Hah, yeah, I think so. I already have American Citizenship ... but all the news I read and the things that go on down here ... blah. It's certainly a deterrent. Along with the general outlook on Politics, Medicare, and taking care of their own damn people.
As a general POV, it sure says a lot about a society when they feel they can't even trust their own citizens. Misrepresentation ftw. This isn't about keeping Americans 'safe' - it's about exploiting their 'God-given' rights already outlined in the Constitution. I call bullshit.
Hahaha. It should be an interesting experience. :)
Yes, the very basic idea that these surveillance mechanisms were put in place after 9/11, supposedly as some "anti-terrorism safeguard", is utter bullshit of the highest kind.
Still, what are we supposed to make of the author of the article, a victim of government surveillance back in the 70s, but insists there's more to the bill than what everyone supposedly realizes?
I'd rather the whole concept of domestic surveillance be done away with, period. Of course, that's not happening any time soon. Which leaves the U.S. public with, what--a "weaker" FISA bill than whatever the Bush admin would've preferred to have seen approved by the Senate? And if so, how "weak" are we talking? And what mechanisms would have been used/pursued had the bill failed?
Personally, that's where I get stuck, yet it seems few people--including those who condemned the bill--are able to provide a nuanced, comprehensive breakdown of the legal logistics around those sort of questions.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As a general POV, it sure says a lot about a society when they feel they can't even trust their own citizens. Misrepresentation ftw. This isn't about keeping Americans 'safe' - it's about exploiting their 'God-given' rights already outlined in the Constitution. I call bullshit.
Reply
Yes, the very basic idea that these surveillance mechanisms were put in place after 9/11, supposedly as some "anti-terrorism safeguard", is utter bullshit of the highest kind.
Still, what are we supposed to make of the author of the article, a victim of government surveillance back in the 70s, but insists there's more to the bill than what everyone supposedly realizes?
I'd rather the whole concept of domestic surveillance be done away with, period. Of course, that's not happening any time soon. Which leaves the U.S. public with, what--a "weaker" FISA bill than whatever the Bush admin would've preferred to have seen approved by the Senate? And if so, how "weak" are we talking? And what mechanisms would have been used/pursued had the bill failed?
Personally, that's where I get stuck, yet it seems few people--including those who condemned the bill--are able to provide a nuanced, comprehensive breakdown of the legal logistics around those sort of questions.
/verbose
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment