House approves wiretap law before hitting campaign trail- CNN

quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

Question:
This bill:

Choices:
Good idea?
Bad idea?
I feel safer already.
All hail King Bush.
Maybe a terrorist attack wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Who needs Constitutional rights anyway?!

 

quote:

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated,"

Amen brother. I wish the proles of England the wisdom to stand up and say no.
1984 is a very important book. Im so glad orwell wrote it.

Why on Earth would a Polish American lawyer have their phone tapped? I mean, talk about as far as you can get from the stereotypical terrorist...

quote:

It's mostly that terrorism tends to follow set tracks, and as long as you aren't Muslim and don't have a history of violence (or hateful speech) against the US, Jews, and Christians, you should be fine.

---
My phone was tapped. Actually, my mother's phone has been tapped on an off since the mid 80's (she's a lawyer, she does not have a history of violence of hateful speech and she is polish catholic)

and now i worry about telling people things over the phone. it isn't all that bad to have to meet people somewhere everytime I want to talk to them but it is terribly inconvenient.
And thanks to this and the way the federal goverment has ignored my city (i'm from New Orleans) I'm going to leave the country when i turn 18.
Thank you wire tapping for helping me make that decision.

Privacy is a found right. Its pure and simple. Whether or not Americans want it, or like it, or use it, they have it, because the Supreme Court's definition of the 5th Amendment says so.

And Joseph, if you were patriotic in the slightest you would agree that the balance of powers set forth by the little document called the Constitution clearly define that the Congress as a whole has more collective power than the President. That is, if you've ever read the Constitution.

But who defines who is a suspect and who isn't? That seems a bit too subjective for my liking. This could be abused in so many ways.

The way I look at it is, if the government has the right to know what kind of gun is in my dresser draw, or what kind of car I own, they have the right to know what a terror suspect is saying when he calls Kabul.

Except that my owning a gun or a car doesn't necessarily signify any particular intent, but what one says on the phone might.

I tend to play Devil's Advocate on odd topics.

Hydrok: wiretapping -> Big Brother : Link. I don't think wiretapping is going to get us doing doublethink on its own, and I think the McCarthy-era pattern of 'guilty until we say otherwise' is too recycled into our society's knowledge base to be allowed again. If there is proof of an actual terrorist threat (or communist threat, since we're on the subject of McCarthy), it couldn't be seen as McCarthyism. If there's no proof (only concerning US citizens, mind - I don't remember what our laws actually are for non-citizens) then it will be a 'trial by media' for the poor sap who called guilty.

---

I'm no political scientist, but I think Right to Privacy hinges on the fear of Big Brother-type government more than the Constitution. Really, the Big C mostly stops the Federal government from doing things, and everything else, unless prohibited, are reserved to the States or to the people (Amendment X). In other words, if your state wants to tap your phones, the Constitution agrees. The Feds are a different story, but it's one thing to say that some people suspected of terrorism are being wiretapped, and another entirely to say that it is certain that your phone will be wiretapped for any and all crimes you could be suspected of (see link above). It's mostly that terrorism tends to follow set tracks, and as long as you aren't Muslim and don't have a history of violence (or hateful speech) against the US, Jews, and Christians, you should be fine.

---

quote:

this type of bill is the first step down that road

But only if the ways to get to that endpoint are clear.
Logic can't rely on vague threats, but must have certainty or else it can't be considered logical. I can't say "Democrats will turn the country into the next fascist state!" without giving clear reasons why I would think so (I don't, mind you). In a similar manner, I cannot say "Wiretapping will bring about government oppression and the destruction of our Constitution!" without saying exactly why.

---

Finally, what I said about the "wrong crowd" was me expecting to be flamed. And I'm trying to phrase this in ways that won't become flaming. It's just that I'm not really awake right now (it's almost 4 a.m.) so try to read it without assuming I'm trying to insult you.

In case you didn't know, BS, Congress does have the ability to overrule a presidential veto, if that's what you were referring to.

how is it legal? and why doesn't congress have a say any more? explain yourself BS

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.

It already is legal. Why does Congress always think that they have final authority over everything. They don't.

There is this little thing you might not ever have heard of, it's called "balance of power" and also another tenant of the institution of the American republic called "checks and balances" you might want to look into those.

quote:

grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.

It already is legal. Why does Congress always think that they have final authority over everything. They don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottie:
I know this is likely the wrong crowd to say this to, but I (and most of the rest of the country, unless I miss my guess) don't really care about warrantless wiretapping. What would the government care about what I do?

Or what you do, for that matter. Honestly, Orwellian hintings of "Big Brother" only work when the law they arrest you for is not clearly defined. If you were arrested by Homeland Security on a conspiracy to commit terrorism charge, no court in the country would have you shackled unless you were found guilty by a jury of your peers.

And as an American citizen, you would be tried in a US court.

The idea of "Them" being the bad and "Us" being oppressed good is all very thick BS. Read the news: we all seem to go bad at some point. True, those in power seem to go worse than most of us out here, but my point remains. Unless you can find a truly moral person to put into government, you still would have the margin of corruption. This is why I am against Socialism/Communism/Marxism/becoming a Democrat (as the party has shades of the previous*), because I believe little would change in society except we would lose the efficiency of a central government.

*This is another topic altogether. I'm almost late for class, so I won't go into it here, but before anyone accuses me of "hating on" the Democrats, I have my reasons for not being one. That is merely one of them.

The problem isn't with the crowd, it's that on a whole those that are most in need of convincing (from your point of view) are too smart to fall for crap.

Scottie, look up Mcarthyism during the cold war then come back with the same argument (all you have to do with a lot of bushes speeches on the subject is replace the word "terrorist" with the
word "communist" and suddenly you have instant Joseph McCarthy

also we have the right to privacy, it's in the document "the constitution" which is designed to protect our rights and limit goverment

I agree with Edward R. Murrow when he said "we cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home"

this type of bill is the first step down that road

I know this is likely the wrong crowd to say this to, but I (and most of the rest of the country, unless I miss my guess) don't really care about warrantless wiretapping. What would the government care about what I do?

Or what you do, for that matter. Honestly, Orwellian hintings of "Big Brother" only work when the law they arrest you for is not clearly defined. If you were arrested by Homeland Security on a conspiracy to commit terrorism charge, no court in the country would have you shackled unless you were found guilty by a jury of your peers.

And as an American citizen, you would be tried in a US court.

The idea of "Them" being the bad and "Us" being oppressed good is all very thick BS. Read the news: we all seem to go bad at some point. True, those in power seem to go worse than most of us out here, but my point remains. Unless you can find a truly moral person to put into government, you still would have the margin of corruption. This is why I am against Socialism/Communism/Marxism/becoming a Democrat (as the party has shades of the previous*), because I believe little would change in society except we would lose the efficiency of a central government.

*This is another topic altogether. I'm almost late for class, so I won't go into it here, but before anyone accuses me of "hating on" the Democrats, I have my reasons for not being one. That is merely one of them.

And this is why I vote Libertarian.

oh joy, all hail emporer bush