GTFO My fone line govarnment!!!!!!!!!111111111

[Alibi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_sur...ts_controversy

[Pelion]

bastards.

I think the US can even moniter calls in other peoples countries these days...

[Lukie]

United States President George W. Bush issued an executive order authorizing the National Security Agency in 2002 to conduct warrantless domestic phone-taps of persons linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates. The authorization was kept secret until December 2005, when it was reported in the The New York Times, engendering serious controversy on the propriety and legality of the actions.

[hydroseeds]

So you're connected to Al-Qaeda, Alibi?

Cause that's the only reason they'd be on your phone line

[UG]

So you're connected to Al-Qaeda, Alibi?

Cause that's the only reason they'd be on your phone line

LOL. Umm, no.


Guys, this has been going on for years and years. Even before the Cold War. Only reason it's big news now is because the mass media is reporting about it.

[journey075]

yeah shit like this is making me an unhappy conservative.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CONSERVATIVE IDEALS OF SMALL GOVERNMENT AND LOTZ OF PRIVACY?!?!

fu bush.

[Alibi]

So you're connected to Al-Qaeda, Alibi?

Cause that's the only reason they'd be on your phone line

...

[boost]

look, I think it would be very very hard to find a person who doesnt break some law on a regular basis. So when they can just say "meh we thought htey might be on some terrorist shit, but then we found that hes occasionally uses illegal substances for recreational purposes, we figured we should tip off the local police."

Sure its a stretch, but it proves a point none the less.

[bigred]

I don't see the big deal to be honest. I mean, yay privacy and all, but if it helps stops threats and saves lives, why not?

[boost]

bigred, if we where all given acre plots of land and given what we need to grow enough food to keep us alive, but kept completely seperate from each other, and the way we mated was through artificial incemination, still staying completely away from human contact and interaction, Im sure it would be a REALLY peaceful world.

That doesnt make it a good idea.

[boost]

bigred, if you havent seen Equalibrium, then go rent or buy it. Its a kick ass action movie, but it answers your question perfectly.

[Demiparadigm]

I don't see the big deal to be honest. I mean, yay privacy and all, but if it helps stops threats and saves lives, why not?

I hate this argument. The same as the argument that illegal search and seizure is okay because it only affects the criminals, and no one else has anything to worry about.

I have nothing to hide, but I am still not letting someone search through my house without a warrant, and they shouldn't be tapping my phone lines either.

If a government official asked you to submit to a cavity search because it "helps stop threats and saves lives" how would you feel about it?
You have nothing to hide, right?

[journey075]

I don't see the big deal to be honest. I mean, yay privacy and all, but if it helps stops threats and saves lives, why not?

I hate this argument. The same as the argument that illegal search and seizure is okay because it only affects the criminals, and no one else has anything to worry about.

I have nothing to hide, but I am still not letting someone search through my house without a warrant, and they shouldn't be tapping my phone lines either.

If a government official asked you to submit to a cavity search because it "helps stop threats and saves lives" how would you feel about it?
You have nothing to hide, right?

precisely.

[Warpe]

watch what you post...this thread is being monitored

[Greedo017]

good lord he's tapping phone lines of suspected terrorists not turning in names of people who stole a snickers at 7-11 to the candy police

if you worry about stuff like this you are paranoid as hell

[Warpe]

I'd like to contribute but I'm paranoid as hell

[Greedo017]

I'd like to contribute but I'm paranoid as hell

thank you for posting a model response for all your paranoid brethren to follow

[Warpe]

I'd like to contribute but I'm paranoid as hell

thank you for posting a model response for all your paranoid brethren to follow

I'm Canadian...we're ALL paranoid about Bush...

Seriously though, it's very likely that Bush broke the law by authorizing these wiretaps. The Republicans are overreaching themselves. Hey, they're your hard won liberties. If you wanna flush em down the toilet, be my guest.

[Alibi]

good lord he's tapping phone lines of suspected terrorists not turning in names of people who stole a snickers at 7-11 to the candy police

The problem lies in that the government decides who they think is a "suspected terrorist" so they have complete control. It WILL lead to abuse.

[Greedo017]

bush pushed his boundaries by authorizing the wire taps. There are many real reasons he should not have authorized the taps or should have authorized them through different means, but I have NO PROBLEM with him doing things along this line so long as he is monitored, which obviously he is. this is not a slippery slope situation. he is climbing mount everest, where the top is we are all tapped for no reason without our knowledge, right now he's at 100ft and by the looks of it he just lost his footing. how exactly will this be abused? George Bush is going to start authorizing wire taps on people suspected of smoking weed occassionally? puulease

i am not in danger of losing my hard earned liberties, terrorists and those who associate themselves with terrorists are. AND, i would gladly allow the government to tap my phone line without my knowledge so long as they were doing it with the honest belief i was a threat, they stopped once they concluded i was no longer a threat, and they did not act on anything they heard unless they gained knowledge about a serious felony.

[Humphrind]

The problem lies in that the government decides who they think is a "suspected terrorist" so they have complete control. It HAS LED to abuse.

FYP

The gov is doing underhanded, sneaky and otherwise illegal things now and has been before the days of Bush, Regan, or even Lincoln. People just believe that it's a bigger deal because more of the publics information is tapable. But the truth is, even in the gov't finds the $200 you got from lawnmowing and didn't report on your taxes, THEY DON"T CARE.

I don't really want "big brother" looking over my shoulder. However, if it will prevent the next 9/11, I'm willing to give up a small amount of my secutiry. And the reason I can feel secure in this, is that I don't do anything illegal.

[scgolfer]

Wake up people its not a party issue, its security!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[ProZachNation]

Yesterday mornining I saw McGuyver tapping SOS into a phone line.


relevance: non, but that show kicks ass and I was up early enough to watch it

[Greedo017]

i heart drudge

[sykotik489]

I don't really want "big brother" looking over my shoulder. However, if it will prevent the next 9/11, I'm willing to give up a small amount of my secutiry. And the reason I can feel secure in this, is that I don't do anything illegal.

"Those who would give up a measure of liberty for a temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

[Greedo017]

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)

[EricE]

I am an ardent Bush supporter but this is just not cool. I would be willing to impeach on this alone. This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO a slippery slope. I am perfectly willing to suffer another 911 to avoid the government spying on its own people. It’s a hard line but I stand by it. That quote from Ben Franklin is my favorite. I believe it.

[UG]

[journey075]

I am an ardent Bush supporter but this is just not cool. I would be willing to impeach on this alone. This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO a slippery slope. I am perfectly willing to suffer another 911 to avoid the government spying on its own people. It’s a hard line but I stand by it. That quote from Ben Franklin is my favorite. I believe it.

as a hardcore traditional conservative (minus all religious bases) im hard pressed to find how one would support bush. please explain this to me ESPECIALLY if youre against his crackdown on privacy laws.

are you just super happy with our foreign policy and military invasions despite that WE will have to pay for it? or perhaps that we're going to mars (cant wait)!!!!

[Demiparadigm]

I am an ardent Bush supporter but this is just not cool. I would be willing to impeach on this alone. This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO a slippery slope. I am perfectly willing to suffer another 911 to avoid the government spying on its own people. It’s a hard line but I stand by it. That quote from Ben Franklin is my favorite. I believe it.

as a hardcore traditional conservative (minus all religious bases) im hard pressed to find how one would support bush. please explain this to me ESPECIALLY if youre against his crackdown on privacy laws.

are you just super happy with our foreign policy and military invasions despite that WE will have to pay for it? or perhaps that we're going to mars (cant wait)!!!!

We need more conservatives that don't blindly follow party affiliation.

If you look at the core of what Republicans are supposed to stand for, compared to the party actions since they took over congress, I don't understand how anyone can say that they are both "republican" and "conservative" and know anything of what they are talking about.

back to the OP, we have laws in place to allow surveillance when it is warranted.
This is why we have such things as "warrants"

To spy on american citizens without required checks makes us one step closer to a gestappo state, or Stalinist Russia.

This is NOT the basis that America was founded on. To repeat the quote by Ben Franklin:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[AvatarKava]

If you look at the core of what Republicans are supposed to stand for, compared to the party actions since they took over congress, I don't understand how anyone can say that they are both "republican" and "conservative" and know anything of what they are talking about.

I'm both "republican" and "conservative" ... it doesn't mean I vote along party lines. I'm Republican because I believe in the core ideals of Republicanism, not necessarily what the Republican party seems to think their "mandate from the people" is.

Frankly, I'm at a loss as a voter. I'd switch to become a libertarian, but they're too kooky.

[journey075]

If you look at the core of what Republicans are supposed to stand for, compared to the party actions since they took over congress, I don't understand how anyone can say that they are both "republican" and "conservative" and know anything of what they are talking about.

I'm both "republican" and "conservative" ... it doesn't mean I vote along party lines. I'm Republican because I believe in the core ideals of Republicanism, not necessarily what the Republican party seems to think their "mandate from the people" is.

Frankly, I'm at a loss as a voter. I'd switch to become a libertarian, but they're too kooky.

yeah i too am at a loss as a voter. im not voting democrat due to the short term economic implications and the fact that they changed their core ideals just to conflict with republicans.

i think ill abstain from voting until someone competent runs for office.

[Warpe]

yeah i too am at a loss as a voter. im not voting democrat due to the short term economic implications and the fact that they changed their core ideals just to conflict with republicans.

i think ill abstain from voting until someone competent runs for office.

That's one more for the democrats...

[UG]

i think ill abstain from voting until someone competent runs for office.

Don't hold your breathe.

[journey075]

yeah i too am at a loss as a voter. im not voting democrat due to the short term economic implications and the fact that they changed their core ideals just to conflict with republicans.

i think ill abstain from voting until someone competent runs for office.

That's one more for the democrats...

lol, its a lose-lose situation. i dont really care which party wins at this point.

[Warpe]

If you think that's bad, try FIVE political parties...Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party, plus independents etc. etc... We've got an election in January that'll either give us a Liberal or Conservative minority, which means the government only survives with support from some of the other parties and could fall on a non-confidence vote at any time.

Then again, being on a knife edge at least keeps the ruling government honest - no room for demagogues.

Draft dodgers, gay couples and pot smokers always welcome. No pets.

[boost]

Yeah, like someone said, we have a system of checks and balances for a reason, yes this can make getting things done kinda a slow process at times, however it(for the most part) keeps everyone on the up and up.

Anyone that is saying "this wont happen here, this is america!" is horribly short sighted and obviously has not looked into history at all. History reapeats itself, and time and again the general populace slowly but surely gives up thier rights by being fooled into thinking its for thier benefit. Then youve got nazi youth telling on thier parents for saying one anti hitler comment in the privacy of thier home. Off the the ovens with them...


Dont respond to this with "thats far fetched" or "things like that cant happen in this day and age" cuz youll only make yourself look more and more like an idiot. Im sorry if thats flaming, but I just dont know how else to put it.

[Greedo017]

sigh.... here, too lazy to click on the link that scgolfer so kindly provided, i will paste it here

FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."


Screw Bush for bringing this country down! damn bush! invading our privacy with those dirty republicans! pardon me while i stop laughing.

[boost]

so the others did it, this makes it right ... how?

[Greedo017]

no, it makes it not bushes fault, i think its a good point seeing how this thread has basically became a discussion of how bush is messing up this country, and how people keep throwing the quote around about giving up a measure of liberty. You're not giving up any liberty, you never had this particular liberty to begin with. we all agree laws are necessary even though they take away liberties, this is no different.

actually, reading back through your posts boost, i think you really didn't go after republicans, so can understand you finding my comment irrelevant, but a lot of people did turn it into a bush bash so my comment was directed at them.

my personal opinion on the privacy thing is i'm not worried about it. as bush said, he is a president not a dictator, i think the risk of this getting out of hand is slim especially considering its been going on for so long with no problems. maybe we could add some type of check on the searches to be done by the supreme court every 5 years or something if people are worried.

[boost]

5 years is a long time, at times it seems that things more SO slow, but a lot can happen in 5 years.

**WARNING** what follows is an example dont read too far into it**WARNING**

Look at how fast germany turned into nazi germany. I can kinda see what you are saying, however we cant just allow our system of checks and balances to be bypased. There was a fairly strong concensus that george washington should be crowned king of america. He turned it down because he knew that while he might be a fair and just leader, theres no guarantee that the same would hold true for those that follow him. He understood that unchecked power will and usually does corrupt. So while bush (and the other presidents mentioned) might have meant well, this doesnt mean that its right. Pretty much my point is that just because bush is not looking to abuse this power himself, he has put the power in others hands, and whos to say if theyll abuse it or not?

btw greedo, Im not trying to argue that bush is the devil (atleast not in this thread ) and I personally did not know about this happening in the past, but the fact is that its happening now, and whether it has happened before or not, its still wrong to me.