Can somebody please explain why ANYBODY not associated with al-Qaeda would have issues with the "wire-tapping" telephone surveilance by the Dept. of Homeland Security? Unless you're building a bomb, planning to bring down an airplane, or reporting back to Osama, WHAT THE FUCK are you worried about???????
Telephone surveilance is one of the best defense weapons we have in the war against terror. Somehow I suspect if anybody OTHER than George W. Bush was in the White House, this wouldn't even be an issue. If you're not in cahoots with al-Qaeda, or trying to smuggle illegal aliens or drugs into this nation, then you have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Ordinary law-abiding citizens needn't be concerned about telephone taps, only the CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS should be sweating on this one.
68 comments
Just because a method to allegedly catch criminals may be more efficient than others does not make it right. Personal freedoms take priority. It does not make sense that the majority of people should lose their right to privacy simply because a small percentage want to commit crime.
mmmmjournal, I got a great suggestion for you, I know you'd like this.
The United States was hijacked by fundies decades ago. Compare "One nation under god" and "in god we trust" to the Treaty of Tripoli.
Sure, because absolutely everyone is scrupulously honest, and would never think of using this kind of thing for personal or political gain, or to fuck with people they didn't like. Because when sheltered, middle-class Americans are pissing their pants in fear of foreign "evildoers", we have to give up all of our rights so that we can have the illusion of security, right? As an ordinary, law-abiding citizen of the United States, I have a right to privacy, and I refuse to give that up.
If there were anyone other than Bush in the White House, you're right. It wouldn't be an issue. He's the only president who has ever authorized this sort of blatantly unconstitutional violation of the privacy of an untold number of U.S. citizens.work with people like this. Gah!
Man, there is something called, RIGHT TO INTIMITY, which is what makes us different to the terrorists(terrible mengling gossips). People want to talk about their problems, orgasms and fights with the idiot neighbour´s dog without being HEARD. Besides, why is George Bush better?, should I remind you that he has made more terrorists thanks to a useless invasion of Irak?
One day you might want to apply for life insurance and the guy from the insurance company tells you: "I'm sorry sir, but in a December 10 phone call to your mother you stated that you feel, quote, kinda fatigued and out of steam these days, unquote. Unfortunately we see you as uninsurable." Of course we aren't there yet, not by a long shot, but as long as your government (or any government for that matter) doesn't make it perfectly transparent who is being wiretapped, for what reason, and who the data is being shared with, it is an unbearable infringement of your basic human right to privacy. Wiretapping citizens without an explicit court order could be a first step on a rather slippery slope, as it shows a general disregard for your privacy right. (Hell, I know, slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, but if they can do it, so can I.)
Have you EVER, ever, ever read 1984 , or any other dystopian novel? Continuous state surveillance is a hallmark of totalitarianism. Forgive me if I'm wary of having ANYONE under surveillance, especially when it's illegal surveillance. I don't want to end up living in a totalitarian society.
"Who will watch the watchers?"
""Can somebody please explain why ANYBODY not associated with al-Qaeda would have issues with the "wire-tapping" telephone surveilance by the Dept. of Homeland Security?"
Do we really have to remind this asshole of what happened with Nixon? (and his illegal wire-tapping was a lot more limited)
I vote to give this guy a full cavity search (by a volunteer, which isn't me). I mean, it's not as if he has anything to hide, has he?
The problem is that in the United States of America it is illegal to conduct electronic surveilance without a warrant. If you need to do it fast, you can even get a retroactive warrant in an emergency. But to conduct it without judicial oversight is in direct violation of the law.NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. anyone. The President has taken the position that in the interest of national security, he, in fact, is above the law.
No way. Not gonna happen in my America.
I have no problem with electronic surveilance of terror suspects...but get the fucking warrant.
Props to mad dog, Hadanelith, Redhunter, Adrian, Sandman, and others for your responses to this outpouring of righteously stupefying naivete.
It's amazing how conservatives don't give a rat's butt about having their phones tapped, their e-mails recorded or their web searches investigated. But try making them register their guns and they pitch a hissy fit.Can somebody please explain why ANYBODY not associated with al-Qaeda would have issues with the "wire-tapping" telephone surveilance by the Dept. of Homeland Security?
This is a straw man argument. Wire tapping is perfectly legal and always has been. Few would object to its legitimate use. The President is free to tap the phones of foreign powers or their agents for foreign intelligence purposes. If he wants to tap the phones of Americans, he can do it with a warrant from the FISA court, which is secret, quick and easy to get. He can even start the tap first and get the warrant later.
So the real question is not why anyone would object to wire-tapping; nobody does object - that's a straw man. The question is why the President didn't either follow the FISA law or ask Congress to change it. Instead, he just ignored it. The only reason the President has ever given for not following FISA is "my lawyer says I don't have to", based on a far-fetched, "blank check" legal opinion on the scope of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" - an opinion that most lawyers disagree with and would probably be thrown out if it came to court. That's why there's a Senate bill to amend FISA that includes a retroactive amnesty (why would they need that if they thought it was legal?)
By the way, it's good than mmmmjournal isn't concerned about the government having his phone records, because if he's a customer of AT&T, Verizon or BellSouth they almost certainly do. I wonder how much he'll support the idea if it's Hillary tapping his phone?
glyptodon: What did you mean by BFF?The three-letter-acronym BFF can refer to:
* The band Ben Folds Five is commonly abbreviated to BFF by fans.
* The airport code for the West Nebraska Regional Airport near Scottsbluff, Nebraska.
* The ISO 639-2 code for the Bofi language.
* The phrase "Best Friends Forever", also used as the eponym for a South Park episode, "Best Friends Forever".
* Backup File Format - an AIX binary distribution package.
* Boise Frag Fest - Idaho's premier LAN party authority.
* Boston Film Festival.
Which is it?
~David D.G.
Can somebody please explain why ANYBODY not associated with al-Qaeda would have issues with the "wire-tapping" telephone surveilance by the Dept. of Homeland Security? 1984 , the Fourth Amendment, a Founding Father's famous quote about liberty and security, ...
Somehow I suspect if anybody OTHER than George W. Bush was in the White House, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Wrong. Another President tried it too. You might have heard of him. It ended even worse for him than it has so far for Dubya - he would have been thrown out of office if he didn't resign first.
Aside from that, no President since has been dumb enough to try it ... and I don't think any besides are particularly likely to do so.
mmmmjournal, please sign this release form giving me permission to read your mail and email, listen into your phone conversations, monitor everything you do on the Internet, and barge into your house unanounced and uninvited any hour of any day and search any part of it that I want.
I, for one am more afraid of a government that knows everything, than a government that knows nothing.
And Brain_In_A_Jar- we do have the right to know everything about every politician in relation to governing. Or, at least, we should. It is your constitutional right to know what the hell is being done in your name, and it is undemocratic to cover up anything that may modify your voting. In Australia, John Howard has done this so many times, and been caught, that no-one cares anymore. An yet he has the second longest reign in history...
What about the right to privacy?
And (from what I've heard in the media; I'm Canadian) America is taking the whole anti-terrorism thing too far, anyway.
Because maybe, I don't want people listening to me talking about how my brother abused me, the kinky things I did with my Master last night, and problems relating to me being a transsexual. It's private. It's for me and who I choose to share it with alone. Would you like to be watched 24/7? After all, surely you have nothing to hide. Just the little private details of your life, and those harmless little secrets you never want anybody but your friends to know.
Excellent thread necromancy. Appears I may have misjudged this place.
@Crosis,
"Somehow I suspect if anybody OTHER than George W. Bush was in the White House, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Wrong. Another President tried it too. You might have heard of him. It ended even worse for him than it has so far for Dubya - he would have been thrown out of office if he didn't resign first.
Aside from that, no President since has been dumb enough to try it ... and I don't think any besides are particularly likely to do so."
Unfortunately not true. Echelon began under Clinton and has gone non stop ever since. The warrant-less eavesdropping got a lot more aggressive under Bush, but has not let up under Obama and if anything is getting worse.
Big Brother keeps marching to the same tune whether Republicans or Dems are in the White House. Sadly, the left only seem to care when there is a Republican in the WH.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
