Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: War! On drugs, on terror, on citizens' privacy.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    War! On drugs, on terror, on citizens' privacy.

    Test 'reveals Facebook, Twitter and Google snoop on emails'

    Cyber-security company High-Tech Bridge set out to test the confidentiality of 50 of the biggest internet companies by using their systems to send a unique web address in private messages. Experts at its Geneva HQ then waited to see which companies clicked on the website. During the ten-day operation, six of the 50 companies tested were found to have opened the link. Among the six were Facebook, Twitter, Google and discussion forum Formspring.

    High-Tech Bridge chief executive Ilia Kolochenko said: ‘We found they were clicking on links that should be known only to the sender and recipient. 'If the links are being opened, we cannot be sure that the contents of messages are not also being read.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-concerns.html

    Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.’s

    The Hemisphere Project, a partnership between federal and local drug officials and AT&T that has not previously been reported, involves an extremely close association between the government and the telecommunications giant. The government pays AT&T to place its employees in drug-fighting units around the country. Those employees sit alongside Drug Enforcement Administration agents and local detectives and supply them with the phone data from as far back as 1987.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us...r=rss&emc=rss&
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Thank goodness, they're just trying to keep me and the children safe. There could be a terrorist under your bed or a pot smoker next door, you just never know, and the heroes in law enforcement need these tools to do their job. It's what America is all about, you have to give up your freedom to stay safe and so the terrists don't have hate you for your freedom. You heard it straight from President Bush, there are people in the world who hate us for our freedom.
    We all need to do our part too, like the Department of Homeland Security said: "if you see something, say something."
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Thank goodness, they're just trying to keep me and the children safe. There could be a terrorist under your bed or a pot smoker next door, you just never know, and the heroes in law enforcement need these tools to do their job. It's what America is all about, you have to give up your freedom to stay safe and so the terrists don't have hate you for your freedom. You heard it straight from President Bush, there are people in the world who hate us for our freedom.
    We all need to do our part too, like the Department of Homeland Security said: "if you see something, say something."
    Yeah. Apparently, a bunch of the worst work in our government.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-02-2013 at 01:31 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    for crying out loud we need to legalize drugs in America and put an end to the DEA.

    we need to eliminate federal income taxes and put an end to the IRS.

    we need to restore the 2nd amendment and eliminate the ATF.

    am I just dreaming ?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    SNIP am I just dreaming ?
    Well, yes. But, we're used to your lack of contact with reality, so don't worry about it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-02-2013 at 03:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    SNIP
    we need to eliminate federal income taxes and put an end to the IRS.
    SNIP

    am I just dreaming ?
    I have a whole thread on that topic.

    You, good sir, have exposed your ignorance of the federal tax law.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I have a whole thread on that topic.

    You, good sir, have exposed your ignorance of the federal tax law.
    And where can we find that whole thread?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ... You, good sir, have exposed your ignorance of the federal tax law.
    Please, where is the ignorance of federal tax law in his statement, "we need to eliminate federal income taxes and put an end to the IRS"?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    And where can we find that whole thread?
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...highlight=view
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Please, where is the ignorance of federal tax law in his statement, "we need to eliminate federal income taxes and put an end to the IRS"?
    Why get rid of a tax that you are not the subject of in the first place?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Oh jeeeez. Here we go.

    There's nothing ignorant about getting rid of the tax code and the IRS. You're insane if you think otherwise. If we get rid of them then we don't have to risk our resources fighting them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Oh jeeeez. Here we go.

    There's nothing ignorant about getting rid of the tax code and the IRS. You're insane if you think otherwise. If we get rid of them then we don't have to risk our resources fighting them.
    We should get rid of the the prohibition on drugs.
    We need end the "war on terror (the rights of citizens).

    We also need to tar and feather those in office who believe that the 5th Amendment does not apply ALL the time.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Oh jeeeez. Here we go.

    There's nothing ignorant about getting rid of the tax code and the IRS. You're insane if you think otherwise. If we get rid of them then we don't have to risk our resources fighting them.
    I just send in my 1040 with the sole name of CITIZEN and then on the line "Money we owe you" at $10MM ...

    I blow it all in one evening but.. hey ! How many can say that they played poker with the 3 stooges after 1980? Right?

    Well worth it.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Present day international drug control has its roots in The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

    At its heart, the Single Convention limits use and possession of opiates, cannabis and cocaine, to medicinal and scientific purposes. Recreational use is not permitted in any form under the Single Convention.

    Rather, the Convention created a classification system that divides drugs into four schedules, establishing differing degrees of regulation for each schedule, which serves as the model for most national scheduling systems, such as the Controlled Substances Act in the United States. The Single Conventional so established the International Narcotics Control Board whose purpose is to monitor treaty compliance among the signatory nations.

    In addition to the 1961 Single Convention, two other international treaties have a direct bearing on international control of narcotics and psychotropic substances. These are the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which, enacted after an upsurge of drug use in the 1960s, added certain synthetic, prescription, and hallucinogenic drugs (including LSD) to the list of controlled substances.

    The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was enacted in response to an increase in trafficking. The 1988 Convention required member countries, for the first time, to criminalize possession for personal consumption. Notably, the 1988 Convention did not specify how users were to be punished; only that possession, purchase or cultivation for personal consumption be made a criminal offense. The 1988 Convention specifically states that its implementation should be accompanied by prudence and is subject to each party’s constitutional principles and basic concepts of its legal system. These three international treaties constitute the international law concerning the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

    The treaties are not self-executing, meaning that each country must enact laws implementing the treaties in their own jurisdictions.

    The Conventions are legally binding pursuant to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a country may not circumscribe its obligations under the treaties by enacting a conflicting domestic law.

    Federal treaties are binding on the states. The problem is the drug war is costing the states millions and millions of dollars that they don't have. Legalizing drugs in the states creates a taxable source.

    Follow the money.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    SNIP

    Federal treaties are binding on the states. The problem is the drug war is costing the states millions and millions of dollars that they don't have. Legalizing drugs in the states creates a taxable source.

    Follow the money.
    Cite the authority to have business in the private affairs of citizens as empowered by the constitution.

    Since that power was not granted, the treaty is meaningless. The treaties have to be within the powers granted under the constitution.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Cite the authority to have business in the private affairs of citizens as empowered by the constitution.

    Since that power was not granted, the treaty is meaningless. The treaties have to be within the powers granted under the constitution.
    I'm not sure what your getting at, but Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

    ??????business in the private affairs of citizens??????

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure what your getting at, but Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.
    It's well-established that the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution) remain supreme over any treaties.

    It would be illogical to give to foreign agents powers denied to our own legislature.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Here is the whole document, ripped from the heart of the NY Bar

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Attorneys plagiarize all the time. They would just tell you they forgot the quote marks if asked. But, when stating facts there is no plagiarizing.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    It's well-established that the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution) remain supreme over any treaties.

    It would be illogical to give to foreign agents powers denied to our own legislature.
    As far as the drug was goes, where does the Constitution deny the government the power to make a treaty regulating drugs? Even without a treaty the same question I ask.

    The government will claim they have the power under the welfare clause.

    Don't get me wrong, the drug war is a failure, period.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Attorneys plagiarize all the time. They would just tell you they forgot the quote marks if asked. But, when stating facts there is no plagiarizing.
    I think that around here, among us non-professionals and non-colleagues, it's called copyright violation.

    I just read an interesting evaluation by Karl Popper ('Open Society', Nature and Convention, p.61) of facts, divided into Type-1 (Napoleon died at St. Helena) and Type-2 (the statement that "Napoleon died at St. Helena") that is often denigrated HERE as mere opinion.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    As far as the drug was goes, where does the Constitution deny the government the power to make a treaty regulating drugs? Even without a treaty the same question I ask.

    The government will claim they have the power under the welfare clause.

    Don't get me wrong, the drug war is a failure, period.
    Where in the constitution does it give the government the authority to prohibit drugs?

    The duece bag federalist promised they would never go outside the enumerated powers granted them. If it wasn't for the antifederalist we wouldn't even have the BOR, thank god for those confrontational, anarchistic, radical, extremist.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 09-04-2013 at 09:52 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    As far as the drug was goes, where does the Constitution deny the government the power to make a treaty regulating drugs? Even without a treaty the same question I ask.
    The Federal War on Drugs was in full swing in everything but name long before that treaty was signed – in fact, it dates all the way back to Prohibition I (which is why I say that Prohibition never actually ended; we just took alcohol off the list).

    I promise you, the government doesn't care or need to appeal to the authority of treaties in order to ignore the Constitution.

    So many folks look for so many different ways to explain government tyranny in the US. Inevitably they come to a conspiracy of laws. This is where the freeman-on-the-land and sovereign citizen types come from. Clearly there was some subtle legal maneuver used to circumvent the Constitution, or to trick us into agreeing to their illegitimate usurpations of power, right?

    Wrong. The answer is far less interesting. Government simply doesn't give a damn. Government didn't bother to pass an amendment for other drugs because they didn't need to, and they didn't care. Government doesn't maintain that there is a right to drive, but that we all inadvertently abdicate it by obtaining "commercial" driver's licenses; government simply doesn't care about the right to travel. Government doesn't trick us all into consenting to its rule with some "straw man" created via birth certificates; it simply doesn't care or feel the need to justify its authority. As far as government is concerned, its authority is self-justified, self-evident, and self-executed.

    In short, government doesn't feel the slightest need to resort to legal machinations; its authority derives solely from the barrel of a gun, and it damn well knows it.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-04-2013 at 12:07 PM.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The Federal War on Drugs was in full swing in everything but name long before that treaty was signed – in fact, it dates all the way back to Prohibition I (which is why I say that Prohibition never actually ended; we just took alcohol off the list).

    I promise you, the government doesn't care or need to appeal to the authority of treaties in order to ignore the Constitution.

    So many folks look for so many different ways to explain government tyranny in the US. Inevitably they come to a conspiracy of laws. This is where the freeman-on-the-land and sovereign citizen types come from. Clearly there was some subtle legal maneuver used to circumvent the Constitution, or to trick us into agreeing to their illegitimate usurpations of power, right?

    Wrong. The answer is far less interesting. Government simply doesn't give a damn. Government didn't bother to pass an amendment for other drugs because they didn't need to, and they didn't care. Government doesn't maintain that there is a right to drive, but that we all inadvertently abdicate it by obtaining "commercial" driver's licenses; government simply doesn't care about the right to travel. Government doesn't trick us all into consenting to its rule with some "straw man" created via birth certificates; it simply doesn't care or feel the need to justify its authority. As far as government is concerned, its authority is self-justified, self-evident, and self-executed.

    In short, government doesn't feel the slightest need to resort to legal machinations; its authority derives solely from the barrel of a gun, and it damn well knows it.
    +1

    From the barrel of a gun, and the barrel of a water-cannon, and from the swung baton, and from the jaws of a police dog. Just ask the civil rights protesters from the 1960's.

    Those Americans had to threaten to burn their cities before government threw them a few bones.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure what your getting at, but Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

    ??????business in the private affairs of citizens??????
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
    Pursuance thereof;
    and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
    Authority of the United States
    , shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
    Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
    Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    My original question still stands. Where is the authority of federal government/congress to create any anti-drug laws?
    The 18th Amendment created authority {sic} to prohibit/regulate alcohol but that's it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I'm not sure what your getting at, but Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

    ??????business in the private affairs of citizens??????
    What it ASSURES is that only the laws which are ALLOWED under the Constitution take precedence over state laws. Any law which prohibits a citizen of a state from doing what he wishes with his body is NOT allowed under the US Constitution and therefore the Federal government has NO right to enforce such a law.

    The US Constitution gives very limited powers to the Federal government -- powers which the Federal government has engorged with their UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws!

    They needed a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to prohibit alcohol, but they DON'T need the same to prohibit a drug? Does this not make sense to you? They knew that it was unconstitutional to outlaw alcohol at the federal level because the Constitution did NOT grant them the power to regulate such items! These days they don't care what the Constitution says, they just do it without worry of the People pushing back! They know we have become weak and ignorant and they also know we will do nothing but protest their unconstitutional and unjust actions!
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 09-04-2013 at 04:13 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •