What If Wiretapping Works?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To my knowlege, mine nor anyone elses civil rights have been violated at this time.

How do you know? Do you even know who this system has been used on specifically? I don’t. I also would never claim to know it is being used the right way now in all circumstances.

There is and has been for some time the ability of the President to listen in on potential National security calls.

To my understanding, there still needs to be protocol followed and warrants obtained. Is this not the case suddenly?

What rights are you losing, then of course why would you care if you get them back. If your actions don’t meet national security criteria you have lost no rights. You have given up nothing. To then spotlight that this MAY lead to (x) or (y) is a nonsense argument. The gov’t and police always have the potential to abuse power. I wouldn’t give them carte blanche here, there would be oversights and regulations.

What if “national security criteria” is used broadly to cover anything suddenly dubbed “a threat”? Isn’t the whole problem the perception that “oversights and regulations” were bypassed?

I don’t care about Clinton, my reference was simply this is not new or even clandestine. This power was given to the office long ago. Why an issue now? If you really believe it is because of some red hering like individuals rights you are mistaken. This was purely political to bring this out to the publics knowlege and now you are all wrapped up in the loss of your precious rights. It was in fact going on before–what rights have you lost.

If it was going on before and it is viewed as wrong, then it was wrong then as well. Does that mean we ignore any new issues that pop up now? Could you please bring up specific instances where this was used in the past that circumvented court authority?[/quote]

You’re vrooming this whole thread. You are basing all of your decisions on this subject on possibilities. While always good to consider such issues, it should only be part of the equation.

ps–sorry vroom, that was somewhat smarmy on my part, but I think you are well aware of your forte.

Warrant requirement is certainly the sticking point. My understanding is the eavesdropping can occur without said warrant, but one must go through the process within a time frame. I believe this to be 72 hours post. The contention that this opens up the possibility to leaks is valid. Some very smart people felt that there was wiggle room here–we’ll see.

Of course I don’t know of specifics, but I could throw that back at you as well. You/I don’t know. I think we would both agree that it would be quite aggrievous and the potential for serious issues and personal privacy inflictions is valid should this power become abusive. My opinion is that is abridge we will cross at that time. I believe most people of power understand the ramifications and the potential for abuse and therefore I feel it actually becomes less of a potential issue as we move forward.

I can not tell you a circumstance that happened before but my gut tells me it did. Again, I go back to the red hering issue here used at the time of ‘outing’ this security measure. This was political mudslinging at its worst. A vote=less national security.

22

[quote]jackreape wrote:
spamme wrote:

Instead, federal prosecutors say, all police need to claim is that the information obtained might in some way be “relevant” to a criminal investigation. "

Note, criminal investigation, nothing to do with terrorism. Isn’t living in a dream world blissful.

Yeah, i forgot, you lefties aren’t wild about going after anything “relevant to a criminal investigation”.

Seriously, you had better come up with a better platform than this or you are really gonna get schwacked in November, and 08 too.

i seriously want a sharp democrat to make the election interesting and about a clear choice in direction.

Right now you offer unmonitored cell phone calls(LMAO), dead babies on demand, and letting off Tookie lookalikes. That won’t push the right hard enough to matter.

jmo
jack

[/quote]

Another one who responds without reading. I have always voted Republican in the past for reasons of taxation, fiscal responsibility, small business viability and protection of individual rights. But as someone else suggested, this isn’t left vs. right. But if it were, I would argue you have no platform. Some Republicans and Democrats both have suggested some of the laws designed to combat terrorism and the wiretapping needs to be better structured.

The difference between you and I, is you believe in giving the government wide sweeping powers, because you believe those politicians in authority have the integrity to always use those powers in the manner intended.

I believe over time, the spirit for which they were intended will be ignored, and they will be applied as aggressively as the law can be interpreted.

23

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Warrant requirement is certainly the sticking point. My understanding is the eavesdropping can occur without said warrant, but one must go through the process within a time frame. I believe this to be 72 hours post. The contention that this opens up the possibility to leaks is valid. Some very smart people felt that there was wiggle room here–we’ll see.[/quote]

If it is such a “sticking point”, why are you trying to silence those who speak about misuse?

[quote]
Of course I don’t know of specifics, but I could throw that back at you as well. You/I don’t know. I think we would both agree that it would be quite aggrievous and the potential for serious issues and personal privacy inflictions is valid should this power become abusive. My opinion is that is abridge we will cross at that time. I believe most people of power understand the ramifications and the potential for abuse and therefore I feel it actually becomes less of a potential issue as we move forward.[/quote]

A bridge we will cross at that time? Like has been said multiple times, once freedoms are lost, it is not easy to get them back. The intelligent thing to do is value them while you have them and fight for them should someone try to take them away.

[quote]
I can not tell you a circumstance that happened before but my gut tells me it did. Again, I go back to the red hering issue here used at the time of ‘outing’ this security measure. This was political mudslinging at its worst. A vote=less national security.[/quote]

I could care less about “political mudslinging”. This issue is bigger than Bush. For some reason, that seems to be all “conservatives” can see, however. You are so busy running to the aid of your treasured party affiliation that the issue of the right to privacy is noise in the background.

You degrade those who attempt to look at the bigger picture and call them shortsighted because they are thinking of, not Bush, but what their children and grandchildren may have to deal with should we become oblivious to these circumstances and sweep them under the rug simply because of which party is in office. That makes no sense at all and you know it.

24

[quote]GymGeek wrote:
If you’re delivering 50kg of Coke, you’re a terrorist of another sort and deserve what you get.[/quote]

That much soda would wreck your physique.

25

[quote]jackreape wrote:

Right now you offer unmonitored cell phone calls(LMAO), dead babies on demand, and letting off Tookie lookalikes. That won’t push the right hard enough to matter.

[/quote]

Yup. Dead babies and free murderers. That’s us lefties…

Lol. get a clue brother.

26

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
OK lets make it black and white. If, in the process of wiretapping, you are heard to confess of committing a felony it can be used against you. Now make it a law. Who has had their rights violated by this? Why do you extremists continue to find reasons against protecting ourselves.[/quote]

Academically, we can all find ourselves agreeing that a conversation on, say, a 50kg coke smuggling operation, or a child porn group, or a mass-murderer etc. that is overheard by a government eavesdropping campaign is a “good” thing - after all, who wouldn’t want to see a wretched paedophile locked up? (As a parent, I know I would!).

The problem is the sinister errosion of an otherwise grey line; eventually you can conceivably end-up where even the most trivial of conversation points can become a reason to target someone. This becomes a problem, especially if those doing the eavesdropping are not incorruptible.

I personally have no faith that government organizations (and especially the PEOPLE in such organizations) can treat information responsibly all of the time. My personal experience with the government (and not as a criminal, I hasten to add - just a Joe Public who’s been “lucky” enough to see them at work) is that, unfortunately, they cannot be trusted to THAT extent.

Government law enforcement etc. representatives are human; and thus frail and fallable - a small percentage of them are, unfortunately, as capable as committing crimes and wrongdoing as much as the people they are supposed to be catching. Not all of them of course, but enough to make them dangerous if unchecked.

I fully support any initiative to restrict intelligence gathering to incredibly narrowly defined areas (e.g. terrorism). As much as I loathe, e.g. bank robbers, muggers, rapists, thieves, swindlers etc.; I do not feel comfortable endorsing a general policy allowing the government to use eavesdropping intelligence to be used for a purpose other than the few well - defined areas it is supposed to be used for. If that means known criminals etc. slip justice (hopefully just for a while) then so be it.

But the good news is: we’re all entitled to our own crappy opinions, right? :slight_smile:

WiZ

27

to me it doesn’t matter,as far as the 2 sides of the issue. give me sweet liberty any day,i want no intrusion from the gov. in my life at all. anyone that trust this or any gov. is in serious need of some help

28

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Warrant requirement is certainly the sticking point. My understanding is the eavesdropping can occur without said warrant, but one must go through the process within a time frame. I believe this to be 72 hours post. The contention that this opens up the possibility to leaks is valid. Some very smart people felt that there was wiggle room here–we’ll see.

If it is such a “sticking point”, why are you trying to silence those who speak about misuse?

Of course I don’t know of specifics, but I could throw that back at you as well. You/I don’t know. I think we would both agree that it would be quite aggrievous and the potential for serious issues and personal privacy inflictions is valid should this power become abusive. My opinion is that is abridge we will cross at that time. I believe most people of power understand the ramifications and the potential for abuse and therefore I feel it actually becomes less of a potential issue as we move forward.

A bridge we will cross at that time? Like has been said multiple times, once freedoms are lost, it is not easy to get them back. The intelligent thing to do is value them while you have them and fight for them should someone try to take them away.

I can not tell you a circumstance that happened before but my gut tells me it did. Again, I go back to the red hering issue here used at the time of ‘outing’ this security measure. This was political mudslinging at its worst. A vote=less national security.

I could care less about “political mudslinging”. This issue is bigger than Bush. For some reason, that seems to be all “conservatives” can see, however. You are so busy running to the aid of your treasured party affiliation that the issue of the right to privacy is noise in the background.

You degrade those who attempt to look at the bigger picture and call them shortsighted because they are thinking of, not Bush, but what their children and grandchildren may have to deal with should we become oblivious to these circumstances and sweep them under the rug simply because of which party is in office. That makes no sense at all and you know it.[/quote]

simply outrageous!!
Who am I trying to silence? I offer an opinion. That is the difference here. You are trying to validate your opinion, I am merely stating mine. I am offering the opportunity to discuss, you are trying to prove you are right.

And to clarify–you are talking about potential misuse, not misuse.

You may feel the intelligent thing to do is enjoy them. My feeling is the intelligent thing to do is to take the necessary steps to aviod future horriffic events. We obviously differ here. I’ve lost nothing wrt the policies that eavesdrop on those intent on hurting me, my kids, my relation, or even you or your kin. I’m comfortable with that.

You continue to push the Bush thing. Forget it was ever mentioned. It means nothing to me. I would argue the same if it were 15 yrs, ago and another Pres. was engaged in the same action.

I’ve degraded none. If differing from you is degrading than so be it. I’ve not insulted you or your beliefs. I’ve simply stated mine and the reasons behind. If you want to turn this into something personal, that is your will. I choose to simply talk on topic. If anything I’ve talked about this being non-partisan. Read my responses. You can not look at a differing opinion objectively.

29

[quote]mark982 wrote:
to me it doesn’t matter,as far as the 2 sides of the issue. give me sweet liberty any day,i want no intrusion from the gov. in my life at all. anyone that trust this or any gov. is in serious need of some help[/quote]

The problem is no one trusts you, or me or anyone else either.

Without government and the protections it brings life would degenerate into theft, murder, clan warfare etc.

Do you drive on the roads the government paid for?

Outright rejection of all government “intrusion” is so extreme and simplistic.

The true debate is where to draw the line.

30

[quote]WiZlon wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
OK lets make it black and white. If, in the process of wiretapping, you are heard to confess of committing a felony it can be used against you. Now make it a law. Who has had their rights violated by this? Why do you extremists continue to find reasons against protecting ourselves.

Academically, we can all find ourselves agreeing that a conversation on, say, a 50kg coke smuggling operation, or a child porn group, or a mass-murderer etc. that is overheard by a government eavesdropping campaign is a “good” thing - after all, who wouldn’t want to see a wretched paedophile locked up? (As a parent, I know I would!).

The problem is the sinister errosion of an otherwise grey line; eventually you can conceivably end-up where even the most trivial of conversation points can become a reason to target someone. This becomes a problem, especially if those doing the eavesdropping are not incorruptible.

I personally have no faith that government organizations (and especially the PEOPLE in such organizations) can treat information responsibly all of the time. My personal experience with the government (and not as a criminal, I hasten to add - just a Joe Public who’s been “lucky” enough to see them at work) is that, unfortunately, they cannot be trusted to THAT extent.

Government law enforcement etc. representatives are human; and thus frail and fallable - a small percentage of them are, unfortunately, as capable as committing crimes and wrongdoing as much as the people they are supposed to be catching. Not all of them of course, but enough to make them dangerous if unchecked.

I fully support any initiative to restrict intelligence gathering to incredibly narrowly defined areas (e.g. terrorism). As much as I loathe, e.g. bank robbers, muggers, rapists, thieves, swindlers etc.; I do not feel comfortable endorsing a general policy allowing the government to use eavesdropping intelligence to be used for a purpose other than the few well - defined areas it is supposed to be used for. If that means known criminals etc. slip justice (hopefully just for a while) then so be it.

But the good news is: we’re all entitled to our own crappy opinions, right? :slight_smile:

WiZ[/quote]

My point was made being hypothetical given the circumstance. I realize how easy it is to want it to be a blanket statement, but that is not how it was intended.

You may feel my opinion is crappy, you are certainly entitled to do so. It is beautifully pius to stand here and be a Ben Franklin wannabe, but these are serious times. My eavesdropping scenario goes to terrorism. Yes it can lead down a slippery slope, but so can anything else. I would like safeguards put in place to check those in power. No matter what I suggest there are those of you who will suggest that that is not enough. That wrongdoing will occur.

I can’t argue that and that is why it is an effective argument from your side. But it doesn’t make it the end all be all of argumentys. It is another WHAT IF? I am more concerned with the now. Not so much as to not see the potential for abuse. It certainly exists. But, for now, we need tom protect ourselves. Let’s work in the here and now

31

I miss the good old days, when conservatives used to talk about civil liberties. I mean, when they used to talk about them being good.

I’m just curious why we have to justify warrants, now, like they are some relic from past, no longer worth keeping. Sort of like, I imagine, our Constitution must look to many Americans today.

All those pesky rights get in the way of rooting out the terrorists.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Without government and the protections it brings life would degenerate into theft, murder, clan warfare etc.
[/quote]

Hobbes! Is that you? The rat-choice people told me you were dead, but I knew they were wrong!

33

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I miss the good old days, when conservatives used to talk about civil liberties. I mean, when they used to talk about them being good.

I’m just curious why we have to justify warrants, now, like they are some relic from past, no longer worth keeping. Sort of like, I imagine, our Constitution must look to many Americans today.

All those pesky rights get in the way of rooting out the terrorists.[/quote]

Hey, their lord and master says that rights are not needed and fear of terrorism should allow the government to act in anyway it feels like. The original party stance be damned.

34

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

I’ve degraded none. If differing from you is degrading than so be it. I’ve not insulted you or your beliefs. I’ve simply stated mine and the reasons behind. If you want to turn this into something personal, that is your will. I choose to simply talk on topic. If anything I’ve talked about this being non-partisan. Read my responses. You can not look at a differing opinion objectively. [/quote]

You are a laugh riot. You accused me of “hating Bush” when not one word was said about the man. You spit out political talking points as if they have been spoon fed to you to the point of busting and they spill out with every attempted response. Non-partisan? You? Laugh out loud, roll on the floor fucking hilarious.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

I’ve degraded none. If differing from you is degrading than so be it. I’ve not insulted you or your beliefs. I’ve simply stated mine and the reasons behind. If you want to turn this into something personal, that is your will. I choose to simply talk on topic. If anything I’ve talked about this being non-partisan. Read my responses. You can not look at a differing opinion objectively.

You are a laugh riot. You accused me of “hating Bush” when not one word was said about the man. You spit out political talking points as if they have been spoon fed to you to the point of busting and they spill out with every attempted response. Non-partisan? You? Laugh out loud, roll on the floor fucking hilarious.[/quote]

Talk about exposing your lack of a leg to stand on your argument.
Go back and read every post of mine on this thread and show me my partisanship. I brought up Bush only as a reason for Gorjilla’s response. I even referenced her specifically.

Now show me. I’ll tell you right now I specifically told one poster that this isn’t Rep./Dem. This isn’t right/left.
I told you to forget about Bush in several posts. I told you I don’t care about Clinton it was merely a reference to the fact that the policy was in place and used during his era as well.

So because even you don’t believe in your thinly veiled argument, you continue to post personal attacks and cater to your cronies.

Get over yourself. Your not that important.
Show me my talking points. Really, show me where I’ve adopted the party line here. Show me where I’ve plagerised any responses to those given by the current administration. Just because in this case I happen to agree, doesn’t mean that is the reason I agree. I don’t just agree or disagree given the decision maker. You can not say the same. I’ve never once seen you agree or be positive or even respectful when it comes down to an issue if that issue had its genesis with this administration. You sir are the laugh riot. You are now and have always been a mouthpiece for the left.

36

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I miss the good old days, when conservatives used to talk about civil liberties. I mean, when they used to talk about them being good.

I’m just curious why we have to justify warrants, now, like they are some relic from past, no longer worth keeping. Sort of like, I imagine, our Constitution must look to many Americans today.

All those pesky rights get in the way of rooting out the terrorists.[/quote]

I agree with you on the majority of things here. But these are different times. Times not envisioned when the Constitution or even the 1970’s revision that allowed for wiretapping with certain provisions.

One thing is clear and that is the original Constitution allowed for the Executive branch to have the most/ultimate power. In times of need, it was clear the intent was to give the right to the man elected to that office certain rights/privelages to insure National security. And I’m fine with that no matter who is in office.

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I miss the good old days, when conservatives used to talk about civil liberties. I mean, when they used to talk about them being good.

I’m just curious why we have to justify warrants, now, like they are some relic from past, no longer worth keeping. Sort of like, I imagine, our Constitution must look to many Americans today.

All those pesky rights get in the way of rooting out the terrorists.

Hey, their lord and master says that rights are not needed and fear of terrorism should allow the government to act in anyway it feels like. The original party stance be damned.[/quote]

He said conservatives not Republicans. Last I checked conservative was not a party. Of course you can infer, it seems to be your specialty.

And really, what exactly does ‘original party stance’ have to do with this topic. I’m glad that there are people in leadership roles in this country who have decided to not opt for the ‘party stance’ and are taking steps they feel are needed to protect us.

And I can hear you already–this is NOT a genuflect to Bush. I am merely stating that I would hope whomever was in power would look at overall needs before ‘party stance.’

38

What’s to stop the NSA from gaining political blackmail amterial and using it to get what they want if there is absolutely no oversight?

If they are allowed to have airetaps with no oversight whatsover, that isa very scary thing to me.

And I’m sorry if I don’t feel people in the “intelligence” business and in politics aren’t the most trustworthy people in this world.

And if this whole program is only looking at true terrorists, then why don’t they open up the entire programs works to congressional oversight after the fact at a minimum?

I mean, the only reason they’d want to hide something is if they’ve done something wrong, right?

I mean, that’s the line I hear from people tryingto justify programs like this…

39

[quote]Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
What’s to stop the NSA from gaining political blackmail amterial and using it to get what they want if there is absolutely no oversight?

If they are allowed to have airetaps with no oversight whatsover, that isa very scary thing to me.

And I’m sorry if I don’t feel people in the “intelligence” business and in politics aren’t the most trustworthy people in this world.

And if this whole program is only looking at true terrorists, then why don’t they open up the entire programs works to congressional oversight after the fact at a minimum?

I mean, the only reason they’d want to hide something is if they’ve done something wrong, right?

I mean, that’s the line I hear from people tryingto justify programs like this…[/quote]

Specific members of congress were informed of these actions and had oversight.

They are trying to be covert so as not to supply the enemy with information that would lessen their ability to then circumvent the system.

It has potential for abuse. Absolutely.
I nor anyone else can assure anyone that it will never be abused. We can say that of many things in this country. Does the potential good outweigh the potential bad. My opinion is yes. That’s why I feel the way I do. I realize others opinions differ.

40

You people need to get into reality. Stop hypothesizing about idealism and start thinking realism. IT IS ABOUT 9/11.
I had two family members killed on that day - one working in Tower 2 and an FDNY member in Tower 1.
I don’t give a shit what the government has to do to prevent it from happening again.

If you happen to get busted along the way for breaking my country’s laws, oh well tough shit, you’re breaking the law. If you’re not breaking the law, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Right?

Oh the slipery slope, how many innocent people are going to get swept up with their civil rights violated. Let me tell you guys something, there are not many innocent people in prison, despite what they proclaim. I know, I’ve been there too. Graduate of Elmira Gladiator School, 1993. My Id Number was 90B0213, you can look me up.

Get out of your pre-9/11 outlook and liberal study college textbooks and start facing reality. We are at war right now and need to take any measures necessary to win. Our future depends on it.