Thread: The Patriot Act, part 2

Bush signs new rules on government wiretapping.

Quoting the lead in: "WASHINGTON - President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases."

That paragraph alone would seem to be an implicit (explicit, IMO) admission that the companies and the government were, together, knowingly breaking the law. It's nice to know that they can now do it at will.


Another hole in that dike we call The Constitution. We're gonna' run out of fingers and toes pretty soon.

If they keep this up, we'll soon be known as the U.S.S.A. ...

You mean you don't have confidence in your government? I'm sure they would never even think of breaking the law or taking away any of your rights. Muaha.

WARNING: This thread is in direct opposition to the U.S. federal laws and has been reported to government officials. We have the right and will envoke it to monitor this thread and others as we see fit. Your home phone, work phone and cell phone have now been tapped in view of this security breach. We will be monitoring your activity in the coming weeks. Should the need arise we shall bring you on for 'correction'. Big brother has spoken.

You can complain about the government not protecting us before 9/11 or the loss of some privacies afterward . . . you just can't do both. Either your pro intelligence gathering or your pro terrorism, your choice.

Can I be pro common sense?

Yes, but you'll note its not common.

the whole fuss regarding these "warrant less" wiretaps of calls to foreign nations is just a complete bunch of Bull SHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is a call to a foreign nation, and not covered by the 4th amendment. The sovereign (country) has an absolute right to protect itself against foreign threats, and when you make a call to a foreign nation, that call should be subject to eaves dropping.

I know, I know, insert here "violation of due process, violation of right to privacy, violation of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH)

When you travel to a foreign nation, and come back into the country you are subject to complete (and I mean complete) search. i.e. bring out the KY! and you can't do a darn thing about it. The government employees (customs officials) don't like your hair, don't like the way you are walking, don't like where you are coming from. BAM, you are searched, down to your internal organs if they wish. And being a US citizen does not exempt you from this.

Here you make an international phone call, from inside the USA, and all of a sudden you don't have to worry about being searched?? HELL NO!! Information is power, and the transmittal of this information to foreign nations/groups is subject to search. The telecommunication industries should be granted immunity for these actions, as they were assisting the government perform a function well withing the abilities and powers we citizens have given to the government. You don't like it? Change it. Petition for a change in the law.

Matt

Hi folks,

I think a lot of the information concerned had to do with SOF teams of various sorts intercepting phone calls in Afghanistan and Iraq from known terrorists they were tracking. When those known terrorists called numbers within the U.S. originally the intent was to find out who the terrorist was contacting (and perhaps why) as in the 9/11 attack. Supposedly it prevented several attacks from being successful. After this was challenged, US forces pretty much lost all practical use of this, as they had to hang up the phone as soon as there was a possibility the terrorist was calling one of his or her contacts within the United States. When warrants became required even for phone intercepts actually occurring in other nations, it became an impossibility. Phone calls simply do not last long enough to get a warrant to listen to the call and find out who it is to.
As for wiretapping in the states, it is generally accepted that the Clinton administration practiced this widely as have others, however these days everything is about who is doing it and what spin the media throws at it.

Personally I have mixed feelings on the subject. I feel that known terrorists' phone calls outside the country should be fair game, no matter who he or she is calling. On the other hand I do not feel there should be a mandate for practicing this within the country specifically targeting US citizens at random. There have to be checks and balances to such a system, IMHO.

Still, if Americans really wanted the smaller less intrusive government they claim to, why do candidates supporting such things never get much publicity? As Americans, I think we have a somewhat misguided desire to have the government do everything for us, e.g. protection, comprehensive medical care,(wow those Europeans have it so NICE we lie to ourselves) retirement, etc. etc. but then we pronounce loudly their opinions that this same government cannot manage anything in a trustworthy manner, taxes us to death, and that it should stay out of our lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot have both. Smaller government and the freedoms that come with it-are the result of taking a lot more responsibility for ourselves.
Just my opinions, anyway.

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

As for wiretapping in the states, it is generally accepted that the Clinton administration practiced this widely as have others, however these days everything is about who is doing it and what spin the media throws at it.

Personally I have mixed feelings on the subject. I feel that known terrorists' phone calls outside the country should be fair game, no matter who he or she is calling. On the other hand I do not feel there should be a mandate for practicing this within the country specifically targeting US citizens at random. There have to be checks and balances to such a system, IMHO.

Yup. It's all about accountability. People are forgetting why FISA came about in the first place.

ok, let's call a spade a spade, and not kid ourselves for a second that this is intended to protect us. it's intended to control us.

7 years ago this fall, terrorists killed somewhat less than 5,000 people. tragic, really. but in the end, so what? 5,000 people is negligible. a hundred times that many are killed every year by the 3 C's: cancer, car wrecks, and cholesterol. why don't we declare war on those things? obviously we aren't trying to protect peoples' lives... even if 9/11 happened EVERY YEAR it would still be a negligible amount of people that died. harsh but true.

I'd rather take my chances, each year, of being one of the 5,000 out of almost 300,000,000 Americans that could possibly be killed, than to have my life ruined by a bunch of spineless beauracrats who think they know what's best for me. hell, why not, my odds are still better of living through such a chance than braving Dallas rush hour every morning, yet no one wants to legislate bad driving away, even though it is ultimately responsible for taking 50 lives for every 1 taken by terrorism in this country.

go read 1984 and weep for what our country has become. I know I have.


/rant