Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:25 am

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]
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:33 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:35 am

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.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
speedbird747BA
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:47 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):

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

Cheers,
Kyle
How long do I have to climb, up on the side of this mountain of mine?
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:40 am

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]
 
Duff44
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:43 am

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!
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:48 am

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]
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:53 am

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]
 
Duff44
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:59 am

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!
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privac

Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:06 am

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...
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:15 am

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.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:30 am

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 avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:38 am

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!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:59 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:20 am

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Duff44
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:36 am

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!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:42 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:10 am

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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8538
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:15 am

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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:35 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
nkops
Posts: 2156
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:45 am

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.
:evil:
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8538
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:11 pm

^
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
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:24 pm

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.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:27 pm

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:29 pm

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:34 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21):
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.

As you note, Section 203 permits the sharing of grand jury and wiretap information regarding foreign intelligence with federal law-enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national-defense and national-security personnel.

Section 203 closes a gaping loophole in federal law enforcementÕs ability to share terrorism-related information with national-defense officials and members of the intelligence community.

Before section 203 was enacted, if a federal prosecutor learned during grand jury testimony that terrorists were planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in Manhattan in the next 30 minutes, FRCP 6(e) would have prevented him from immediately notifying national-security officials.

Section 203 contains a number of privacy safeguards. An individual who receives any information under this section can use it only "in the conduct of that person's official duties." And any time grand jury information is shared, the government is required to notify the supervising court. Rules promulgated by the Attorney General govern the sharing of information that identifies a United States person. These rules require that all such information be labeled before disclosure, and handled according to specific protocols designed to ensure its appropriate use.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21):
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...

Section 215 allows the FISA court, in an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, to issue an ex parte order requiring the production of any tangible things.

Obtaining business records is a long-standing law enforcement tactic. Ordinary grand juries for years have issued subpoenas to all manner of businesses, including libraries and bookstores, for records relevant to criminal inquiries.

Your claim that Section 215 provides for no judicial supervision is false. Section 215 contains a number of safeguards that protect civil liberties. Section 215 requires FBI agents to get a court order. Agents cannot use this authority unilaterally to compel any entity to turn over its records. FISA orders are unlike grand jury subpoenas, which are requested without court supervision.

Section 215 has a narrow scope. It can only be used (1) "to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person"; or (2) "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." It cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism.

Section 215 preserves First Amendment rights. It expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations "of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Section 215 provides for congressional oversight. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented.

The fact is, Section 215 actually is more protective of privacy than the authorities for ordinary grand jury subpoenas.

A court must explicitly authorize the use of section 215 to obtain business records. By contrast, a grand jury subpoena is typically issued without any prior judicial review or approval.

Section 215 expressly protects the First Amendment, unlike federal grand jury subpoenas.

Section 215 can only be used, in investigations of U.S. persons, to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. A grand jury can obtain business records in investigations of any federal crime.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:02 pm

Matt, any particular reason you didn't respond to me?
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
B777-700
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 10:52 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:08 pm

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

Because this administration has done zilch to earn my trust.

Simple really.
If you don't chew Big Red, then @#$% you.
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:18 pm

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
WHY do you oppose such measures?

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 balance, and "national security" is more often than not a bullshit excuse. Bozo the President can call anything he wants "national security" and there is no one to call him on it. See point one.

4. Even though I have nothing to hide, I don't want anyone listening to my telephone calls. They're no one's fucking business but mine and the person on the other line. No need to see point one, you've seen it four times by now.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
FlyVirgin744
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 1999 8:35 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:27 pm

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 everyone. Therefore, taxes would go up, and money would be taken away from other things that are more important to fund it. Plus, you choose what you want to put on the internet. In spying they take what you don't want people to know, like your bank code, what porno mag you bought the last week, not things that are particularly illegal, but things you want to keep private.

And even though I have a myspace and a facebook, I give out such little information it would be useless for anything the government would be looking for.

It's also about freedom, just being able to do something knowing no other person knows about it.
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:44 pm

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
WHY do you oppose such measures?

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 state grabbed more and more power, we'd be happy with the Patriot Act. In fact, why not give ALL the power to the government? But, since history proves that a move to consolidate government power is necessarily a move to national destruction, many of us oppose the Patriot Act.

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
If Acme marketing has all of this information about you, why does it upset you that the Government might have it?

Acme marketing can try to sell you something - big deal.

The government can and does try to throw you in jail without access to an attorney*. The president can designate you a foreign comabatant out of his own prerogative, elminating your right to be brought before a court and force the government to show cause for arresting you.

As government power increases, so does government abuse and corruption, if you believe history.

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
then WHO CARES if they are watching you?

If there were some magic power in the universe that 100% guaranteed they could only use these new powers to fight terrorism, no one would have a problem with it.

Nixon used wiretapping to spy on his political enemies and tried to prevent investigations into his practices by hiding them under "national security."

The increase in government power, which can only come at a decrease of civil rights, is opposed by threatening terrorist groups like librarians.** Librarians! Doesn't this tell you something?

Show me the free nations in modern history which self destructed...compare that to the nations which collapsed or otherwise suffered disaster under the weight of an over-powerful government.

Cairo

*
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/04/national/main2153262.shtml

**
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86167,00.html
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:45 pm

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 2):
It's a war, dammit. Act like it.

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 about "war" when it simply is the permanent struggle against crime is absolute rubbish.
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:55 pm

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
So what are they supposed to do?

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 is, but for what America does in the Middle East.*

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 31):
It just is "war-talk".

Without an enemy, without fear of this enemy, government loses a lot of its power and Republicans lose their biggest weapon over the Democrats. A public without fear is the opposite of Republican strategy. No Fear = No Republican victories.

Cairo

*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

[Edited 2006-11-06 05:56:48]
 
sccutler
Posts: 5568
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:22 pm

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

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

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 = more efficient use of money.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:42 pm

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 27):
Because this administration has done zilch to earn my trust.

Simple really.

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 at the same you freely and openly give that very same data to the rest of the world?" I trust "the rest of the world" as you put it (slight embellishment there, by the way), more than I do our current government. It's not a matter of whether I have something to hide or not. I simply don't trust Bush or any of his party.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 22):

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

Geez, talk about contradicting yourself. If you didn't want to discuss whether or not we approve of Bush, then why did you title your thread, "A question for the Anti-Bush Crowd Re Privacy"? You're the one who made this a "Bush topic" right from the get go. Make up your mind man.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:53 pm

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 7):
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.

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 thrown out for lack of probable cause have been shrinking for more than a decade.

I don't know about anyone else, but if a bit of wiretapping can help save us from nuclear armageddon, that may be the price that some Americans have to pay. War needs sacrifice. Maybe this is part of that sacrifice.
What's fair is fair.
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:04 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 35):
War needs sacrifice. Maybe this is part of that sacrifice.

What has the current administration sacrificed? Our federal government has become ever more opaque even as it demands ever more information from us. The credibility of the current administration in this, and nearly every issue important to me, has been shot to hell and they've done absolute nothing to rebuild it over all these years. Everything I ever feared the Bush administration might try to get away with has already come to pass, and now they want me to accept even more? Why on earth would I support this?
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:25 pm

Quoting SATX (Reply 36):
What has the current administration sacrificed?

Why would the Administration have to sacrifice anything? How did the FDR Administration sacrifice during World War II?
What's fair is fair.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:37 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 35):
Actually, reasonable suspicion is already a basis for some kinds of arrest, and has been for some time.

I am curious what kinds of arrests can be made based solely on suspicion without any corroborating evidence or probable cause.
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:46 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 38):
I am curious what kinds of arrests can be made based solely on suspicion without any corroborating evidence or probable cause.

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 reference to a stop based on reasonable suspicion, please see:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:r...cion+stop&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Edit:]

Having just researched the matter, it appears that a stop based on reasonable suspicion is to be distinguished from a technical arrest.

Please see:

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

[Edit 2:]

According to one court case, an arrest occurs from the point of a stop:

(Excerpt)

Quote:
Arrest can thus be considered to have been a continuous process from the moment of detainer to the pronunciation of the formal words of the caution.

See:

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

The assumption I have here is that the "detainer" is the stop based on reasonable suspicion.

This, in turn, is based on the assumption that when someone stops someone else, that includes the situation in which

Quote:
...words or actions restrain him from moving anywhere beyond the control of the person effecting the arrest

Op. cit.

I remember reading somewhere else some time ago that when an officer stops you, that's technically a form of arrest. Perhaps, in the situation described in the Wiki article, this would not have been considered an arrest, but merely a stop, had the suspect not been taken into custody. But, apparently, once someone is taken into custody, then the stop is merged into the arrest. It apparently matters not that there is a "reasonable cause" (i.e., a probable cause) requirement for all arrests, in the case described.

I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, and I can't say for sure.

[Edited 2006-11-06 08:57:30]
What's fair is fair.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:09 am

Quoting Scamp (Reply 28):
2. The constitutionality of the power is dubious at best. See point one.

As far as I know, not a single part of the Patriot Act has been successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Quoting Scamp (Reply 28):
There is absolutely no check or balance, and "national security" is more often than not a bullshit excuse. Bozo the President can call anything he wants "national security" and there is no one to call him on it. See point one.

What parts of the PA have no checks or balances?

Quoting Scamp (Reply 28):
Even though I have nothing to hide, I don't want anyone listening to my telephone calls. They're no one's fucking business but mine and the person on the other line.

So let's say two people are using the phone to plan the commission of your murder. Are you suggesting that they have the absolute right to use the phone in this manner?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:15 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
As far as I know, not a single part of the Patriot Act has been successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds

Not yet.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
What parts of the PA have no checks or balances?

It gives the president far too much power with little to no oversight.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
So let's say two people are using the phone to plan the commission of your murder. Are you suggesting that they have the absolute right to use the phone in this manner?

Yes! Absolutely! Why not? Look, do you honestly believe that tapping the phones of two people who want to commit murder badly enough is going to stop them??? It makes me fuckin' sick that people are such cowards (yes, I said "coward" and I would call them that to their faces) that people want to spy on other people on the random chance that they might overhear two (or more) people potentially plotting a crime. Talking about committing a crime and actually committing it are two entirely different things. And if you don't commit the crime but just talked about it, there is no crime??? And shit like this is all about what Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In the event that two people were plotting murder, I think I would be more interested in knowing why they wanted to murder rather than what means they were using to discuss it...then challenge the problem.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:57 am

Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):What parts of the PA have no checks or balances?
It gives the president far too much power with little to no oversight.

Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity?

Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
Yes! Absolutely! Why not? Look, do you honestly believe that tapping the phones of two people who want to commit murder badly enough is going to stop them???

Yes, I do. Here is an excerpt from a deposition executed by then-FBI Director Freeh:

Quote:
Many violent crimes, including murder, torture, and kidnaping have been successfully prosecuted (and a significant number prevented or curtailed) by law enforcement's use of electronic surveillance:

In 1990, electronic surveillance of New York City's Green Dragon gang, which got its marching orders via telephone from an individual in the People's Republic of China, disclosed that the gang was about to engage in a shoot out with a rival Asian gang. Acting immediately upon this information, law enforcement arrested sixteen gang members, preventing an imminent violent confrontation and bloodshed.

In another 1990 case, electronic surveillance assisted in the FBI's successful efforts to thwart two individuals who were conspiring to abduct, torture, and kill a teenage boy for the purpose of making a "snuff murder" film.

Pen registers and other court-authorized electronic surveillance utilized in the
investigation of a New England organized crime family in the early 1980s enabled the FBI to intercept conversations among members of the crime family, wherein the murders of three individuals were planned and details concerning six prior murders were discussed. The FBI was able to prevent two of the three planned murders (but unfortunately was unable to locate the third victim in time to prevent his murder).

In 1994, law enforcement was able to rescue four kidnaped Chinese nationals as a result of intercepting the telephone conversations of the kidnapers.



Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
It makes me fuckin' sick that people are such cowards (yes, I said "coward" and I would call them that to their faces) that people want to spy on other people on the random chance that they might overhear two (or more) people potentially plotting a crime.

Amazing.

Let's change the scenario. A policeman is standing on the street, and hears two people discussing an impending murder. Are you suggesting the cop should do nothing to stop them
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:59 am

Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):What parts of the PA have no checks or balances?
It gives the president far too much power with little to no oversight.

Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity?

Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
Yes! Absolutely! Why not? Look, do you honestly believe that tapping the phones of two people who want to commit murder badly enough is going to stop them???

Yes, I do. Here is an excerpt from a deposition executed by then-FBI Director Freeh:

Quote:
Many violent crimes, including murder, torture, and kidnaping have been successfully prosecuted (and a significant number prevented or curtailed) by law enforcement's use of electronic surveillance:

In 1990, electronic surveillance of New York City's Green Dragon gang, which got its marching orders via telephone from an individual in the People's Republic of China, disclosed that the gang was about to engage in a shoot out with a rival Asian gang. Acting immediately upon this information, law enforcement arrested sixteen gang members, preventing an imminent violent confrontation and bloodshed.

In another 1990 case, electronic surveillance assisted in the FBI's successful efforts to thwart two individuals who were conspiring to abduct, torture, and kill a teenage boy for the purpose of making a "snuff murder" film.

Pen registers and other court-authorized electronic surveillance utilized in the
investigation of a New England organized crime family in the early 1980s enabled the FBI to intercept conversations among members of the crime family, wherein the murders of three individuals were planned and details concerning six prior murders were discussed. The FBI was able to prevent two of the three planned murders (but unfortunately was unable to locate the third victim in time to prevent his murder).

In 1994, law enforcement was able to rescue four kidnaped Chinese nationals as a result of intercepting the telephone conversations of the kidnapers.

Since the evidence clearly indicates that wiretaps DO save lifes, how can you maintain your position that they not be utilized? Are you a supporter of the right of people to murder each other?

Quoting Scamp (Reply 41):
It makes me fuckin' sick that people are such cowards (yes, I said "coward" and I would call them that to their faces) that people want to spy on other people on the random chance that they might overhear two (or more) people potentially plotting a crime.

Amazing.

Let's change the scenario. A policeman is standing on the street, and hears two people discussing an impending murder. Are you suggesting the cop should do nothing to stop them?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privac

Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:09 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):
As far as I know, not a single part of the Patriot Act has been successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds.

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 the case you'll probably never hear about it until it's run its entire course. Even then you probably won't hear much of anything about it unless the ACLU manages to prevail. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has recently been re-stocked with justices who are unlikely to hold the government fully accountable for their actions and to question their evidence and motives. Thus, I'm not exactly expecting a fair fight for this one.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:30 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 17):
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?

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 and age, but the difference I see is one of choice.

We have computers, and, making our choice, many of us are willing to have cookies, etc. associated with many of the websites we visit. Wire-tapping is not our choice. Therein lies the rub for me.

That said, I see no way that my right to privacy has been infringed thus far. Then again, the knock on the door has not happened yet.  Wink
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:12 pm

Quoting SATX (Reply 44):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):As far as I know, not a single part of the Patriot Act has been successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds.
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 the case you'll probably never hear about it until it's run its entire course. Even then you probably won't hear much of anything about it unless the ACLU manages to prevail. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has recently been re-stocked with justices who are unlikely to hold the government fully accountable for their actions and to question their evidence and motives. Thus, I'm not exactly expecting a fair fight for this one.

 rotfl  IOW, the Patriot Act is constitutional. You know, SATX, if your conspiracy theory was true, how do you explain the result in Hamdi?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:30 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):
Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity?

Is this the Queen Victoria "we?" Did someone just decide you speak for everyone?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43):
Yes, I do. Here is an excerpt from a deposition executed by then-FBI Director Freeh:

Quote:
Many violent crimes, including murder, torture, and kidnaping have been successfully prosecuted (and a significant number prevented or curtailed) by law enforcement's use of electronic surveillance:

In 1990, electronic surveillance of New York City's Green Dragon gang, which got its marching orders via telephone from an individual in the People's Republic of China, disclosed that the gang was about to engage in a shoot out with a rival Asian gang. Acting immediately upon this information, law enforcement arrested sixteen gang members, preventing an imminent violent confrontation and bloodshed.

In another 1990 case, electronic surveillance assisted in the FBI's successful efforts to thwart two individuals who were conspiring to abduct, torture, and kill a teenage boy for the purpose of making a "snuff murder" film.

Pen registers and other court-authorized electronic surveillance utilized in the
investigation of a New England organized crime family in the early 1980s enabled the FBI to intercept conversations among members of the crime family, wherein the murders of three individuals were planned and details concerning six prior murders were discussed. The FBI was able to prevent two of the three planned murders (but unfortunately was unable to locate the third victim in time to prevent his murder).

In 1994, law enforcement was able to rescue four kidnaped Chinese nationals as a result of intercepting the telephone conversations of the kidnapers.

Since the evidence clearly indicates that wiretaps DO save lifes, how can you maintain your position that they not be utilized? Are you a supporter of the right of people to murder each other?

And a great big ol' seig heil to you, dude. Hopefully soon we will be encouraged to report our neighbors when we suspect the commitment of un-American activities on their part. My European and Canadian friends are right: Americans are becoming a bunch of paranoid sissies.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43):
Amazing.

Let's change the scenario. A policeman is standing on the street, and hears two people discussing an impending murder. Are you suggesting the cop should do nothing to stop them?



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43):
Amazing.

Let's change the scenario. A policeman is standing on the street, and hears two people discussing an impending murder. Are you suggesting the cop should do nothing to stop them?

Well, of course! And pretty soon, when we can read other people's minds, we'll have the thought police come and take them away! Give me a break! You people just won't be happy until we're the United States of Nazism. Go away.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:34 pm

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.

See quote by SATX, below:

Quoting SATX (Reply 9):

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.

 checkmark  !!!



Quoting Matt D (Reply 17):
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?

Because corporations don't have direct corporeal power over citizens. Kroger can't throw me in jail no matter how much information they collect about me on my grocery discount card. The government can. That makes it a completely different matter.


-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy

Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:48 pm

Quoting Scamp (Reply 47):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):Your opinion, of course, and since you can't point to a specific, why should we give your opinion any validity?
Is this the Queen Victoria "we?" Did someone just decide you speak for everyone?

Not at all. Just wodered if you had anything to back up your posts other than your opinion. You know, facts.

Quoting Scamp (Reply 47):
And a great big ol' seig heil to you, dude. Hopefully soon we will be encouraged to report our neighbors when we suspect the commitment of un-American activities on their part. My European and Canadian friends are right: Americans are becoming a bunch of paranoid sissies.

Let's see - Scamp claims that tapping phones won't prevent crime from occuring. I post evidence that refutes his claim. Scamp insinutes that I'm a Nazi.

Makes perfect sense to him, I guess.

Quoting Scamp (Reply 47):
Amazing.

Let's change the scenario. A policeman is standing on the street, and hears two people discussing an impending murder. Are you suggesting the cop should do nothing to stop them?
Well, of course! And pretty soon, when we can read other people's minds, we'll have the thought police come and take them away! Give me a break! You people just won't be happy until we're the United States of Nazism. Go away.

Ah, when all else fails engage in name calling instead of addressing the issues. Is this what I have to look forward to when I'm as old as you?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Tugger and 11 guests