[quote]optprime wrote:
It’s good that the issue is being exposed to the light of day I think, but goddamn if the post 911 world isn’t constantly causing me to re-examine my beliefs.[/quote]
Interesting. All it took to erode the basic concept of our freedoms was an attack using our own planes and for Bin Ladin to avoid capture. It looks like he won after all, huh?
Even Nightline described it as “listening to calls made by American citizens to suspicious people oversees”. Fine.
This story is a year old. It was just convenient to list it the day after a successful election turn out.
Media sucks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Whose phones are being tapped? I doubt mine is.
From the looks of it they have already uncovered a couple plots by doing this.
We must strike a good balance between our security and privacy.
I understand the fears of loss of privacy but I don’t see this as a major problem.
[/quote]
and that reasoning, my friends, is how it all starts.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think Bush is an idiot. Calling the President an idiot whether you like him or not is usually more reflective of the critic then the man. I think he makes tough decisions that he believes are corrrect. Most of the dissent is straight along party lines or political philosophy. People who take action are always criticized by those who don’t.
[/quote]
That much is true. I dont think he’s intellectually dumb either and given his reported IQ scores and ivy league education he’s whip smart. BUT, he’s made some bad decisions. The war in iraq for instance. Even greenspan said the other day that we need to get our budget in order or its going to affect the economy probably several years down the road; and of course he won’t openly criticise the president but the war in iraq is our biggest source of budgetary " fat ". Too much expense for too little gain. He also did the prison thing in Europe for suspected terrorists…he’s not making us look good at all.
If Bush were just a bad decision maker but good at things like dimplomacy and bringing the world over to our point of view on things then i would reverse my decision. I’ve seen the polls the rest of the world loves us but hates our president , b/c the only thing worse than a ruler out of control is one that is administratively a dummy and on top of that agressive.
My family is all GOP by the way, but we dislike the way our president is making the US the laughing stock, and uninsightful and not-that-good superpower of the world. We’re republican to our core but we can’t support a president that is hurting us down the road.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
. . .
ADDENDUM FOR CLARIFICATION:
Communications between two parties in the USA are subject to FISA, provided that we are dealing with an agent (or suspected agent) of a foreign power. . .
[/quote]
“suspected” agent. this is ridiculously vague. it can be applied to pretty much anybody.
I just read over on Netscape that the president consulted both the Attorney General and his own WH counsel concerning the legality of what he was doing. Since it was legal, then this is a matter for the Supreme Court – is this law constitutional?
If the law is unconstitutional (as it should be), then that should be the end of it.
What’s happening though does bear a striking resemblance to the Enabling Act (48) that allowed Hitler so much power – ‘for the protection of Volk and state’. The act was created by the Weimar Republic, a true welfare state. Eerie similarities!
“A welfare state is a police state in the making.”
— Anonymous
Quick rise up and revolt. You know that proud civil war you guys have been going on about for years. Time to do it again. Oh wait. That would be an act of terror.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Even Nightline described it as “listening to calls made by American citizens to suspicious people oversees”. Fine.[/quote]
The sad part is, you believe that a system with no checks and balances is guaranteed to avoid any negative uses of power. I’m glad rose colored glasses come in your size.
Would you mind listing your real name, address, work phone number, work address, the amount you earned last month, your license plate number, car make/model and the names of all of your immediate family members? I mean, if you have nothing to hide…
You do trust us, right?
I can’t say it any better:
"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can’t say it any better:
"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American.”[/quote]
All this liberal/conservative shit is really retarted!
How can ANYONE defend these actions? Some say it isn’t a big deal and it won’t effect most people… Open your eyes, they are dismantling our rights and pissing on the pieces.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he explained “Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
When stuff like this happens in the United States it shows me the terrorists have won.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The sad part is, you believe that a system with no checks and balances is guaranteed to avoid any negative uses of power. I’m glad rose colored glasses come in your size.[/quote]
Name one person of any political stripe on these forums who has said or supported a ‘system of no checks and balances’ and that such a system would never have an abuse of power.
One.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The sad part is, you believe that a system with no checks and balances is guaranteed to avoid any negative uses of power. I’m glad rose colored glasses come in your size.
Name one person of any political stripe on these forums who has said or supported a ‘system of no checks and balances’ and that such a system would never have an abuse of power.
One.[/quote]
It is implied by the very action of agreeing with granting the government the power to snoop, copy, and listen in on the phone calls of Americans without a warrant.
No one has to say those exact words regardless of the game you love to play where we have to find someone who uses a particular grouping of words in a specific way as if this is the only way intent is implied. That is a grammar school game. Let it go.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is implied by the very action of agreeing with granting the government the power to snoop, copy, and listen in on the phone calls of Americans without a warrant.[/quote]
No it isn’t. Granting the government the power to do that in wartime is not an ‘implication’ that the government should have zero checks and balances.
The FISA was passed in 1978 - were the Congressmen that passed this also ‘implying’ that they had no interest in any checks and balances within the government? How about the President, that uber-right wing fascist Jimmy Carter?
The law is the law - you don’t have to like it or how it being used, but spare all of us the induction that because surveillance powers are augmented in wartime that we all want to throw out checks and balances.
I am not even interested in ‘exact wording’ or anything even close to it - I’d take a reasonable inference. You haven’t done that. Take a poll - not one conservative or liberal here will say they are interested in doing away with all checks and balances, regardless of their opinion of this electronic snooping.
And as for ‘checks and balances’, just as the Patriot Act has gone by the wayside in the Senate, the ‘check’ here is the legislative check: Congress can repeal the FISA or the Patriot Act or any other act that overreaches. Don’t like the power? Call your Congressman.
[quote]Beatnik wrote:
I doubt anybody supports this. The war on terror is getting out of hand…
Quick rise up and revolt. You know that proud civil war you guys have been going on about for years. Time to do it again. Oh wait. That would be an act of terror.[/quote]
Great.I thought beatniks went out of style in the 60’s? Anyway, I am from texas yes, but its literally been years ( childhood i think ) since i’ve heard one of these comments jackass.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Seems to me that ‘someone’ brought this up on another thread and got ripped and insulted. Hmmm…
[/quote]
That’s why you’re the REAL victim…j/k
[quote]sfisch33 wrote:
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he explained “Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
When stuff like this happens in the United States it shows me the terrorists have won. [/quote]
With all due respect to Mr. Franklin (and you) there are a lot of things that have changed since the 1700’s.
I’m fairly certain Muslim Jihads were not a threat and that immigration into the country was much less daunting.
The terrorists won on 9/11 and many other times before this law, perhaps they are winning in some ways (as you say) by impinging our freedom.
It’s truly sad to think of this country as a “big brother” place, like Britain or England, however the activity of terrorists and their ability to blend into our society so easy, may make it a necessary evil. It’s amazing how much crime is solved due to surveilance camera’s. Just imagine what goes on over telecommunication devices.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Even Nightline described it as “listening to calls made by American citizens to suspicious people oversees”. Fine.
The sad part is, you believe that a system with no checks and balances is guaranteed to avoid any negative uses of power. I’m glad rose colored glasses come in your size.
[/quote]
In the past, if an American called a person overseas that the NSA was investigating, the NSA couldn’t listen in on the American’s side of the conversation. The example used yesterday was if the foreign guy asked the American,“Where and when are you going to set off the bomb?”, the NSA couldn’t listen to the answer from the American. That’s retarded. If you don’t call people that the NSA is investigating overseas, you don’t really need to worry about this.
[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Seems to me that ‘someone’ brought this up on another thread and got ripped and insulted. Hmmm…
That’s why you’re the REAL victim…j/k[/quote]
If you’re going to quote me, at least use enough so someone will not take what I said out of context — unless of course you run a liberal newspaper down there; we all then understand that this would be impossible for you.
Doogie, this sounds fine, but it isn’t true. They would have needed to get a warrant… OR AT LEAST REPORT THEIR ACTIVITY AFTER 72 HOURS IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO GET A WARRANT.
Nothing stopped them from getting the information they needed. Nothing.