Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Forget Iraq and abortion for a second as those don't really apply.

One of the objections much of the anti-Bush crowd has raised is our (the Peoples) so-called "right-to-privacy". More specifically, your opposition to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, et. al.

My question to you is: WHY do you oppose such measures?

Consider this:

We are supposedly at war here against fundamentalist Islam in general and domestic terrorism in particular. In a rare act of being proactive (versus the usual REactive), the Feds have (supposedly) resorted to spying on its own citizens, whether its intercepting e-mails, bank records, phone calls, or just having a plainclothes agent following them around.

You with me so far?

A lot of you have cried foul, citing your "right to privacy" and "civil rights violations" because of those tactics.

Now let's examine YOU for a second:

If you are reading this message, it means you are online. So every site you visit can be (and probably already is) being tracked by SOMEONE.

If you are responding to this message, you probably participate in other forums, blogs, etc.

So again...everything you have typed is basically "public domain" and fair game for anyone to read.

If you are Internet savvy, you probably don't use much cash for your purchases anymore. You probably have direct deposit, credit/debit cards, PayPal accounts, Online Bill-Pay, etc. And you probably check your monthly bank statements on line.

So your BANK knows exactly what you spend and most likely...what you spend it ON.

If you fit everything above thus far, then you almost certainly have a cell phone.

Which I'd bet a months pay that says even if you "think" that the GPS ability (which ALL phones nowadays have), is turned off, your movements are STILL being passively tracked.

So as long as you have your phone with you, it is possible for someone to know where you are, where you've been, what route(s) you took, and even how fast it took you to get there?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I have full confidence that someone out there can and is connecting the dots on you. Everything ABOUT you is already out there and in someones hands: your political views, the sites you vist, how much money you make, where you shop, etc etc etc...all neatly chronicled....and probably sold over and over to some other third and fourth parties for about a dollar.

Where do you think most of your Spam and paper junk mail comes from?

So tell me again about "privacy"......Who are trying to kid here? We CLAIM to want privacy....but want the whole world to know what we stand for. And leave plenty of other trails about as to boot.

If Acme marketing has all of this information about you, why does it upset you that the Government might have it?

Still not convinced?

Well here's something else for you to sink your teeth in to:

Remember what I said in the beginning here about us being at war and the government trying to be proactive in identifying and stopping potential threats?

If you have nothing sinister to hide....you aren't planning on overthrowing the government or anything.....

...then WHO CARES if they are watching you?

Let's assume for a second in no uncertain terms that I was being watched. What are they going to learn about me?

They are going to know what I buy at the Supermarket, I pay my bills on time, am getting married next April, and that I like trains, airplanes, and reel to reel decks. If they look at my bank records, they are going to see Ralphs Grocery, Verizon Wireless, Claim Jumper Restaurants, and so on.

*YAWN*

Any Federal Agent is going to get real bored with that real quick.

And move on.


Now if they start seeing a pattern of things like "Turners Outdoorsman", "Ace Chemical Supply", or me buying 10 bags of ammonium sulfide and parking it at a Public Storage...as opposed to laying it across a huge lawn....

Then that is more likely to arouse some suspicion and closer scrutiny.

Let's also suppose that I did have my online messages, e-mails, spending habits, and daily movements tracked....

I'm still here and no worse for wear as a result.

Besides...what do you think would happen if another September 11 or Oklahoma City occured?

That's right.

Bush and Co. would come under fire for NOT being proactive and NOT doing more snooping.

So what are they supposed to do?

Besides, does anyone seriously believe that domestic spying and snooping is anything new? You think the same clandestine bahavior against the Citizens wasn't going on during World War II, VietNam, and the Cold War.

The only difference now is the advancement of the technology and the widespread availability of information.

I guarantee you that if E-mail and GPS were available in World War II, Roosevelt and Truman would've been using it.


Privacy?

Get serious.

Thanks for reading.

[Edited 2006-11-06 00:45:43]

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
warrantless wiretapes, et. al.

Oh you HAVE to be kidding me.. I didn't make it past what I quoted because it's obvious  redflag  from there.

It's called the CONSTITUTION Sparky. Make a Constitutional amendment and get it ratified saying that potus or anybody else can skip a judge and I'll be fine. Until then then ANYONE can be tapped up to 24 hours w/out a judge, and can be tapped LONG after that even if they got the permission posthumously. If the is not enough, the people running the program are idiots. Anyone needing more then 24 hours retroactive permission is a LIAR or is circumventing the law searching for a red herring.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
My question to you is: WHY do you oppose such measures?

I think Bush is an asshole, but I support his efforts to fight the terrorists and I don't give a rat's ass if some innocent people have their damn phones tapped. It's a war, dammit. Act like it.


User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):

WOW!  Wow! ..... That was great. Your spot on mate.

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Reply #1 and someone already cherry picked the one point they wanted (singular...just one...without seeing everything else as a whole) and attempted to discredit it.

For once, can't somebody analzye the WHOLE picture before reaching a conclusion as opposed to picking a piece here and a piece there to present a very distorted and very incomplete picture?

And #2:

At least the poster was honest about it. It's not that he's opposed to anything I said, he simply hates Bush and disagrees with him simply out of spite:

If it makes Bush's job easier or if Bush supports it, then he's against it.

Ok...fair enough. Like I said....at least he was honest about it.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of Bush either. But I'd still like to see the question answered: What CAN he do?

If he SNOOPING is bad and NOT snooping is bad, then what's left?

[Edited 2006-11-06 00:50:04]

User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Because it's a complete circumvention of the 4th amendment.

Before the non-Patriot act, they actually were required to go through due process to spy on you.

Now, they can do it when and however long they want to.

It's an administration power grab, and nothing more.



I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Because it's a complete circumvention of the 4th amendment.
Before the non-Patriot act, they actually were required to go through due process to spy on you.

Now, they can do it when and however long they want to. It's an administration power grab, and nothing more.


I suggest you re-read this:

Besides, does anyone seriously believe that domestic spying and snooping is anything new? You think the same clandestine bahavior against the Citizens wasn't going on during World War II, VietNam, and the Cold War.

The only difference now is the advancement of the technology and the widespread availability of information.

I guarantee you that if E-mail and GPS were available in World War II, Roosevelt and Truman would've been using it.


And this:

someone already cherry picked the one point they wanted (singular...just one...without seeing everything else as a whole) and attempted to discredit it.

For once, can't somebody analzye the WHOLE picture before reaching a conclusion as opposed to picking a piece here and a piece there to present a very distorted and very incomplete picture?


[Edited 2006-11-06 00:50:32]

User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

MattD, the Patriot Act is more than just about wiretapping. I suggest you read it in its entirety.

Empirically, citizens are very willing to give up freedom and liberty. Which is also disturbing. Just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you don't deserve privacy.

The problem isn't even wiretapping specifically, but the encroaching of the government in the private sphere in a general sense. People accept wiretapping, arrests under pure "suspicion", etc...and pretty soon we're going to let the government stick prods up our asses for shits and giggles.

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 3):
WOW! ..... That was great. Your spot on mate.

Before you give him head, do some independent thinking.

I'd write more on this but I've got stuff to do, maybe later.

[Edited 2006-11-06 00:54:35]

User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 6):
I suggest you re-read this:

I did read it...
Just because it was done before doesn't make it right.
How many people were wrongly accused of being Communists during the Cold War? How many Japanese were wrongly imprisoned after WWII?

Fear is being used for the suspension of liberties, and that is flat wrong.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 6):
For once, can't somebody analzye the WHOLE picture before reaching a conclusion as opposed to picking a piece here and a piece there to present a very distorted and very incomplete picture?

Any opposing viewpoint you will perceive as 'distorted', so why bother?



I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

The Patriot Act may indeed make us safer, but at what cost? Is slowly giving up what made the USA so great in the first place worth it to you? I'd rather go down doing what's right than survive doing what's wrong. That's where we differ. Anything that makes the US any more like China is not something we should be supporting in my view, even if it can make us safer. North Korea may be the safest f_cking country on the planet, but I still wouldn't want to adopt any of their bullshit.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 2):
I think Bush is an asshole, but I support his efforts to fight the terrorists and I don't give a rat's ass if some innocent people have their damn phones tapped. It's a war, dammit. Act like it.

There's a war on? Then how do you explain all these tax cuts? Where's the draft? Who are we fighting? I'm not sure just just what is going on, but it sure doesn't seem like a war to my eyes. Didn't Bush show up in a jumpsuit one day and tell us the end of hostilities had come? Whoops.

Reality has been kicked out of the room but the tax cuts can stay.

[Edited 2006-11-06 01:21:06]


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 9):
There's a war on? Then how do you explain ... ?

Well ... I said he's an asshole. What do want from me?  Smile But I agree with Matt D about privacy. It's not a contradiction. Bush happened to do one or two things that were right.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Any opposing viewpoint you will perceive as 'distorted', so why bother?

Not necessarily. Don't put words in my mouth bro.

I certainly welcome any respecfully written out opposing views.

What I will NOT respect is what the poster in reply #1 did, which was to cherry pick what he wanted to see and ignore the rest. He admitted to basically doing just that. That can hardly be called a civil debate.

Just because it was done before doesn't make it right.
How many people were wrongly accused of being Communists during the Cold War? How many Japanese were wrongly imprisoned after WWII?


I understand that. Your objection isn't without merit. But again I ask: what's the alternative? Do nothing and hope for the best? Does anyone here seriously believe that if the Feds took a "do nothing" stance and another terrorist attack occurs that they WOULN'T be crucified in the public eye for doing nothing?

You have to understand that there are some 250 million, give or take a few million people in this country. I seriously doubt that the Feds have the manpower to watch over ALL of them ALL the time.

Like I said....they look at you, decide either you are or are not a threat and move on.

Fear is being used for the suspension of liberties, and that is flat wrong.

The man who appears on our $100 bill said it best and I totally echo his and your sentiment. A blanket surrender of liberty ISN'T in our best interests. And I too shudder when I see it happening.

As many of you profess, we live in a world of many shades of grey, where things are seldom black or white. And balancing freedoms, liberty, and privacy against security is a dicey issue that is anything but easy. Compromises will always have to be made somewhere and I sure as shit don't envy the people that have to decide those compromises.

[Edited 2006-11-06 01:32:26]

User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3080 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

This is basically one giant clusterfuck to sum up lightly. Although spying can be proactive and beneficial, it goes against what this country is founded on. Until another proactive way of preventing possible future threats is found, I am for the spying.

For those of you who do not support the spying, what is your alternate suggestion to remain proactive?


Chris



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 7):
MattD, the Patriot Act is more than just about wiretapping. I suggest you read it in its entirety.

Empirically, citizens are very willing to give up freedom and liberty. Which is also disturbing. Just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you don't deserve privacy.

The problem isn't even wiretapping specifically, but the encroaching of the government in the private sphere in a general sense. People accept wiretapping, arrests under pure "suspicion", etc...and pretty soon we're going to let the government stick prods up our asses for shits and giggles.

Everyone should read it in its entirety. That way they would realize that the worst case scenario posited above isn't going to be made possible by the Patriot Act.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting Duff44 (Reply 5):
Because it's a complete circumvention of the 4th amendment.

It's only a violation of the 4th Amendment if a court believes that the search was of an unreasonable scope or nature.

This has been discussed to death on this forum. Just search "4th ammendment" and "wire tap" and the threads will all pop up. And no, warrentless wire taps are not a creation of the Patriot Act. Checkt the history of RICO laws for more information on it.


User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 11):

That post right there sums up the whole thing.

If you had led off with that, this would be much less of an argument. Your initial post came off as a rant against the anti-Bush folks.

And I'd like to rescind my "why bother" line, now that we've discussed it with some non-partisan thought.



I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 14):
This has been discussed to death on this forum. Just search "4th ammendment" and "wire tap" and the threads will all pop up. And no, warrentless wire taps are not a creation of the Patriot Act. Checkt the history of RICO laws for more information on it.

Don't expect people to listen to the facts, especially when they don't fit their particular political agenda.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

This topic is getting way off track. Can we please get it back ON track?

Let me paraphrase it again:

How can you be opposed to the Government collecting private data about you when at the same you freely and openly give that very same data to the rest of the world?

THAT is the point I'm trying to discuss here, not whether or not you approve of Bush and the Patriot Act.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3115 times:

Matt D - this simple enough for ya? Big government. In any way, shape or form. I don't care who's agenda is being served or from which side of the aisle...I simply can't stand bloated, overzealous, unecessarily large government. The Patriot Act is packed to the gills with loopholes and avenues giving government carte blanche to expand itself as only it sees fit for loosely-defined national security purposes.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
The Patriot Act is packed to the gills with loopholes and avenues giving government carte blanche to expand itself as only it sees fit for loosely-defined national security purposes.

Please elaborate, if you would be so kind.


User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

I'm not pro-Bush or anti-Bush (basically I'm fed up with politics and can't wait for the election to be over so all those commercials and all those signs that litter the highway go away.... sorry, had to vent!!) but I think it's a catch-22. If he doesn't wire-tap and we miss some sort of intelligence, he's an ass, but if he listens to our conversations , he's an ass, so either way it's a no-win situation. This will probably apply to future presidents also.


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

^
Nobody's saying wiretapping can't be done. Anyway...a few troubling items:

Section 203 amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to permit disclosures of "matters occurring before the grand jury" when the matters "involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" to "any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties." Rule 6(e)(3)(c) governs the permissive disclosure and use of information revealed in a grand jury proceeding, which prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act could be disclosed only when directed by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding.......The USA PATRIOT Act amendments limit the use of the information to a proper investigation (subject to legal sanctions as defined by Section 223 upon misuse or misdisclosure of the information). However, while such sharing may be appropriate in the case of international terrorism investigations, the limitation permitting sharing only of "foreign intelligence information" is insufficient to limit disclosure to information relating to investigations of terrorist activities.

"foreign intelligence information" is a ridiculously loose term and needs to be defined so as to explain the type and scope of information that would be required a terrorist investigation.

Section 215 grants the FBI the authority to request an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Although the amendment is entitled "Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations," the scope of the authority is far broader and applies to any records relevant to the individual. This amendment, which overrides state library confidentiality laws, permits the FBI to compel production of business records, medical records, educational records and library records without a showing of "probable cause" (the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime). Instead, the government only needs to claim that the records may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities.

with the FBI able to demand all manner of personal and business records without any probable cause or judicial/administrative oversight, one can imagine the expansion of bureaucracy and incredible potential for abuse that will proliferate...particularly since *further* provisions of Sec. 215 stipulate that records produced to the FBI can only be disclosed via court order. In other words, they need no permission to get everything and anything they want, but a court has to approve any attempt to discern what they did get or otherwise wanted to...and the list goes on...



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Maybe third time will be the charm:

This topic is getting way off track. Can we please get it back ON track?

Let me paraphrase it again:

How can you be opposed to the Government collecting private data about you when at the same you freely and openly give that very same data to the rest of the world?

THAT is the point I'm trying to discuss here, not whether or not you approve of Bush and the Patriot Act.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21):
...a few troubling items:

Would you mind sourcing those for us?

They obviously are cut and paste form some website.

Bah, never mind. I doubt you even knew what they were saying when you Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V'd them over here.

Part 1 is about the shareing of testimoney entered as evidence amongst law enforcement agencies.. Evidence sharing amongst agencies was cited by the 9/11 commission as the primary point of failure and recommended by everyone. This change simply streamlines the sharing process.  cry 

Part 2 is called a subpeona. cry 

So sorry.

This is case and point of why people without legal educations shouldn't try and make legal arguments.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 22):
How can you be opposed to the Government collecting private data about you when at the same you freely and openly give that very same data to the rest of the world?

Don't expect an answer. There simply isn't a rational answer for why they are scared to give the goverment what can be easily had off of google.


25 Halls120 : As you note, Section 203 permits the sharing of grand jury and wiretap information regarding foreign intelligence with federal law-enforcement, intel
26 SATX : Matt, any particular reason you didn't respond to me?
27 B777-700 : Because this administration has done zilch to earn my trust. Simple really.
28 Scamp : 1. The power is too easy to abuse. 2. The constitutionality of the power is dubious at best. See point one. 3. There is absolutely no check or balanc
29 FlyVirgin744 : This coming from a Libertarian?? Its about the size of government. If government was spying on all of its citizens it would need to be huge to track e
30 Post contains links Cairo : Because of the history of government abuses of power. If world history wasn't littered with states who self-destructed in large part because the stat
31 ME AVN FAN : No it is NOT. It just is "war-talk". And that "war" will end on 20th January 2009, when a new person will move into the White House. Always to talk a
32 Post contains links Cairo : Address the causes of terrorism, namely, US policies in the Middle East that kill Arabs and Muslims. They aren't attacking America for what America i
33 SCCutler : A gentle reminder: Tax cuts inevitably lead to greater federal revenues- did when Kennedy cut 'em, and they gave done this time too. Lower taxes = mo
34 Itsjustme : Pretty much sums it up for me, as well. As for your question, MattD, "How can you be opposed to the Government collecting private data about you when
35 AerospaceFan : Actually, reasonable suspicion is already a basis for some kinds of arrest, and has been for some time. The kinds of cases in which arrests can be th
36 SATX : What has the current administration sacrificed? Our federal government has become ever more opaque even as it demands ever more information from us.
37 AerospaceFan : Why would the Administration have to sacrifice anything? How did the FDR Administration sacrifice during World War II?
38 Itsjustme : I am curious what kinds of arrests can be made based solely on suspicion without any corroborating evidence or probable cause.
39 Post contains links AerospaceFan : Stopping to frisk someone, for example, can be done on reasonable suspicion. Stopping someone is a form of arrest, as far as I can remember. For a re
40 Halls120 : As far as I know, not a single part of the Patriot Act has been successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds. What parts of the PA have no check
41 Scamp : Not yet. It gives the president far too much power with little to no oversight. Yes! Absolutely! Why not? Look, do you honestly believe that tapping
42 Halls120 : Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity? Yes, I do. Here is an excerpt from a
43 Halls120 : Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity? Yes, I do. Here is an excerpt from a
44 SATX : The ACLU has had a gag order placed on them and most of the US media doesn't seem to care what the ACLU is up to anyway, so no matter what happens in
45 Post contains images CastleIsland : Perhaps it lies in the willingness to do so. First, I'm not a left-wing fundamentalist, as it were, and I see the need for surveillance in this day a
46 Post contains images Halls120 : IOW, the Patriot Act is constitutional. You know, SATX, if your conspiracy theory was true, how do you explain the result in Hamdi?
47 Scamp : Is this the Queen Victoria "we?" Did someone just decide you speak for everyone? And a great big ol' seig heil to you, dude. Hopefully soon we will b
48 Post contains images DrDeke : See quote by SATX, below: !!! Because corporations don't have direct corporeal power over citizens. Kroger can't throw me in jail no matter how much
49 Halls120 : Not at all. Just wodered if you had anything to back up your posts other than your opinion. You know, facts. Let's see - Scamp claims that tapping ph
50 Scamp : Um, show me where I called you a name...Evidence???
51 Halls120 : So how about getting back to the issue under discussion? You claim that tapping phones won't prevent crime from occurring. I post evidence that refut
52 Itsjustme : The basic, "Ends justify the means" argument. I'd be willing to bet that we could thwart some serious crimes in their plotting stages by randomly kic
53 Halls120 : I'm not saying the end justifies the means. There needs to be close judicial supervision of all wiretap applications. My point above was in response
54 Rolfen : - One step closer to a dictatorship. - Information can be misunderstood... you could be wrongfully suspected of being a terrorist because of an email
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Strange Silence From The Anti-Bush/Anti-War Crowd posted Tue Apr 8 2003 01:19:10 by TechRep
A Question For The Hackers... posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:18:21 by Bushpilot
A Question For The Dutch Members posted Wed May 3 2006 16:39:02 by Gkirk
Question For The German Contingent posted Wed Mar 15 2006 16:38:06 by Dougloid
Question For The Weapon Experts posted Sat Oct 1 2005 19:42:56 by BR076
A Question For The Kiwis... posted Wed Jul 27 2005 12:50:54 by WunalaYann
Question For The WX Geeks posted Thu Jul 7 2005 06:05:17 by Pilottj
Question For The Aussies posted Thu Mar 31 2005 04:10:35 by N228UA
A Stupid Car Question For The Mechanics posted Thu Mar 10 2005 05:39:27 by CaptOveur
Question For The SoCal A.netters posted Sun Feb 20 2005 10:28:53 by Mdsh00