Warrantless wiretaps expanded


I don't like it myself, but then again, who am I?

 

I would rather have them eaves dropping on my phone sex calls then see some one get blown up.


I dont really understand what every body is worried about? They should have started doing this a long time ago.



I just think its funny how the Dems raked Bush over the coals for listening to foreign calls, now that they are in charge they make it even worse?

 

We can talk about the ideas that it is better to have someone not get blown up---but when the FBI admits that they made "inadvertant" mistakes in listening---well---it is like this:

"Hi! I am from the government; you can trust me."

As long as the enforcement agencies adhere to the guidelines, I gues it is OK---but too often they tend to violate those---and, in doing so, violate our rights. The Constitution is there for a reason; and it has withstood the test of time.

Do we begin to slide down that slippery slope? When and how do we lose our rights? What exactly are our rights now?

TSC

 

If they are listening to cell phone calls, it's public airways usage - expecting a right to privacy is really a stretch in my mind. Hardwire lines - if one party is a foreigner as they don't have any rights under our constitution, I guess I don't take much issue. But like referee said, the government makes a lot of "mistakes".

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin. Peace, Dave.

 

It cracks me up that anyone here even cares. If you're not a terrorist, wtf are you afraid of? If you're a law obiding citizen you've got NOTHING to worry about.

Couple very simple concepts that are unavoidable:
1.) The government does not have the resources to "tap" into everyone for no particular reason
2.) If they want to do it, they're going to do so with or without the laws- so why freak out about a law that in reality really changes very little to nothing at all?

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. The Constituion protects all---the innocent of the crime, as well as those accused of the crime. It makes the gov't. take appropriate measures to ensure that the rights even of those accused of heinous crimes are protected.

The Constituion does not say, "Hey, if you have done nothing wrong hou have nothing to worry about." Th Constituion treats everybody---innocent and accused---the same. Even the congressman who had money stashed in his freezer (who looks really really guilty) had some of the evidence suppressed as the judge ruled that what the FBI did violated his rights.

I understand what you are saying, but the Constituition protects us all---the guiltless as well as those suspected of criminal activities.

That is the interesting point about the Constituion---it levels the playing field for all involved. The defense attornies as well as the gov't have a set of rules to follow when it comes to investigating, obtaining warrants, charging, setting bail, etc. If we do truly want to go the way out there, consider martial law; I believe it has been enacted only once in the US---by Lincoln and the state of Maryland during the Civil War.

Tim C.

 

Actually, the NSA DOES "monitor" virtually all forms of electronic communication, here and abroad.

No, they don't have people actually listening in but since they began their Carnivore operation virtually everything is analyzed for certain key-words that trigger further action.

I agree that if you're law-abiding you shouldn't be worried.

But I hope you also realize that strictly speaking the US constitution is null and void. We only enjoy what freedom we have now at the pleasure of the President.

We've been under martial law since October of 2001, just without troops on the streets.

 

I have no problem with it. How quickly we forget 9/11... and more importantly how quickly we forget about the foiled terrorist plots around the world because of programs like this. Why do so many want us to be hit again?

 

Have you seen Bourne Ultimatum?

 

I remember 9/11. But read about WWII---when our freedoms were in significant danger as well. There were four (I believe---at least three) German espionage agents who were caught, tried, convicted, and executed. Interesting point, though--when you read about the activity, the FBI was very careful not to abridge even their rights. They were afforded the right to ta fair trial; they were afforded the right to attorneys; they were afforded a right to appeal their convictions.

The Consitution has been steadfast; if you think that the rights offered by the document need to be changed---well there is a procedure in place to do that; enact a Constituional convention.

TSC

 

The Military Commisions Act of 2006..

There is no more right of habeas corpus.. you do not have the right to legal counsel, if the president so desires. You do not have the right to even see the evidence against you.

When Abraham Lincoln did this it was called Martial Law.

Please watch this video clip. I'm not the biggest Olbermann fan, but this is the most eloquent defense of the constitution I've heard in a very long time.

It's almost 9 minutes long, so don't watch if you can't spare 9 minutes to listen to an impassioned speach about what we've lost as Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

I'll try and find the specific section of the Patriot Act (enacted in Oct. 2001, re-ratified last year) that states that any offense that violates any state or federal statute qualifies you and I as "enemy combatants".

Please get over believing that you have rights granted by the constitution.

 

Some of you seem to think that the US Constitution applies to everyone on the planet. It was written for US Citizens, in the US.

A so called "domestic" wiretapping in which one party is abroad, it is not domestic, it is international, and the right to privacy is not legally binding (if it is a foreign phone call, it involves non-citizens of the US... except in the obvious exceptions of travellers calling home, etc.)

Cell phone use is on the open airways, and there is no expectation of privacy.

Additionally, if a person is detained by the US military in a foreign war zone, and is not a uniformed combatant of a nation-state, that person has no protection. The Geneva Convention does not apply, nor does the US Constitution.

So stop whining about Habeas Corpus- the law and the constitution is being followed.

 

This is my opinion... Nothing, absolutely nothing has been changed or implemented since 9/11 that has affected any part of my life.

They want to listen to phone calls, fine. My phone calls usually sound like this... "Hi, it's me John. Want to have dinner tonight? Cool, I'll pick you up at 6:00".

They want to look at me e-mails, fine. My e-mails usually read "Hey, look at this cool article I found on Scott Adams' blog". (Scott Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comic and I highly recommend reading his daily blog. It's usually funnier than the comic).

I don't have anything to hide. The only part of the domestic spying that bothers me is that some stranger might find out how boring my life is. As long as I can keep dating redheads, downloading some **** (legally), drinking a few beers, driving my truck (but not after drinking the beers), and earning a decent paycheck, the government can do whatever they want. So what if I have to take off my shoes now when I go to the airport? I already have to take them off when I go to my Vietnamese buddy's house.

The only bad thing I have to say about the government is that they don't do something to regulate gas prices. Hate me if you want, but that's the way I feel.

 

That was the point of my last post though... it is NOT domestic spying. It applies to international calls only, not from within the US to within the US.