Spying on Americans, so What?

from JoeUser Forums
Simple question time.

Why do you care if the government is listening to your phone calls? I don't care at all. If they capture one terrorist or break up one attack on America then it's well worth it.

If you have something to hide from the government, I suggest you do not use the phone any longer. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOVE THIS WAS GENERATED OUT OF FEAR AND A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY I WOULD BE GIVING UP. i WAS WRONG IN WRITING IT AND ASK SIMPLY FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I TO DO SOME DUMB THINGS TIME TO TIME. ELIE
11,739 views 42 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since polls mean everything.


A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
#1 by Island Dog
Wed, May 31, 2006 09:34 AM


Since polls mean everything.


thanx, but I am looking for how you feel about the government spying on YOU.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Simple answer time....

The government does not have the right to violate it's citizen's privacy. If the G feels they need to listen in on someone's phone conversations, They can get a warrant.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman,

Simple question to counter your question:

How many rights does the US Constitution give us as citizens?

If you answered NONE, that is correct. And that is why the government spying matters. You see, the founding fathers knew that a government tht assigns rights to its citizens has a right to REVOKE those rights. That is why they clearly worded the founding documents to express that these were our rights, God given and inalienable (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence), and went on to enumerate SOME of those rights in the US Constitution, which was meant, not to assign rights to citizens, but to limit the power of the government.

If you truly feel that our rights do not matter as citizens, you have a right to tht opinion. But be honest and open about it, and lobby for the abolition of the US Constitution, because that, effectively, is what you are doing.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I care because it's none of the government's business.

The federal government has no rights over me. It is a service provider. It is only allowed to do what I choose to allow it to do.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: thatoneguyinslcPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Simple answer time....The government does not have the right to violate it's citizen's privacy. If the G feels they need to listen in on someone's phone conversations, They can get a warrant.


and in the time it takes to get the warrant an attack is planned and the others disappear.

I break no laws so I do not care if they li9sten.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Moderateman,


If you truly feel that our rights do not matter as citizens, you have a right to that opinion. But be honest and open about it, and lobby for the abolition of the US Constitution, because that, effectively, is what you are doing.


it would not be the first time the constitution was violated to protect the country, honest Abe did it during the civil war. I am not saying do away with the constitution, there are just times when the needs of the people z{remember the 3000 dead on 9-11?} MUST BE PUT AHEAD OF A WHAT IS IN essence a piece of paper. A wonderful piece of paper filled with the most incredible thoughts and Ideas.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Brad WardellPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006I care because it's none of the government's business.The federal government has no rights over me. It is a service provider. It is only allowed to do what I choose to allow it to do.


and would you allow it to save lives?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is it about having 72 hours AFTER the fact that you fail to understand, moderateman?

the Nazis were a pretty damn effective police force, too...do we really want to emulate them?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is not a "piece of paper", Moderateman. It is the LAW. Just as you and I are bound by the law, so is the government. If you don't like a law, change it, but don't disregard it.

This "piece of paper", as you so contemptuously refer to it, is the same "piece of paper" to which these Congresspersons and our president have sworn an oath. If the fourth amendment, which you so readily spit on, is rendered invalid, so can every other amendment, including the first and second. If the government will not respect the rule of law, how can it expect its citizens to do so?

Using the "Lincoln did it, so other presidents can, too" excuse is NO excuse. If someone else robs a bank, does that give me the inherent right to do so, just because they were never convicted of it?

I expect better of you, frankly, moderateman. Suggesting that the Constitution be rendered irrelevant is, effectively lobbying for the death of democracy, because those are the rules we have chosen to guide our government.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006It is not a "piece of paper", Moderateman. It is the LAW. Just as you and I are bound by the law, so is the government. If you don't like a law, change it, but don't disregard it.This "piece of paper", as you so contemptuously refer to it, is the same "piece of paper" to which these Congresspersons and our president have sworn an oath. If the fourth amendment, which you so readily spit on, is rendered invalid, so can every other amendment, including the first and second. If the government will not respect the rule of law, how can it expect its citizens to do so?


you are way off base here gid. you are accusing me of thought I never have had! Try to remember I fought to preserve the constitution it is the entire foundation of our great country. I spit on nothing nor do I hold it in contempt. YOU owe me an apology.

While I hold the constitution in high regard I hold life of my countrymen even higher. If you knew that tapping a phone with no warrant could have prevented the horror of sept.11th 2001, would you still say no do it? What if that illegal wiretap saved your childrens life? would you still feel that the constitution is more important that your kids? The constitution is a "living document" it has been changed hence "amendments"
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006What is it about having 72 hours AFTER the fact that you fail to understand, moderateman?the Nazis were a pretty damn effective police force, too...do we really want to emulate them


and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?


Well, then, the government needs to be held accountable, doesn't it?

While I hold the constitution in high regard I hold life of my countrymen even higher. If you knew that tapping a phone with no warrant could have prevented the horror of sept.11th 2001, would you still say no do it? What if that illegal wiretap saved your childrens life? would you still feel that the constitution is more important that your kids? The constitution is a "living document" it has been changed hence "amendments"


No, it is NOT a "living document". That is an idea the liberals use to advance a socialist agenda. It can be amended, yes, but it has a procedure that must be followed to be amended. It IS the law of the land.

You are advancing the argument of the liberal gun control crowd, who argue that if we seize every gun in the US, it will be worth it if it saves one life. Maybe terror attacks could be prevented if we were forced to live as slaves and wear tracking devices, moderateman, but would it be worth it? Seriously?

What I find frightening about this article, moderateman, is that it COMPLETELY contradicts just about everything else you've ever written. This is a manifesto for a socialist, totalitarian government, and if you are even remotely serious about it, it is frightening.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will not discuss this anymore till you issue an apology.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I guess there's nothing to discuss. There will BE no such apology.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?"

According to some legal scholars, because this is a case of the U.S. government spying on enemy forces within and without U.S. borders, the President has a Constitutional duty to carry on with the wiretaps anyway, and both the Judicial and the Legislative branches are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering, and any laws passed by the Legislative branch (such as FISA) that might interfere can be legitimately ignored by the Executive in the dishcharge of his Constitutional responsibilities.

And as a question of Constitutional authority and interpretation, the only legitimate method for putting a stop to the program is for either the Executive or the Legislative branch to petition the Judicial branch to issue a ruling.

But until the Supreme Court takes the case (and that can't even happen until a case has been made in court to begin with), the authority of the Executive to interpret the Constitution however it likes is in no way subordinate to the Legislative's authority to do the same, and the Executive's authority is in no way limited by legislation that assumes a competing interpretation of the Constitution.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Well, I guess there's nothing to discuss. There will BE no such apology.


so be it. mr. only your opinion counts.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: stutefishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006"and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?"According to some legal scholars, because this is a case of the U.S. government spying on enemy forces within and without U.S. borders, the President has a Constitutional duty to carry on with the wiretaps anyway, and both the Judicial and the Legislative branches are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering, and any laws passed by the Legislative branch (such as FISA) that might interfere can be legitimately ignored by the Executive in the discharge of his Constitutional responsibilities.And as a question of Constitutional authority and interpretation, the only legitimate method for putting a stop to the program is for either the Executive or the Legislative branch to petition the Judicial branch to issue a ruling.But until the Supreme Court takes the case (and that can't even happen until a case has been made in court to begin with), the authority of the Executive to interpret the Constitution however it likes is in no way subordinate to the Legislative authority to do the same, and the Executive's authority is in no way limited by legislation that assumes a competing interpretation of the Constitution.


so if in his judgement the President decides that someone is such a threat to life and security he can in Essence "suspend" the constitution on a case by case basis, only in time of WAR can this be done.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006


The cool thing about "God given" rights is that we as citizens cannot vote (or give) them away under duress, which is what I see MM advocating here. In these stressful times, he feels that in the interest of saving American lives, the fourth amendment should be violated. He wouldn't mind a bit if 'his' 4th amendment rights are violated because 'he' is doing 'nothing wrong,' That may very well be true, however, since the right is considered "God given" then MM has no right to give my fourth amendment rights away, even if he doesn't value his own. Our government cannot take them away, either, for the same reason.


now this is something I can agree with, but I am not talking about spitting on the constitution or even amending it, I just feel there are times when the right to privacy is just not as important as thousands of people being attacked with mutated germs warfare.

It is indeed a slippery slope and I would not like being the one making this decision, but a President in time of war has some pretty broad powers.

However, inferring that anyone who has a problem with giving up their 4th amendment rights is some sort of criminal or has something to hide is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst. You know I'm living legal, MM, but do I want the feds listening in on my private phone conversations? Hell no, not anymore than I would want them going through my drawers and closets without notifying me of the fact.


I did not intimate that whip, this is a discussion on how each individual feels about unauthorized wiretaps. I do not feel that the government can just willy nilly go around and listen to anyone's phone call, they should have some damn good reason to do so. There would be no reason for the government to illegally wiretap Mr Jones the guy that owns a newsstand, or Mrs. smith the lady that waits on you in the local bakery.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006


Rethink your position on this, I really don't think you mean what you say here. I think your passion (and compassion) has fuzzed your thinking a bit...just a little?


maybe so, I am way down about michele and her illness and my powerlesnes to do anything., I need to rethink this whole thing.

thanks for reasoning with me whip and not just jump out there with slanderous accusations.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok on further review I can see that even if it is for a good cause it's the wrong way to go about it.

I will leave this up till you respond whip then I will close it and put it away so at some point in the future I can see how from fear I was ready to give something precious {our right to privacy} away.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006


I love ya, ya big lug. Get some rest, take care of you, ok?


gonna take that advice and go lay down.

{whip} xoxo
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Sorry LW but there are already in place items that give the president the right to abrogate the 4th amendment. Can you say "presidential war powers act"?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

and would you allow it to save lives?

Only if the actual nation state known as the United States was in jeopardy. So no, I wouldn't support it just to save lives.  We could save thousands of lives each year if we put all kinds of regulations on how people behave. We could greatly reduce welfare if we required the citizens to have to apply to get a license to have children (all citizens would be injected with those 5-year birth control inserts). 

But then we wouldn't be a free country. It's a slippery slope.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Although things got a bit heated here, isn't this thread a great ad for the whole idea of political blogging? Someone puts out an idea, people respond and the original poster has the guts to say, "hey, maybe I was wrong"...

... usually when we put our ideas out there, it is supposed that this is our considered and final opinion on the matter which we will stubbornly defend to the death. For this reason, people who disagree feel the need to go in hard with their counter-argument, heat is generated, but sometimes only a little light...

... in reality many of our opinions are provisional. I've changed my mind more than once after reading what someone else has to say here. It seems though that we imagine that our laudable free competition of ideas can only come about through fixed and rigid opinions. Of course that can be good; it often leads to good quality debates. But it also means that we're not allowed the luxury of publically exploring ideas. What about this for a possible style: "Hey guys, I'm not sure about this, but... What do you think?"

I'm a great believer in wishy-washy fence sitting; it's a useful place to be until it starts to feel uncomfortable, at which point you're likely to fall naturally to one side or the other.