Future Lawyers to be proud of

[Bird_Dog0347]

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.



To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.



Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument a new asshole.

And, as one of the people on the panel said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again 'it's lawful', and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."
- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor

It was a good day for dissent. Patriotism lives!

[Apdl]

this make me so f*&$ing angry these damn ppl would rather die than have their calls listen to!
this is in the wrong area btw

[jednp]

even tho this is in the wrong area i'm gonna respond to it anyway. it's pretty obvious this wasn't some "ballsy" move the students made. ballsy would be if they did it unexpectedly.. it's obvious this was a planned thing to have him come there so they could try to embarass him.

[Gadget]

I would like to first preface my statements with the fact that I am all for liberty, the Constitution and the Rights afforded us by the USA and the blood of those who have died for it. I admit to being somewhat on the fence on this issue. I am a fan of the quote by Benjamin Franklin, that as far as I can determine, is "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So here is my question. These civil disobedients are against the terrorist surveillance program, saying that liberty is being usurped by the government. How exactly is their/our liberty being taken away?

The government, and all patriots in my opinion, have a responsibility to protect the country from forces that seek to destroy it. From my understanding of the program, Echelon (computers) scan communications looking for keywords known to be used by aforementioned forces, and/or communications from/to aforementioned forces. Only when hits are encountered based on content and/or source/target identity of communications, are said communications given greater inspection by humans. Do we stop our surrveillance of terrorists inside/outside our borders, to not invade the privacy rights <sic> of said terrorists/enemies, that by their very nature, seek to destroy the very liberties we hold dear?

Flaming season is now open.

[Bird_Dog0347]

When I was younger, I was taught that if the government can come and take away one of our rights, it makes it that much easier for them to take the next one. Along the saying of give them an inch, they will take a mile. In my adult life I have found this to be VERY true where women are concerned. Not that I am bashing women here, please do not misunderstand me, I am simply stating what I know to be true. Why is it OK for the government to SPY on you if they think you are a terrorist, but if you are a drug runner they are required to get a court order to tap your phones? Lets be honest here, drugs kill more people anually than terrorists, period.
So, lets say you are the suspect in a fraud case, but they cannot pin it on you, not quite enough evidence. What if all the sudden they simply said they believe you are a terrorist so that they could then get the evidence they need to arrest you? That would be the true fraud. I am not saying our system is without flaws, but it IS our legal system and our feedoms are what make America so great.
I am a patriot, very much so. But, being a patriot to me means standing up for what this country was built on, escape from big/oppressive government. When our constitution was written, terrorism was not that big of a concern. Liberty was. That constitution grants us the liberties we enjoy, it does not give government the right to infringe upon them because they BELIEVE someone is a terrorist.

[ichy_trigger]

No flame from me, they were watching and listening for over seas chatter, not spying on American citizens.

When terrorists strike in America again (the will) the liberals will say Bush could have done more!

Honestly, who's life has been changed with the results of the Patriot act??? Whos life was changed as a result of the "listening"???

I dont know if anyone else listened to the Sean Hannity show today but he had on the former Iraqi Airforce commander who readily admits that he did not try to stop Saadam because he followed orders. But he did say that he saw with his own eyes that Osama was in Iraq in the 90's.
He also said that Iraq loaded all WMD's onto converted 747's and 727's and all records and sent them to Syria in 2002.

[Oni]

I'm not partial to either of the major sides when it comes to unauthorized surveilance of U.S.A. citizens, although if foreign terrorism is such a threat then I guess new precautions must be implemented by whatever government there is to keep what you hold dear safe. I'm sure that people have different definitions of liberty but I tend to agree with the one www.dictionary.com has:

"lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
"

Unauthorized surveilance really does not clash with said liberty, except with the definition that states "A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention.", but doesn't prevent us from doing certain things (except making naughty phone calls ), though it does totally destroy privacy which U.S.A. citizens should be entitled to.

One benefit of unauthorized surveilance, other than preventing terrorism, would be give the government a better view on what kind of citizens they are governing, which could be an invaulable tool for aiding, building, and strengthening the communities of humans that are the paramount constituent parts of the United States.

I also noted what bird mentioned about the constitution being written before terrorism was a major issue, which is a valid point. I think it's time for an addition or 2.

[brian40]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

When terrorists strike in America again (the will) the liberals will say Bush could have done more!

Yep.

[Mike TRT]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

No flame from me, they were watching and listening for over seas chatter, not spying on American citizens.

When terrorists strike in America again (the will) the liberals will say Bush could have done more!

Honestly, who's life has been changed with the results of the Patriot act??? Whos life was changed as a result of the "listening"???

I dont know if anyone else listened to the Sean Hannity show today but he had on the former Iraqi Airforce commander who readily admits that he did not try to stop Saadam because he followed orders. But he did say that he saw with his own eyes that Osama was in Iraq in the 90's.
He also said that Iraq loaded all WMD's onto converted 747's and 727's and all records and sent them to Syria in 2002.

exactly......listening (actually more like monitoring) to international calls, the NSA isnt listening in on us....just another reason for some people to bitch.......

as far as those lawyer students, the hell with them.....Ive got no use for 99% of them, and the teachers are brainwashing the youth of this nation

[kennyusmc1]

Originally Posted by Bird_Dog0347

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.



To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.



Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument a new asshole.

And, as one of the people on the panel said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again 'it's lawful', and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."
- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor

It was a good day for dissent. Patriotism lives!

Thank you for your posts... for those that feel so strongly about the 2nd ammenment remember that the other ammendments must also be supported. BUSH was on watch when the terorist attacked... BUSH ignored the Pressidential Daily Briefing that warned of this type of ATTCK.. wakeup ...