Debating with Ron Scott on his show he stood on the side of more gov. intrusion.
The new anti-terror bill, FISA, would allow roving wiretaps. That means instead of tapping a particular individuals phone, you may tap any phone he uses. The payphone at the corner, the neighbours phone, etc, any phone the suspect is or might use.
Scott, wisely asked for an amendment to make them stop listening when the suspect is not using the phone. This was defeated.
In effect, if someone being tapped under this statute uses your phone, they can tap all YOUR CALLS, even if hes not using the phone.
Also, if a terrorist makes a call at the airport,say, and you subsequently use that phone, someone may be listening.
It seems to me, that eventually, many pay phones will be tapped.
BP
O'Rielly disagreed with his position.
Man O'Rielly didnt impress me tonite. Ron Paul had it out with him too.

No, as Scott explained it, the standard has been lowered for using the evidence. Anything else gathered would be admissable.
BP

O'Reilly is big on violating rights in the so-called 'war on drugs', so why is this a surprise?

Maybe he got it and you missed him doing it?

Ol' Bill is ok,I think he just likes to fight and will make one if need be.

But on this I think he may have been in CA to long and some commie rubed off on him.
I don't really give a crap about this law,it's just one more.
The Feds just need to tell us just what they are looking for here so we don't have any mix ups.

Such most likely would be inadmissible in court, as it would be, as the person above indicates, "fruit of the poisonous tree"

O'Reilly, while displaying more common sense than 90% of those on TV at times and constantly thrashing liberal idiots like Barney Frank, is not exactly the biggest friend of freedom.  He has called for increased gov't control of many things, including guns.

The best way to think of O'Reilly is as a liberal with sometimes conservative views.

i sort of hate the "liberal" and "conservative" label.  people are trained to think of "conservative" as pro-liberty, pro-fredom.  in the traditional sense thought "conservative" is more in line with machavelli (sp?) and heavy handed authoritian government.  while "liberal" in the classical sense is more jeffersonian.

with the passage of this new anti-terrorism bill, there were a lot of liberal leaning democrate that were fighting it, whereas the conservatives weer pushing for it.  it gets hard to keep up.  one camp want government involvement in some arenas, but not others where as the other group feels want the opposite governemnet involvement.

i'm begining to become more and more liberitarian everyday.   sloth

I saw that show, and O'Reilly was begging to have this power abused.  He kept stating that it was a crisis, and he didn't care what rights he sacrificed just to have more security from terrorists.  The problem is there is nothing in that law restricting it to just possible terrorists.  I hope the government uses it to dig up dirt on him and then puts the screws to him.

O'Reilly is not a conservative: he's a relatively shallow-minded short-term populist. That's all well and good, and there's a place for it, but take everything he says with an acre of salt.

There are a lot of things in this new terrorism bill that arent going to fly in the courts.  The roving wiretap I think is one of them.  It is mostly feel-good legislation.

You just have to look at the way RICO statutes have been used to see where this can go. People who were NEVER intended to be charged under this law are charged every day under RICO. It was originally intended to get mafia types. Politicians have been charged under RICO.(Sorta poetic justice I guess).
This law is intended to be used against terrorists. IT WILL BE USED AGAINST ANYONE WHERE ITS CONVENIENT OR EXPEDIENT!!! Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but eventually. Mark my words.
BP