FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Domestic Spying





Vofman
Yep. What you may have feared in the past has come true. "President" Bush and the NSA (National Security Agency) are now monitering hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of e-mails, telephone calls, and other forms of communication. How did the bastard pull this one off without a warrant? Why, because the War in Iraq "grants" him this power, so he doesn't need to get a special warrant. Bull SHIT.

Yeah, I can here the groan of Conservatives everywhere: "Vofman, I have nothing to hide, so why are you beating up out President for this? He just wants to protect our country."

Yeah. You probably DON'T have anything to hide, I don't doubt that. However, you do have something to lose: your rights as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Thanks to the Patriot Act, the FBI now has the power to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the U.S. So, while you may not have anything to hide, you have your Right of free speech to lose.

The government has blown it's powers up from 9/11 and the Iraq War to insane proportions. There is no way that they have the right to do this, but they have gone and done it. What do we do when a President of the United States breaks the law? Remeber Richard Nixon? He did. So did Bush. Kick his sorry ass out of that White House. He lost his privileges long ago. Not to mention, he shouldn't even be there in the first place.

You wanna be conservative, fine. But if you're a conservative, you feel the need to not change. Then you should be behind me, too, on this one. Because Bush is slowly CHANGING this country from Democracy to Facism
S3nd K3ys
Vofman wrote:
Yep. What you may have feared in the past has come true. "President" Bush and the NSA (National Security Agency) are now monitering hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of e-mails, telephone calls, and other forms of communication. How did the bastard pull this one off without a warrant? Why, because the War in Iraq "grants" him this power, so he doesn't need to get a special warrant. Bull ****.

Yeah, I can here the groan of Conservatives everywhere: "Vofman, I have nothing to hide, so why are you beating up out President for this? He just wants to protect our country."

Yeah. You probably DON'T have anything to hide, I don't doubt that. However, you do have something to lose: your rights as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Thanks to the Patriot Act, the FBI now has the power to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the U.S. So, while you may not have anything to hide, you have your Right of free speech to lose.

The government has blown it's powers up from 9/11 and the Iraq War to insane proportions. There is no way that they have the right to do this, but they have gone and done it. What do we do when a President of the United States breaks the law? Remeber Richard Nixon? He did. So did Bush. Kick his sorry *** out of that White House. He lost his privileges long ago. Not to mention, he shouldn't even be there in the first place.

You wanna be conservative, fine. But if you're a conservative, you feel the need to not change. Then you should be behind me, too, on this one. Because Bush is slowly CHANGING this country from Democracy to Facism


Last month called. They want their old and busted cry-baby "I don't understand the situation and only listen to Ted and John" thread back.
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Last month called. They want their old and busted cry-baby "I don't understand the situation and only listen to Ted and John" thread back.


Attack the issue, not the person.
coolclay
We must give up some freedoms to become a safer country. If having someone reading my emails, or listen my phone calls prevents another terrorist attack more power to them. And just to let you know they aren't spying on people unless there is a reason. SO if you are calling/emailing people that may be connected to "peace" activists, or other shady people, then you may very well be spyed upon.
coolclay
P.S. Don't try to tell me what to believe.
Quote:
You wanna be conservative, fine. But if you're a conservative, you feel the need to not change. Then you should be behind me, too, on this one.
Sappho
Whatever do as u like but dont be surprised that u can wake up one morning and find urself in the Equilibrium movie (or the book 1984 Wink ). But yet there will be no more terrorists.

Personally i would rather risk the terrorists.
Slammer
Bush is just as bad as all these people hes saying we should be scared of. Thats the whole point of all of this. To scare us all so much that we'll beileve any bull that comes out his mouth!

And so he can get away with anything he likes as long as 'its helping to fight the war on terror!' Its such a media drawing phrase 'war on terror'. We've had terrorists for years before all of this!
Vofman
Thank you.[/quote]
Soulfire
Okay, the name of it is the Patriot Act.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the gov't listens in? If the gov't has to tap phone lines to catch terrorists, and save possibly thousands of lives in the process, I'm for it.

The key is to be patriotic about it, and know that it's making us safer. But no, you're all too busy trying to tear down the president that you don't care about anything else. Patriotism in all has completely fallen apart.

Remember the WWI days, when citizens didn't sit and fold their arms and stomp their feet at the gov't? They tried their best to make it better, and make things work.

Today, people sit back in their chairs and look for as many ways as possible to criticize the gov't.

Okay, I'm getting a bit too far here... my main point is in the first couple blocks of text.
mschnell
Soulfire wrote:
The key is to be patriotic about it, and know that it's making us safer. But no, you're all too busy trying to tear down the president that you don't care about anything else. Patriotism in all has completely fallen apart.



Do you suggest that we all put blind faith in our leaders? Is that what patriotism is? You know that you can care for your country without liking the way things are going. Sometimes disagreeing shows more patriotism than just going with the flow. If 60% disaprove of Bush how do you say that it's not patriotic to disagree with what he is doing? Does he define national patriotism? Maybe people think he's doing a bad job and out of a love for their nation (patriotism) they want to see him and his policies leave.
Soulfire
Too bad his approval ratings are going up. What I am saying is; why not go with it if it can prevent the deaths of many fellow Americans?
Jeslyn
mschnell wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
The key is to be patriotic about it, and know that it's making us safer. But no, you're all too busy trying to tear down the president that you don't care about anything else. Patriotism in all has completely fallen apart.



Do you suggest that we all put blind faith in our leaders? Is that what patriotism is? You know that you can care for your country without liking the way things are going. Sometimes disagreeing shows more patriotism than just going with the flow. If 60% disaprove of Bush how do you say that it's not patriotic to disagree with what he is doing? Does he define national patriotism? Maybe people think he's doing a bad job and out of a love for their nation (patriotism) they want to see him and his policies leave.


Finally, someone who has a valid argument.
mschnell
Soulfire wrote:
Too bad his approval ratings are going up. What I am saying is; why not go with it if it can prevent the deaths of many fellow Americans?


If you mean going to 39% from 35% then yes, they're going up, but when you're that low is it even possible to go down much further?

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

I think one of the biggest problems with what's happening is that even without the Patriot Act in place Bush thinks he has the right to do wiretaps without a warant. Being the President doesn't give you that right.
psycosquirrel
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, the name of it is the Patriot Act.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the gov't listens in? If the gov't has to tap phone lines to catch terrorists, and save possibly thousands of lives in the process, I'm for it.

The key is to be patriotic about it, and know that it's making us safer. But no, you're all too busy trying to tear down the president that you don't care about anything else. Patriotism in all has completely fallen apart.


This easily summarizes my opinion.

In the first post in this topic, Vofman states that we have our rights of free speech to lose. If Bush is watching us over our shoulder, how the heck is this impeding us in any way of saying what is on our minds? The system of checks and balances in our government ensures all legislature is fully constitutional and in the best intrest of the people. You say we feel the need not to change? Don't tell me what to feel. I want change as much as you do. Just because tragic events occured in Bush's presidency does not mean they were his fault. Bush wasn't flying the planes or moving Katrina into New Orleans. Bush didn't build New Orleans under sea level or build up our reputation as "infidels" in the Middle East either. For once, I want one of you radical liberals to see that Bush is doing the best he can. I agree he could have done better, but so far his actions have done nothing of great harm to our nation. He has simply shown to the world that we will not take crap from anyone (War on Iraq/ Terrorism), and that we will never fall (Katrina). We have a great nation, that guards our rights and property from those who are jealous of the great amount we have been blessed with. So why don't we just appreciate what they do for us, instead of acting as though their just actions are completely against what we stand for? We stand united, against all odds, a nation of great things. We are a nation where everyone is free, coming together as one whole, instead of many minorities.
Marston
Shhhhhh... The terrorists can hear us.


They hate our freedom...
iridios
Wow! President Bush is trampling on our rights to plot terrorist acts against the United States. He must be stopped! Rolling Eyes

The wiretapping program is listening in on "international" communications between foreign persons who are terrorists, are suspected of being terrorists, or have some link to terrorist organizations.

With terrorists still trying to attack Americans and America, don't you think it's wise to listen in on their communications? And if they are communicating with persons inside our borders don't you think it's wise to figure out who and where they are?

I'm all for keeping our privacy and our rights. But our rights are not in danger here. I dare you to prove that our right to free speech is threatened. And remember, the Right to free speech covers our ability (yours included) to criticize (yours included) our government. It is not a right to communicate attack plans to persons within our borders.
Vofman
"A man who would throw away liberty for security deserves neither."

Ben Franklin
iridios
Vofman wrote:
"A man who would throw away liberty for security deserves neither."

Ben Franklin


And yet this does not prove that our rights are being taken away. Prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt and I'll listen to you.
raver
let me tell you something about the history of Romania, things that happened about 30-15 years ago. I say 15 because that`s when dictatorship was removed from our country, beeing replaced with a very corrupt form of democracy, which some believe it is actually worse.
Now, in the time of the dictator Ceausescu, we had something known as "Securitatea" , now transformed in S.R.I (Romanian Intelligence Service), somewhat like your F.B.I.
Everyone was afraid of the "Securitate" because they were listening in on all forms of contact between humans: telephone talks, mails, radio transmissions, having spies and informers everywhere. Why was this beeing done? It was all in the name of the Republic of Romania, for it`s greater good. People were scared to say anything because of this, afraid not to be considered conspirators against the republic, somewhat... terrorists. Now to me that pretty much sounds like your Patriot Act. Don`t think small. It starts with the war against terrorism, but where does it stop?
Just think a little and please, no insults. I await reasonable replies Very Happy
Soulfire
Nope, you still have your right to free speech. You're exercising it right now by speaking out against him. Imagine if we lived in a country that we couldn't speak out against the government.

[sarcasm]It's terrible that the government is now trying to protect it's citizens. It's terrible that tapping wires and reading e-mails might save thousands of lifes. How could he do such a preposterous thing?[/sarcasm]

Well, unless actions are taken to protect us, we're all at risk. Instead of sitting back and complaining about it, why not try to find alternate solutions?
mschnell
Have you ever thought that maybe it's safer to just not start wars in the first place? Hmm... terrorists... Are they going to come at us with conventional warfare? No, no, no... The more we upset people around the world the less safe we are...does that not make sense? Terrorists aren't going to drop an army off on our shores. They're going to attack us in ways that are hard to predict...hard to stop. Yes, I think defending ourselves is great, but I don't think a "War on Terrorism" is all that helpful.

1. It says we have the right to define the word "Terrorist" and use that deffinition as a means for starting a war.
2. How can you eliminate a terrorist threat? It's like looking for ants in the grass. Yah we can "squash" a whole lot of them, but they'll never be gone.

I think it would be more helpful if the United States weren't the least per/capita foreign aid provider of the highly developed nations--If we actually apperaed to care for people other than Western Europe, Israel, and ourselves.
Vofman
Exactly! There can be no war, not in this case. The War on Terror cannot be fought at all! This is because of the fact that we are not just fighting an organized group of people, like an army. We are fighting individuals, just everyday folks. You can't fight this war successfully, it's like Vietnam all over again.

Maybe if we stop carpet bombing their countries and telling them we want to help them at the same time, we may make some progress.
Sappho
Vofman wrote:
Exactly! There can be no war, not in this case. The War on Terror cannot be fought at all! This is because of the fact that we are not just fighting an organized group of people, like an army. We are fighting individuals, just everyday folks. You can't fight this war successfully, it's like Vietnam all over again.

Maybe if we stop carpet bombing their countries and telling them we want to help them at the same time, we may make some progress.


Indeed, thats the problem with terrorism and the all so popular War on Terror, it cant be won those ppl that are decided to give up their lifes for their cause cant be defeated they can be only killed which is impossible to achieve. And whats worse u cant make friends this way only more and more enemies and then in some time u will find urself in a situation asking if it is really u that is the righteous one killing someone who never did anything to u just started to fight couse u killed his family member or anyone close. Rolling Eyes
Lennon
There is something nieve when you go to customs as a foreigner to the US and the only question on terrorism is something like "Are you a terrorist, yes/no" or "Do you intent on terrorist activity during your stay"

But yet the US want's to police the phone-lines of its own citizens to protect them against terrorists.

There should be a clause in the Patriot Act which states that "only in circumstances of suspicion of terrorist agenda's" or something to that line, but whether that is really mentioned or open to any circumstances I don't know, I am not familiar with US legislation. Here in Ireland things are so much better since we've good diplomatic relations.
iridios
mschnell wrote:
Have you ever thought that maybe it's safer to just not start wars in the first place? Hmm... terrorists... Are they going to come at us with conventional warfare? No, no, no... The more we upset people around the world the less safe we are...does that not make sense? Terrorists aren't going to drop an army off on our shores. They're going to attack us in ways that are hard to predict...hard to stop. Yes, I think defending ourselves is great, but I don't think a "War on Terrorism" is all that helpful.


So we won't get attacked if we don't attack them? Ok. Who did we attack to provoke 9/11? Were we at war with any Muslim nation?

What did we do to provoke the murder of over 3000 people, the majority of whom were civilians just getting in to work in the morning.

Or maybe you don't remember that day....

I do, it was one of the few days I was truly scared for the safety of my family.
Lennon
Well, this might sound harsh,

There was the afghan war in the 70's, 80's. That really p****d them off.
Sappho
iridios wrote:
So we won't get attacked if we don't attack them? Ok. Who did we attack to provoke 9/11? Were we at war with any Muslim nation?

What did we do to provoke the murder of over 3000 people, the majority of whom were civilians just getting in to work in the morning.


U dont really know? Dont tell me u seriously doesnt have a clue. Rolling Eyes Maybe u should go and check all that America did and all their foreign affairs and u will hopefully understand. Or not. Confused

Anyway nothing justifies what the terrorists did but playing dumb is not a good way to solve things either. I am pretty sure they didnt just woke up one morning with "u know i feel really pissed at America today lets go around half the world and do something nasty to them" Rolling Eyes
iridios
Sappho wrote:
U dont really know? Dont tell me u seriously doesnt have a clue. Rolling Eyes Maybe u should go and check all that America did and all their foreign affairs and u will hopefully understand. Or not. Confused

Anyway nothing justifies what the terrorists did but playing dumb is not a good way to solve things either. I am pretty sure they didnt just woke up one morning with "u know i feel really pissed at America today lets go around half the world and do something nasty to them" Rolling Eyes


I can probably recite the reason they use to justify the attacks, but for people to say that we "caused" the attacks is different. That is like saying we committed a crime and got punished for it.

America is justified in the War on Terror because we did not cause the terrorism, we are the victim of it and will not stand to let it continue unopposed.

And to Lennon, the Afghan war in the '70s and '80s was between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. We were not the invaders there. In fact we supported their effort at throwing the Soviets out. Maybe they should have remembered that before hosting bin Laden's group?
Scaramanga
Slammer wrote:
Bush is just as bad as all these people hes saying we should be scared of. Thats the whole point of all of this. To scare us all so much that we'll beileve any bull that comes out his mouth!

And so he can get away with anything he likes as long as 'its helping to fight the war on terror!' Its such a media drawing phrase 'war on terror'. We've had terrorists for years before all of this!

Yup. And we've been fighting the "war" on terrorism for decades before Bush took office. And yet, no President has yet seemed to need the powers that Bush and his administration seem to want.

Soulfire wrote:
The key is to be patriotic about it, and know that it's making us safer. But no, you're all too busy trying to tear down the president that you don't care about anything else. Patriotism in all has completely fallen apart.

Mang, WHAT?? Patriotism has NOTHING to do with the current administration or even really the President. Patriotism is about supporting the ideals our country was founded on. I don't recall our founding fathers saying anything about it being cool to spy on your own citizenry. I seem to recall something about ALL people being created equal, and us being granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I gotta tell you, I'm not too particularly happy with our government, and I seem to be losing liberties every year.

psycosquirrel wrote:
If Bush is watching us over our shoulder, how the heck is this impeding us in any way of saying what is on our minds? The system of checks and balances in our government ensures all legislature is fully constitutional and in the best intrest of the people.

The problem is this domestic wire-tapping without warrants issue was done without the consent of Congress OR the Judiciary. There ARE checks and balances for a REASON. If the legislation is just doing whatever they want where does it stop?

iridios wrote:
Wow! President Bush is trampling on our rights to plot terrorist acts against the United States. He must be stopped! Rolling Eyes

The wiretapping program is listening in on "international" communications between foreign persons who are terrorists, are suspected of being terrorists, or have some link to terrorist organizations.

With terrorists still trying to attack Americans and America, don't you think it's wise to listen in on their communications? And if they are communicating with persons inside our borders don't you think it's wise to figure out who and where they are?

I'm all for keeping our privacy and our rights. But our rights are not in danger here. I dare you to prove that our right to free speech is threatened. And remember, the Right to free speech covers our ability (yours included) to criticize (yours included) our government. It is not a right to communicate attack plans to persons within our borders.

I dare you to prove the administration is NOT trampling our rights. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution. See the problem here is there is NO accountability for warrantless wire-tapping. It's just the President saying, yeah let's do this ("yee-haw" - OK, he probably doesn't say that.) Without the FISA courts there's nothing to stop the administration from spying on whomever they want. There's no Congress to say "Uhhh yeah, you know, maybe you shouldn't be spying on my constituents without a warrant." You people act like it's bad and/or wrong to ask the FISA courts for a warrant first (or even AFTER the fact.)

Soulfire wrote:
[sarcasm]It's terrible that the government is now trying to protect it's citizens. It's terrible that tapping wires and reading e-mails might save thousands of lifes. How could he do such a preposterous thing?[/sarcasm]

Well, unless actions are taken to protect us, we're all at risk. Instead of sitting back and complaining about it, why not try to find alternate solutions?

Hey, since it's been brought up, can anyone here prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any actions in the US Patriot Act have protected us from anything?

iridios wrote:
America is justified in the War on Terror because we did not cause the terrorism, we are the victim of it and will not stand to let it continue unopposed.

We didn't cause the terrorism huh? Yet we armed the Taliban in the 70s & 80s. Bush Sr. was on fairly friendly terms with quite a FEW leaders we now regard as "terrorists". Seems like the word 'terrorist' is just something we (i.e. the administration) uses to label something they don't like. Smacks of McCarthyism if you ask me. No offense to you blind cons, but I'm not about to support the return oh a HUAC-like conditions in the US. Now THAT would be unpatriotic.
ralphbefree
ok so i took the few moments over a cup of coffee to rehash my memory on "The War On Terrorism" and it seems fairly clear to me; i love that 20-20 hindsite vision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist defines the following:
terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

and it further defines terrorism as:
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Let us go through a quick time line of events that led up to the war on Iraq.
09-17-02 -- the white house discloses the "National Strategy To combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"
10-11-02 -- Congress authorizes attack on Iraq based on the information in the "National Strategy To Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"
02-24-03 -- U.S. submits proposal to the UN declaring that "Iraq has failed to the final opportunities affordable to it in Resolution 1441" (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html)
03-01-03 -- Iraq begins to destroy thier missles.
03-14-03 -- After heavy lobbing by the U.S. in the UN over the proposal, they did not recieve enough support to insure a successful vote. The U.S. dicides not to call for a vote on the matter.
03-17-03 -- President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussain: leave within 48 hours or be attacked. Diplomatic relations ended.
03-19-03 -- U.S. Declares war on Iraq
03-20-03 (21:30 EST) Bahgdad attacked.
.......Two Years Later
03-31-05 -- An official panel sanctioned by the White House calls President Bush's assesment of Iraqs weapons capabilities "dead wrong".
05-01-05 -- (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2-523-1622378,00.html) Downing Street Memo is leaked to the public. Bush is quoted 8 months before the invasion as saying that he wants “to remove Saddam (Hussein) through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction)”.

Senator Conyers said the memo raised “very serious questions about an abuse of power , . . it is a very serious constitutional matter”. Under the US constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, and it was not until mid-October 2002 that Bush obtained the necessary authorisation to begin military preparations.

If this is what has actually happened, and I know in my heart and Soul that it is, then it seems clear that President Bush and the White House used unlawful means of force against the people of Iraq to further his political and or economic agenda (more on haliburton in the future). This would make President Bush a "terrorist".

We are now getting more to the heart of the matter; and that is the political double talk that creates the confusion that the general public call reality.

For in reality it seems that the current "War on Terrorism" is a political agenda that is (what i am proposing) apart of a once larger agendas that our Political Grandfathers where apart. Its just what happens when you give boys to much power.

ok the coffee is done and so am I
"I love my country ... I fear my government" (i love that sticker and a show of Patriotism if i ever saw one.)
WW.peace.love.patriotism.recycle.smiles/ralph
Jayfarer
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, the name of it is the Patriot Act.

If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the gov't listens in? If the gov't has to tap phone lines to catch terrorists, and save possibly thousands of lives in the process, I'm for it.


Because it's principally and morally wrong. It's the first step on a horrible path that we can't risk even setting a foot on. It's better to nip it at the bud, because, and this may surprise you, people should not have to put their entire trust in the government.

Because if you keep pretending things like spying on your own citizens are acceptable, even if the power is not abused, it will be someday, because different people will always be in power, and I will not put my trust in future governments that I know nothing about to not abuse this ability.

I'll give you an example. My Dad, an Asian-American, used to work for an airline company in the Middle East. So he made a lot of business trips there, made lots of phone calls with his associates in that country. I don't want to have to worry that the government is suspicious of us because of our frequent activity there. You may call me paranoid, but you know what? I have a right to be paranoid. They don't have a right to spy on people on mere suspicion.
gonzo
Soulfire wrote:
If you have nothing to hide


nose in the tent: will you object to showercams?
gonzo
Scaramanga wrote:
Yup. And we've been fighting the "war" on terrorism for decades before Bush took office. And yet, no President has yet seemed to need the powers that Bush and his administration seem to want.


Clinton was too busy getting fellated to do jack about the OTHER TERRORIST ATTEMPTS ON THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS. It doesn't take any skill or power to do nothing.
mschnell
gonzo wrote:

Clinton was too busy getting fellated to do jack about the OTHER TERRORIST ATTEMPTS ON THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS. It doesn't take any skill or power to do nothing.



But it takes a lot of skill to obtain the charisma and utter brilliance of George Bush...

You can defend your side all you want but:
SCOREBOARD
(aproval ratings)
Davidgr1200
I don't mind Bush knowing what I think about terrorists or any terrorist plans being made. I do object to him finding out anything else about me which I do not want to reveal. For example if I was discussing how to mount my campaign to challenge Bush at the next election.
The other side of the coin is that how are they going to find out anything useful amongst all the useless (for them) information? And then again, do they really think that today's terrorists are going to write e-mails like:
"We'll meet on the Northside of the Whitehouse on tuesday at 16:00 with ten pounds of dynamite in order to blow up the president"?
The terrorists will easily find ways of avoiding giving away info, but we'll still be stuck with Bush (or whoever is the next president) having access to our e-mails, telephone calls etc.
blackheart
Soulfire wrote:
If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the gov't listens in? If the gov't has to tap phone lines to catch terrorists, and save possibly thousands of lives in the process, I'm for it.


..I'd rather Uncle Sam weren't jacking off to the sound of me having phone sex with my boyfriend...

(Not that I have to, being Australian, but my point was in the first line Cool )
SunburnedCactus
blackheart wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the gov't listens in? If the gov't has to tap phone lines to catch terrorists, and save possibly thousands of lives in the process, I'm for it.


..I'd rather Uncle Sam weren't jacking off to the sound of me having phone sex with my boyfriend...

(Not that I have to, being Australian, but my point was in the first line Cool )


Now there's an interesting fetish...
THE11thROCK™
It's a prime invasion of privacy. Don't anybody looking at me when i'm in the toilet. Say no to perversion and voyeurism!
Lied
coolclay wrote:
We must give up some freedoms to become a safer country. If having someone reading my emails, or listen my phone calls prevents another terrorist attack more power to them. And just to let you know they aren't spying on people unless there is a reason. SO if you are calling/emailing people that may be connected to "peace" activists, or other shady people, then you may very well be spyed upon.


Yea, so the rest of the countries that do not psying on their ppl are not safe? US is unsafe not because it is a economic giant,but mostly because it bombs where seems fit!In Iran they where f terrified when Bush said that Iran maybe the next target.Doesn't that make US terrorist?

I live in greece, where spying is minimun if existing at all.Before the Olympics we had all the British wanna-be-jurnalist f**k getting into the facilities and make stories on how dangerous and easy is for a terrorist to get in.When this was not the case since we hold enmitty to noone.On the UK one year after that they were counting bodybags after the terrorist attacks, the journalists said nothing then.A country has to monitor its domestic population only if f around with other countries.
S3nd K3ys
I see a bunch of ignorants are still under the impression this is DOMESTIC spying, when it fact, it's INTERNATIONAL.

No wonder the dems keep losing power. They twist things TOO far and make themselves look really REALLY stupid.
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I see a bunch of ignorants are still under the impression this is DOMESTIC spying, when it fact, it's INTERNATIONAL.

No wonder the dems keep losing power. They twist things TOO far and make themselves look really REALLY stupid.


You're rediculous to write that. First of all, the republican President WAS allowing for domestic spying, second he was also doing it illegally, and third he often makes himself look "really REALLY stupid."

Bush approval is below fourty percent again. Do you think that's good or "bodes well" for conservatives in the next few elections?
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I see a bunch of ignorants are still under the impression this is DOMESTIC spying, when it fact, it's INTERNATIONAL.

No wonder the dems keep losing power. They twist things TOO far and make themselves look really REALLY stupid.


You're rediculous to write that. First of all, the republican President WAS allowing for domestic spying, second he was also doing it illegally, and third he often makes himself look "really REALLY stupid."

Bush approval is below fourty percent again. Do you think that's good or "bodes well" for conservatives in the next few elections?


You're rediculous for writing that. It's speculation at best.

The republican pres was spying on TERRORIST RELATED INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE the USA talking to PEOPLE INSIDE the USA. That, my ignorant friend, is international. Not domestic. He was not spying on your grandma talking to your sister across town.

It has been being done for the last several administrations. Therefore, the last several presidents were doing it BEFORE this one. Funny how it was ok for the Dems to do it, but when the repubs do it, OMG! FOUL!

While he does make himself look stupid at times, it's nothing compared to what you just made yourself look like by spewing all the drivel which you obviously know nothing about.

It doesn't matter what the ratings are.. the Dems have NOTHING. No candidate that can win. No adjenda. No plan. No nothing. They're the dying party. All they can do is try to drag as many others down with them by blatently lying about many things.
mschnell
S3nd K3ys wrote:

You're rediculous for writing that. It's speculation at best.

The republican pres was spying on TERRORIST RELATED INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE the USA talking to PEOPLE INSIDE the USA. That, my ignorant friend, is international. Not domestic. He was not spying on your grandma talking to your sister across town.

It has been being done for the last several administrations. Therefore, the last several presidents were doing it BEFORE this one. Funny how it was ok for the Dems to do it, but when the repubs do it, OMG! FOUL!

While he does make himself look stupid at times, it's nothing compared to what you just made yourself look like by spewing all the drivel which you obviously know nothing about.

It doesn't matter what the ratings are.. the Dems have NOTHING. No candidate that can win. No adjenda. No plan. No nothing. They're the dying party. All they can do is try to drag as many others down with them by blatently lying about many things.


You have yet to show a single fact. You talk in angry spurting fragments of thought. If you want to keep arguing bring facts to the table, as in any intelligent argument facts tend to be the weapon of choice. You have two favorite weapons my friend, opinions and slander. You make yourself look neither intelligent, nor educated. I would not say harsh things about you had you not first said harsh things about me and the other people taking part in this discussion. I would perfer if we bring this back to attacking the issue rather than the arguers.
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:

You have yet to show a single fact.


And you're a plethora of facts, aren't you?

What I said was common knowledge, at least to open minded individuals. Those that are extreme bushchimpyhitler haters won't see it that way because it defeats their adjenda to slander bush.

Quote:
The president said he asked the National Security Agency to devise a way to gather intelligence on terrorists' potential activities, and the result was the super-secret spy outfit's program to monitor the international e-mails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists overseas. Bush said lawyers in the White House and at the Justice Department signed off on the program's legality, and "we put constant checks on the program."


And isn't it odd that the pres says the same things in private that he does in public? Damn his lies!

Quote:
NSA devised the program at the president's behest after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush said. Without court warrants, the agency wiretaps calls and reviews e-mail ending or originating in the United States involving terror suspects.

"I talked to the people whose job it is to protect the American people, and I said, 'Are we doing everything we can to protect the people?' " Bush said.

Bush said the White House counsel and the Justice Department agreed that the NSA program was legal.

"We had the program analyzed legally, but I recognized that wasn't going to be enough. And so we put constant checks on the program," he said.


Quote:
The Justice Department lays out numerous historical and legal precedents from the country's past armed conflicts to justify the NSA program that critics have called "domestic spying."
In the Sept. 14 joint resolution granting the use of military force against al-Qaida, Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks."
In Tuesday's speech, Bush said past presidents have used the same constitutional authority with federal court approval.
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it - because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again," he said.
Temple University law professor, Jan Ting, said presidents were historically granted broad powers to do what was necessary to fight wartime enemies.
"Should we shut down the (NSA) program? The obvious answer is 'no'," Ting said.
However, Ting said Congress may want to fine tune what constitutes "domestic" surveillance given that at least one end of NSA's eavesdropped phone connections are in foreign countries.


Quote:
According to the article, the NSA has monitored international phone calls and emails of thousands of U.S. citizens without warrants since 2002, when Bush signed an order permitting eavesdropping to track “dirty numbers” supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda.


Now, before you go and make another ass of yourself, I suggest you read a bit before inserting your foo... err, blathering on about something you know little about.

Here's a couple places to start.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/



Quote:
I would not say harsh things about you had you not first said harsh things about me and the other people taking part in this discussion.


Oh, really? You mean like THIS?

mschnell wrote:

You're rediculous to write that.


It's pretty funny when you don't remember what you just wrote. Drugs are bad... mkay.
mschnell
Before I wrote that I read this.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
I see a bunch of ignorants are still under the impression this is DOMESTIC spying, when it fact, it's INTERNATIONAL.


You called us "a bunch of ignorants".
It's pretty funny when you don't remember what you just wrote.

Basically Bush believes he has the right to get electronic domestic wiretaps without a warant. Under the FISA this should be illegal. Bush claims that his declairation of war in 2001 should make it wartime and therefore give him the right. Is that a stretch? I think so. Bush himself claimed the war a success years ago. So does that mean the war's over or that the war is still going?
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:

You called us "a bunch of ignorants".


Perhaps you should find out what 'ignorant', 'domestic' and 'international' means before you (repeatedly) put your foot in your mouth. Wink

Quote:
Basically Bush believes he has the right to get electronic domestic wiretaps without a warant. Under the FISA this should be illegal.


So now you think it should be illegal? The backpeddling begins! And now we're back to 'domestic', when it's 'international'.

Quote:
Bush claims that his declairation of war in 2001 should make it wartime and therefore give him the right.


Bush never declared war. But your point is wrong anyway... HAD he made an official declaration, it would have given him even MORE power to do that sort of thing, and in that case, very likely INCLUDING 'domestic' wiretaps.

Quote:
Bush himself claimed the war a success years ago. So does that mean the war's over or that the war is still going?


Again you prove you don't know what you're talking about; Bush claimed success to major combat operations against an organized military.

Insurgencies happen after almost every war. Besides that, war on terror and the Iraq war are two different wars. Afghan is part of the terror war.

Please do try to inform yourself more. You have shown with nearly every single thing you've claimed that you know squat about the truth and only listen to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Dan Rather.
mschnell
Wow, you are a nice guy.

So we never formally declaired war on Iraq. Bush did say that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." I believe this to be quite untrue, as more coalition soldiers have died after that point than before it.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Also, this article makes the same mistake as I do saying Bush declaired victory in Iraq. It also says that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm

...about one of your previous articles...of course Bush and his administration will fight tooth and nail to say that he has done nothing illegal.
Soulfire
Okay, so instead of sitting back and complaining about it... seems to be the democrat's solution to everything... what would YOU do to prevent the deaths of innocent Americans?

But isn't that the mentality of today's America? Okay, we'll let them die, just as long as it isn't ME.
mschnell
Well, as a start I would tell you that not nearly as many innocent Americans have died as have civillian Iraqi's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

I think we make ourselves less secure by attacking an idea rather than a thing.

I don't really know if I think domestic spying is ok or not. I'm on the fence there. But I think that doing things illegaly is not right.
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:
Bush did say that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." I believe this to be quite untrue, as more coalition soldiers have died after that point than before it.

Also, this article makes the same mistake as I do saying Bush declaired victory in Iraq. It also says that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm



Once Saddam was removed from power and the military was disbanded, major operations were completed. Succesfully.

Did you miss this part of the link you provided?

Quote:
Earlier, Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer warned that the president's speech would not mark the end of hostilities "from a legal point of view".


or this?

Quote:
He said "difficult work" remained to be done in Iraq.
General Tommy Franks, commander of forces in the Iraq war
General Franks made the assessment

"We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun a search for chemical and biological weapons, and already know hundreds of sites that will be investigated," he said.


Considering the constantly rising proof of WMD and their removal just prior to the war, his comments..

Quote:
"The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on 11 September 2001, and still goes on," he said.


are somewhat justified with the linking of Saddam to terrorists (not 9/11, but to terrorists), and the massive influx of terrorists into and around Iraq when the war started.
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:

I don't really know if I think domestic spying is ok or not. I'm on the fence there. But I think that doing things illegaly is not right.


It's international spying. Wink
mschnell
If one person is in the US, then it's as much domestic as it is international.
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:
If one person is in the US, then it's as much domestic as it is international.


Damn, dude. You're amazing. Really.

If everything that goes on is INSIDE the country, it's DOMESTIC. If any part of it is going on OUTSIDE the country, it's INTERNATIONAL.

Rolling Eyes
mschnell
Oh, sorry for not going technically by the dictionary. I thought by international you were implying communications between foreign people. I see now that you mean communications between foreign people and our domestic people.
shut up
We are at war with very dangerous people that will find every way possible to communicate. We need to put a stop to it. These "people" are called islamo fascists that will stop at nothing to get their way. We need to stop them evey way possible or else you can kiss the free country of the United States of America good by because of these people. Why do you arrogant fools have to whine about something that you will barely notice, and what do you have to hide from the government, or are you just trying to be as dumb as possible that you don't even want your life to be relatively good compared to the other alternative and you will not like it, trust me.
Warning, graphic images that could be the US if the terrorists aren't put to stop. look at these and tell me which is worse wire tapping, or mass chaos.car bombing in Iraq, 14 dead.

Bali night club bombing.

London bombing.
These could be similar to what could happen in the US if the whining about your privacy doesn't stop. whats worse: less privacy or dead, or living with pieces of schrapnel in your body?
mschnell
First of all, it isn't a steep tradoff like you're proposing. There's not choice A and choice B and nothing else. That's just not how things work. Secondly, where are your pictures of the ravaged Iraqi country side? Why not notice how many innocent people have died in this war? How can we afford ourselves to care so much about "our" people and so little about "their" people? Is a common American better than a common Iraqi?
shut up
Yes because america is stable, Iraq is not, we are trying to fix that. You want the pics, Ok you just ordered pics of what they did to us and our revenge on them.

first WTC bombing.

second WTC bombing

Afganistan bombing for revenge

Remember this bastard? Out of power now thanks to us!

one of many of Saddam's victims.

what they get for messing with the US.
got enough history for one day? Being a liberal your brain is probably overloaded from learning something. Laughing
S3nd K3ys
mschnell wrote:
Oh, sorry for not going technically by the dictionary. I thought by international you were implying communications between foreign people. I see now that you mean communications between foreign people and our domestic people.



Oh, sorry for being selfish and using the, well, you know... the actual meaning of the words. Rolling Eyes

I'm glad you 'see now' the SAME EF'N THING I SAID AFTER YOUR FIRST POST, (when you showed your level of comprehension of the english language):

Quote:
spying on TERRORIST RELATED INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE the USA talking to PEOPLE INSIDE the USA.


Perhaps a refresher course in english, reading/comprehension and knowing when to keep quiet are in order somewhere in your future.

Quote:
First of all, it isn't a steep tradoff like you're proposing. There's not choice A and choice B and nothing else. That's just not how things work. Secondly, where are your pictures of the ravaged Iraqi country side? Why not notice how many innocent people have died in this war? How can we afford ourselves to care so much about "our" people and so little about "their" people? Is a common American better than a common Iraqi?


I'm thinking you should stop whilst you still have some dignity left. (Oh wait, never mind).

For YOU it may not be a steep tradeoff. You may be willing to give up your rights to worship who/how you want and be forced to live according to Islam. I, and most Americans, are not. Let me break it down for you...

War on Terror: If the US wins, they get A), to continue being free. If the US loses, they get B), to NOT continue being free.

Easy choice for me. Wink

Now, about the 'ravaged Iraqi countryside', are you referring to the oil fields that were set ablaze (by the Iraqis, not the US), or are you referring to the hundres of thousands of innocent people that were murdered (by the Iraqis, not the US). Or are you referring to the women and children that are CONSTANTLY being killed on purpose (by Iraqis, not by the US)

Lastly, your ignorance on who is caring for whom is WAY THE ****** OFF!

United States men and women are GIVING UP THEIR LIVES every day for these people they DO NOT EVEN KNOW in the hopes of providing them the means to the freedoms we love (and fight for) so much.

May I suggest you stay out of these threads until you're more familiar with the situation and the language? There's some big dogs around here that will bite you if you don't cover every inch of your ass.
shaggly
To get just a little back on track again.

I actually had the opportunity to read quite a bit of the Patriot Act a couple of months ago, and I can assure you that it's powers grant the Government the rights to gather information on Domestic subjects as well as those relating to international visitors.

The PA grants the U.S. law enforcement agencies more all encompassing rights to gather information in a number of different ways, using various media (incl. Internet traffic, library rentals, telephone conversations, access to property, etc); and the only thing that the U.S. Gov. has to provide as justification to get this access is the promise of an ongoing investigation that relates to a threat to national security.

This, in my humble opinion, is what makes the PA such a terrifying document relating to personal privacy. I can understand the releasing of rights to access such information, but I do think that the criteria for allowing the agencies to access that information should be a lot tighter than just providing proof of an ongoing investigation.

Most other attempts to gain access to similiar investigations (i.e. criminal cases), require a warrant to be issued, which in turn requires enough evidence to be already in possession to make the warrant a valid issuance in the eyes of the DA requesting it. In the cases that the PA concerns, this procedure is streamlined to say the very least.

I have to say that the U.S. Government is becoming more and more Orwellian as time goes on. In fact, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that it is starting to mimic one of it's greatest critical targets of yesteryear - the KGB.....
thiamshui
what do they stand to gain from spying anyway? every human being has the right to his/her privacy..
planet
The so called "War on Terrorism" is beginning to get to me, as it seems to me to be used for all kinds of purposes (other than create peace) and to serve various shady actions by different governments for the sake of political control, more than "defending freedom".

When the "defence of freedom" reaches such dimentions as to degrade, limit and harness the very freedom its professing to defend, it gets dangerous.

Any kind of mass hysteria is dangerous, as are politicians out of control of the people who elected them, thereby putting them (the politicians in charge) closer to the dictators they seemingly want to fight.

The "Freedom" being "sold" today is beginning to smell of the totalitarianism of yesterday.

I will quote something written by my son in 2003 and with which I agree:

"I think it's eerie to see the most powerful nation in the world (weaponwise at least) throw its weight around the world like the big bully in the schoolyard...

I find it eerie that the leader of the worlds most powerful nation seems to be running around like a rabid terrier, picking fights with smaller nations without proper proof of wrongdoings, only accusations.

And that's probably why the UN is stalling... Lack of real proof. And if the US decides to tell the UN to go *** themselves and starts a war, it just further shows how irradic the US behavior is getting.
"I wanna kick that guys ass, but I can't find a proper reason... Oh well, I'll just say he called me names and was planning to attack me with waterballoons at lunchbreak..." - ring a bell?

Just because the US is large and powerful doesn't mean it can go around ransacking everyones backyard when its wants to... I don't blame those nations for not wanting the US to nose around in their internal affairs.

History of course, may prove me wrong and show that the smaller nations WERE actually planning to take over the world and enslave us all (although I highly doubt it), for after all, history is usually written by the victor...

Furthermore, I really don't like many US peoples' attitude towards war (including apparently their leader which is possibly the most scary thing about it).
They treat it like its a football game or something...

It's not you know... Its the deliberate destruction and killing of another country and its inhabbitants. It is at times nessecary, but you should have a DAMN good reason, and proof of being wronged before you attack another country.

The most probable reason why the UN is stalling and being indecisive is because they are too diplomatic, and noone has the guts to tell the US it has no proof, no case, and that their attitudes towards war is unsettling to other nations.

60% of the american public actually believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, even though no proof of this has ever been presented, and their leader lets them... Because he wants his war... No matter what it seems.

I'm not anti american, but I find the recent behavior of the worlds most powerful nation have gone from weird to unsettling.
Related topics
Do you like bush? Or do you hate bush?
Patriot Act renewal fails in Senate
Clinton: NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
The NSA is reading this right now....
The Media: Pro-America or Pro-Terrorists?
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
P3 Special Report: 2006 Presidential Budget: Power Grab?
Al Gore and GW
Bush Wiretapping power
Oops! - Bush Unaware Mikes Were Still On
Approval of CIA Leak?
Pillowtop Queen Mattress, still in plastic. $XXX, 555-1234
Rumsfield being investigated for War Crimes
us on iraq
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.