Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/20/2005 8:50:50 PM EDT
I'm a Bush suportter about the war on terror and all that needs to be done to get terriost. But this whole secret spying thing has me a little worried and since I've not seen a thread about it I was wondering the opinion of the masses here. Is it not enough that the patriot act allows a secret police organization that is not overseen that now we have to have a spying organization that is also not overseen? I'm sure it has it's good points but tell me the difference between this and the secret police the germans and russia had at one time at there beginning stages. I"M NOT CALLING THE U.S. GERMANS OR RUSSIANS. Guys big brother is getting bigger and using terror as it's main course.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:57:44 PM EDT
I'm a private kinda guy, I don't like anyone to know anything about me
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:20:48 AM EDT
my understanding of the situation: only calls from known Al Queda to the US were tapped.

THAT IS OKAY IN MY BOOK.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:29:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:34:16 AM EDT
No problem on this one in my book. They were profiling who they were spying on and it was only on overseas LD. It's not like he was listening in on Susie Soccer Mom's afternoon chats with her therapist.

We are learning now that Herr Klinton and Mr Peanut (Carter) did the same thing. Just more of the Dems whining and the MSM looking for a headline to sell papers and gain ratings points.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:51:05 AM EDT
I have several problems with Bush, but this is not one of them.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:12:53 AM EDT
Don't wanna be monitored by NSA? Then don't place or accept international calls... especially from known Al Qaida types, or countries known to harbor them.

Now, if we can get the damned borders secured....
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:01:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 7:03:29 AM EDT by GETSUM]
Just don't do anything illegal and there is nothing to worry about !!!!!!!!!!!

I think he is a goob - I voted for him , BUT --

He is doing a better job than Kerry would have and no matter what just remember to :

SUPPORT THE TROOPS.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:37:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 8:37:27 AM EDT by dolanp]
I'm surprised by the 'don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about' attitude... since when did the US become so accepting of this type of thing?

We've gone from the land of the free, home of the brave to land of the secure, home of the cowardly.

I'll take my liberty and privacy before the illusion of security. There are checks and balances for a reason, that's why FISA court exists. The president should not have the power to unilaterally do this with no oversight.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:52:02 AM EDT
Does anybody here actually believe that this is something "new", simply becasue it is on the "news"?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:19:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 9:22:59 AM EDT by GETSUM]
Man - it is not like it has not happened before - CLINTON created the same type of thing in 1994

http://www.harpers.org/BillClinton.html

I weill get more.

But - BUSH is BAD - right
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:36:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By murderman:
Does anybody here actually believe that this is something "new", simply becasue it is on the "news"?



I don't believe this is the first time nor the last time, but before there was a judge who said yes or no on wire taps and just the other day it was reported from 2002-2004 there were over 4000 request for wire taps and only 4 were denied, and 90 something modified. With out a judge to agree with a tap any of us can be investagated. I knew the " don't do nothing wrong and you don't have to worry" would come up. There is no time limt to this spying thing. I don't believe Bush would use it againts us "Americans" but what about the next man or women President down the road that has a problem with open debates about the goverment that have any negative remarks toward goverment policey. And has there not been inocent people convicted of crimes they have not done here.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:48:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 11:09:39 AM EDT by Gunner1X]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
I'm surprised by the 'don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about' attitude... since when did the US become so accepting of this type of thing? Since 1640 (pre-US)

We've gone from the land of the free, home of the brave to land of the secure, home of the cowardly.
Now, that's just silly.

I'll take my liberty and privacy before the illusion of security. There are checks and balances for a reason, that's why FISA court exists. The president should not have the power to unilaterally do this with no oversight. There is oversight. In addition, he went before congress and informed
them in advance. That's not something CNN will report.




I'll also add that the individual gave up many things (and rights) for the collective good and security
of the nation during both World Wars. These folks were for from being cowards. They knew exactly
what needed to be done and made countless sacrifices to ensure the defense of our great country.

I think you may be assuming you have some rights that either do not exist or that cannot be affected
during war. We may not have officially declared war, but we are at war none the less.

Edit for spelling
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:58:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tugboat:
my understanding of the situation: only calls from known Al Queda to the US were tapped.

The lastest information I 've got is the phone numbers on phones and computers taken from SUSPECTED terriost give them the right to tap those numbers. How many phone numbers are in your address book on your computer? can you be 100% sure of every person on your computer or phone has no ties to a terriost oraganzation, and if you sure about that then are you 100% sure that no terriost person has not got your phone number in someway. I say go after these cowarldy assholes with all we got but WE don't need to turn into a police state either. It's a small world and in some way you know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, that knows an Al-Queda terriost. There has to be someone to over see this thing who can't be lobbied to look the other way.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:07:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
I'm surprised by the 'don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about' attitude... since when did the US become so accepting of this type of thing? Since 1640

We've gone from the land of the free, home of the brave to land of the secure, home of the cowardly.
Now, that's just silly.

I'll take my liberty and privacy before the illusion of security. There are checks and balances for a reason, that's why FISA court exists. The president should not have the power to unilaterally do this with no oversight. There is oversight. In addition, he went before congress and informed
them in advance. That's not something CNN will report.




I'll also add that the individual gave up many things (and rights) for the collective good and security
of the nation during both World Wars. These folks were for from being cowards. They new exactly
what needed to be done and made countless sacrifices to ensure the defense of our great country.

I think you may be assuming you have some rights that either do not exist or that cannot be affected
during war. We may not have officially declared war, but we are at war none the less.

Edit for spelling



Have we not been at war on drugs for a long time?? Drugs have killed more people than the combined terriost have in U.S. history. Why not do wire taps to find those killers too? Lets not be selective about who we listen to if were going to listen on our own people. With out a non-political oversight anyone can become a domestic terriost
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:16:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 10:18:25 AM EDT by Gunner1X]
Originally Posted By ARsR4ME

Have we not been at war on drugs for a long time?? Drugs have killed more people than the combined terriost have in U.S. history. Why not do wire taps to find those killers too? Lets not be selective about who we listen to if were going to listen on our own people. With out a non-political oversight anyone can become a domestic terriost


Silly rabbit.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:45:00 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:45:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 11:47:18 AM EDT by dolanp]
When this type of thing starts to become commonplace and acceptable then the police WILL start using it to prosecute domestic crimes eventually and they'll say 'but look we've been doing this for YEARS, it's nothing NEW!'

And just because Clinton did it certainly doesn't make it any less wrong! Doesn't matter to me who is president at the time, we shouldn't erode the checks and balances of due process.

I don't think a veteran fought in a foreign war so that the NSA could spy on Americans either...
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:23:25 PM EDT
Read my last post on this thread:

Bush/NSA Spying On Americans: Michelle Malkin Has An Excellent Analysis Of This Situation.

According to NewsMax, "FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program."

Regardless, if this were to ever go before SCOTUS, I think they might be inclined to mention something about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. Like it or not, that would be my guess.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 2:38:07 PM EDT
I don't get it. What's the problem again?

Having been on the other side of the fence marked "Restricted Area: Use of Deadly Force Authorized" you guys don't have anything to worry about...unless you are Al Q or support terrorists.

Besides, this practice has been going on for years. Even during the "militias are evil, mmkay" days. The only reason why it is being brought up now is to further discredit and attack the president and the war effort.

In the words of the rapper "Chuck D" of Public Enemy, "Don't believe the hype."
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 3:08:19 PM EDT
It may have been going on for years as an illegal pratice but the thought of them getting caught doing the wrong thing kept it to a minimum. without haveing to answer to someone we are all at risk of wrongfull prosecution. Imagine you and your famliy being interrogated for 48 hours, would that not disrupt your life? Even when people are found not guilty of crimes there lives are forever changed. I would rather not put myself or my family and friends though such an ordeal.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:30:33 PM EDT
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:57:13 PM EDT
Ok fine. I understand where you're coming from.

If you want to mitigate your risk of becoming a target in the meantime, I'd refrain from using electronic means of communication...including the internet. You never know, we may have some Al Q fucktard reading these posts, and posing as one of us.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:39:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZULU NINER:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin



+1
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:03:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Land of the free, home of the brave. *



* Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:06:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tugboat:
my understanding of the situation: only calls from known Al Queda to the US were tapped.

THAT IS OKAY IN MY BOOK.




Yup, spying on Al Queda is A-OK.

The question or problem as it were is, what happens when 'they' want more and 'it' has nothing to do with Al Queda?
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:04:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Land of the free, home of the brave. *


* Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited.


Now THAT'S just a great post..........
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:07:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By tugboat:
my understanding of the situation: only calls from known Al Queda to the US were tapped.

THAT IS OKAY IN MY BOOK.



Yup, spying on Al Queda is A-OK.

The question or problem as it were is, what happens when 'they' want more and 'it' has nothing to do with Al Queda?


That's where this simple fella starts worrying, as well. I posted somewhere else that I believe Bush has actually been a really good and responsible steward of these cartes blanche that he has been issued. Only problem with that is that he is not going to be Prez in '08.

Would any of you trust Hitlery with this?

At the end of the day, what's really worrisome isn't what THIS ADMINISTRATION has done with these powers, it's WHAT WILL THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION DO WITH THEM?
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:13:08 AM EDT
Well.....no one has attacked the U.S. homeland since 911...and it certainly hasn't been for a lack of their trying...

If we HAD been attacked again....say something like Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles being slammed with suicide aircraft hijackers...we would all be crying about the guvment not doing what it takes to protect us.

The terrorists in the U.S. now don't have the same ability to just pick up any phone or send any email they want.

I abide by the law, and as long as the feds don't start abusing their extended power to start jacking with people for the sake of padding their agency and showboating like they tried to do in Waco under Clinton and Reno, then I don't have a real hard problem with what Bush is doing..

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 11:23:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 11:24:03 AM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By longhorn789:
Well.....no one has attacked the U.S. homeland since 911...and it certainly hasn't been for a lack of their trying...

If we HAD been attacked again....say something like Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles being slammed with suicide aircraft hijackers...we would all be crying about the guvment not doing what it takes to protect us.

The terrorists in the U.S. now don't have the same ability to just pick up any phone or send any email they want.

I abide by the law, and as long as the feds don't start abusing their extended power to start jacking with people for the sake of padding their agency and showboating like they tried to do in Waco under Clinton and Reno, then I don't have a real hard problem with what Bush is doing...


I pretty much agree. I was discussing this at work yesterday with a fellow conservative (we're a whopping two strong out of over 140 employees; truly "strangers in a strange land") and he thought I was taking the "lib pill". I had to be very precise with my explanation and iterate that, from a pragmatic perspective, I have no problem with this. My only objection comes from a philosophical/theoretical perspective.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 5:17:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 6:02:18 PM EDT by RenegadeX]

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Would any of you trust Hitlery with this?



Too late. The Clinton Administration was doing warrantless searches of US Citizens homes, cars, etc. not just the e-mail or phone calls, over a decade ago. The horses left the barn a long time ago.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:47:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 6:55:49 PM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
Would any of you trust Hitlery with this?


Too late. The Clinton Administration was doing warrantless searches of US Citizens homes, cars, etc. not just the e-mail or phone calls, over a decade ago. The horses left the barn a long time ago.


Yeah, Renegade, I know. But.. but.. but..... that was Bill, not Hillary!

That's a joke, BTW. My grandmother is scared shitless that there are enough Americans stupid enough to vote for her. She's old, so I tried to comfort her. I said: "Legally, Hillary *couldn't* serve as President." Grandma asks: "Why not?" I reply: "Term limits."
Checkmate, Hillary.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:42:38 PM EDT
Wow, talk about serendipity...... just got this in my email and apparently, I'm not the only one worried about this same thing.

Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig (website) opposes renewal of the Patriot Act [unless new safeguards are added] for exactly the same reason all of this worries me (the prospect of Hillary in '08).

Go here to read a VERY short but VERY good article:

Here's a snippet:

Originally Spoken By Senator Larry Craig, while calling in to Rush Limbaugh's radio program:
"There will come a day when there will not be a George W in the White House....... <mentions Hillary>...... You know, I've been here a little while, and I remember Janet Reno, and I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge."



I'll be the first to admit I'm not all that up on Craig. I've heard his name here and there, and I've also heard here and there that he's one of the good [better?] guys, but beyond that.... nothing. But anytime a legislator is the one to bring the subjects of Waco and Ruby Ridge up...... well, that's almost always a plus in my book.

Jake.


P.S. Also, Renegade.... *that* is the difference between the First Clinton White House and the possible Second. When Hillary had Bill as her First Figurehead, she didn't have a Patriot Act to make her usurpations easier. She's the debbil.
Top Top