Another Example of Why Libertarians and Purists Can't Govern: Their Reaction to Kavanaugh

[Tehon]

By the way, Mike Griffith is my real name, and my website is linked in my signature block and on my profile.

You are a ******* joke, not to be taken seriously. This is from your blog page.

Whatever Happened to Civil Liberties?

 

[mikegriffith1]

You might want to go read it.

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no dozens of conservative judges put in district and appellate federal judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd climate accords, etc, etc., etc.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

Yes, I want to know why the NSA is sharing our personal communications with other agencies in the government. I want it explained to the American people, in the national spotlight not in a secret court, why the court gave the opinion in Oct. 2016 that the NSA's "lack of candor" represented a "very serious fourth amendment issue".

We are supposed to have rights in this country that are guaranteed by the constitution. The President has no greater duty than to defend those rights. He is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans.

Napolitano is right.

Take heart: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and every other terrorist group support your opposition to FISA 100%. And they would love to see NSA forced to explain in open court their reasons for their information-sharing with the FBI and other law-enforcement entities.

Wow, this is why libertarians are simply unfit to govern and why they will never win a majority of the vote. Even many liberal Dems have enough common sense to see that FISA does not violate the Fourth Amendment but is a reasonable, sane measure to protect ourselves from those who would kill us.

See my previous reply with the links to House Intel papers that debunk the common myths about FISA.

 

[sparky]

FISA does not violate the Fourth Amendment but is a reasonable, sane measure to protect ourselves from those who would kill us.

a rather contested notion Mike.....

WE MUST NOT ABUSE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

NSA surveillance may be legal — but it’s unconstitutional

 

[Tehon]

I know what it is. It has nothing to do with the collection of metadata. It has everything to do with surveillance of foreigners and Napolitano believes that it is being abused.

[USC04] 50 USC 1881a: Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no dozens of conservative judges put in district and appellate federal judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd climate accords, etc, etc., etc.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

Yes, I want to know why the NSA is sharing our personal communications with other agencies in the government. I want it explained to the American people, in the national spotlight not in a secret court, why the court gave the opinion in Oct. 2016 that the NSA's "lack of candor" represented a "very serious fourth amendment issue".

We are supposed to have rights in this country that are guaranteed by the constitution. The President has no greater duty than to defend those rights. He is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans.

Napolitano is right.

Take heart: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and every other terrorist group support your opposition to FISA 100%. And they would love to see NSA forced to explain in open court their reasons for their information-sharing with the FBI and other law-enforcement entities.

Wow, this is why libertarians are simply unfit to govern and why they will never win a majority of the vote. Even many liberal Dems have enough common sense to see that FISA does not violate the Fourth Amendment but is a reasonable, sane measure to protect ourselves from those who would kill us.

See my previous reply with the links to House Intel papers that debunk the common myths about FISA.

The court, set up to protect us from abuses of the system, takes issue with what they are doing.


I don't know when that House intelligence paper was written but the court document I provided destroys it. These politicians cannot be trusted.

 

[mikegriffith1]

HUH??? You don't know what you're reading. I did that job for 20 years. Sit down and READ what you linked and you'll see all the safeguards for due process. You talk about our intel community like the 60s' radicals talked about the U.S. military.

When you're in a live operation and some metadata provide some potential terrorist-link returns, you don't have time to go running to some regular federal judge. You need a mechanism that can give you temporary, provisional, conditional authority to act on the metadata. If further review determines that there was no actionable information or no indications of wrongdoing, the matter is dropped.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no dozens of conservative judges put in district and appellate federal judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd climate accords, etc, etc., etc.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

Yes, I want to know why the NSA is sharing our personal communications with other agencies in the government. I want it explained to the American people, in the national spotlight not in a secret court, why the court gave the opinion in Oct. 2016 that the NSA's "lack of candor" represented a "very serious fourth amendment issue".

We are supposed to have rights in this country that are guaranteed by the constitution. The President has no greater duty than to defend those rights. He is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans.

Napolitano is right.

Take heart: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and every other terrorist group support your opposition to FISA 100%. And they would love to see NSA forced to explain in open court their reasons for their information-sharing with the FBI and other law-enforcement entities.

Wow, this is why libertarians are simply unfit to govern and why they will never win a majority of the vote. Even many liberal Dems have enough common sense to see that FISA does not violate the Fourth Amendment but is a reasonable, sane measure to protect ourselves from those who would kill us.

See my previous reply with the links to House Intel papers that debunk the common myths about FISA.

The court, set up to protect us from abuses of the system, takes issue with what they are doing. I don't know when that House intelligence paper was written but the court document I provided destroys it. These politicians cannot be trusted.

Uh, it was written about the bill that Trump signed (see FISA Section 702 | U.S. House of Representatives).

And it is nothing short of amazing, not to mention disturbing, that even a few libertarians, or any other Never Trumpers, still can’t admit that their vote for Johnson (or McMullin) was an utterly foolish, dangerous vote. Can you imagine what we would be facing if Hillary had won? Can you stop to think about all the good things that Trump has done that would not have happened if Hillary had won? And you do realize that we’d have a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and that the several crucial recent cases that we won 5-4 would have gone the other way, right?

In 1992, I voted for Ross Perot, and I would do so again, because Bush Sr. was an Establishment pawn who sold out conservatives on issue after issue (and because Clinton was arguably far more conservative on fiscal and tax issues than Bush was). Even Papa Bush’s very polite and doggedly loyal Vice President, Dan Quayle, detailed in his memoir how he repeatedly tried to persuade Bush to change course on numerous issues, but to no avail. But even if a credible conservative had run as a third-party candidate in 2016, I would have voted for Trump.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here's a good article by the Heritage Foundation on the FISA extension that Trump signed:

Renewal of FISA’s Section 702: Why America Needs the Provision

 

[Tehon]

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about. Napolitano is right.
This the FISA ruling showing that the NSA was in breach of their own protocol.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

They were sharing information on US citizens with the FBI among other things. The US code was amended to bring the breaches within the law. Trump signed it, proving Napolitano correct. Trump can't be trusted to safeguard the constitution.

Napolitano is a stand up dude. I like people with convictions and that refuse to succumb to the lesser of two evils guilt trip.

And why were they sharing that information with the FBI? Why did they do that? Do you care?

The law was amended so that hyper-picky judges can't prevent vital intelligence sharing and operations by a narrow, draconian reading of the law.

And if more Americans had had Napolitano's "stand-up convictions," we would have President Hillary, a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, no tax cuts, no repeal of the Obamacare mandate, no deregulation, no declawing of the EPA, no dozens of conservative judges put in district and appellate federal judicial positions, no cancelling of the insane Iran nuke deal, no pulling out of the absurd climate accords, etc, etc., etc.

I have no respect for the judgment of libertarians and other Never Trumpers who even now, after all the good things that Trump has done, can't admit that they were wrong.

Yes, I want to know why the NSA is sharing our personal communications with other agencies in the government. I want it explained to the American people, in the national spotlight not in a secret court, why the court gave the opinion in Oct. 2016 that the NSA's "lack of candor" represented a "very serious fourth amendment issue".

We are supposed to have rights in this country that are guaranteed by the constitution. The President has no greater duty than to defend those rights. He is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans.

Napolitano is right.

Take heart: ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and every other terrorist group support your opposition to FISA 100%. And they would love to see NSA forced to explain in open court their reasons for their information-sharing with the FBI and other law-enforcement entities.

Wow, this is why libertarians are simply unfit to govern and why they will never win a majority of the vote. Even many liberal Dems have enough common sense to see that FISA does not violate the Fourth Amendment but is a reasonable, sane measure to protect ourselves from those who would kill us.

See my previous reply with the links to House Intel papers that debunk the common myths about FISA.

The court, set up to protect us from abuses of the system, takes issue with what they are doing. I don't know when that House intelligence paper was written but the court document I provided destroys it. These politicians cannot be trusted.

Uh, it was written about the bill that Trump signed (see FISA Section 702 | U.S. House of Representatives).

And it is nothing short of amazing, not to mention disturbing, that even a few libertarians, or any other Never Trumpers, still can’t admit that their vote for Johnson (or McMullin) was an utterly foolish, dangerous vote. Can you imagine what we would be facing if Hillary had won? Can you stop to think about all the good things that Trump has done that would not have happened if Hillary had won? And you do realize that we’d have a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and that the several crucial recent cases that we won 5-4 would have gone the other way, right?

In 1992, I voted for Ross Perot, and I would do so again, because Bush Sr. was an Establishment pawn who sold out conservatives on issue after issue (and because Clinton was arguably far more conservative on fiscal and tax issues than Bush was). Even Papa Bush’s very polite and doggedly loyal Vice President, Dan Quayle, detailed in his memoir how he repeatedly tried to persuade Bush to change course on numerous issues, but to no avail. But even if a credible conservative had run as a third-party candidate in 2016, I would have voted for Trump.

I am on the left, I'm not a libertarian nor am I a never Trumper. I am held hostage by the corrupt duopoly.

I don't think Trump has done a particularly good job. And I know I'm being fed shit when he weakens the constitution and gives more power to agencies that he claims are out to get him.

At this stage why do you care if people didn't vote the way you think they should have? You think they should be remorseful for their vote? For not seeing things the way you do, what a joke. And you wonder why people get concerned when you show support for a weakening of the 4th amendment. Fall in line or else and we will find out who didn't.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I am on the left, I'm not a libertarian nor am I a never Trumper. I am held hostage by the corrupt duopoly.

Then why are you responding to a thread dealing with libertarians and conservative purists?

That said, it's interesting that you, a leftist, are making the same arguments that many libertarians make against FISA, especially Section 702. Again, here's an informative article by the Heritage Foundation on why we need FISA and its 702 section:

Renewal of FISA’s Section 702: Why America Needs the Provision

I don't think Trump has done a particularly good job. And I know I'm being fed $%^& when he weakens the constitution and gives more power to agencies that he claims are out to get him.

It's not weakening the Constitution to take sensible measures to protect ourselves. See the above Heritage.org article.

At this stage why do you care if people didn't vote the way you think they should have? You think they should be remorseful for their vote? For not seeing things the way you do, what a joke. And you wonder why people get concerned when you show support for a weakening of the 4th amendment. Fall in line or else and we will find out who didn't.

One wonders what it would take to get you to believe/admit that Trump is doing a good job. If you don't think that we are markedly better off now than we were 18 months ago, one wonders what country you inhabit.

 

[Tehon]

Then why are you responding to a thread dealing with libertarians and conservative purists?

It's an open forum and I had an opinion that I wanted to express. It's your opinion that libertarians can't govern, I saw no restrictions preventing non libertarians from expressing their opinions on the OP.

That said, it's interesting that you, a leftist, are making the same arguments that many libertarians make against FISA, especially Section 702.

I am a leftist in the classical sense. Distrustful of concentrated power.

It's not weakening the Constitution to take sensible measures to protect ourselves.

Of course it is a weakening of the constitution, you are just trying to justify it.

One wonders what it would take to get you to believe/admit that Trump is doing a good job. If you don't think that we are markedly better off now than we were 18 months ago, one wonders what country you inhabit.

I live here in the US my entire life. I don't see any difference in this country now as compared to 18 months ago. I don't believe that is a time span adequate in determining what effects the president's policies have on the country. These things take years to play out.