinton appropriated these powers this forum would be calling for revolution.

Time to kiss the Constitution good-bye sheople.

74 posted on 12/04/2001 5:21:16 PM PST by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people.

Having people read them... Help Me understand something, what are you trying to get across with your writings? Are these "feel good" peices for people who already agree with you? Are you trying to win people over to your side, to propose alternatives to the current adminstration's approach? If so, what are they?

75 posted on 12/04/2001 5:23:01 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
Thanks UnBlinkingEye. I did pick up on that part of his post.
76 posted on 12/04/2001 5:24:23 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Don't hold back Merc,tell us how you really feel!!!

I know it's tough,living in Kalifornia but have ya'll considered getting a C&R License,it only costs thirty bucks and is good for three years.

Mine is due in the mail this week,it means I can buy any weapon over 50 years old or that have a specific historical interest and is listed on the ATF list from dealers or other C&R holders and have them shipped RIGHT to my door!

Check out www.milsurpshooter.net
It's a great gunboard and you'll find me there if I'm not freepin.

77 posted on 12/04/2001 5:33:42 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Allright,lets call a spade a shovel!
78 posted on 12/04/2001 5:37:48 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
I want to inspire people to fight to get rid of this stuff we've seen since the attacks. Actually, I'd like to get a rid of a lot more, but I'm willing to start small.
79 posted on 12/04/2001 5:39:20 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
I've been reading through the thread and see that you and yours have a personal loss on 911.

My condolences and prayers. BTW, in my prayer, I couldn't bring myself to use your screen name so I prayed for him (meaning you), my guess is God understands...

80 posted on 12/04/2001 6:32:55 PM PST by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people."

So since Carnivore isn't a person, you have no issue with the public messages being read by it. Good. Progress.

81 posted on 12/04/2001 6:40:00 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
Thank you UnBlinkingEye, your prayers and thoughts are much appreciated.
82 posted on 12/04/2001 6:41:59 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Southack
So since Carnivore isn't a person, you have no issue with the public messages being read by it. Good. Progress.

You think the government has a big system set up to read everyone's e-mails, but no actual person ever sees it? Sheesh.

83 posted on 12/04/2001 7:16:20 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Post #81 is for you (because I thought that you could use a laugh or two this evening).
84 posted on 12/04/2001 7:18:30 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You think the government has a big system set up to read everyone's e-mails, but no actual person ever sees it? Sheesh."

The government has had a system set up to read every packet of data traffic on the Internet since the FIRST day DARPANET's interconnection project went live. This is due to the technical need to recieve every packet, read every packet, decode the IP address in the header of every packet, process the IP address and then transmit the packet. People are very peripheral to this entire technical-level equation. Sure, some people see some raw packets every day, but most do not. Nonetheless, for all practical purposes every message is read in its entirity by government machines and never seen by humans.

Early Carnivore software might have just flashed a message that IP XXX had transmitted a message with the keyword "bomb" in it. The human might just see the IP address and the keyword, for all that you know.

And hey, you admitted that it doesn't bother you for machines to read and process public messages (this is actually MANDATORY for the Internet to even work in the first place, after all), so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

85 posted on 12/04/2001 7:25:18 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Southack
so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

Yes, it is an issue.

86 posted on 12/04/2001 7:28:12 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I think the Supreme Court will throw that out the first chance they get

- Don't hold your breath waiting

Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer.

87 posted on 12/04/2001 7:28:33 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Why not just state, unequivocably, that you either think that all internet packets are read by all machines (regardless of who owns each machine) that they cross, or not?

"Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people."

88 posted on 12/04/2001 7:50:22 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

"Yes, it is an issue."

I sense a contradiction coming along soon...

89 posted on 12/04/2001 7:51:34 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
What we allow now can be used later to justify things we would otherwise never have allowed. When emotional fevers run high, reason is the first to die.
90 posted on 12/04/2001 7:58:37 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I dare say, that any government, no matter how sound or properly laid out, with all the liberty and freedom you could desire, will always be damaged by evil men. Clinton was an evil man. A man that raped both a defenseless woman and a trusting Nation. I'm sure you know that, so I can only assume that this piece was intended to place President Bush in the same light...how sad.
91 posted on 12/04/2001 8:01:59 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Whatever point you think you have, come right out and say it.
92 posted on 12/04/2001 8:09:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Registered
I dare say, that any government, no matter how sound or properly laid out, with all the liberty and freedom you could desire, will always be damaged by evil men.

Which is why we must always be on our guard.

Clinton was an evil man. A man that raped both a defenseless woman and a trusting Nation. I'm sure you know that, so I can only assume that this piece was intended to place President Bush in the same light...how sad.

The point is to put the domestic legislation Bush pushed through on in the same light it would be in if Clinton pushed it through. Bush himself doesn't have to be evil to have extremely bad policies. Be honest: if Clinton had done this, would you be against it?

93 posted on 12/04/2001 8:15:43 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ThanksBTTT
Bump to find in the AM!
94 posted on 12/04/2001 8:17:22 PM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
On the one hand you claim that it doesn't matter if only machines are reading internet messages, but then on the other hand you claim to have an issue with machines reading internet messages.

You just can't admit when you're wrong, much less when you contradict yourself.

95 posted on 12/04/2001 8:22:25 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
"Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer."

Who has been denied an attorney?

96 posted on 12/04/2001 8:23:08 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
If an event of similar magnitude impacted us during President Clinton's term clearly the country would have backed him equally in his efforts to prevent a recurrence.

Please excuse, but I have a REALLY TOUGH TIME believing that.

REALLY tough.

Considering you lost a family member in the atrocity of 9/11, I can understand your feelings about our security and your rather acerbic feelings towards someone who does not look upon such a move as the "Patriot" Act as a legitimate security measure.

I am indeed very sorry that you lost loved ones to the actions of the terrorists, and apologize if I seemed insensitive to that, but your primary dialogue with me on this board was to question the veracity of contributors to my site re: their OPINIONS on issues, as well as my "truth in advertising" as it were.

That doesn't make you any less deserving of condolences for your loss, but it might bring into better light that, with your reaction to Mr. Armitage's opinions on certain actions by our Administration and my reaction to your backhanded implication that those columnists on my site (who love America and ARE patriots) are something more sinister, emotions are getting rubbed pretty raw around here.

I don't blame Mr. Armitage for being cynical about the implementation of the "Patriot" Act. This idea was lying around for MONTHS (like from January!), with those supporting it just waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so that those who are looking to increase the power (and let's be frank, the possible ABUSE) of Federal Government could play upon the fears of someone exactly in your situation to cram it through without comment from the public, without hindrance from the President...and hell, without even READING it themselves.

And considering the Feds admitted they knew the 9/11 attack was being planned for quite some time, it's rather tough for me and others NOT to be cynical about This Magic Solution suddenly popping up as The Answer To All Our Problems. "We're from the government and we're here to help you", as the old joke goes.

I'm POSITIVE if President Clinton signed something like this under such circumstances, the red warning lights would have been flashing like Rudolf's nose on Christmas Eve 'round these parts.

As to the current conflict (or war, whatever you want to call it)...I say find the bastards who did this and who assisted them, put them down, and then bring our troops home. No "nation-building" aftermath, if you please.

I think we've discovered over the past few years that too many of these people we've assisted in the past usually wind up NOT appreciating it.

And we've got more important things to do at home than set up future, dangerous foreign ingrates into positions of power.

97 posted on 12/04/2001 8:27:29 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Be honest: if Clinton had done this, would you be against it?

Of course. I'd be against ANYTHING the man did. But the premise of your question is grounded in absurdity. BECAUSE CLINTON WAS EVIL. Get it? The actions of an honorable man and the actions of an evil one, though they be similar in nature, will always end at two very different destinations. But frankly A.J., after following your discussions over the past few days I know that your opinions apparently cannot be impacted or changed. In other words, I think I'll save my breath.
98 posted on 12/04/2001 8:35:22 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer."

- Who has been denied an attorney?

Aside from a the few with lawyers complaining about no ability to see their clients, it is hard to say since they won't tell us who is being secretly held.

99 posted on 12/04/2001 8:35:41 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Are you familiar, in the least, with the culture of JAGs? Do you really think that you can claim that someone is unrepresented without any proof (and be taken seriously)?! You might as well make claims about space aliens that no one can verify (it's about the same level of paranoia either way)...
100 posted on 12/04/2001 8:40:13 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson