Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How do you know?> If someone would leak that we're monitoring calls to or from suspected terrorists, they'd leak that we're monitoring calls between Americans. Since no one's done that, it's reasonable to assume that that is not government policy.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"they are not listening in on John Smith calling his girlfriend Suzy Q" How do you know? "and for what reason ?" < show me one lick of proof they are ? We can play the what if game to the nth degree, what if Martians are monitoring my brain waves... also, as far as I am concerned - if they want to listen to my calls, I give a rats petuite
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <This country has an absolutely huge percentage of its population in prison. One out of every 142 people in this country is actually in prison right now. And I've read that upwards of 25% of all black men either are or have been in prison. < and they are all innocent - please spare me. I am tired of all this we have toomany people locked up, if they weren;t doing illegal things they would not be..I do not want to live ina country where anything goes..sorry. there are laws for a reason, people don;t get hauled in because they did nothing and there was a quota to make.. thisleft wing nonsense is ridiculous. because of theliberal judges we have in many locations - who look for loopholes with lawyers- we have people roaming the streets now that have rap sheets a mile long, but of course they are all innocent...it's bull ! I am sick or reading how this one or that one got murdered and theperson was arrested 150 times, but you know they were not 'serious crimes' - well yeah , now look at what you have. My daughter lost 3 friends to a drunk driver 7 years ago- 5 times arrested and convicted yet still driving, and a rap sheet for petty larceny, breaking and entering, drug possession and trafficking ( you know that war on drugs stuff you don;t seem to think is important ) - LAWS ARE LAWS -- it's amazing you can quote what the founding fathers really knew what the first amendment meant, but those who set up the laws ffor this country- well now we can have interpreations of those if they don't fit...wrong
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan We can play the what if game to the nth degree<< When what's in question is giving up or weakening certain freedoms, I think it's crucial to play the 'what if' game a LOT. I always look at it this way... Let's assume that this administration is only interested in doing the right thing, truly concerned about protectng all of us, and would never ever cross certain lines. What if, the nexct administration, or the one after that, or the one after that, has some other agenda? It's fine to say 'I've got nothing to hide, go ahead and listen in on my phone calls, etc." But what if, due to changing circumstances, something you now think is perfectly innocent becomes something to make you a suspicious character? The reason to play the 'what if' game is because the stakes are high, and too many people died to get us the rights we enjoy today. There is always going to be the call to give them up or modify them in the name of security, but I think we must be very, very cautious before doing so. To ask for an example of someone's rights being violated is putting the cart before the horse. The point of 'what if' is to head off abuses before they happpen. Because the alternative is to ask the question too late to do anything about it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <What if, the nexct administration, or the one after that, or the one after that, has some other agenda? It's fine to say 'I've got nothing to hide, go ahead and listen in on my phone calls, etc." But what if, due to changing circumstances, something you now think is perfectly innocent becomes something to make you a suspicious character? < simple - you take one step at a time, and our system is set up for that. No one is givng absolute power over everything to anyone, but sometimes baby steps have to be taken to see if something is better and that benefits outweigh negatives...no different than medical research, exploration or anything else. The all or nothing view it simply not a real picture...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <To ask for an example of someone's rights being violated is putting the cart before the horse.< the reason it is not is because just like some posters here, they are peole who claim it is already being done. In an age where little if anything remains secret due to the electronic media, if this was the case we would already have examples , instead we have those who want to be taken seriously on this , but work on pure speculation because their view of the administration is that they are the great Satan's of the world...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There is always going to be the call to give them up or modify them in the name of security, but I think we must be very, very cautious before doing so. < again, desparate times call for desparate measures and I go back to Lincoln rescinding Habeas Corpus for 5 years....did he take heat for it, you bet ( that and a lot of other things) - this carte blanche saying no, and application of definitions to the nth degree of what the founding fathers 'wanted' is seeing with blinders on. I have every faith in our system that if something became an abuse issue, the people would be able to rescind anything...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I have every faith in our system that if something became an abuse issue, the people would be able to rescind anything...<< We have other examples of 'desperate times call for desperate measures.' Japanese internment camps in WWII, for one. >>you take one step at a time<< There's something ominous and chilling to me about that phrase in this context.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>you take one step at a time<< There's something ominous and chilling to me about that phrase in this context.< not as ominous, as let's do nothing different and wait for the next shoe to fall
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I never suggested doing 'nothing'. But I would hope we'd tread carefully into surrendering very many civil rights and freedoms. And before I start giving up a bunch of rights so many fought and died for in the name of protection from terrorists, I'd be interested in seeing if we can't secure our borders first. Why should we give up a bunch of rights when the borders have thousands of people crossing every night? Who might be mixed in amongst those simply coming here for work? We have no idea. Yet anyone who balks at wanting to secure certain rights is 'helping' terrorists. How many walked right into the country unchecked in the last 5 years? We have no idea. Yet I'm suppossed to suck it up and be happy if some politician thinks he has a great way to protect us, and oh by the way, you'll lose some of your rights in the process?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<No wonder the bad guys think they can win. Can you imagine how damned stupid we look to them?>>> Yes you are exactly right on ALL counts in your original posts. The plans for 9-11 began long before the current idiotic GOP leaders were in office. In fact I don't think it necessary to revisit how our security was thrown to the wind and how we overlooked Osama during the previoius Billary administration. There is plenty of blame to go around dating back to and even further than Carter. I don't have the answer, and I fully support the troops. It was so much easier when we were fighting a STATE with hard targets, instead of a concept that is as evasive as a ghost. It is a new kind of war, and we are learning, but are we learning fast enough?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I never suggested doing 'nothing'. But I would hope we'd tread carefully into surrendering very many civil rights and freedoms. And before I start giving up a bunch of rights so many fought and died for in the name of protection from terrorists, I'd be interested in seeing if we can't secure our borders first. Why should we give up a bunch of rights when the borders have thousands of people crossing every night? Who might be mixed in amongst those simply coming here for work? We have no idea. < standing and cheering, I commend you on being the first to actually put some thought into the other side of this other than just spitting out the same tired old - my liberties are being trampled on...without any thought to balancing potential gain. I still believe the potential gain on wiretaps is worth the risk until proven otherwise, and there has been no proof to the contrary as you well no. Am I open to changing my mind if we find it is being abused - absolutely, but as of now that is just speculation. A bi=partisan group to review what is going on would be fine with me - to review results and any out of bounds activity...never said it wasn't. Do I think the borders present just as big a risk as terrorists that are already here..you bet. Let's do both, and now. Why do we have to choose one before the other ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Yet anyone who balks at wanting to secure certain rights is 'helping' terrorists. How many walked right into the country unchecked in the last 5 years? We have no idea. < and much like the terrorists in the UK-- how many have lived here for 20 years already, and supposedly are solid citizens -- we have no idea either...
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I still believe the potential gain on wiretaps is worth the risk until proven otherwise << This point needs to be continually hammered - The problem with the wiretaps is with the lack of warrants - not the wiretaps itself. No one is suggesting that monitoring these phone calls is a bad idea. What IS being said is that it's inherently dangerous for the executive branch to usurp this power to use surveillance techniques on american citizens without the oversight of the judicial branch. The fact that the executive branch does this surveillance without oversight is a strong indicator that they're straying outside of their own parameters - otherwise they would have no motive to refuse the FISA court.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The problem with the wiretaps is with the lack of warrants - not the wiretaps itself. No one is suggesting that monitoring these phone calls is a bad idea. What IS being said is that it's inherently dangerous for the executive branch to usurp this power to use surveillance techniques on american citizens without the oversight of the judicial branch. << Exactly. And, again, these warrants can be obtained AFTER the tap. Why anyone be against this I can't understand. It's a great idea to have some oversight on these things, and does nothing to impede the investigations.
Originally Posted By woody I have no problem with oversight, but asking for warrants in a war situation is completely ridiculous. There should be another way. This is not a case of a crime having been committed, but stopping a potential crime and stopping people who may commit crimes. Any terrorism planning is cause for arrest or kill. That involves different rules. The President claims war powers. That should be acknowledged.
Originally Posted By woody >>And, again, these warrants can be obtained AFTER the tap. Why anyone be against this I can't understand. It's a great idea to have some oversight on these things, and does nothing to impede the investigations.<< But many people do claim that obtaining the warrants is a cumbersome process that involves lots of paperwork. Think of all of wiretaps that never happen when the trace runs cold yet the wiretapping cannot continue because the warrant can't be justified and at the same time prohibited by law. That's the way it is with wiretaps. Justify it or let it go.
Originally Posted By gadzuux There was another republican president, not so long ago, who tape recorded conversations, authorized wire-taps and break-ins, and kept a secret staff on hand to employ "dirty tricks" on perceived "enemies". So it's not all that far-fetched to think that perhaps presidents don't always have the best of intentions, and should never be given free reign to do as they will without being accountable for their actions. When all is said and done, he's an employee.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But many people do claim that obtaining the warrants is a cumbersome process that involves lots of paperwork.<< If the paperwork is needless bureaucratic busywork, then let's look at how it can be streamlined. But if what's cumbersome is making sure that we don't needlessly erode key rights, then it probably should be cumbersome. Either way, there MUST be some oversight. I'm just saying that while you might be trusting of this administration and believe they have no ill intent, just ask yourself 'what if' another administration, who holds views very different than yours, were granted these same powers. Would you be okay with that? That's what's at stake.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<There was another republican president, not so long ago, who tape recorded conversations, authorized wire-taps and break-ins, and kept a secret staff on hand to employ "dirty tricks" on perceived "enemies".>> If, as you claim, that the government can never be trusted, then it probably stands to reason that every president has commited some action that is illegal or at least would be deemed inappropriate. Nixon was merely the only one who got caught.
