General Discussion

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)

12. well the only way in can be poltically possible is if Republicans play a major role in setting the

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:57 PM

Jun 2013

rules - so they will not be in the position of either accusing Democrats of being too soft on terrorism or too soft on civil liberties

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can't they just dismantle the most intrusive aspects of the surveillance program and we can move on? [View all] Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 OP

I would think they could treestar Jun 2013 #1

Good idea. And then we can move onto the next scandal. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #2

That's going to be a tough one, now that surveillance is privatized. scarletwoman Jun 2013 #3

++++++ cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #7

Most true. And the people who make the profits hear are far richer and have.... wandy Jun 2013 #38

Yep. It costs too much. We can't afford it. RobertEarl Jun 2013 #4

How do you suggest to dismantle it? marions ghost Jun 2013 #5

I suggest a committee that is Co-chaired by John McCain and Pat Leahy Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #6

Ya think? marions ghost Jun 2013 #8

they would complain if the the surveillance was too soft on terrorism or too intrusive of civil Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #9

Rand Paul and John McCain marions ghost Jun 2013 #11

well the only way in can be poltically possible is if Republicans play a major role in setting the Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #12

We may be beyond those type of accusations... marions ghost Jun 2013 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author im1013 Jun 2013 #39

There is no fix. This is the new normal. Its here to stay and it doesn't look like many give a damn NoOneMan Jun 2013 #10

A perfect quote from DK's brooklynbadboy railsback Jun 2013 #13

you can call Snowden a lot of things marions ghost Jun 2013 #15

Well, that's open to interpretation railsback Jun 2013 #16

What good is it to have massive power if you can't abuse it? It's not fixable, or not fixable for us AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #17

They already did. The fucking ruling that Snowden and Greenwald leaked was DevonRex Jun 2013 #18

so there is no real problem with the current surveillance system? The data mining that is now in Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #20

I can think of a few changes; I asked for your opinion downthread Recursion Jun 2013 #22

I'll tell you DevonRex Jun 2013 #29

Please read my post at #33 for Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #40

Ironic, no? Recursion Jun 2013 #21

What, specifically, do you want changed? Recursion Jun 2013 #19

most people are not comfortable with the idea of the government essentially maintaining records of Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #23

And that's not what's happening Recursion Jun 2013 #24

the data mining does essentially create that web essentially centralized phone records on a scale Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #25

That data does not fall under constitutional protection, but has some statutory protection Recursion Jun 2013 #26

constituional protectons and to an extent the constituion itself are whatever the courts say it is Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #27

Exactly my arguments against establishing it the way they did in 2008, under a GOP President Recursion Jun 2013 #28

well, now that there is at least some political will to look at this issue - perhaps we should do so Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #30

Obama has asked Congress to do something about it Recursion Jun 2013 #31

then this sounds like a good time to make a public appeal for reform -which is the point my original Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #32

Please read Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland at my post #33. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #36

Please read my post at #33. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #35

I already commented on your OP about it (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #37

Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland (1979). JDPriestly Jun 2013 #33

I've got some bad news, I think... Amonester Jun 2013 #34

They have definite plans to expand the surveillance state, not reduce it. NDAA 2014: Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #41