Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
And most significantly, because we have a constitution that says the Feds can't do that without a warrant.

If international mail can be opened without a warrant I don't know why international calls can't. I just don't think there can be an expectation of privacy with international calls if you know a foreign government can listen in. I think the law is wrong there.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Try responding to the whole post next time. It means little to point out the falls in the middle of my intentionally grandiose extrapilations.

In other words, I am not any less free now than I was before the patriot act.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
If international mail can be opened without a warrant I don't know why international calls can't. I just don't think there can be an expectation of privacy.

International mail can be opened? I was not aware of that. That is an outrage as well, as far as I am concerned.

I see the argument for there being no expectation of privacy when a person crossed a border. I am not sure I agree entirely, but I see the point (history has involved all sorts of checks at borders). But I do not think it applies to communications that cross borders.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
In other words, I am not any less free now than I was before the patriot act.

As long as you don't value your privacy, I agree.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given our success interdicting drugs from Canada and Mexico, I'm reasonably sure a national ban on handguns would have approximately the same results.

It seems to work for Western Europe. I think the death from handguns for most Western European countries is in the single digits (and if not, it is significantly smaller per capita than in the United States).

They seem to keep the guns out but not the drugs. Maybe it has something to do with metal detectors.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
As long as you don't value your privacy, I agree.

You still haven't pointed out a single instance where the patriot act has changed my privacy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
International mail can be opened? I was not aware of that. That is an outrage as well, as far as I am concerned.

During the cold war I believe every letter in and out of the Soviet Bloc was reviewed. I think the same was true of phonoe calls.

So you think I should be able to mail a pound of cocaine in the mail from Canada and it if is randomly opened I can claim my rights have been violated?

Shipments though the water and land can be inspected at the border why not the air? And if it is in the air, why does it make a difference if it is by US Mail our courier. What if letter comes into the United States by truck, can the rest of the truck be inspected but not the mail?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd say that the Bush administration is the least libertarian administration we've seen since FDR.

2 - The BA is less libertarian than the Clinton admin.

[Spanky]

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC
By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this week’s annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm a Humanist

Then why all the defense of Christianity?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC
By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this week’s annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

That is interesting. I wonder to what extent AIPAC is currently representative of the average Jewish voter these days. If it is, perhaps this will mean something in the next election.

But based on my far from representative personal experience, AIPAC may not be terribly representative anymore.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why all the defense of Christianity?

It is more than defense with him. It is active proclamation of the oppression of Christians.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
You still haven't pointed out a single instance where the patriot act has changed my privacy.

It gave Gonzales and his ilk an excuse.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
... I'd say that the Bush administration is the least libertarian administration we've seen since FDR.

Or to repeat myself, the current form of Republican is just a renamed Southern Democrat. George Bush is Lloyd Bentsen without the savvy.

Spanky: "I think Less is even more libertarian because I don't think Less would support the US getting involved in any foreign wars and he would end all zoning laws. At least that is the way he used to think."

Not quite. I have always agreed with the need for security from within and without to some degree. Now, however, I would opt for cheaper and more effective forms of addressing our enemies than the NeoCon's proven expensive and ineffective ones in Afganistan and Iraq (although nothing has been more ineffective, inefficient, ridiculous nad harmful abroad and within than the 80-year failure that is the so-called War on Drugs). I lean more towards better funded intelligence than armed services, and the use of assassination instead of the blunt instrument that is an army, navy or air force.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Former Wyo. Sen. Alan Simpson:

• As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review -- and overturn -- the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for "don't ask, don't tell." But much has changed since 1993.
  
  My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask, don't tell," including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

WaPo

Not that I think anyone on this board will disagree, but good for him.