NSA is giving your phone records to the DEA

[danielost]

If one has not been found guilty in a court of law, one is not any kind of felin.

[Tiggs]

Bush listened in on ALL phone calls, no just to & from middle east. He admitted that law breaking in public. NYT sat on that information for about a year, long enough for Bush to be re-elected in 2004. Yes, the media is complicit and an enabler of government law breaking.

As I've asked you before - do you have any actual evidence for your accusation that the liberally biased NYT declined to publish for political reasons?

To be honest, I expect you'll probably have better success playing the "evil media always covers for the government" card in a thread thats not directly discussing a Reuter's article detailing alleged government wrong doing.

[Babe Ruth]

If one has not been found guilty in a court of law, one is not any kind of felin.

If one commits a felony and gets away with it, one is a felon, of the unconvicted variety.

If one commits a felony and is caught and prosecuted and convicted, one is a convicted felon.

There are many thousands of examples of both varieties.

[questionmark]

If one commits a felony and gets away with it, one is a felon, of the unconvicted variety.

If one commits a felony and is caught and prosecuted and convicted, one is a convicted felon.

There are many thousands of examples of both varieties.

If you get away with it you are a citizen like any other, not a felon. You are NOT a felon unless convicted.

[Babe Ruth]

Tiggs

It's really an old story, and as well informed as you are I'm surprised you don't remember the story. Ripples of that old story appeared in the MSM just a few weeks or months ago.

I think it was James Risen for NYT that covered it. Now it was 10 years ago. Numerous telecoms were involved, and there were whistleblowers besides NYT, after the fact. It was for that reason that FISA II included immunity for the telecoms for having done the dirty work for the NSA.

Maybe you're just pulling my leg?

[Babe Ruth]

If you get away with it you are a citizen like any other, not a felon. You are NOT a felon unless convicted.

I disagree. If I kill somebody and get away with it, I have committed a felony, and that makes me a felon. Or do you hold otherwise?

My old Webster's says "One who has perpetrated a felony."

I can't believe people are arguing over such a simple meaning of words. Perhaps it's because they would rather not deal with the fact that half the federal government is comprised of UNconvicted felons.

[questionmark]

I disagree. If I kill somebody and get away with it, I have committed a felony, and that makes me a felon. Or do you hold otherwise?

My old Webster's says "One who has perpetrated a felony."

I can't believe people are arguing over such a simple meaning of words. Perhaps it's because they would rather not deal with the fact that half the federal government is comprised of UNconvicted felons.

You can disagree all you want, the fact remains that Title 18 requires a conviction before you are a felon.

[Tiggs]

Tiggs

It's really an old story, and as well informed as you are I'm surprised you don't remember the story. Ripples of that old story appeared in the MSM just a few weeks or months ago.

I think it was James Risen for NYT that covered it. Now it was 10 years ago. Numerous telecoms were involved, and there were whistleblowers besides NYT, after the fact. It was for that reason that FISA II included immunity for the telecoms for having done the dirty work for the NSA.

Maybe you're just pulling my leg?

No, but I think you're pulling ours.

You're claiming that the NYT kept it quiet for some sort of political gain. Last time I checked, the NYT were Team Liberal and Bush was Team Republican.

[danielost]

My point is everyone was throwing a fit when bush was doing it and now that obama is doing it so what.

[lightly]

My point is everyone was throwing a fit when bush was doing it and now that obama is doing it so what.

I see your point here. But it wasn't everyone .. it was the democrats mostly.

The Republicans can't seem to get concerned about any of it. ..then or now.

Edited August 6, 2013 by lightly

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Just curious for the sake of conversation. If one was taking a shower should the government have the right to come in and look... seeing no drugs or weapons on your person they say thank you this was for your neighbors safety and all of the American people. Since the shower is one place we all can agree should remain private I used that as the example place. If you have nothing to hide then a government agent looking in on you should be completely acceptable for safety's sake. yes?

Palidin I would especially enjoy your input. I Would like to understand how you think a little better.

To the rest if told this was for safety's sake would you oblige them the courtesy of checking in on you in your own home? If yes please explain. If no please explain.

Thank you

Edited August 7, 2013 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Babe Ruth]

No, but I think you're pulling ours.

You're claiming that the NYT kept it quiet for some sort of political gain. Last time I checked, the NYT were Team Liberal and Bush was Team Republican.

That's nothing. Last time you checked torture was declared legal by the government. What's new?

Seriously, even of late that story has been mentioned, but of course NOT by NYT.

[Babe Ruth]

You can disagree all you want, the fact remains that Title 18requires a conviction before you are a felon.

Cite Title 18 all you like Questionmark.

English is my primary language. I read, speak and understand the language. I understand completely the meaning of the prefix "un" on any word. Sorry you don't.

I'll take Webster any day over Title 18 when it comes to the meanings of words. I'm wondering if you would have supported Title 18 in such a fashion back when it defined a felon as a person assisting a slave in escaping? Egads man, Greece has odd effects on a person, eh?

A person who perpetrates a felony is a felon, of the unconvicted variety.

A person who perpetrates a felony and is then prosecuted and convicted of that crime is a CONVICTED felon.

[Space Commander Travis]

Isn't a basic principle of law that one is innocent until proven guilty? So if a Felon is "one who has committed a Felony", and a "Felony" is a "crime regarded by the law as grave, and usu. involving violence", then surely one can only be a Felon once one has been found Guilty.

But all this sounds rather like "if a tree falls over in the forest when there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and "it depends what the meaning of is is" and similar great pholosophical debates, rather.

[questionmark]

Isn't a basic principle of law that one is innocent until proven guilty? So if a Felon is "one who has committed a Felony", and a "Felony" is a "crime regarded by the law as grave, and usu. involving violence", then surely one can only be a Felon once one has been found Guilty.

But all this sounds rather like "if a tree falls over in the forest when there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and "it depends what the meaning of is is" and similar great pholosophical debates, rather.

correct, and strangely enough some people who keep on harping on the constitution then come with something like primary languages. So: whatever.

[Tiggs]

That's nothing. Last time you checked torture was declared legal by the government. What's new?

Certainly not your inability to understand my position.

Seriously, even of late that story has been mentioned, but of course NOT by NYT.

It could be mentioned by God himself - but still doesn't prove your original accusation of press bias.

[Babe Ruth]

Isn't a basic principle of law that one is innocent until proven guilty? So if a Felon is "one who has committed a Felony", and a "Felony" is a "crime regarded by the law as grave, and usu. involving violence", then surely one can only be a Felon once one has been found Guilty.

But all this sounds rather like "if a tree falls over in the forest when there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and "it depends what the meaning of is is" and similar great pholosophical debates, rather.

So, neither do you accept the common meaning of 'un' as a prefix in the English language?

No question that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the american legal system. I do not deny that. I fully support it, for purposes of due process.

Do you also disregard the definition offered by Webster? Is that from convenience, or is there a larger reason?

[Babe Ruth]

Certainly not your inability to understand my position.

It could be mentioned by God himself - but still doesn't prove your original accusation of press bias.

It's way more than press bias Tiggs. It is coverup of crimes by the media. If you are not kidding me about being unaware of that, things are way worse than I thought.

Have you researched the reason why immunity for the telecoms was included in FISA II ? I'm wondering if this is somehow selective amnesia for you? It's been talked about on TV too in these last several months.

[Babe Ruth]

Tiggs

http://tinyurl.com/kpnuhsh

Read it and weep.

And thanks for forcing me to polish up my 'linking' skills.

[questionmark]

It's way more than press bias Tiggs. It is coverup of crimes by the media. If you are not kidding me about being unaware of that, things are way worse than I thought.

Have you researched the reason why immunity for the telecoms was included in FISA II ? I'm wondering if this is somehow selective amnesia for you? It's been talked about on TV too in these last several months.

Again: everybody is innocent until convicted (un does not mean anything in this case), so no matter how many people somebody killed until declared guilty that person is a presumed murderer, if he gets off he is still not a murderer. Same happens to the adjective felon. As long as that person is standing trial he/she is a PRESUMED felon, once declared innocent... no matter if he/she did it or not he/she is nothing. And that is not only specified in title 18, it also is in the 8th, 6th and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

To be a felon you have to be convicted.

[Tiggs]

Read it and weep.

And thanks for forcing me to polish up my 'linking' skills.

How about no?

Again - you still have no proof that a press coverup for political gain occurred.

[Space Commander Travis]

So, neither do you accept the common meaning of 'un' as a prefix in the English language?

No question that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the american legal system. I do not deny that. I fully support it, for purposes of due process.

Do you also disregard the definition offered by Webster? Is that from convenience, or is there a larger reason?

What is this definition we're arguing about exactly, and what is the significance of un, and does this strictly have much to do with the topic of the Thread?

[danielost]

Cite Title 18 all you like Questionmark.

English is my primary language. I read, speak and understand the language. I understand completely the meaning of the prefix "un" on any word. Sorry you don't.

I'll take Webster any day over Title 18 when it comes to the meanings of words. I'm wondering if you would have supported Title 18 in such a fashion back when it defined a felon as a person assisting a slave in escaping? Egads man, Greece has odd effects on a person, eh?

A person who perpetrates a felony is a felon, of the unconvicted variety.

A person who perpetrates a felony and is then prosecuted and convicted of that crime is a CONVICTED felon.

Title 18 does not care about words t is about laws. No one who has not had their day in court is a felon of anykind. If he is waiting for trail, they are either the defendent or the accused. I don't how many times the news stumbles over the word accused. They want to convict him/her before the trail.

The nsa should not be giving your phone messages to anybody, because they shouldn't have them at all. The government is supposed to have a reason to search your belongings or you and have a warrent. Your emails are yours and the person you sent them to property. On a site like this they can do what they want to.

[danielost]

The new york times wouldn't cover up anything bush did. They didn't like him. If bush had jay walked it would be front page news, under the headline bush breaks new york city law.

[Babe Ruth]

Again: everybody is innocent until convicted (un does not mean anything in this case), so no matter how many people somebody killed until declared guilty that person is a presumed murderer, if he gets off he is still not a murderer. Same happens to the adjective felon. As long as that person is standing trial he/she is a PRESUMED felon, once declared innocent... no matter if he/she did it or not he/she is nothing. And that is not only specified in title 18, it also is in the 8th, 6th and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

To be a felon you have to be convicted.

This is a disagreement about semantics, not legal status. As I mentioned before, I completely support the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings, absolutely. Thus my point about "convicted" as compared to its opposite, "unconvicted."

The logical extension of your silly position is this:

A rapist is not a rapist when he commits the act. He becomes a rapist only after prosecution and conviction.

A thief is not a thief by way of the act of stealing, he is a thief ONLY after being prosecuted and convicted. Wall Street would love your definitions!

A murderer is not a murderer by his actions, but only by his prosecution and conviction.

And it seems the reverse would also be true in your perverse way of thinking. A person convicted of rape is a rapist, whether he committed the act or not.

You really gonna stick with this reasoning Questionmark? It sounds like I'm arguing with John Yoo or Michael Mukasey.