Monk wrote: Meh, tap away, I got nothing to hide. Plus whats the odd they would tap Joe Shmo like me.

I agree. I will surrender a few of my rights for my own safety.

I dont care if I get wire tapped. I already am careful about what I say on the phone anyway.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither".

-Benny boy Franklin

brihard wrote: rossy11223 wrote: Monk wrote: Meh, tap away, I got nothing to hide. Plus whats the odd they would tap Joe Shmo like me. I agree. I will surrender a few of my rights for my own safety. And you'll also sacrifice the rights of your fellow citizens. Disappointingly cowardly, and unfortunately typical of a vast part of society.

I believe that deserves both a "BOO" and a "YAH."

oldsoldier wrote: History Lesson: 1956 - FBI Launches Counter Intelligence Programs (COINTELPRO). COINTELPRO is the acronym for a series of covert action programs designed to expose, neutralize, disrupt and discredit domestic dissidents and political groups. Originally designed to undermine the Communist Party in the United States, COINTELPRO activities quickly expanded to include the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Vietnam war demonstrators and campus protesters, civil rights activists, the "New Left" and other domestic groups. COINTELPRO techniques, which were adopted from wartime counterintelligence operations, went beyond the collection of intelligence to undercover activities that were designed to disrupt and create dissension within the targeted groups. Wiretapping, break-ins, bugging of homes and offices, and the use of informants were just some of the techniques employed. 1918 - The Sedition Act, a further refinement of the Espionage Act, was passed. This wide-ranging law made it illegal to criticize the government or hamper the war effort in almost any manner. Thus many labor activists, dissidents and radicals became the targets of government prosecutors. To be a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union put one at the risk of deportation. Anyone found violating these acts could be fined up to $10,000 and/or sentenced up to twenty years in jail. Rose Pastor Stokes, Eugene V. Debs, Victor Berger and Emma Goldman were notable individuals that were arrested and charged under these laws. 1861 - Lincoln, claiming the right under presidential war powers, suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus for those accused of "disloyal activities." Many suspected Confederate sympathizers were arrested and held without formal charges. The writ of Habeas Corpus, an important civil liberties safeguard and cornerstone of English common law, requires the government to provide to a court the reasons why a prisoner is being held. Just an FYI- The above were just the beginnings of the current program. Many of these acts there are many pre-Bush intelligence and survailence acts and presidential orders that are still law and are the basis of the new programs.

I swear, OS, you live in your own universe where you can ignore inconvenient memories.

History lesson:

You made almost this EXACT post in a previous thread.  I proceeded to explain how some of those acts are drastically different from the current wiretapping, and how others (like the Sedition Act) are universally ridiculed as examples of the worst abuses of power in the history of the country.

Yet here the post is again, as if that previous discussion never happened.  Yay for selective memory.

oldsoldier wrote: Talk about selective memory, most of the country believes that the current security measures are just something Bush came up with, and no references in the media on the previous acts and orders. The new variation of the themes are just adaptations for the new technologies, but the intent is the same.

Ok, fine.  I'll repeat myself.

Using the Sedition Act to justify illegal wiretaps is like saying "genocide isn't so bad - see, Hitler did it!"  The Sedition Act was wildly unconstitutional, and is frequently used in law schools as an example of Congress Behaving Badly.

As to all the others - there is one important difference with the current surveillance program; the same difference we all keep pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring:  Oversight.  Under the Bush program, there is no oversight.  All the other programs you listed (the constitutional ones, that is), had oversight in place.  Judicial oversight, Congressional oversight - something!

This isn't about surveillance of Americans - it never was.  We all know that there is surveillance, always has been surveillance.  We accept that.  What we don't like is the unilateralness of Bush's actions.  "Trust me" is not democratic.  "Trust me" is exactly what we DON'T want.  That's why we have separation of powers.  Our entire system of government exists to avoid "trust me".

THAT's that problem.  "Trust me" is the problem.  We can deal with surveillance, so long as it is done properly - like most of those other programs.

oldsoldier wrote: Then how effective can any survalience program be if it is compromised by any party within the chain who by intient of political gain outs the program. What is the lesser of the two evils, havinf the ability to monitor incoming communications identified as threats, or to announce that these communications are monitored, when and how, so to limit the effectivness.

That's an incredibly easy decision.

Choice A involves, at worst, a marginal decrease in the effectiveness of some intelligence programs, which may result in a marginal increase in the risk of future terrorist attacks.

Choice B involves a complete surrender of one of our most basic constitutional civil rights, and extreme consolidation of power in direct contravention of the most central tenet of our form of government.

How is this even up for discussion?

    I would love to know just what essential right is being violated? If anyone has actually paid attention to this issue, the wiretapping is little more then finding out who suspected terrorists call. And then beginning the process over again, intelligence would have been able to connect the dots from cell to cell, in theory anyway.

  All of you that actually believe that someone was going to tap your phone, just for the hell of it, feel free to remove your head from your 4th point of contact. This is just yet another program that was leaked to the media to try and destroy Bush's credibility. If such a program had been exposed in 1943, people would have been hung for treason.

   But then again Roosevelt just threw Asian-Americans in concentration camps...

oldsoldier wrote: Reading a little history instead of just relying on current political "talking points" will help in your comprehension of world events.

I'm sorry, OS, but that coming from you is just rich.  Pots and kettles and all that.

And BTW with a litle tweaking, and a real good scanner even amatuers such as I can monitor you cell phone calls, and use the information accordingly, legally, as well as all those implanted cookies on your computer....we are monitored by corperations all the time. Only the government is required to follow the rules.

On what planet is that true?  Surreptitious recording of phone conversations is illegal in 50 states.  The rules may vary a bit, but nowhere can you just hook up a bug on your neighbor's phone.

But yes, there are different rules for the government in many respects, as there should be!  The government should be held to a higher standard.  It's back to the whole "trust me" bit.  This whole country was founded on the idea of the government for the people - which mean the government must be supervised at all times.

Oh and Clark, how about the daily attack on my 2nd admendment rights...

Translation:  "I can no longer defend my unreasonable position on the topic at hand, so I shall randomly change the subject to something completely different."

Ok, OS - I'm talking about governmental oversight.  Where is the unilateral executive-branch violation of 2d amendment rights that has no oversight?  I am not aware of any.

If all you are saying is that "we have other rights too", then yes, you are right.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Clark clearly is pro-terrorist. You are either with us or against us Clark, pick a side.

Come on, it's Clinton's fault. ABC said so.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Dune wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Clark clearly is pro-terrorist. You are either with us or against us Clark, pick a side. Come on, it's Clinton's fault. ABC said so. Yeah! They had Osama surrounded and... ...No wait...they didn't....

Yeah, Clinton was too busy with Monica that he didn't do a thing in office except for ignore Osama....wait, nope lied again. Man I need to stop watching ABC.

MT. Vigilante wrote: The fact that Clinton didn't do enough about Osama doesn't come from ABC, it came from both the 9/11 commission report and pure common sense. Where were all of you through the 90's? All you had to do to see that Clinton wasn't doing his job when it came to national security was watch the news! We had our embassys destroyed and hundreds of Americans murdered and what did Clinton do? He shot a few tomahawks at some bases that we knew Osama hadn't been to for two weeks and he called it good. I mean how many Americans had to die befor Clinton considerd it severe enough to comit more effort to destroying Al-Queda?! The man just didn't care.

Where were you in the 80s when we were arming and training Al-Queda and Osama? Saying Clinton caused it is like saying Ragean brought down the wall single handedly. Saying that he didn't care is a ridiculous claim. I guess he didn't care that much because the economy was so strong, jobs were available, and gas was cheap.

Never said that, but saying he didn't care because he was too busy with Monica is just a cop out neo-cons use to explain why 9-11 happened. Although failure to see that it was our own doing when we turned a blind eye to the creation of the terrorist organization because WE were too busy with the Soviet Union.

MT. Vigilante wrote: I never said that he neglected Osama because of Monica, I said he just didn't care. And as for paying more attention to the soviet union, Abriham Lincoln once said "We have to fight one war at a time." And I think I whould consider an enemy who has hundereds of nucular warheads pointed at us top priority as well.

Cop out. I could say that George W. Bush cares more about Iraq than he does his own people's education, economy leve, etc. But just because it seems that way doesn't make it true. So we have an excuse for letting Osama slip by when a Republican was President, but not when a Democrat was. It is the indirect fault of the government, not just one administration.