Pentagon Admits Fault in Domestic Spying

[danarhea]

You know, its funny that the Quakers were under surveillance. They are so dangerous to the country, followed by terrorism and nuclear proliferation of course. If I recall right, James Madison once asked if maybe the Quakers were the only religious people to be trusted, when he was arguing against the government control Christianity wanted in his time.

Kind of an interesting post. Got any links you could throw up here? I would like to check them out. I am very much aware of the extent the clergy controlled the government in colonial times.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Wait, dont throw up the links. I dont like messes. Just post them, OK?

 

[aps]

So create something. Boredom has never stopped you before.

Shall I say I had an affair with Rove? :lol:

 

[danarhea]

Shall I say I had an affair with Rove? :lol:

Interesting bit of information here. I think I will start a thread in teh basement about that. Hehe.

 

[Carl]

You know, its funny that the Quakers were under surveillance.

The Quakers have an organization that lobbies for pacifist policies. They promote unilateral disarmament, opposed the "Bunker Buster" missile program, etc.

It's not hard to see how they might have got into the database.

 

[alphamale]

The 'provisions,' which haven't been made law yet afaik, are just for the pre-fooled, so to speak. The issue is constitutional. It would take an ammendment to counteract the force of another ammendment (the 4th) to the constitution. Even if the milktoast attempt at legitimacy passes both houses, it has no real bearing on the consititutionality of warrantless searches of Americans.

Nonsense. FISA itself is unconstitutional in that it was an attempt by congress to limit the powers of the president, a violation of the separation of powers. Presidents have only voluntarily complied with it since it was enacted. Especially in war time, the president is well within his powers as commander in chief to take the necessary means to fight the enemies of the U.S., foreign and domestic.

 

[Carl]

FISA itself is unconstitutional in that it was an attempt by congress to limit the powers of the president, a violation of the separation of powers.

Precisely correct, and the resistance to FISA by the administration was largely intended to challenge that usurpation of Executive power.

FISA itself, a Carter era artifact if I'm not mistaken, allows broad exceptions to the Executive during times of war in recognition of the Constitutional powers of the CIC. A fact that is not widely reported.

 

[danarhea]

Precisely correct, and the resistance to FISA by the administration was largely intended to challenge that usurpation of Executive power.

FISA itself, a Carter era artifact if I'm not mistaken, allows broad exceptions to the Executive during times of war in recognition of the Constitutional powers of the CIC. A fact that is not widely reported.

Sorry, but executive power cannot trump the Constitution. Bush is a President, not a King.

 

[tryreading]

Kind of an interesting post. Got any links you could throw up here? I would like to check them out. I am very much aware of the extent the clergy controlled the government in colonial times.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Wait, dont throw up the links. I dont like messes. Just post them, OK?

Its from his 'Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.' You should read the whole text when you get a chance, it is very enlightening:

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

 

[tryreading]

The Quakers have an organization that lobbies for pacifist policies. They promote unilateral disarmament, opposed the "Bunker Buster" missile program, etc.

It's not hard to see how they might have got into the database.

Wow. What crimes the Quakers commit.

I guess the government feels that turning the other cheek is a threat to national security.