Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What If...The Government Is Afraid Of Freedom?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What If...The Government Is Afraid Of Freedom?

    I recommend reading the entire article to fully understand what the author is saying, and the genesis of the argument. This is only an excerpt.

    What if President Obama came up with a scheme to make the spying appear legal? What if that scheme involved using secret judges in secret courts to issue general warrants? What if the Obama administration swore those judges to secrecy? What if it swore to secrecy all in the government who are involved in undermining basic American values? What if it forgot that everyone in government also swears an oath to uphold the Constitution? What if Edward Snowden violated his oath to secrecy in order to uphold his oath to the Constitution, which includes the Fourth Amendment, and spilled the beans on the government?


    What if all this spying by the feds has spawned spying by the locals? What if more than 50 local police departments now have received false cell towers from the FBI, but have sworn not to tell anyone about them? What if these towers trick cellphone signals into exposing the content of cellphone conversations to the police? What if the police have done this without the knowledge of the elected representatives who are their bosses? What if they do this without any warrants?
    What if the Supreme Court last year outlawed police invading cellphones without warrants?


    What if both Bush and Obama have argued that their first job is to keep America safe, and they will twist, torture the plain meaning of and even break laws in order to accomplish that job?


    What if the presidential oath is to enforce all laws faithfully, including ones the president may hate?


    What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president? What if the president’s first job is to preserve the Constitution? What if that includes the Fourth Amendment? What if the president keeps us safe but unfree?


    What if invading our freedoms keeps us less safe? What if the president has failed to keep our freedoms safe? What if the government doesn’t like freedoms? What if the government is afraid we will exercise them?
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...tcmp=obnetwork
    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He joined FNC in January 1998. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Suicide Pact: The radical expansion of presidential powers and the lethal threat to American Liberty.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

  • #2
    Interesting place to cut and paste from. Skipping this:

    What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -- and a pernicious private war against American values by unleashing American spies on innocent Americans as to whom there was no individualized probable cause so that it could create the impression it was doing something to keep America safe from another 9/11-like attack?

    What if the Bush folks took Reagan’s idea of spying on foreign spies and twisted it so that they could spy on not just foreign spies, but also on foreign persons? What if they took that and leapt to spying on Americans who communicated with foreign persons?

    What if they then concluded that it was easier to spy on all Americans rather than just those who communicated with foreign persons? What if they claimed in secret that all this was authorized by Reagan’s executive order and two federal statutes, their unique interpretations of which they refused to discuss in public? What if the Reagan order and the statutes authorized no such thing?
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      Don't read anything into my choice of where to make the excerpt, since it wasn't deliberate or motivated by any political considerations on my part, and Bush is mentioned in the excerpt in at least two places. Just my effort to avoid forum censorship for quoting too much.

      As I said initially, one has to read the entire article to get the proper context and follow the presentation of the author's argument, which takes us all the way back to the American revolution and the basis for our Constitution.

      Do you have any opinion on the actual article itself, or just concerned that Obama was mentioned?

      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Interesting place to cut and paste from. Skipping this:
        As difficult as it is, I have to take MM's side on this.
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I recommend reading the entire article to fully understand what the author is saying, and the genesis of the argument. This is only an excerpt.

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...tcmp=obnetwork
        Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He joined FNC in January 1998. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Suicide Pact: The radical expansion of presidential powers and the lethal threat to American Liberty.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Don't read anything into my choice of where to make the excerpt, since it wasn't deliberate or motivated by any political considerations on my part, and Bush is mentioned in the excerpt in at least two places. Just my effort to avoid forum censorship for quoting too much.

          As I said initially, one has to read the entire article to get the proper context and follow the presentation of the author's argument, which takes us all the way back to the American revolution and the basis for our Constitution.

          Do you have any opinion on the actual article itself, or just concerned that Obama was mentioned?

          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Don't read anything into my choice of where to make the excerpt, since it wasn't deliberate or motivated by any political considerations on my part, and Bush is mentioned in the excerpt in at least two places. Just my effort to avoid forum censorship for quoting too much.

            As I said initially, one has to read the entire article to get the proper context and follow the presentation of the author's argument, which takes us all the way back to the American revolution and the basis for our Constitution.

            Do you have any opinion on the actual article itself, or just concerned that Obama was mentioned?

            Interesting never the less.

            As far as the article I'd respect Judge Napolitano opinion more if he had not been part of the network that was trumpeting the opposite of:

            What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -
            He waited about 6 years to find his voice.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              Interesting never the less.

              As far as the article I'd respect Judge Napolitano opinion more if he had not been part of the network that was trumpeting the opposite of:



              He waited about 6 years to find his voice.
              So... You would respect his opinion more if he had been a part of a network that agreed with his opinion?

              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Or he thought his comment relevant, as do I.

                Of even greater interest is your obvious reluctance to address the issue of the government fearing the very freedoms it is sworn to protect, which is the issue I was hoping to discuss, especially in the context of the recent move to take control of the Internet, which greatly concerns many Americans as indeed it should.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  So... You would respect his opinion more if he had been a part of a network that agreed with his opinion?

                  No, I'd respect it more if he'd quit on principle instead of taking the money month after month after month. Don't call foul from your(the judge) mouth while the checks go into your bank account and expect me to praise you for it.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Judge Napolitano wrote this book back in 2004...


                    In this incisive and insightful book, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano peels back the legal veneer and shows how politicians, judges, prosecutors, and bureaucrats are trampling the U.S. Constitution in the name of law and order and fighting terrorism. Napolitano reveals how they:


                    • silence the First Amendment
                    • shoot holes in the Second
                    • break some laws to enforce others
                    • entrap citizens
                    • steal private property
                    • seize evidence without warrant
                    • imprison without charge
                    • kill without cause



                    Pundits on the right, left, and center have praised Constitutional Chaos for its penetrating examination of our rights and liberties in the post-9/11 world.

                    http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional.../dp/1595550402
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I read the entire article. Its pretty much nonsense.

                      I particularly found the fake cell tower part funny, especially the 50 police agencies were involved. That sounds ominous until you realize that Texas alone has 2600 police agencies. It also ignores the fact that the Feds have no authority over state or local agencies.

                      A bunch of rumors, unrelated facts, and hogwash presented in a question format to excite those who want to be excited.

                      For example, yes, last year the SC ruled the police need a search warrant to examine cell phones. It surprised no one; the only reason it was contested that far was to keep the option open for as long as possible. Long before the SC ruled police agencies, including mine, had obtained training and modified procedures to accommodate the search warrant process. It hasn't impacted the number of phones we search each year, it simply added one more form to the process. There is a pervasive myth that getting a search warrant is a complex or special process.

                      Technology changes, and the core aspect of freedom in the USA is that what is not forbidden is permitted; therefore examining cell phones was legal until the courts changed the rulings.

                      If the police and/or the Feds had a tenth of the power these rumors credit us with we would have run the cartels out of the country and broken the AB in a matter of weeks.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        No, I'd respect it more if he'd quit on principle instead of taking the money month after month after month. Don't call foul from your(the judge) mouth while the checks go into your bank account and expect me to praise you for it.
                        So... Rather than being a consistent voice of libertarianism and strict adherence to the Constitution on Fox News as a paid commentator, he should what?

                        Write letters to the editor and not get paid?
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Judge Napolitano wrote this book back in 2004...

                          In this incisive and insightful book, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano peels back the legal veneer and shows how politicians, judges, prosecutors, and bureaucrats are trampling the U.S. Constitution in the name of law and order and fighting terrorism. Napolitano reveals how they:


                          • silence the First Amendment
                          • shoot holes in the Second
                          • break some laws to enforce others
                          • entrap citizens
                          • steal private property
                          • seize evidence without warrant
                          • imprison without charge
                          • kill without cause



                          Pundits on the right, left, and center have praised Constitutional Chaos for its penetrating examination of our rights and liberties in the post-9/11 world.

                          http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional.../dp/1595550402
                          Its hogwash.

                          Fiction and facts out of context.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think only Thomas Jefferson trusted freedom and it didn't work out for him.

                            The first thing I did after 9/11 was book a flight to Europe. Cowards always get the tyranny they wish to avoid by electing caretaker governments. If Bush had gone on TV and said these criminals must not be allowed to alter our habits or policies and that America was not afraid of them we would be better off.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              I think only Thomas Jefferson trusted freedom and it didn't work out for him.

                              The first thing I did after 9/11 was book a flight to Europe. Cowards always get the tyranny they wish to avoid by electing caretaker governments. If Bush had gone on TV and said these criminals must not be allowed to alter our habits or policies and that America was not afraid of them we would be better off.
                              So....what you are saying is that taking steps to prevent another 9/11 was a mistake?
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X