Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
^ ok. if they want to listen to your subway coversation, why can't they just get a warrent and do it legally?
i don't get it. whats so hard about getting a warrent. hell, let them get 1685135468168514 warrents and tap that many people's phone if they'd like. its not like they're NOT the government....all they have to do is get a judge (who by the way is a part of the system that they are) to say the reason they want a warrent is valid....
why say "yes, we, the government, do not want to answer to anybody and we are going to do what we want so fvck you..." to the people? just do it right and all will be fine. the government is enforcing laws while at the same time breaking laws themselves.
nobody is saying don't tap phones...just tap them legally, and with some (top secret) documentation of who is being tapped that way it wont get out of control.
what the hell does it matter anyway? I could care less if the govt taps my call and hears:
"so, want to meet at subway for dinner"
"sure, sounds good"
"okay see you there"
*click*
WTF do I care, they would be the ones bored to death. Solution: Don't do anything shady and even if you are tapped, no consequences!
Well, what if the government decides that Christianity is a cult that is putting the government in danger. They then decide to tap people's phones to decide who the Christians are and if you turn out to be one they will open secret files in the FBI, track your actions, and basically make it hard for you to freely exercise your freedom to practice your religion?
Would you agree with this if you weren't a Christian?
Those rules are in place to protect Americans from their government.
The problem with getting a warrant for EVERY call they want to monitor is that not every judge is on the side of the government. And this is fine because we live in an open society where we are allowed to have our own belief systems.
I mean what happens if they go to the FISA court and the warrant gets denied and we miss out on a call that could have led to the arrest of 20 people in a cell? It's a situation that is VERY likely.
What's a VERY unlikely situation is the government ever declaring a recognized religion a cult and making it illegal. Then you'd see people getting more up in arms.
The problem we are running into is that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Yes it's an amazing document for it's age, but our forefathers had never imagined that you could instantly contact anyone in any foreign land by a miriad of ways. Do I think they would have put in something about telephony and other communication forms had they been available? Probably. But since they weren't, we have to interprete it as it is.
The problem we are running into is that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Yes it's an amazing document for it's age, but our forefathers had never imagined that you could instantly contact anyone in any foreign land by a miriad of ways. Do I think they would have put in something about telephony and other communication forms had they been available? Probably. But since they weren't, we have to interprete it as it is.
The problem with getting a warrant for EVERY call they want to monitor is that not every judge is on the side of the government. And this is fine because we live in an open society where we are allowed to have our own belief systems.
I mean what happens if they go to the FISA court and the warrant gets denied and we miss out on a call that could have led to the arrest of 20 people in a cell? It's a situation that is VERY likely.
What's a VERY unlikely situation is the government ever declaring a recognized religion a cult and making it illegal. Then you'd see people getting more up in arms.
The problem we are running into is that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Yes it's an amazing document for it's age, but our forefathers had never imagined that you could instantly contact anyone in any foreign land by a miriad of ways. Do I think they would have put in something about telephony and other communication forms had they been available? Probably. But since they weren't, we have to interprete it as it is.
The problem with getting a warrant for every call is not if a judge is on the side of the government or not, it's if the government has probable cause or not. See, the government has to have evidence that an American citizen is talking to a terrorist, not just tap a phone and see if he is. FISA has it's own judges and they have security clearances and can review any data the government has regarding the person they want a warrant against.
While they might not declare a religion a cult and make it illegal, think of how Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or Larry Flynt were catalogued, followed, harrased, kept tabs on, etc. They weren't doing anything illegal but some biggot in government that had a high rank decided that he didn't want ni99ers to have rights or regular people to have porn so the government tracked these men constantly. That is unconstitutional. What is to prevent them from doing it to people who want to legalize gay marriage or people who are for impeaching Bush, or even people of the opposite political party just to see what they're up to or to reduce their chance at being elected to office?
That is why warrantless tappings are so dangerous. It's not because a guy might call Osama, it's because we don't want the government monitoring people that have a right to be doing what they're doing.
Telephony has nothing to do with the Constitution. Your rights are your rights. It doesn't matter if you're sending a letter, a post card, a messenger with parchment paper, or an email. It doesn't matter if you're just talking to your buddy next to you or assembling with 10000 friends. You still have the same rights under the Constitution. Everything can be brought down to the lowest common denominator: communication. You can assemble and speak your mind with whomever you want and the government has no right to monitor you unless they have a warrant to do so. The fact that you are assembling using Video Teleconferencing, IP Telephones, Satelite gear, or whatever, you're still assembling and speaking and those rights are protected.
Imagine if multi round clips were made illegal. We could all see this happening one day. Or atleast imagine a senator trying to ban any clip that holds more than 1-4 rounds. If we let them continue to spy on people with "suspected terrorist ties" why can't they use precedent from these cases to spy on your grand kids without warrants? What is a terrorist anyways? I thought terror was a tactic. Maybe I would be more on the side of Bush if he could identify who he is trying to fight.
Last edited by nick95673 : 08-24-2006 at 12:53 PM.
Imagine if multi round clips were made illegal. We could all see this happening one day. Or atleast imagine a senator trying to ban any clip that holds more than 1-4 rounds. If we let them continue to spy on people with "suspected terrorist ties" why can't they use precedent from these cases to spy on your grand kids without warrants? What is a terrorist anyways? I thought terror was a tactic. Maybe I would be more on the side of Bush if he could identify who he is trying to fight.
Again, If you aren't doing anything illegal why care? If you aren't calling to the middle east you aren't going to even pop up on their radar.
And about the gun thing, there's enough people that own guns to fight that. It would be a logistics nightmare to put a law like that into place. And it would also probably require a constitutional amendment.
Going on to "Who are the terrorists"... Have you been asleep for the past 30 years? The group that took over the American Embasy during the Carter administration, the group that attacked the Olympic village in Munich, the U.S.S. Cole, the US Marine barracks in Beiruit, the 19 highjackers on 9/11 etc etc. It's all linked back to Islamic Fundamentalism. Mujahideen, or holy warriors, have been the root cause of most acts of terror in the past 30 years.
Again, If you aren't doing anything illegal why care? If you aren't calling to the middle east you aren't going to even pop up on their radar.
That's not true. If you call the U.K., Canada, China, India (even if you're calling Dell for support), South Africa, or Israel (just to name a few) you are being monitored. It's calls that start or are directed to other countries that are being monitored, not just to the Middle East.
Also, that is a dumb argument. I'm not trying to insult you, and I'm not saying you're dumb, but that argument is just plain closed-minded. If you are doing something that the government doesn't like, you have everything to fear. It doesn't have to be illegal. Hell, if you're showing people the tax loopholes, you could be monitored. Do you really want that? I don't want to be monitored unlawfully and that's just what Bush is doing.
The Constitution clearly states that I have a right to peacefully assemble and a right to free speach. That means I can talk to whomever I want without fearing that the government is watching what I'm doing. The Founding Fathers put this provision in the Constitution to ensure that the regular citizen was protected from his government, for one, and so that the government could never get so powerful that it would be able to infringe on a citizen's rights.
Our government, in the name of security, is doing just that. They are assuming powers that they will not easily relinquish, even if all terrorist were wiped out like the dinosaurs. Why? Because they'd come up with some bull shit story about how you never know if your neighbor is secretly planning to overthrow the government by voting for the other political party in the next elections. That's where this is headed if we're not cautious.
Also, your argument leads me to believe that you don't care if the government puts an FBI agent on your tail to shadow you 24/7/365 and listen in on all your conversations (both over mediums like phone/internet and when you're talking to your mom at your house). Why should you, you're not doing anything wrong?
Oh, you want your privacy? Sorry, pal, you gave that away when you let Bush pass his NSA policy.
I would have no problem if I had an FBI detail. They would eventually kill themselves from the tedium of living my life with me.
But let's use your way of thinking. We get rid of ALL the NSA's projects because they may encroach on some form of privacy. That's great. Now we go through life with our eyes closed. Eyes closed, ears plugged up. Wonderful. Can we personally blame you and your ilk for the next terrorist attack that could have been stopped?
Weren't the guys that were plotting to re-enact the Bojinko plot caught using these wiretaps? So are you saying that you support THEIR right to privatly conduct their dealings?
Our constitution protects us and lets us start an uprising. Freedom of speech means I can talk about how bad the leaders are. Freedom to assemble lets me and another 1000 guys get together and discuss a solution to our leaders. The right to bear arms was written so we can kill leaders and the army/police of our leaders not dears. Protection from warrantles search protects my legal plans and legal weapons from being taken because I have non main stream ideas.
None of that is illegal. 20,000 armed people are allowed to get together and discuss the leadership of the nation. I could see our leaders use this precedent to tap phones against these "terrorist"
I think we all agree that tapping a terrorist's phone line is awesome. What we don't agree on is that it will simply stay there. Our government has never taken a step back in encroaching on our rights. I think the problem most of us have with this is we can see the next step. There are a few that are possible.
1) Interstate phone calls can be tapped with no warrant.
2) Convicted felons can have their lines tapped without a warrant.
3) People on trial can have their phones tapped while on trial with no warrant.
4) Fisa court becomes the normal way to get a warrant for common criminals.
But let's use your way of thinking. We get rid of ALL the NSA's projects because they may encroach on some form of privacy. That's great. Now we go through life with our eyes closed. Eyes closed, ears plugged up. Wonderful. Can we personally blame you and your ilk for the next terrorist attack that could have been stopped?
We're not stopping all the NSA projects, only the illegal ones. I have NO PROBLEM with monitoring if you follow the law. The law states you need a warrant to listen in on American citizens. If they go get a warrant to listen to Joe Blow's phone, then I'm all for it. I'm just against them listening in on EVERYONE without a damn warrant. There is a reason that blanket warrants are very, very seldomly seen. That is because you need indisputable evidence to the facts. The NSA listening project would need a blanket warrant and there is no way it would ever be approved. However, warrants to listen to specific groups or a single user could EASILY be obtained from FISA.
Also, all terrorist attacks can be stopped. It's a matter of convenience. You could have people that board airplanes go through strip searches and cavity searches and not allow any luggage or carry on items. That would do it, wouldn't it? But, would people be willing to do that just so they can be safer on an airplane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinisterdexter
Weren't the guys that were plotting to re-enact the Bojinko plot caught using these wiretaps? So are you saying that you support THEIR right to privatly conduct their dealings?
No, they were caught by British Intelligence, not by the NSA. Bush was only notified of this AFTER the British government had received the warrants and were on their way to capture the suspects.
And, yes, I support their right to privacy. Everyone has a right to privacy. Invading it requires that you have knowledge that they intend to do something illegal (or have done something illegal). Until then, everyone is innocent and, as such, has a right to privacy.
alright, since everyone else is doing it, I will be a devils advocate as well. Just wondering, (because I do not actually know) how long does it take to get a warrant? I think I can safely assume that 24 hours would be a VERY short time, being that it is OUR government hard at work. Suppose you recieve rock solid intel that Joe american citizen terrorist will be calling for his instructions from his leader to carry out a horrible attack. This attack will happen in 3 hours. You now have no time for a warrant. Should they still tap the call?
the government is enforcing laws while at the same time breaking laws themselves.
