[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Some day you’ll have to explain to me the correlation between privacy and the right to vote. Your deviation from topic makes it difficult to follow your lead.
Deviation from the topic? You said our rights weren’t earned. They were earned by quite a few and that is just if you count women and minorities.
I am against nothing. What am I against? You’ve twisted so much you no longer have anywhere to turn.
Twisting? If you are against nothing that has been said by others in this thread, what are you speaking out for? There would be no need for a response from you if you were just agreeing with every point made by others. That is not what you are doing.
I’m FOR the ability of the gov’t to eavesdrop on those that present a clear and present danger. I understand the potential for abuse, but this is not now, nor was it ever, an act that went without oversight. That would be another of your misconceptions that you continue to perpetrate. Leaders of both parties were informed and agreed to the process.
Has this been agreed upon? I haven’t seen the newsline that read that this issue was resolved. Could you present one? I don’t read every article that comes across the line so maybe I missed it.
To date nothing has been shown to be illegal or out of the current available powers of the office.
If there were no oversteps of boundaries, then there is no issue. Apparently, this was not so clear to everyone inolved.
You’ve failed to show any misuse of the system. You’ve failed to show abuse of power. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11.
Yet I am bringing up different topics? We haven’t been hit because of people here paying closer attention to security issues, not because of wiretapping specifically. I would also not be so quick to assume that since we have not been hit since 9/11, that this means we won’t be. We have not destroyed “terror”. We may never be able to claim victory as far as that is concerned. That alone is why giving away privacy for a veil of safety may work against us.
Yes. I’m comfortable with all of that. Why are you so afraid? Oh that’s right–the potential for abuse.
Better not cross the street today, you potentially might be hit by a bus.
Lame? You have agreed right along with me that there is potential for abuse. Why even make this statement if you believe it as well? Why the mixed messages? You either think there is potential for abuse or you don’t. Make up your mind, please.
Why must I explain everything thrice with you.
The rights I was discussing were those that pertained to the thread. Your words in particular–privacy.
Play the poor me I earned my rights card sometime when it applies. I am well aware of the ammendments to the Constitution.
I’m not sure how you twist my use of the word twisting wrt your comments on my disagreements with what has been talked about on the thread. I could also care less.
Has what been agreed on? Do you doubt that leadership from both parties were
involved in the eavesdropping? Do you doubt that through that effort that they all lacked oversight–at the bare minimum of one another?
At best now the issue here is poitical agenda. If in fact something illegal or over the line had occurred do you not feel that would have come to light by now?
And lastly, as you’ve agreed with me, we have not been attacked since 9/11. I never said or implied that it was soley dependant on eavesdropping. As I’ve had to state numerous times–it is a tool at our disposal and we should use every available tool.
Even you.
If you can’t come up with something else that ends it for me. I’m sure you’ll come back with some clever ditty, but I will only respond to actual, factual information that actually pertains to the topic at hand.[/quote]
From the Times Herald:
The issue would seem to be - "Whether the president’s actions violate Fourth Amendment protections against improper searches or surveillance of Americans.
Whether the president’s refusal to get court orders violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Why the president would claim on April 20, 2004, when we now know the wiretapping program was at least a year old: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
The law most in question, the 1978 surveillance law, was enacted after lengthy congressional hearings on domestic spying.
The result: A special court was set up to issue warrants for electronic eavesdropping on suspected foreign agents inside the United States.
So far, that court has been known as a rubber stamp for government petitions, rarely turning down a request at crisis times. The court permits emergency wiretaps without court approval for up to 72 hours.
Presidents, even wartime presidents, must uphold the nation’s laws. The Bush administration circumventing that clear directive warrants investigation.
The president’s disingenuous assertion in 2004 that in chasing down terrorists, court orders are always obtained by his administration should not be allowed to pass without public awareness of the duplicity.
It was a clearly false statement. The president knew there were secret wiretaps in progress. He wanted those secret wiretaps, which he no longer denies, because he considers it integral to the war against terrorism.
The president being caught in such a misrepresentation raises serious questions of character." -------------------------------
Now, isn’t this the issue? It isn’t about whatever you just ranted about. It is about whether the law was circumvented, and if it was, why it should be allowed.
One of the head judges on the “once secret” court has since stepped down. Things do not exactly seem to be all roses as far as this is concerned. I doubt anyone is trying to prevent the capture of “terrorists”. The issue is whether the law is being circumvented or disregarded in this effort. Why would you be against investigation?