If we live in a free country ...

Read my post again and then try being honest in your representation of what I said. I know it will be hard for you to do as it is not a common thing for you and it won't support your argument, but please try.

Please give me cold hard evidence...not speculation from a source that is fishing for a victim to represent to push a political agenda. Nowhere in your post above did you prove your point.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Thanks for calling me dishonest, I just love your Christian attitude!! I gave you a link to the story in the New York Times, if need more information you can contact them to find out their source of information. While the ACLU is very dangerous liberal organization, I have found that on some issues they are right, it may be a very few issues, but it still happens.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

http://tinyurl.com/ctlvx

As I stated on the last page, these are liberal groups that I have no respect for, but they are not in any way connected with Al Qaeda. These are US citizens who are being spied on without a warrant, not just possible Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

You're welcome. The truth hurts sometimes. Don't try to misrepresent what I say and I won't call you dishonest. Speaking of Christian attitudes...I am quite sure that bearing false witness is not one of them.

I gave you a link to the story in the New York Times, [/QUOTE]

You gave me a link to speculation, not evidence, from an anti-American smear machine. And you expect me to take that seriously? Give me one name of someone who was spied on who had nothing to do with terrorists whatsoever, and then show me the evidence, not speculation (may have doesn't cut it with me), and then we can talk. Otherwise, you should admit that there is no evidence that this has occurred and is merely your own speculation created in your imagination if you would like to try being honest about the issue for once.

if need more information you can contact them to find out their source of information.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should contact them. I am not the one who made the accusation, and therefore, am not the one with the burden of proof to defend my comments. You are.

While the ACLU is very dangerous liberal organization, I have found that on some issues they are right, it may be a very few issues, but it still happens.[/QUOTE]

Every now and then, you are correct here. They are right on some issues. Even a dead clock is right twice a day.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.[/QUOTE]

Do you know that none of these groups, or individual members of these groups, for a fact had nothing to do with terrorism. I don't think you have proved your point yet. But, that is some good speculation.

http://tinyurl.com/ctlvx

As I stated on the last page, these are liberal groups that I have no respect for, but they are not in any way connected with Al Qaeda. These are US citizens who are being spied on without a warrant, not just possible Al Qaeda terrorists. [/QUOTE]

And you know this how?

Joseph Botwinick

 

It didn't hurt, because it wasn't the truth, I learned long ago not to be offended by your personal attacks. I didn't bear false witness against you, I simply stated that you don't like the source, so you disregard the story. You do that all the time on the forum, how is that bearing false witness?

Again, here you choose to ignore the information because you don't like the source. How is the "Vegan Community Project" or the Catholic Workers group, or PETA connected to Al Qaeda? Your logic makes no sense. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm.

 

I can only assume that you either have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are purposely dishonest about what I said. Let me see if I can more clearly communicate what should be obvious to you:

You Wrote:

There are two objections that I have to what you have presented as "evidence":

1. It is speculation, not fact.

2. The speculation originates with an anti-American smear group.

Therefore, whether it be a problem with reading comprehension or just plain dishonesty, it is clear that you ignored the fact of my first objection, making it look as if I had only one objection against the source itself. Do you understand now, or do you not want to understand? Which is it?

Again, here you choose to ignore the information because you don't like the source. How is the "Vegan Community Project" or the Catholic Workers group, or PETA connected to Al Qaeda? Your logic makes no sense. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm. [/QUOTE]

1. Do you know for sure that they, or perhaps some of their individual members, are not connected to terrorists? How do you know oh grand omniscient bearer of all knowledge? Do you know more about our national security than the president and the FBI? Are you really that arrogant?

2. You automatically assume that anyone that the Bush administration is spying on must not be related to Al Qaeda simply because they are spying on them. hmmmm.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't "ignore the law". I maintain that no law was broken. If one has become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C), if one "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefore, for or on behalf of a foreign power,", then according to the law, surveillance is justified. Even including US citizens. The whole point being to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."


As to a conspiracy by NY Times, it looks pretty fishy to me, but use your own judgment.

 

I can only assume that you either have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are purposely dishonest about what I said. Let me see if I can more clearly communicate what should be obvious to you:

You Wrote:

</font>[/QUOTE]No problem with readin comprehension here, I posted content with links to an article, you stated: "Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.", So I replied, that you don't "like the source of the information" so you "just tosses it out as not factual" That is not bearing false witness. You don't trust the New York Times or the ACLU, so you disregard the news story as speculation. Don't worry your personal attacks won't confuse me, I understand perfectly well. Good night!

 

Nope. You either do not understand or are dishonest when you ignore the second part of my objection to your non-evidence. Don't worry, John. I have never known the truth to confuse you when you are trying to smear people. You understand absolutely nothing, except perhaps, how to bear false witness. You do that very well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Thread closed as it has been a personal squabble since page one.

 

You wish that the government would monitor churches for the purpose of enforcing 501c3 status? I know this is an old thread so do you continue to hold this position? If your church is not 501c3 then why do you wish this monitoring on others?

 

The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers for the federal government. The federal government is to be chained by that document.

 

Mr

For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.[/b]</font>[/QUOTE]May have been? ACLU is seeking access? You mean they're going on a fishing expidition looking for a victim to represent in their smear campaign of the President? Seriously, can you name one person who was spied on by the president who had no ties to terrorists whatsoever? Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.

Joseph Botwinick[/QUOTE]

I know a person whose apartment was broken into by the FBI without a search warrent. He is absolutely not related to terrorism in any way. I'm not providing any details because he was warned not to tell anyone that this had happened.