Bush evesdropping story... do Americans actually care?
12-17-2005, 07:40 PM
#16
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Chrisnonstop
Does the media really think this is actually news to people? The NSA has been around since like 1949. Unless you're from Mars, you know what the NSA does....lol.
but they arent supposed to be dumping data from US civies on US soil, the law is pretty clear on that.
12-17-2005, 08:13 PM
#17
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by lojasmo
No...but he implied that he was.
There was no need for the White House to obtain court approval. All President Nixon had to do was say that the tap was needed for "national security." The need for reform was clear.
Sound familliar? It should. Bush's actions leave tons of room for just this same kind of abuse.
There was no need for the White House to obtain court approval. All President Nixon had to do was say that the tap was needed for "national security." The need for reform was clear.
Sound familliar? It should. Bush's actions leave tons of room for just this same kind of abuse.
Sure, why not compare Bush to Nixon? Seems plausible seeing how they’re both Republican, right? *sigh* It's a classic case of you and the NY Times trying to make wine out of vinegar, sand out of glass, and Vietnam out of Iraq.
12-17-2005, 08:21 PM
#18
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
*sigh*
its all fine and dandy until you have the feds tapping your **** i suppose....
its all fine and dandy until you have the feds tapping your **** i suppose....
Why must you guys clump everything together into a giant civil liberties gaggle-**** when there's nothing to suggest anything else? The man is eavesdropping on people that have strong connections to terrorists for the sake of national security, not the average joe.
12-17-2005, 09:04 PM
#20
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Here's the thing that makes me laugh about you guys. You make it seem like CIA field agents and similar agents pray for a President that will utilize them or risk a having a boring desk job for the next 4 to 8yrs! Wouldn’t it be more likely that this has happened with every President since the invention of the microphone?
12-17-2005, 09:05 PM
#21
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Originally Posted by lojasmo
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
- Benjamin Franklin
Last edited by ipozestu; 12-17-2005 at 09:07 PM.
12-17-2005, 10:04 PM
#22
Originally Posted by lojasmo
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
- Benjamin Franklin
12-17-2005, 10:32 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Hardly tasteless, it makes a good point about what is happening.
Oh and to add some fire into this conversation... http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm enjoy.
Oh and to add some fire into this conversation... http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm enjoy.
Last edited by Unregistered; 12-17-2005 at 10:43 PM.
12-18-2005, 12:17 AM
#24
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/12/17...id=146&tid=219
you should see what they do to "l33t h4x0rz"!!!1! hahaha
bet he wont be asking for that book any longer
you should see what they do to "l33t h4x0rz"!!!1! hahaha
bet he wont be asking for that book any longer
12-18-2005, 05:45 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Being stalked by Salty
Posts: 691
Car Info: Looking for a Liberty CRD
Originally Posted by jvick125
So instead of protecting ourselves, we should do nothing when attacked? Just sit back and let them destroy our beautiful nation? I think not, sorry, but I don't agree with Mr. Franklin, and think that citing the quote was quite tasteless.
You are creating a false dichotomy. we can protect ourselves, without allowing unlawful intrusion into our homes.
As I said before.
1) Frank violation of the fourth amendment
2) No proof that these activities are limited to terrorism suspects. I gave a good example of a law abiding citizen being targeted by Nixon in exactly the same way.
3) No proof that these activities have been effective in stopping terrorism.
4) If they had probable cause to believe these people were badguys, they should have had no problem obtaining a warrant, as required by the fourth amendment.
Last edited by lojasmo; 12-18-2005 at 06:41 AM.
12-18-2005, 08:09 AM
#26
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Hardly tasteless, it makes a good point about what is happening.
Oh and to add some fire into this conversation... http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm enjoy.
Oh and to add some fire into this conversation... http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm enjoy.
12-18-2005, 08:11 AM
#27
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Y'all make me giggle.
The gov't has been spying on us for years, in a round about way.
Remember a while back...10 years or so... when a story broke how various nations were helping each other out?
It went a little like this:
The US would monitor Canadian phone calls, while the Canucks would monitor US calls.
At the end of the day, the two sides would swap intel.
I remember that the US actually built a facility in Canada, staffed with both US & Canadian forces, for the sole purpose of spying on people in the US.
Australia and a few other nations were involved as well.
But a gov't that has carte blanche on spying on it's own people is a gov't that should be feared & ultimately destroyed, be it Democrat or Republican.
The gov't has been spying on us for years, in a round about way.
Remember a while back...10 years or so... when a story broke how various nations were helping each other out?
It went a little like this:
The US would monitor Canadian phone calls, while the Canucks would monitor US calls.
At the end of the day, the two sides would swap intel.
I remember that the US actually built a facility in Canada, staffed with both US & Canadian forces, for the sole purpose of spying on people in the US.
Australia and a few other nations were involved as well.
But a gov't that has carte blanche on spying on it's own people is a gov't that should be feared & ultimately destroyed, be it Democrat or Republican.
12-18-2005, 08:22 AM
#28
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Originally Posted by lojasmo
I never said we shouldn't protect ourselves.
You are creating a false dichotomy. we can protect ourselves, without allowing unlawful intrusion into our homes.
As I said before.
1) Frank violation of the fourth amendment
2) No proof that these activities are limited to terrorism suspects. I gave a good example of a law abiding citizen being targeted by Nixon in exactly the same way.
3) No proof that these activities have been effective in stopping terrorism.
4) If they had probable cause to believe these people were badguys, they should have had no problem obtaining a warrant, as required by the fourth amendment.
You are creating a false dichotomy. we can protect ourselves, without allowing unlawful intrusion into our homes.
As I said before.
1) Frank violation of the fourth amendment
2) No proof that these activities are limited to terrorism suspects. I gave a good example of a law abiding citizen being targeted by Nixon in exactly the same way.
3) No proof that these activities have been effective in stopping terrorism.
4) If they had probable cause to believe these people were badguys, they should have had no problem obtaining a warrant, as required by the fourth amendment.
1. I have to agree that this does violate a portion of you 4th amendment rights, it
Is a portion I am willing to sacrifice?
2. Activities shouldn't be limited to terror suspects they should include, child
molesters, drug dealers, arms smugglers, illegal smugglers.
3. How old is this program? I recall so far at least 4 separate cases since 911
Possible terror suspects have been detained and or deported.
4. This day and age there is a seditious group on our soil called the ACLU. We need the ability to monitor individuals without superior consent. Otherwise forget about it.
