Bush lawyer argues that Americans have consented to monitoring

Get this:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Government_lawyers_say_Americans_consented_to_0512.html

This kind of corporate collusion seems to be the very definition of Fascism. Here it is from the inventor of Fascism:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)*

I know, you can argue that the Romans invented Fascism because they carried bundles of sticks. I don't buy that argument. They were bloody Imperialists, not Fascists.

A more interesting argument would be that Benito's quote is actually a clever act of misdirection (that ol' Fascist) because the very ACT of incorporation involves corporate and government collusion. At least since 1882 in America:

"In 1882, Judge Lorenzo Sawyer of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in the San Mateo Railroad case that corporations were persons. However it is a matter of record that Sawyer owned stock in the Central Pacific Railroad. Additionally both Sawyer and his legal associates were close friends of Leland Stanford and other parties involved in the rail case. Sawyer was uniquely placed to expand the powers of corporations and used unorthodox interpretations of statues and judicial review to do so.

In 1886 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down state Granger laws regulating railroad rates in Wabash V Illinois. The high point of pro-business judicial activism occurred in 1886. In this year alone the Court struck down 230 state laws passed to regulate corporations. It was also the year of the most grievous act of all in furthering corporate power. This was the year that the Court handed down the ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad declaring that corporations were persons under the fourteenth amendment. At the very outset of the case Chief Justice, Morrison R. Waite stated:

'The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.'

This outrageous ruling has done more to damage our liberty and freedom's than any other single ruling in the history of the country. It in effect gave corporations the same rights as persons but with none of the obligations and social responsibility cared with those rights. It paved the way for rendering the people subservient to corporations. The reader should note the year, as well as this ruling, came at height of the robber barons' power. "**

Abe Lincoln warned that unchecked corporate power would be "the death of the Republic." Dwight Eisenhower warned us, "beware the military industrial complex."

Is it already too late?

------
notes:
* Mussolini quote generally attrributed to an article written by Mussolini in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana with the assistance of Giovanni Gentile, the editor. Some doubt has been cast on the accuracy of the quote. Here:
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

** from http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/corplaw.htm

Ok, so technically they are correct. The real question is if they are abusing this fine print. At the very least they are stretching it a bit.

Having said that, I do have to admit that under the current global circumstances I am not really sure that I see anything wrong with them collecting the data that they collected, per sey. They didn't listen to what was said, they just looked at who was calling whom. I don't really see that as being all that bad, under the circumstances. Depending on what they actually do with that data, of course.

Oh, almost forgot, linking this to Fascism is ludicrous. One of the goals of Fascism is for the government to take total control of major corporations. Since the court rulings cited in the OP are all basically saying the government can't do that, it's the antithesis of Fascism.

Vares, maybe you missed the fact that the national security apparatus has lied to you, gotten caught in the lie, then changed their story to another lie. Again and again. But this new lie is the truth. We swear.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060512/NEWS01/60512001/1003

On the question of corporate fascism, what part of collusion do you not understand?

I quote: "In 1882, Judge Lorenzo Sawyer of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in the San Mateo Railroad case that corporations were persons. However it is a matter of record that Sawyer owned stock in the Central Pacific Railroad."

This is COLLUSION between corporations and lawmakers to increase corporate power for the benefit of both parties at the expense of the people. Corporate power was originally a matter of State's rights, ignored by the Federal government. Collusion between corporations and Federal lawyers took the matter away from individual States and granted corporations power under a convenient interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Yes, States lost control of corporations. But, did the Federal government GAIN that control in the place of the States? Or did the Feds simply take the reins off corporations and allow them to do as they pleased? I must argue the latter.

I tend to disagree with your strict interpretation of Fascism as only having occured when the government takes control of corporations. Fascism can be said to prevail when corporations have taken control of the government or, as Benito said, when a "merger of State and corporate power" has taken place.

I'm suggesting that this merger, this "corporatocracy," is happening before our eyes. This is Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this shouldn't be looked into. I am just saying that based on the information I have now, I am not really sure that it's such a bad thing.

But I am definitely wanting more facts on the matter, that's for sure.

on msnbc they were saying the 3of of 4 ppl dont care about this .. its the one percent that is aruguing lol


just wondering what they are trying to hide ?

I am watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and they are talking about this very subject. One of them just brought up a good point. The NSA computers have this information on file, but no one sees it as a whole. The way it's used is if they happen to get a phone number that belongs to a known terrorist overseas, they can put the number into a computer search. The computer, not a human, then does a search through the database and spits out any number that is linked to the known number. The rest of the data base remains confidential. No human sees the data, only computers.

What the gentleman on the show pointed out is this:

All this information is already on file with the various phone companies. They can search their data bases anyway they like. So are we saying that we trust the phone companies with this information, even though they have no real over site in regards to what they do with it, but we don't trust the NSA with this information?

After all the NSA is one of the most vetted branches of the government in regards to being trustworthy?

Food for thought.

"... Why did the Justice Department suddenly drop its investigation of the warrantless spying on citizens because the NSA said Justice Department lawyers didn't have the necessary security clearance to do the investigation. Read that sentence again. A secret government agency has told our Justice Department that it's not allowed to investigate it. And the Justice Department just says ok and drops the whole thing. We're in some serious trouble, boys and girls."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/11.html#a8245
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Cafferty-Dictatorship-5-11-06.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Cafferty-Dictatorship.mov

same nsa? (and look - i know a lot of people i trust - and some i wouldn't - who've gone to jobs in lots of govt. agencies. there's lots of room for abuse. trust complete strangers with your carkeys??)

Vares, despite disagreements we have had in other threads, we seem to have a similar view on this issue.

Vares and Champie, the telcos are not "abusing the fine print" or "just stretching it a bit." They are breaking FEDERAL LAW by turning over customer records without subpoena. Verizon, in fact is being sued for $5 billion dollars:

http://www.newsday.com/business/ats-ap_business14may12,0,4555449.story?track=rss

Your next assertion that "under the current global cirfcumstances" (whatever the heck that means, maybe that Fascism is cool now) you "don't see anything wrong with what they did" is even sicker. Now that you know that they violated Federal law, do you still not see anything "wrong" with it? Or do current global circumstances make any deperate, lawless act ok? I'm sure the Bush administration would agree with you on that one.

Then, you claim (I'm not sure how you know this) that "They didn't listen to what was said, they just looked at who was calling whom." With the Bush administration's record for pushing complete BS, and being caught at the BS, and then changing to a different line of BS, I don't see how you could BELIEVE this. Continuing to extend the benefit of doubt to someone who constantly lies to you is NOT a recipe for survival. Remember that when they come for you.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/echochamber/36206/

You "don't really see that as being all that bad, under the circumstances. Depending on what they actually do with that data, of course." What do you THINK they're going to do with the data? Use it to reward loyal citizens like yourself? My God. Do you not realize that the American populace is now the enemy? Our security apparatus has turned on us.

The Fascism question I just can't beat anymore. How many ways can I say it?

The difference between phone companies and governments is that phone companies do not have the power to imprison or execute you while your government does.

And who vetted the NSA?

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Why don't you go try it.

I'd like to hear your analysis of how this activity is illegal. Please describe how you determine the lagality of the NSA program

Maybe you want to help paulie with describing the legalities og the NSA program. Please be specific because vares and I seem to not understand exactly how you have determined that the NSA action is illegal.

It isn't illegal because its the NSA. You know, black helecopters, etc. 'Nuff said.

Ok seriously. This ticks me off. I sure as hell never told anybody that they could look at my phone records, and i don't care what their reasons are.

I suspect, as i'm sure others do, that this is another step in a thinly veiled attempt for the government to get a comprehensive big brother system in place.

</controversy>

The supreme court ruled years ago that you don't have a right to privacy when it comes to your phone records. So they don't need your permission.

Please describe what document establishes that law or regulation that makes the NSA program illegal.

I thought this would be easy for you, you seem so certain that you are right.

THE FOURTH FUCKING AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. sheeeesh

3 out 4 people don't seem to care much about anything except for the next Americal Idol.

I can't believe they voted off Chris Daughtery --whatta rip.

Wow, your words of wisdom have enlightened me. You are right, how could I not see it all along. You've helped me see how wrong I was, thanks

Reminds me of the google adwords argument. People get all bothered because gmail makes advertisements based off the text of your email. Humans never see your message. Yet it still bothers people.

Anyways, that's not the point. The point is, its a nationwide dragnet. They're not targetting terrorists, they're targetting J. Q. Public. Automated systems tend to have glitches. What happens if my phone number "accidentally" gets linked to a known terrorist? (By system glitch or by other, more sinister means) I get the secret service breaking down my door at 3 in the morning, thats what.

Say g'bye to your constitutional rights, folks.

lawl

Very well. May i refer you to the Constitution of the United States, ammendment 4.



I consider searching my phone records without probable cause to be unreasonable. "Everyone, Everywhere" is not a valid descrption of the place to be searched. Wheres the oath or affirmation? Wheres the warrant? Wheres the court order? Wheres the f*cking common sense?

Therefore, the NSA program is fundamentally unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal.

let me refer you to some fact. You can debate the judgement, but you can't ignore that it exists:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/735/case.html

If somehow your number was linked by mistake, which seems unlikely, I don't think they would "kick in your door". The worst that would happen to you is that you would be investigated, and maybe put under surveillance, without you ever even knowing about it. After a few days they would see that you were no threat and forget about you. No harm, no foul.

The people at the FBI aren't perfect of course, but they aren't Nazis. They are dedicated law enforcement personnel who just want to get the bad guys. I really don't think they have meetings to plan how to oppress the rest of us.

oh boy..get ready for Kendra to ask you "Why do you hate your freedoms?"