Tracy Press

...
written by Patriot , March 12, 2008

What anti terror measure? McNerney is right in opposing the bill that includes the retroactive amnesty to the telephone companies, which violated the US constitution of right to privacy of the American Citizens. Bush has been using the national security card to scare ignorant Americans, who don't understand that the FAISA law already allows the FBI and CIA to wiretap and other kind of spying. There is no need for additional power for FBI and CIA to protect national interest.

If you erode the privacy by giving the unlimited power to these agencies, which have been known to misuse the power, what is going to be the next? Knock on door at the middle of the night like Fascist and Communists.

...
written by tmv , March 12, 2008

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Understand that the Protect America Act allowed for massive gathering of international communication (phone calls and email) of not only "terrorists" but also any and every American at the whim of the White House WITHOUT court oversight. One could say, well if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear... but are you really willing to give up your freedom and privacy to any administration, let alone this one? Does the word tyranny come to mind and Thomas Jefferson's rant against it?

This Administration HAD information about a possible terrorist attack a month before September 11 and was not able to prevent an attack.

Rep. McNerney was protecting your rights and mine, created by the Founding Fathers of 1787, when he refused to vote for renewal of the Protect America Act.

...
written by Sal , March 12, 2008

Mary Park is an ignorant Central Valley redneck that falls for Bush’s fear mongering. She is a person willing to see our constitution get walked all over by telephone companies. I love your “Thanks so much, Rep. McNerney, for harming our people”… what a joke you are Mrs. Karl Rove. Way to smear a good man like Jerry McNerney.

...
written by Ralph Gott , March 12, 2008

You all are invited to catch Mary Park teach her course in Republican Fear Mongering 101 at San Joaquin Delta College. She will cover the following topics:

•Ways to lie to your neighbors about how terrorists are all around
•How to be an ignorant bigot
•How to blindly believe everything Bush has to say
•How to destroy the US constitution out of fear
•Ways to bash a good congressmen because you have no real evidence to suggest he is doing poorly

...
written by Sal , March 12, 2008

It appears Ben Franklin is a member of the inbred redneck community

...
written by aguyinTracy , March 12, 2008

Who mobilized the moveon.org talking points people? Just a tip, when calling people redneck and bigot and ignorant are your main arguments, you are the one who appears ignorant.

As for patriot, your assertion that FISA and other existing laws cover everything we (the 'we' being the USA) need for surveillance is wrong. Simple stuff like new technologies which allow terrorists to communicate via the internet are not covered by FISA and therefore an amendment was needed.

Further argument that the laws have been misused and therefore should be abolished because of the slippery slope scenario you have dreamed up is simply a case of trying to scare 'ignorant Americans'.

...
written by tmv , March 12, 2008

Sal is my lover!

...
written by Mjolnir , March 12, 2008

McNerney is a commie fag! Just like tmv and sal!

...
written by Dale Cose , March 12, 2008

...
written by Ralph Gott , March 12, 2008
"You all are invited to catch Mary Park teach her course in Republican Fear Mongering..."

Though before that... catch the post of an ignorant lefty telling you his bigoted view.


written by tmv , March 12, 2008
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

I argued that line with one of Al Gore's Florida Supreme Court attorneys in 2003 when he used it on me.
I laughed at him and said, If you're going to attribute a quote to Franklin... at least get it right.
His response was, "Well, I'm sure its just a distinction without a difference."

Looking at him... I laughed even harder and said, So, makeup any quote you want?


Those of us on the right need to accept the fact that Democrat politicians reject action unless you give them a freshly dead body for proof... actually, you need a bunch of dead people.

3,000 dead on 9/11 is old news,
and even the count now is insufficient.
You need at least 6 figure number to get a little attention

...and Achmed is being appreciating everything you doing for his behalf.

...
written by Mark Davis , March 13, 2008

Awww, so we shouldn't be concerned about our civil rights whenever there is a potential threat? Under that logic we should give up our cars because of the scientific consensus on global warming! I'll instead opt for FISA oversight of any domestic spying. That's just prudent:

Hear reason, or she'll make you feel her.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 13, 2008

Whether your for or against it's assured analysis there's an intersting book by David Kessler "The Terrorist Watch:" Which suggest over 5,000 terrorists have been "rolled-up" due to the very hard work of the FBI and CIA post 911.
To me it sounds like the Maytag Repair Guy sitting next to a main frame waiting for orders in a hidden room somewhere in an AT&T building in San Francisco where the premise of phone companies to use illegal "splitters" takes precedent over President Bush's (hypocricy re human rights.
I'm not entirely sure Ben Franklin ever met Achmed (no reference to ethnicity here by D.C., an apparatus for concern about balance in biggotry)
Try 7,000 dead since 911 Iraq Afghanistan.
How is it you need "six figures to get noticed?"

...
written by Mark Davis , March 13, 2008

KL: Found it, though it is "Ronald Kessler". I may pick it up. It's a tax write-off for me.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 13, 2008

How'd you score that deal M.D.? Anyway back to my rant for a moment: (Cont. from above) You may want (me) to take a timeout after this one.
It's absurd! These are the same people sitting in off-shore club-med for enemy combatants (Guitmo: If they weren't then they are now) awaiting trail; Like how many? Five so-far have been served with litegation?
In the meantime we're cleaning-up all the sketchy cpo's and fraudulent bank accountant's stealing investors' kids college funds and senior's "nest eggs" or making show ponies out of Martha Stewert.
How long did it take the "trip-wire guys" to catch N.Y. Gov. Spitzer -ten years?
"Never wink when you can nod, and never text or send E-mails" Gee, you think Azez (or whatever you call "them") is listening... to the former attorney general of N.Y.?
You're like the guy who wants things both ways. It's no wonder this country is hungry for change.
We've been lied to and ravaged by politians and corporate (where's the so-called public trust, e.g. ethics?) officals at every turn?
Yea, yeah, I know your intent is to keep reminding me about "the big hypothetical," "What If...?" "And Just Wait..."
So why didn't your god Reagan an "pops #41 have the testosterone to take it futher? Instead you'all want to sit around and blame Clinton?
Don't worry I plan on being here and dealing with it.

...
written by One if by land... , March 13, 2008

Seems like it is always the same flip-flops posting on here. And probably the same one who wants Tucker's emails? Now saying the telephone companies are walking all over us.

Grow up, Internet artists! Paid?



written by Sal , March 12, 2008
Mary Park is an ignorant Central Valley redneck that falls for Bush’s fear mongering. She is a person willing to see our constitution get walked all over by telephone companies. I love your “Thanks so much, Rep. McNerney, for harming our people”… what a joke you are Mrs. Karl Rove. Way to smear a good man like Jerry McNerney.

...
written by Dale Cose , March 13, 2008

written by Mark Davis , March 12, 2008
Awww, so we shouldn't be concerned about our civil rights whenever there is a potential threat?
You’re right, I see the light.
We need more civil rights for Sheikh Khalid Mohammed types calling Mohamed Atta types about the latest baseball stats, oh… and the latest weather reports for Manhattan.

“Under that logic we should give up our cars because of the scientific consensus on global warming”
An incredidble reach, unbeliveable. Best stretch you’ve never made.

Note: No muscles were injured by the scribe while penning his yarn.


Dale, “3,000 dead on 9/11 is old news”

Kurt, “Try 7,000 dead since 911 Iraq Afghanistan.”

You try it… its your point, mine was about the 3,000 that died on 9/11.

“How is it you need "six figures to get noticed”
Apparently 4 isn’t enough, and 5 is too close to 4 so I figure the deaf-left politicos need about 100,000 dead before they can take official notice of security related issues.

“…AT&T building in San Francisco where the premise of phone companies to use illegal "splitters" takes precedent over President Bush's (hypocricy re human rights.”
“…Martha Stewart…trip-wire guys… It's no wonder this country is hungry for change.”

?

“Instead you'all want to sit around and blame Clinton?”

I’ll start with al-Qaeda, then go to Jamie Gorelick, the people running the CIA & the FBI, then Bill, Patrick Leahy, George W, and go on from there.

“It's absurd! These are the same people sitting in off-shore club-med for enemy combatants (Guitmo: If they weren't then they are now) awaiting trail; Like how many? Five so-far have been served with litegation?”

I understand ranting, that does not excuse you from thinking.
How many of your “Guitmo” friends are entitled to protections afforded us…

under the US Constitution?
How about, any of the Geneva Conventions?

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 13, 2008

I realize there's going to be gaps with disassociatve behavior, and while I have the graciousness not to pick-on the feeble or infirmed; It sure appeared (the Bush imposed al-Malaki was buddy-buddy with neighbor Achmadineajad) (spell check!?)
I'm proposing the Bush Administration is scrambling to fight an enemy (I have no friends anyeay -D.) within the dynamics of a "war" he doesn't understand. If not Iraq/Afgan than the Pacific Rim or Africa.
So the necessity to create a double standard, like globally declaring the incentive for human rights, yet, reluctant to enforce them here at home using the opaqe shield of exectutive privileges; Is a reference to the guy who makes-up his own test, then corrects himself, ensuring a perfect score. (Remit to: "Like the guy who wants things both ways.")
I don't believe the Constitution applies to enemy combatants kept in goulags overseas -The Geneva Convention, perhaps. Then again the administration has been able to dance around that one too.
More negative equity attached to the Bush administration suggests a comprehennsive positive outlook for change.

...
written by Steve Reshakis , March 13, 2008

Patriot likes the Trial Lawyers. like a good Democrat Leftist.

...
written by Patriot , March 13, 2008

Steve Reshakis,

I am a good democrat and don't like or dislike outright any profession, except, when I need one I should get one. You can bet your bottom dollar that I will hire a trial lawyer when I need one; just as, when I am looking for investment, I will try to find a good financial expert.

There is good and bad in everything and every profession. As much as you show your disdain for trial lawyers, I bet, if for some reason, you have to sue someone, you too are not likely to go to the mechanic. It’s very easy to opine as long as you are not the victim; the moment you become victim, I am sure you won’t hate them as badly as you are.

Piece of advice: Don’t loose your precious life in hate; it’s going to harm you more than person or profession you hate.

...
written by Dale Cose , March 13, 2008

written by k.l. vosburg , March 13, 2008
“…while I have the graciousness not to pick-on the feeble or infirmed;”
“It sure appeared (the Bush imposed al-Malaki was buddy-buddy with neighbor Ahmadinjad)

…what might that verbiage mean… humm?
It means even though you said you had the graciousness not to,
the word ‘while’ means you don’t.

It is not possible to be gracious when touting graciousness as a personal trait.

“I don't believe the Constitution applies to enemy combatants kept in goulags overseas -The Geneva Convention, perhaps. Then again the administration has been able to dance around that one too.”

Who does the Constitution apply to?
Who does the Geneva Conventions apply to?


When the 2 threats… 767’s used as sub-sonic guided missiles
Impacted reality and the twin towers
that should have been all the evidence needed regarding the FISA needs.

The far left says, Well, they won’t do that again.
No, they’ll plot to do something else.

Fear mongering-
If you cannot protect your sovereignty from threats emanating from without… will internal threats matter?

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 14, 2008

Get your point, however, try not to misunderstand me so fast.
Why should Americans have to live in fear of it's own surveillance act?
"A dangerous intelligence gap caused by technological advances which terrorists can now exploit." *Note. "Iran is also ramping-up it's bigrade units!"
I thought we already knew (are you suggesting a "dumbing-down" by Americans?) N.Korea, Iran, Syria, et-al represented the "axis of evil?"
Also, I'm not a proponent of administration critics who advocate that tele-com (companies) who were involved in protecting American lives (after-all we are at war) should be held retroactively liable for "abusive lawsuits," simply to line the pockets of class-action trial lawyers.
The real problem as I see it, will be the Govt.'s case in trying suspected terrorists/detainees largely due to the lengthy legality (to) the system itself.
Point being, recently prosecutors have charged just a handful (and none have gone to trial), (I believe) only one, Australian David Hicks, has pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism.
There's a sort of contradiction in neocon political ideology that more govt. regulation and more govt. oversight somehow represents the principals of freedom (and less govt. intervention?)
So, let me guess what's next? More diminutve quip pro quo's or will it be "cow tipping?"

...
written by Jeremy T. , March 14, 2008

Give me liberty or give me death. What good is life without our rights to privacy including talking on our telephones without having the government listen in. I would rather be dead than to betray the rights that I and other Americans have fought so hard for. Im not leting any of you wingnuts or Osama steal my liberty

...
written by Alvin G. , March 14, 2008

The biggest threat to democracy is the people who want to give up our liberties. I fear them more than I fear Osama or other terrorists. In the name of security and freedom they want to take away my freedom. You who support wiretapping without a warant are the real terrorists.

...
written by Dale Cose , March 15, 2008

Were there more American's jailed over international phone conversations in the name of national security during the last 7 years... could you name 3,000?
How about 10 names, okay, just 5 names...

or those killed on 9/11?

The dead wanted liberty... terrorists said no

Clearly... those that died on 9/11 are still speaking
and the message is not...
I'd rather be dead than have an international call tapped.

though someone living in a comfortably safe place could utter

...
written by Dale Cose , March 15, 2008

those words

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 15, 2008

"The biggest test of "this" special judicial system, is how the trials will work themselves out." -Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartman, legal advisor for the Office of Military Commissions.
Assurance to the public that the trials will be fair:
The trials of 911 defendants will be the first to move through the specil military commission system since it was created by Congress in '2006. Judge Susan Crawford, the head of the military commission, will review the charges and decide whether to refer them for trial, and whether the defendants should be subjected to the death penalty.
Within thirty days of a referral, defendants must be arraigned. *Note: The government will pay for military lawyers (for them), or if the defendants want civilian lawyers, they will have to pay for them (themselves), or find a lawyer to serve free.
The trial may begin after 120 days, (Hartman) "the defendants will have the right to a military lawyer, the right to remain silent without prejudice, the right to examine all evidence and the right to call witnesses. "There will be no secret trials."
If the cases are death-penalty eligable, a jury of twelve officers must come to a unanimous verdict to convict. If the death penalty is not an issue, than a jury of five must have a two-thirds majority.
A while back D.C. you mentioned The Constitution and the Geneva Convention: As I suggested: "The case rests within the vast length-legality of the system itself." Feel free to elaborate on us down-troden and un-grammatical with your quasi-pernicious cone-al expertise.
*Note: Any verdict can be appealed: First to the Court of Military Commission Review, then to the U.S. Cort of Appeals (the D.C. Circuit), then ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Please... elaborate, Kurt.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , March 15, 2008

Here's another thought.
Since we're all living "so cofortably here," maybe you can call in a favor and suggest the trial defense lawyers to subpoena Osama bin Laden as a character analysis witness.
Surely there's cell-phones at Guitmo? (End of Story...?)