DescentBB

http://stopthespying.org/

Do nothing and these people get away with it. Stop being apathetic or lose your rights, liberties, and freedom.

I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here. I hope it passes.

Bee

dbl post

Bet51987 wrote:I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here

It's not an either or situation. The founders of this country felt that we could have safety WITHOUT unreasonable search and seizure, and I think they were correct.

Kilarin wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here

It's not an either or situation. The founders of this country felt that we could have safety WITHOUT unreasonable search and seizure, and I think they were correct.

They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.

And, the topic is phone and internet.

Bee

If the only way this country can have safety is to allow government wiretapping and internet monitoring without probable cause and without proper oversight, we're in trouble.

Law enforcement currently can monitor phone and internet... when there is probable cause, and it has been reviewed and approved by the proper authority.

As far as I'm concerned, the above is the proper balance between safeguarding our country, and safeguarding the freedoms that make our country great.

Taking away government accountability would do little to increase safety, and it would significantly increase the risk to the freedoms we're trying to protect.

Foil wrote:Taking away government accountability would do little to increase safety, and it would significantly increase the risk to the freedoms we're trying to protect.

Exactly! Well said.

Foil wrote:Law enforcement currently can monitor phone and internet... when there is probable cause, and it has been reviewed and approved by the proper authority.

Indeed. The point isn't to remove the ability of the government to monitor electronic communications at all. The point is to insist they get a warrant. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, the FISA court has rejected a minuscule percentage of the requests sent to it. Even during George Bush's terms.

Even if this power to search/wiretap without a warrant is being used "for good causes" right now, how do you know it will be in the future? Administrations change, government policies change. The entire FISA system was put in place to try and prevent the abuses of government surveillance that Nixon committed. If we give the government back that power, why do you assume the next president won't abuse it?

Terrorist are dangerous, absolutely. But our own government has the potential to be even more dangerous. The authors of the U.S. constitution saw that and wrote the constitution specifically to attempt to prevent that problem.

Bet51987 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here

It's not an either or situation. The founders of this country felt that we could have safety WITHOUT unreasonable search and seizure, and I think they were correct.

They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.

And, the topic is phone and internet.

Bee

Well , I personally think we could... not tap the internet and phone lines of all americans and just suspected terrorists or threats?

Honestly, I couldn't really care if the government was wiretapping my communications, just as long as the information doesn't get out.

Or get used against you. And make sure it's really YOUR info and not some mixup. Also, it's always fun to get flagged by accident.

If a government has unrestricted, unmonitored access to anything I do, write or even think I don't want to live in that country. Who would make sure that if I oppose that gvmt. it wouldn't take action against me ? Remember, if something can be abused to gain an advantage it WILL be abused.

Well , I personally think we could... not tap the internet and phone lines of all americans and just suspected terrorists or threats?

Everything I've read seems to indicate that that's how it's done already. Could be wrong, though.

Bet51987 wrote: They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.
Bee

This is a dangerous statement.

You run the risk of opening up justification for changes in Constitutional Law by precedent. You negate something called "original intent"; a vital part of keep our laws intact.


The crux in this matter is the work "unreasonable". As common sense has LONG gone out the window in this country, that definition is up for grabs and will be bent to whatever direction whoever is in power feels it needs to be bent.

Duper wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.
Bee

This is a dangerous statement.

You run the risk of opening up justification for changes in Constitutional Law by precedent. You negate something called "original intent"; a vital part of keep our laws intact.


The crux in this matter is the work "unreasonable". As common sense has LONG gone out the window in this country, that definition is up for grabs and will be bent to whatever direction whoever is in power feels it needs to be bent.

I know. But the same people who complain when terrorists blow up a building, or that our government isn't doing enough to stop kids from being killed in school, are the same people who put up as many roadblocks to that very protection as they can.

I read where some of those people are already complaining that there are too many security cameras in malls, parking lots, banks, and schools. They feel violated...

Paranoia is all it is... I want to be safe, not stupid.

Bee

Well Tiger, I do care if they are tapping my phones. They have absolutely no business doing it...now if they suspect me of something illegal than by all means, go to court and prove to a judge that they have some sort of evidence to back it up...

There is no reason for the justification of no oversight. It is simply an administration that believes its power to be way too great...and it needs to be stopped.

Bet51987 wrote:...the same people who complain when terrorists blow up a building, or that our government isn't doing enough to stop kids from being killed in school, are the same people who put up as many roadblocks to that very protection as they can.

I read where some of those people are already complaining that there are too many security cameras in malls, parking lots, banks, and schools. They feel violated...

No one here is saying that the government should be any less watchful than they are, or that private citizens/companies should not be allowed to put security cameras in public places. Those things are just common sense.

Where it steps over the line is when there is legislation that gives the government power without oversight or accountability.

Bet51987 wrote:... I want to be safe...

I'm curious, what is it about the government having to go through the right process to get a warrant that makes you feel un-safe?

(For me, the idea that an official or law enforcement officer could take action without consequences is much more unsettling.)

Foil wrote: I'm curious, what is it about the government having to go through the right process to get a warrant that makes you feel un-safe?

(For me, the idea that an official or law enforcement officer could take action without consequences is much more unsettling.)

The president is unconstitutionally wiretapping the telephone and Internet communications of millions of ordinary Americans.
Companies like AT&T want immunity for their illegal collaboration with the President's program.

And Congress might let them get away with it.

Stop the Spying Now!

I was only replying to that part in the opening post. I understand a warrant should absolutely be required before someone comes into your home, but I don't believe a warrant for every individual should be neccessary for viewing mail, internet, or phone conversations.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here. I hope it passes.

Bee

You would probably be comfortable living in the Soviet Union then. This is probably the most stupid statement I have read yet.

Bet51987 wrote:I want to be safe, not stupid.

So why not move country? Y'know, to one that really isn't suspect to threats of a terrorist attack?

Bet51987 wrote:The president is unconstitutionally wiretapping the telephone and Internet communications of millions of ordinary Americans.
Companies like AT&T want immunity for their illegal collaboration with the President's program.

So... if a company (like AT&T) willingly works to support the government by helping the government accomplish something ... if someone is going to get in trouble (or be punished) for the activities that are done in the line of doing that ...

Since the activity is preformed at the request of the government or certain governing leaders, the 'blame' or punishment for that activity should fall on the ones requesting the activity. Since the company (like AT&T) goes along with it to support the government ... the company (like AT&T) should have immunity ... because they were/are only acting to support the government or governing leaders of the nation in which they reside, at the request of that governing body.

It's part of the Pledge of Allegience. Allegience and support to the country. So the activity is determined (later on) to be illegal. They were/are acting to support the government or governing body by following them.

Important note: By being a citizen, you thus are obligated to support, honor, and trust the governing body. Does not mean "blind trust" but does mean you prefer to trust first. ... Then if you don't like it or cannot support it, then VOTE accordingly or take the matter to the appropriate authority that has been provided for such instances (which authority is already considering the matter).

The wheels may be slow ... but they work and we need a little patience ... and a little trust now and then (within reason).

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.
Bee

This is a dangerous statement.

You run the risk of opening up justification for changes in Constitutional Law by precedent. You negate something called "original intent"; a vital part of keep our laws intact.


The crux in this matter is the work "unreasonable". As common sense has LONG gone out the window in this country, that definition is up for grabs and will be bent to whatever direction whoever is in power feels it needs to be bent.

I know. But the same people who complain when terrorists blow up a building, or that our government isn't doing enough to stop kids from being killed in school, are the same people who put up as many roadblocks to that very protection as they can.

I read where some of those people are already complaining that there are too many security cameras in malls, parking lots, banks, and schools. They feel violated...

Paranoia is all it is... I want to be safe, not stupid.

Bee

Ah, understood.!

Bet51987 wrote:I rather have them wiretap internet and phone communications than pretend the enemy isn't here. I hope it passes.

Bee

So you would want the government to know about the issues you and your doctor discuss? or how nasty the divorce is going to be?

Internet huh? thanks, but I don't want anyone to know my financial information. That's my business and mine alone.

the problem with saying you have nothing to hide is that you let everyone see what can be used against you, and you might not even know what...

fliptw wrote:the problem with saying you have nothing to hide is that you let everyone see what can be used against you, and you might not even know what...

Yes, but this is supposed to be a "nothing to hide from the government". I haven't found anything to say that that information will also be avaliable to other people.

Bet51987 wrote:They were correct... in their time, however in my time that is no longer true whether you agree or not.

That is such a dumb statement.

How many wars has the USA fought in? The Civil War? War of 1912? World War I, World War II. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. Desert Storm.

We're still here and we still generally have our liberties and freedoms.

We have done perfectly well against significantly more powerful threats in the past without sacrificing our core values. Don't be so eager to throw yours under the bus.

Kyouryuu wrote:How many wars has the USA fought in? The Civil War? War of 1912? World War I, World War II. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. Desert Storm.

Hmmm.... War of 1912? Never heard of that one! I guess it happened 100 years after The War of 1812!!!

Dak', if you'd make as much effort contributing to the discussion as you do pointing out a typing error you'd be a star.

..all ignore me and carry on....

Dakatsu wrote:

Kyouryuu wrote:How many wars has the USA fought in? The Civil War? War of 1912? World War I, World War II. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. Desert Storm.

Hmmm.... War of 1912? Never heard of that one! I guess it happened 100 years after The War of 1812!!!

Y'know, the biggest irony is that I had typed 1912, then went to correct myself and hit Submit. But yeah, the War of 1912. I bet you didn't know that the Titanic was a secret British battle ship.

Giving away right's and freedoms for safety is an illusion that most people readily eat up in the instance they want the least ammount of responsibility in defending their own lives.

I see no good outcome of any circumstance where this principle is involved and practiced.

Bet51987 wrote:I know. But the same people who complain when terrorists blow up a building, or that our government isn't doing enough to stop kids from being killed in school, are the same people who put up as many roadblocks to that very protection as they can.

I read where some of those people are already complaining that there are too many security cameras in malls, parking lots, banks, and schools. They feel violated...

Paranoia is all it is... I want to be safe, not stupid.

Bee

Really? Paranoia you say? Is it paranoia that wants me to keep my private information, gee I dunno....PRIVATE? No offense, but that is by far the most ignorant thing you've said on this board to date. The idea of ANY government spying on its citizens in such a manner is appalling to me. This goes against the very founding principles of this country! Now I'm by no means a conspiracy nut, but I don't appreciate the idea of ANYONE having ANY access to my private data without REAL probable cause. I am NOT a terrorist, and I will NOT be treated like one. This government has already gone TOO FAR in the name of "security".

I leave you with this famous Thomas Jefferson quote:

"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both."

Ok, I should probably ask one more time:
Why do you assume that the government will make your information public to anyone?

MD-2389 wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I know. But the same people who complain when terrorists blow up a building, or that our government isn't doing enough to stop kids from being killed in school, are the same people who put up as many roadblocks to that very protection as they can.

I read where some of those people are already complaining that there are too many security cameras in malls, parking lots, banks, and schools. They feel violated...

Paranoia is all it is... I want to be safe, not stupid.

Bee

Really? Paranoia you say? Is it paranoia that wants me to keep my private information, gee I dunno....PRIVATE? No offense, but that is by far the most ignorant thing you've said on this board to date. The idea of ANY government spying on its citizens in such a manner is appalling to me. This goes against the very founding principles of this country! Now I'm by no means a conspiracy nut, but I don't appreciate the idea of ANYONE having ANY access to my private data without REAL probable cause. I am NOT a terrorist, and I will NOT be treated like one. This government has already gone TOO FAR in the name of "security".

I leave you with this famous Thomas Jefferson quote:

"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both."

I could care less what you think.

Bee

Then go to your nearest recruiting office Bee.

Bet51987 wrote:I could care less what you think.

Bee

EXACTLY my point! You're in your own little fantasy world about how our government would NEVER do ANYTHING wrong to abuse their powers (contrary to history) and you don't want to hear anything to the contrary.

TIGERassault wrote:Ok, I should probably ask one more time:
Why do you assume that the government will make your information public to anyone?

Disgruntled private government contractor + access to private data. Can you say recipe for identity theft?

you forgot something MD.

corporation pays the government enough money and the the government gives the corporation whatever they want. including information so they can sell you their goods.

MD-2389 wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I could care less what you think.

Bee

EXACTLY my point! You're in your own little fantasy world about how our government would NEVER do ANYTHING wrong to abuse their powers (contrary to history) and you don't want to hear anything to the contrary.

No, I'm just not interested in anything that YOU have to say.

Bee

Ferno wrote:Then go to your nearest recruiting office Bee.

And that is relevent to the OP how?

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Ferno wrote:Then go to your nearest recruiting office Bee.

And that is relevent to the OP how?

Bee

you're so gung-ho about this, what's stopping you from joining?

unless you're another one of those armchair chickenhawks.

The thing is loss of a few liberties is how Nazi Germany happened. In the 1930s Hitler got elected DEMOCRATICALLY and vowed to rebuild Germany. He slowly started taking away civil rights, until it turned into a dictatorship.

I am not saying Pres. Bush could do this (frankly, he is too stupid to start a dictatorship ) but ANY leader, once they have enough power, can turn their government into a dictatorship or totaltarian regime. Government needs some powers to protect us, but bypassing the constitution and wiretapping the ENTIRE United States is overuse of powers.

Besides that, imagine the resources needed to wiretap everyone