Home› A Moving Train

but, george, i thought nothing changed!?!?

El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
edited September 2006 in A Moving Train
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JohnStauber

click the unclassified media project # 2 video...bush says "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."


nothing has changed????
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Is this a thread about wiretaps or is this a thread about contradictory politicians?
  • trappedinmyradiotrappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    unfortunately, there are elements of time and severity of implications of not wiretapping that come into play when dealing with this issue. i surely hope that there is ex post facto review of the wiretappings with a showing of the necessity to not take the time to get a court order before the fact. and, with that, i hope there are true rammifications for bogus wiretapping. has this made us more safe? will we ever know? whose history will show that we are more safe?
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    if our government needs to tap the phone of a person receiving a call from a suspected terrorist in pakistan then go right ahead. i could care less if the courts say so.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    if our government needs to tap the phone of a person receiving a call from a suspected terrorist in pakistan then go right ahead. i could care less if the courts say so.

    Yikes.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yikes.


    why? its doesnt effect my life. i do however think a court order is nessecary for wiretapping within the US. not from calls originating from a country that has been known to harbor terrorists
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why? its doesnt effect my life

    Removing any systems of check and balance from one branch of government doesn't affect your life?

    You might want to start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Removing any systems of check and balance from one branch of government doesn't affect your life?

    You might want to start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers



    thats not what I said. I said wiretapping suspected terrorists from countries that harbor terrorists does not effect my life. well it doesnt effect my life in a bad way, it helps prevent a plane from flying into my building.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why? its doesnt effect my life. i do however think a court order is nessecary for wiretapping within the US. not from calls originating from a country that has been known to harbor terrorists


    b/c it's not just overseas calls, it's ALL calls
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Is this a thread about wiretaps or is this a thread about contradictory politicians?

    whatever you wish it be...it can even be a thread about a politician who lied <who has several supporters here who refuse to believe he ever told a single lie>
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    if our government needs to tap the phone of a person receiving a call from a suspected terrorist in pakistan then go right ahead. i could care less if the courts say so.
    That's all well and good, but what's to stop them from changing the definition of "suspected terrorist?"

    If they need to wiretap someone faster than they can get a court order, I believe the law states they can start the wiretap and then have three days to get the order. Why isn't that good enough? Why the need to remove all oversight?
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats not what I said. I said wiretapping suspected terrorists from countries that harbor terrorists does not effect my life. well it doesnt effect my life in a bad way, it helps prevent a plane from flying into my building.

    This is about wiretapping United States citizens who are suspected terrorists.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    if our government needs to tap the phone of a person receiving a call from a suspected terrorist in pakistan then go right ahead. i could care less if the courts say so.

    Oh sweet Lord...
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Oh sweet Lord...


    what now? how about you join the debate instead of being condescending
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    That's all well and good, but what's to stop them from changing the definition of "suspected terrorist?"

    If they need to wiretap someone faster than they can get a court order, I believe the law states they can start the wiretap and then have three days to get the order. Why isn't that good enough? Why the need to remove all oversight?


    good enough for me. I dont think I stated otherwise. I ,unlike anybody here, trusts the government, rebuplican or democrat, enough to know that they wont ever consider me or anyone I ever associate with as a "suspected terrorist"
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    good enough for me. I dont think I stated otherwise. I ,unlike anybody here, trusts the government, rebuplican or democrat, enough to know that they wont ever consider me or anyone I ever associate with as a "suspected terrorist"

    That may be true, but if you trust the government to the extent that you believe "suspected terrorist" is immune to white-out, you better check your premises.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    heh heh, good luck with that.

    and if a "suspected terrorist" ever happens to dial the wrong number and get yours, see you in guantanamo, i hear it's lovely this time of year


    i'll take my chances of one accidentlly calling me. and if your idiotic senario ever were to happen, i would happliy fully cooperate with any federal authoriites.
  • acroyearacroyear Posts: 46
    El_Kabong wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JohnStauber

    click the unclassified media project # 2 video...bush says "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."


    nothing has changed????

    Terrorists must love obstructionists like el kaboong...
    "If you want peace, be prepared for war."
    George Washington
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    acroyear wrote:
    Terrorists must love obstructionists like el kaboong...

    It is not "obstructionist" to suggest that the US government has no right to invade the privacy of its citizens without due process. Kabong and I don't agree on much, but even we can agree that this is uncalled for and unnecessary. Terrorist operations were stopped before this program, they can be stopped without this program.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    acroyear wrote:
    Terrorists must love obstructionists like el kaboong...


    that implies progress in the war on terror, which is simply untrue.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It is not "obstructionist" to suggest that the US government has no right to invade the privacy of its citizens without due process. Kabong and I don't agree on much, but even we can agree that this is uncalled for and unnecessary. Terrorist operations were stopped before this program, they can be stopped without this program.


    sure they can be stopped without this program but if it helps then i'm all for it. and I really think it can. I dont see this power being abused more than it has too. nobody wants to trust that the government is realy using this as a tool to catch terrorists instead of listening to joe smith talking to his mistress.

    whatever it takes from a dirty bomb going off in downtown chicago, i support. the sacrafices are worth it. even if i have to give up some freedoms, albeit small freedoms, i dont ever see it getting out of control. the government is after terrorsits, not me.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    jlew24asu wrote:
    sure they can be stopped without this program but if it helps then i'm all for it. and I really think it can. I dont see this power being abused more than it has too. nobody wants to trust that the government is realy using this as a tool to catch terrorists instead of listening to joe smith talking to his mistress.

    whatever it takes from a dirty bomb going off in downtown chicago, i support. the sacrafices are worth it. even if i have to give up some freedoms, albeit small freedoms, i dont ever see it getting out of control. the government is after terrorsits, not me.

    Lots of acts by the government would prevent a dirty bomb going off in downtown Chicago. But that doesn't necessarily make them right. This nation was founded on the concept of people being free from undue government influence, not slaves to it. I realize it has been a long time since the government has operated in the following manner, but I always first hold up any proposed government program to the following standard:

    The government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, rather than limit them

    Sacrificing a right to your privacy and a right to check the behavior of the executive branch cannot be justified by a slight theoretical decrease in your chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist. If you want your government to protect your life, I suggest you encourage them to do so without abdicating your freedom. Such a request is not only reasonable, it is a moral imperative to yourself and your fellow citizens.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Lots of acts by the government would prevent a dirty bomb going off in downtown Chicago. But that doesn't necessarily make them right. This nation was founded on the concept of people being free from undue government influence, not slaves to it. I realize it has been a long time since the government has operated in the following manner, but I always first hold up any proposed government program to the following standard:

    The government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, rather than limit them

    Sacrificing a right to your privacy and a right to check the behavior of the executive branch cannot be justified by a slight theoretical decrease in your chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist. If you want your government to protect your life, I suggest you encourage them to do so without abdicating your freedom. Such a request is not only reasonable, it is a moral imperative to yourself and your fellow citizens.


    I understand what your saying. and agree with most if not all of it. I would like to meet in the middle, for example the 3 day grace period that was mentioned. I'm not sure of the exact law.
  • RockinInCanadaRockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    Benjamin Franklin:

    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    El_Kabong wrote:
    whatever you wish it be...it can even be a thread about a politician who lied <who has several supporters here who refuse to believe he ever told a single lie>

    Who are these "supporters" that think Bush has never lied?
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Benjamin Franklin:

    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security


    easy on the benjy quotes. i dont think the government listening in on a few calls that they deem "suspected terrorists" is an essential liberty.

    If they said I had to have a picture of our president up in my house at all times, then yes I break out the quotes from the founding fathers. and tell the government to go fuck themselves
  • acutejamacutejam Posts: 1,433
    When the whole wiretapping thing came out, I think I recall seeing some stat that like 80% of the country already assummed the government was listening to all their calls anyways.

    In concrete, immediate terms, I could care less if the government listens in on my calls. Absolutely nothing I discuss on the phone could be in any way embarrassing, incriminating or detrimental to my pursuit of life and liberty. I am an honest and law-abbiding citizen and while I've read any number of scenarios where I should be scared if my phone was tapped, it just doesn't float.

    I just don't think it's a basic human right to expect privacy on our telephone system. I do think you should be entirely freaked out if you want to discuss illegeal activities on the phone. If in the zeal to catch terrorists, they catch a few corrupt business folks, some drug dealers, some gangs and mafia, some insider trading tips -- bonus!

    Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

    Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

    So you're expecting privacy why?
    [sic] happens
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    acutejam wrote:
    When the whole wiretapping thing came out, I think I recall seeing some stat that like 80% of the country already assummed the government was listening to all their calls anyways.

    In concrete, immediate terms, I could care less if the government listens in on my calls. Absolutely nothing I discuss on the phone could be in any way embarrassing, incriminating or detrimental to my pursuit of life and liberty. I am an honest and law-abbiding citizen and while I've read any number of scenarios where I should be scared if my phone was tapped, it just doesn't float.

    I just don't think it's a basic human right to expect privacy on our telephone system. I do think you should be entirely freaked out if you want to discuss illegeal activities on the phone. If in the zeal to catch terrorists, they catch a few corrupt business folks, some drug dealers, some gangs and mafia, some insider trading tips -- bonus!

    Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

    Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

    So you're expecting privacy why?

    I agree. well said
  • Vedderlution_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    Well, let's say you're not expected to have privacy over the telephone. Let's say that this system stops a terrorist attack. The government could then very easily say something along the lines of

    "Our wiretapping proved to be a success. Although this system worked, it is becoming more difficult to effectively catch the terrorist using this method. We have to put forth more extreme methods of this in the name of protecting america..."

    It would be hard to determine what the next line would be. The point is that if the government is given this, then they are going to ask for more. Considering all things, it would more than likely that acheiving this would be quite simple. They could scare the people into doing it.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    Well, let's say you're not expected to have privacy over the telephone. Let's say that this system stops a terrorist attack. The government could then very easily say something along the lines of

    "Our wiretapping proved to be a success. Although this system worked, it is becoming more difficult to effectively catch the terrorist using this method. We have to put forth more extreme methods of this in the name of protecting america..."

    It would be hard to determine what the next line would be. The point is that if the government is given this, then they are going to ask for more. Considering all things, it would more than likely that acheiving this would be quite simple. They could scare the people into doing it.

    completely hypothatical. you have no idea if it would happen that way.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    acutejam wrote:
    Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

    The better question is: what do I have to show?
    Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

    So you're expecting privacy why?

    I'm expecting privacy because the government has no right to act on non-substantiated suspicions. And since there's no system of verification or checks and balances to dictate that such qualifications will be met, I'll sleep well rejecting such a program.

    Why do you harp on the "low probability" that the government will listen to my phone calls but then act like being killed by a terrorist is almost a guarantee if they don't?
Sign In or Register to comment.