|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Hear that sound? It's the further chipping away of your civil rights. Bush signs new rules on government wiretapping By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases. He called it "landmark legislation that is vital to the security of our people." Bush signed the measure in a Rose Garden ceremony a day after the Senate sent it to him, following nearly a year of debate in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the warrantless wiretapping program Bush initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was a battle that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks and Democrats' fears of being portrayed as weak when it comes to protecting the country. Its passage was a major victory for Bush, an unpopular lame-duck president who nevertheless has been able to prevail over Congress on most issues of national security and intelligence disputes. Bush said the 9/11 attack "changed our country forever" and taught the intelligence community that it must know who America's enemies are talking to and what they are saying. "In the aftermath of 9/11," Bush said, "few would have imagined that we would be standing here seven years later without another attack on American soil. The fact that the terrorists have failed to strike our shores again does not mean that our enemies have given up." Even before Bush signed the legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would challenge the new law in court. The president said the bill gives the government anti-terror tools it needs without compromising Americans' civil liberties. Bush was joined at the ceremony by Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and more than a dozen members of Congress. The ACLU's lawsuit was filed on behalf of several civil rights groups. It wants a federal judge in New York to rule that the law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and the right against unlawful search and seizure. It also asks that the judge permanently block intelligence officials from conducting surveillance under the law. "The new law gives the government the power to conduct dragnet surveillance that has no connection to terrorism or criminal activity of any kind," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, in a conference call to reporters. "A law like this is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and with the most basic democratic values," he said. Roger Atwood, communications director for the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights organization for the region, said the new law will impede the group's work. "The near suspicion that information provided to us, to our staff, will be accessed by the U.S. government can seriously affect WOLA's credibility and our effectiveness in Latin America in moving our work forward," Atwood said in the conference call. Link
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/hfMNC7T.jpg) "I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
I really don't see how people protest this one.
If we want to catch these people, using wiretapping which is effective, how can we allow people the option to sue the telecommunications companies.
I want those companies on our side when we really need it. They won't be if they're afraid of facing legal trouble.
I've got nothing to hide, so I'm not worried about wire tapping. I never have seen the big deal about it. They aren't going after random joes, and if they are, fine, they'll find out the person is a random joe.
Yeah, if we want to attack wiretapping, the government is the ones who should face that issue. The companies that put themselves on the line to help our country, doing something patriotic. Leave them alone
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232 |
I don't have anything to hide either but its a slippery slope. Once the government takes something away, it RARELY gives it back... especially when we are in a war against "terror" that can really go on indefinitely. If the gov't didn't abuse things like this, it wouldn't be so bad, but they always do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
I don't have anything to hide either but its a slippery slope. Once the government takes something away, it RARELY gives it back... especially when we are in a war against "terror" that can really go on indefinitely. If the gov't didn't abuse things like this, it wouldn't be so bad, but they always do.
Just like taxes, right? I pay my damn taxes and hate it. Nothing I can do about it. So tap my phone. Maybe we'll stop more terrorists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I don't have anything to hide either but its a slippery slope. Once the government takes something away, it RARELY gives it back... especially when we are in a war against "terror" that can really go on indefinitely. If the gov't didn't abuse things like this, it wouldn't be so bad, but they always do.
This is one of those things that you can take our leave, but my uncle worked for congress running their computer systems and then was administrative manager of the whitehouse (which basically means running all operations, like computers and keeping everything functioning, at the whitehouse) and he has told me that he gets to look at the confidential reports. There is a lot going on, the threat is bigger than percieved and we are very successful at eliminating it.
He got the job because he was serious delta force for a long time and is able to be trusted with the kind of information that he needs to know to do his job. Although he's not the most talkative and exciting guy, I respect him a lot: he's done a lot of things. I don't know much besides him being one of the very first in Grenada in charge of setting up communications, but when all the black people were being released during hte whole Iran-Hostage situation he called out every one who went to spy school with him to my father (a little ironic that most of the actual spies and CIA guys that were held captive were the ones that were released).
He's got a fairly high position with the shadow government, which is the government if a major catastrophe occurred and significant people were dead, because he's trusted so much, so when the State of Union Address happens he's always in a cave in Virginia or Maryland somewhere.
So yeah, I'll let the government and their hidden-ops be and simply trust it. Same as how we trust the rediculous money that gets put into top-secret funding by our gov. He also told me that agree with their policies or not, GWB is not a bad person nor is the one he knew the best and met one-on-one with frequently (Cheney). At least they've always been very good to him.
I'm not saying that the Gov is all holy, but I do believe my Uncle when he says that the war on terror is real, and I also trust that the Govt is using it's wiretapping needs on those who should be tapped.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
The only issue I have is what criteria determine "suspected terrorism cases"?
I bought a bag of fertilizer yesterday, am I now under suspicion?
I, and I doubt many, have issues with wire-tapping suspects. The problem arises in the loose definition the government can use to declare suspicion, and therefore invade your privacy. Not that they will, but that they can.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
I would agree with that. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar and I have never (and likely will never) read or fully understand what this law actually allows the government to do. And I would suspect it is the same with most Americans. Most people will hear the filtered version as those who either support or reject it make their case....
I personally have nothing to hide, I also don't want the government listening to my conversations or reading my e-mails...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
The government is not going to be listening to your typical conversations. There is not enough hours in the day for it to be done by someone literally listening in on your conversation. The only time your going to be targeted is if you cause a red flag to go up. For instance you say "bomb" or a word they think a terroist might use to replace that word like "goods". I know cheesy example, but thats not the point. Once the red flag goes up, a super high tech computer will record your conversation. From there it will go to a person who will hear the conversation through a secure phone that is connected to this computer. Upon hearing the conversation it is up to that person to determine if further investigation is needed into the people that are holding the conversation. If the conversation is determined to be of no use or not important it will be erased. The people listening in all hoesty could probably care less about a conversation that was talking about selling some weed. These people are not worried about this stuff; there worried about catching terrorist.
Now it probably doesn't happen exactly like I said, but you should get the general idea that the people listening could care less about your conversation and are only listening to determine if your a threat to the nation or not. I understand that once the government takes control of something they have a tendacy to abuse that privlege, but this is one case that I don't think they can honestly abuse. Mainly because it would take way too much man hours to sift through the billions of conversations that take place every single day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
I think everyone understands that they aren't going to listen to everyone conversations.  The issue is whether or not by this law, they could, without hard reason.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
I've got nothing to hide, so I'm not worried about wire tapping.
Then you won't mind if they put a camera in your house either? Or maybe you won't mind if the police need to come and search your house every now and then to make sure?
The "nothing to hide - so it's ok" position is a trap. I'm a huge fan of killing terrorists  but laws like this make me nervous.
It starts with noble intentions of fight terorism but what happens when it trickles down to local law enforcement? Say they tap my phone to make sure I'm not a bad guy - and hey it turns out I'm not - but they hear my 8th grader talking to his friend and says something stupid like " I'd like to shoot my teacher". (we all said dumb things like this that were idle chatter as kids).
Local law enforcement decides it's Columbine and suddenly my family is in the ringer. And there are a thousand different scenarios that could get you into trouble that might otherwise seem harmless.
Are you sure you want people listening in?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Thanks, but I believe I understand the current intent and how we all think it will be used. The part I don't understand is how COULD it be used in the future. Does it leave the door open for even more intrusive eavesdropping?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 Likes: 1
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Does it leave the door open for even more intrusive eavesdropping?
Yes, and that's the kicker. The "slippery slope" folks are referring to. You've probably heard the saying, give em an inch, they'll take a mile". It's that sort of thing. While the "spirit of the law" is great and all, it's not always done that way. There are a great many laws that made sense in spirit, but not in practicality.
Personally, I do not think that a warrant-less wiretap is a good thing. It gives too much power to those who would abuse it.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Quote:
Hear that sound? It's the further chipping away of your civil rights
Don't do anything illegal and you won't notice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55 |
Quote:
Quote:
Hear that sound? It's the further chipping away of your civil rights
Don't do anything illegal and you won't notice.
Yes, I believe that quote came from the Russians. Along with "Show me your papers".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 62 |
for the people on here that are using the argument that "hey, i don't have anything to hide so what do i care?", i would like to suggest a movie to you. it's called "lives of others" and it's about how the east german secret police (stasi) used to spy on their citizens. this movie shows what the bottom of this slippery slope is like, and it's based on real events. i thought the most surreal part of the whole movie was at the end after the east german government finally collapsed and the stasi was no more, they opened up all of the records to everyone of all the wiretapping that went on, and people could go and see what information the stasi had collected on each of them. btw, this movie won an academy award this year for best foreign language film link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison
Just out of curiosity, can you cite examples of what James Madison was talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 Likes: 1
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Quote:
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison
Just out of curiosity, can you cite examples of what James Madison was talking about?
That quote comes from the book "The confederation and the Constitution, 1783-1789
By Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin".
You can read it here. The confederation and the Constitution
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676 |
Quote:
The government is not going to be listening to your typical conversations.
And what in the law or garuntees do you have to substantiate this? And what does constitute deserving to be wiretapped or not?
We have heard this president say, "You're either with us or against us". So could it be that he deems "anyone against him" as someone who deserves to be wiretapped?
You can sit here and say, "They won't do this or they won't do that". But can you show me a clear definition as to who falls under someone who they deem deserves to be wiretapped and who doesn't?
I didn't think so. Your "beliefs and thoughts" on the subject are fine. I have no qualms with that. But can you show the board what evidence you have to substantiate your claims?
Open ended and vaguely worded laws are an open invitation for abuse of such laws. I can not say it is being abused any more than you say that it isn't being abused. Because there's really no way, at this point in time, to know wheather or not this wiretapping program is being abused.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Ah pit....nice to hear you again...Pit says,"...Because there's really no way, at this point in time, to know wheather or not this wiretapping program is being abused. "
If we don't know that a wrong doing is occurring why spend millions of dollars on it and thousands of staffer hours trying to "catch a snipe in the dark"!
Then again during the Reagan years Tip O'Neill loved to launch investigations on the GOP admin. simply by stating that "there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it but that only means we need to investigate it more thoroughly."!!!! Right
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
It starts with noble intentions of fight terorism but what happens when it trickles down to local law enforcement?
I imagine wiretapping would be done through the work of phone companies and federal agencies, wouldn't it?
But I understand the point that people are making that it's a slippery slope. Creating a police state that goes around and looks at you as if it isn't if but what you've done wrong is a terrible thing. I lived in Czech Rep. and their police are a little different than ours. Our police believe they are serving the people of their district, the Czechs didn't do that. They weren't interested in helping people, just looking for criminal acts.
This is all because of the effects communism had on their society not too long ago. You can still see it, and one of the easiest ways to spot it is by evaluating their police force. My professor who I respect more than anyone called them the same communist cops that were putting people in political prison, the same cops that worked for the Nazis during WW2.
I don't think that this would suddenly happen because we're wiretapping though, the risks are being blown out of proportion IMO and it is effective against terrorists. You still need some sort of authorization, etc. to wiretap somebodies phone. In the end don't you want the telephone companies on our side if we're trying to wiretap a phonecall between some high ups or something instead of denying the request because they're afraid they're gonna get sued.
Just depends on how much faith you have in your gov I guess, eh....
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You have no way of saying it's being abused, but it hasn't stopped you from railing on and on for months that it has. That's never stopped you before. Show us, Pit, how "loosely" worded this legislature is. I'm sure you 've read the entire thing since you say it's "loosely" worded. Oh, and provide a link, as your citing of things leaves alot lacking in facts. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676 |
So you also have an opinion with nothing to substantiate it. Just like the rest of us. Let me ask you this...............IF it wasn't a "loophole for possible abuse", why isn't there more of a description of "who and who does not" fall under possible wiretapping"? Like I said, you have no idea of wheather it is being abused or not. And the wording is so vague, it just might be. But you have no idea, factually, wheater it is or not. Just like Butch, it's nothing more than "a gut feeling".  And how did that work out for him again? BTW- The gut feeling line was a joke. So please don't get your panties in a bunch about it. 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
Just depends on how much faith you have in your gov I guess, eh....
And therein lies the problem...some people trust the government for different reasons and to different degrees.
Take for instance those that don't trust the government to provide universal healthcare, for fear of abuse...seem to trust the government to not abuse wiretapping...go figure!
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55 |
At least I'm consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
At least I'm consistent.
Hope that's working out for ya! 
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55 |
Right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Conversely, those who trust the government with their healthcare don't trust the government with their phone calls?!?!?!
I think I can trust the government more with not listening to me telling my mom Happy Mother's Day over the phone more than I can them determining whether or not and how I get treatment to save my life. Conversely, how does someone trust the government with their lives ie healthcare, but not with phone calls????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
Conversely, those who trust the government with their healthcare don't trust the government with their phone calls?!?!?!
I think I can trust the government more with not listening to me telling my mom Happy Mother's Day over the phone more than I can them determining whether or not and how I get treatment to save my life. Conversely, how does someone trust the government with their lives ie healthcare, but not with phone calls????
I'm sorry, but when did politicians become Dr's? Last I checked, you still went to go see a Dr. Not if they deny services, how different would it be from the health care companies now?
So you see, I can trust them with that (to a certain degree), because nobody on Capital Hill will actually be doing any medical work.
Now, while I don't have anything to hide from them in my phone conversations, which I'm barely ever on the phone, I despise the fact of someone listening to my conversation, REGARDLESS of what's being discussed. Additionally, IMO, it's the first step in setting up a police state. Not something I'd like to have happen. So, we've got eavesdropping, and search and seizure...both without warrants...what's next?
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,698 Likes: 1676 |
Quote:
You have no way of saying it's being abused, but it hasn't stopped you from railing on and on for months that it has. That's never stopped you before. Show us, Pit, how "loosely" worded this legislature is. I'm sure you 've read the entire thing since you say it's "loosely" worded. Oh, and provide a link, as your citing of things leaves alot lacking in facts. Thanks.
Why me? I'm just agreeing with Florida and DC. Why not ask them?
And please show me "one place" that I said, "It is being abused". You won't, because you can't. It's a "falsehood". ( I know how much you LOVE that term )
My intention is it erodes our civil liberties and "opens the door for possible abuse". And it permits a situation that no checks and balances are in place to make sure it isn't abused. Much like posters have mentioned long prior to my post.
Florida posted:
Quote:
I, and I doubt many, have issues with wire-tapping suspects. The problem arises in the loose definition the government can use to declare suspicion, and therefore invade your privacy. Not that they will, but that they can.
To which DC replied;
Quote:
I would agree with that. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar and I have never (and likely will never) read or fully understand what this law actually allows the government to do. And I would suspect it is the same with most Americans. Most people will hear the filtered version as those who either support or reject it make their case....
I personally have nothing to hide, I also don't want the government listening to my conversations or reading my e-mails...
While they posted these things well before me, you single me out to substantiate it? Why is that Coach?
People are starting to see your obsession here.
You have a great day!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
I noticed that a while ago, Pit.
But as per the topic I see everyone's point. When I was thinking of abuse I wasn't thinking about people that would be targeted simply because of the connection they may have with countries that harbor terrorism. So I do see that a warrant is needed.
But as to everyday conversation being monitored I find that hard to believe.
We have over 300 million citizens and tens of millions of illegal immigrants. An average of 4 phone calls per day per person and your looking at well over a billion phone calls per day coming from our country to another and vise versa as well as phone calls with in. Not including emails. I find it hard to believe that the government could literally have a human body field all of those calls. I doubt it would even take ten thousand employees to listen to every call and check every email. Hence why I think the majority of spying will not effect our daily lives in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
You talking about someone's "obsession" while you daily rant about the evil Bush. Hypocrisy and projection are still your best tools, huh, Pit. I singled you out because I haven't seen Florida or DC go on and on and on about how this was the end for the United States being a free country if it passed as you have. Typically, you conveniantly dismiss your earlier rants and play the oh so innocent victim of someone else. Same tactics from you, Pit, nothing new. As arch has said repeatedly, though, people read and remember your posts. Many laws "open the door" for abuse,...that doesn't mean they WILL be abused. You have admitted that you don't know what the law reads in it's entirety. So you don't know if it "opens the door" for abuse or not. Of course, it was put in place under the Bush administration so it has to be some evil anti-American plot by him. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,132 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,132 Likes: 1050 |
Quote:
Conversely, those who trust the government with their healthcare don't trust the government with their phone calls?!?!?!
This is what absolutely floors me about liberals. It's about as hypocritical as you can get.
I really don't see the stink about the telecomm companies being immune from prosecution if they were acting at the governments' request. The government should be held accountable, not the companies. Those companies thought they were assisting in the war on terror. Lawyers just see a bigger paycheck by suing the Telecomms.
For the record, I stronglly feel there should be no wiretapping without evidence. However noble the stated cause, those in charge will abuse the power for political reasons.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
This is what absolutely floors me about liberals. It's about as hypocritical as you can get.
yawn!
Quote:
I really don't see the stink about the telecomm companies being immune from prosecution if they were acting at the governments' request. The government should be held accountable, not the companies. Those companies thought they were assisting in the war on terror. Lawyers just see a bigger paycheck by suing the Telecomms
I absolutely agree
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
I really don't see the stink about the telecomm companies being immune from prosecution if they were acting at the governments' request. The government should be held accountable, not the companies. Those companies thought they were assisting in the war on terror. Lawyers just see a bigger paycheck by suing the Telecomms.
While this is true to some degree, it was an actual end-run by the administration to protect themselves with "executive privledge". See what was happening is some of those evil FOIA groups had been unable to get the information as to who was being wiretapped (because the admin was secretly wiretapping with "National Security" letters as their "warrants" outside of judicial oversight). So they brought suits against the telecom companies to get that information released in the discovery phase of the trial since no judge or other branch had to that point had a "check" on this newfound power.
It really wasn't too much about lawyers trying to extract money from the telecoms. That and the warrantless wiretapping isn't even necessary under the FISA law that allows the wiretapping agency to go get a warrant up to 3 days later. 
But for some reason that wasn't good enough. I just can't figure out why some people wouldn't trust an executive branch that feels they are unbeholden to anyone -- including the Constitution. 
I sure as heck trust my government to write a check (however inefficiently they do it) a lot more than I trust them to protect my constitutional rights in the name of "protecting me". 
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
j/c
Are some of you really afraid of the gov't. listening to your phone calls? Or even the phone company listening?
How many phone calls are made in one day in the U.S.? Probably billions. In order to listen to that many, either the gov't. or the phone companies would have to hire 30 million people.
Has anyone stopped and thought that, maybe, just perhaps, the phone co. or the gov't. will only start actually listening to calls well after the fact that a trend has been established? You know, like, if someone calls afghanistan, or pakistan, or some other area determined to be a terrorist hot point? If they call repeatedly, over a series of months?
Or do people really think that when they call the local pizza place for a delivery that some phone company rep, or some gov't. person is going to be listening to "yeah, a large pepperoni with extra cheese"?
This is what it's come down to? People say "stop terrorist attacks, but don't do it if it your manner of doing it infringes or possibly infringes on me in any way shape or form? In other words, stop the bad guys, but don't do anything preventative"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
I know you weren't replying to me, but I'll respond because I can.  I feel the government has some responsibility to protect it's people, but we have that pesky Constitution thing. I feel that violating the Constitution to protect the people is just flat wrong. Ultimately no one, from the lowest dregs of society to the POTUS is above the law. If we are willing to violate our laws to "protect our self" what moral high ground do we have to say that our laws matter. The US is supposed to be a beacon of hope. A nation of laws and people, but if we use the same tools of fascism that our "enemies" use, we cannot consider ourselves better than they are. When our President takes his oath, it is not to protect the citizens. It is not to control the nation. His oath is "to protect and defend the Constitution." That is the bottomline, protect and defend the Constitution at all costs. In the long run, we will all be safer because of it. The bottomline is with the warrantless wiretapping, the gov't probably isn't listening to our calls. If so, some analyst is probably bored to tears. But they can and there is no way to know who or what they are listening too. And since they can hold you without charges now as an enemy combatant, what thought crime is now an offense? Without checks and balances, it's a very slippery slope to political opposition being "enemy combatants." Not that it will happen, but without specific guidelines there is nothing to stop it from happening. That to me is much more scary than the remote possibility of dying or even being injured in a terrorist attack.
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
The bottomline is with the warrantless wiretapping, the gov't probably isn't listening to our calls. If so, some analyst is probably bored to tears. But they can and there is no way to know who or what they are listening too. And since they can hold you without charges now as an enemy combatant, what thought crime is now an offense? Without checks and balances, it's a very slippery slope to political opposition being "enemy combatants." Not that it will happen, but without specific guidelines there is nothing to stop it from happening.
That to me is much more scary than the remote possibility of dying or even being injured in a terrorist attack.
Well said!
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
I feel the government has some responsibility to protect it's people, but we have that pesky Constitution thing. I feel that violating the Constitution to protect the people is just flat wrong.
Ultimately no one, from the lowest dregs of society to the POTUS is above the law. If we are willing to violate our laws to "protect our self" what moral high ground do we have to say that our laws matter.
The US is supposed to be a beacon of hope. A nation of laws and people, but if we use the same tools of fascism that our "enemies" use, we cannot consider ourselves better than they are.
When our President takes his oath, it is not to protect the citizens. It is not to control the nation. His oath is "to protect and defend the Constitution." That is the bottomline, protect and defend the Constitution at all costs. In the long run, we will all be safer because of it.
The bottomline is with the warrantless wiretapping, the gov't probably isn't listening to our calls. If so, some analyst is probably bored to tears. But they can and there is no way to know who or what they are listening too. And since they can hold you without charges now as an enemy combatant, what thought crime is now an offense? Without checks and balances, it's a very slippery slope to political opposition being "enemy combatants." Not that it will happen, but without specific guidelines there is nothing to stop it from happening.
That to me is much more scary than the remote possibility of dying or even being injured in a terrorist attack.
I just have to pipe up here and say, nice post!
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure legal american citizens can NOT be held as illegal enemy combatants for any period of time. UNLESS there is proof of a threat to america. And, at that time, the proof has to pass the muster of an American court.
The constitution applies to any and all legal american citizens living legally in this country.
Your analogy is a poor one - you go from listening to calls to illegal enemy combatant - forgetting about legal citizenship.
To equate someone making a simple phone call to a "terrorist" nation calling family to illegal enemy combatant is nothing short of scare tactics.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bush Signs New Rules on Government
Wiretapping
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
