Originally Posted By Dabob2 >No, it really is a silly question. By definition, no one who has been tapped is going to know. So how are we supposed to provide examples?<< <It is silly only if taken out of context. But in the context of confident assertions that the law has been broken, it is a reasonable request.> No, it's still not, and here's why - it's still asking for something that by definition can not be provided. A reasonable response to "the law was broken" is "no, it wasn't, and here's why I believe that..." as indeed you have done. Agree or disagree with your premises, that is a reasonable approach. But when someone says "the law was broken" and the response is "okay, then give me an example of someone who was tapped illegally" - that is not a reasonable request because by definition that information can not be provided. See the difference?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Back in post #47 the following assertion was made: >>[Come] up with a list of people who have been "abused." Anyone who has had their phone tapped in any way without probable cause. That is the list.<< That IS the list. This is a confident assertion that assumes such a thing exists. Which led to this fairly reasonable request (post #48): >>Show me a list of people who have had their privacy violated, maybe some ACLU lawsuits. Otherwise you will not convince anyone that your concern is to be taken serious(ly).<< Ever since then we've been dancing around this issue. At this point, a single example would suffice. Instead, we have been treated to an endless round of mischaracterizations and repeated statements that have been met with earnest requests for clarification. At this point, it is understood that the NSA allows the activities undertaken in the present war on terror. This assertion is being challenged, but there has been no evidence proving that the law has been broken. Simply repeating, "The evidence is impossible to provide" is not sufficient to answer the many reasonable arguments that have been advanced.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That IS the list. This is a confident assertion that assumes such a thing exists. Which led to this fairly reasonable request (post #48): >>Show me a list of people who have had their privacy violated, maybe some ACLU lawsuits. Otherwise you will not convince anyone that your concern is to be taken serious(ly).<< Except that that's NOT a reasonable request. By definition, a list of individual names - even a single individual name - can not be provided. Of course, the ACLU has filed suit, but they can't give individual names either, unless the government gets around to releasing them. <Simply repeating, "The evidence is impossible to provide" is not sufficient to answer the many reasonable arguments that have been advanced.> And as I said, the reasonable arguments you advanced were fine, agree or disagree with them. You were on solid ground there. (And for the record, I'm somewhere between you and jonvn on the merits of most of the reasonable arguments here). But "give us a name" is not reasonable, because whether or not this program is eventually found to be constitutional (which is a legitimate discussion), at this point no names can be provided.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Ever since then we've been dancing around this issue. At this point, a single example would suffice" See post 96 and 102.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But "give us a name" is not reasonable...<< "Give as a name" is reasonable in the face of confident assertions that individuals have been wronged, that the law has been broken. IF (Ah, if...) the original posts had not exhibited such hubris, I doubt that this whole torturous conversation would have taken place.
Originally Posted By jonvn ""Give as a name" is reasonable in the face of confident assertions" See post 102.
Originally Posted By jonvn ""Give as a name" is reasonable in the face of confident assertions" See post 96.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Give as a name" is reasonable in the face of confident assertions that individuals have been wronged, that the law has been broken.> No, it's not. If the law has been broken, then by definition individuals have been wronged. The NAMES of those individuals? No one can know yet. That's why it's not reasonable to ask for them. So someone who is quite sure (and it wasn't me) that the law has been broken would also be quite sure that individuals have been harmed. And you're on solid ground disagreeing with the concept that the law was/was not broken, and therefore that any individuals who were tapped were not harmed (or, more precisely, no one who didn't deserve to be tapped was harmed). But you are not reasonable in asking for names of individuals whose names no one can know yet. Reasonable is "I don't think the law has been broken, and here's why..." To your credit, you also did this. But unreasonable is asking for specific names that can not at this point be given, whether or not these laws prove constitutional in the long run.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Furthermore: If anyone does know the name of someone who's been tapped and posts it, you'll be violating the PATRIOT act and numerous other laws regarding classified information. LP could be shut down and the servers seized.
Originally Posted By Lake Nona These jerks wanted to fly a plane also. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/07/documents07062006.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada /national/2006/06/07/documents07062006.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Let's be clear about who we mean by "they." We mean Islamists. Not Muslims. A Muslim is one who practises Islam, a great religion.>> The writer who wrote this piece that someone posted was right on the mark except the part I highlighted here. There is nothing about Islam that makes it a great religion, nothing. Islam is about submission, non tolerance, and violence.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Islam is considered one of the world's great religions, regardless of how anyone feels about it. Great does not always mean good. It also means large, or significant. There are three great monotheistic religions-- religions based on the worship of a single God to the exclusion of all others. They are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three faiths share certain beliefs, as well as striking differences. Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is subject to individual interpretation. Some who follow Islam believe that violence and terror are acceptable. Other Muslims are as repulsed by this as we are. If all Christians were judged by the behavior of the Crusaders, who slaughtered infidels in their religious zeal to cleanse the Holy Land, there would be many protests. It is just as wrong to base one's view of Islam on the basis of terrorists.
Originally Posted By jonvn Religious hatred is so becoming. I think I'm going back to not liking even the word "Islamist" in terms of a reason to hate people. It's religious based hatred, and it's wrong.
