More bush BS...

[Toma]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm

He authorized "spying" on people with ties to "known terrorsits" inside the US... unauthorzied wire taps etc...
lmao

Well, we already know that's BS...they dont "know" shiat lol

[5hift]

I have a hard time believing illegal US government wiretaps are a new thing that just came up in Bush's presidency term.

[5.0]

Originally posted by 5hift
I have a hard time believing illegal US government wiretaps are a new thing that just came up in Bush's presidency term.

[Cyruss12]

They have been using wire taps since Hoover.

[Toma]

They also used nukes, napalm and torture.... but times change towards the more civilized and increasing human rights.

doesn't change that it is illegal, immoral, and given this administrations history, probably completely unwarranted, and did no good whatsoever.

[FatboyTheHungry]

This is already public knowledge. Bush is just pissed that it is in the paper now.

[Cyruss12]

Well heres the deal, Im an American and whatever makes my country safer is alright with me. they might be "infringing" on my rights but i have nothing to hide so it doesnt bother me, and it shouldnt bother anyone else who doesnt have anything to hide. things changed after 9/11 all the rights arent but and dry anymore and for Toma who isnt even American you should be less worried about what our country is doing.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Cyruss12
Well heres the deal, Im an American and whatever makes my country safer is alright with me. they might be "infringing" on my rights but i have nothing to hide so it doesnt bother me, and it shouldnt bother anyone else who doesnt have anything to hide. things changed after 9/11 all the rights arent but and dry anymore and for Toma who isnt even American you should be less worried about what our country is doing.

Bwuhahaha - most Americans would lynch you for giving away your freedoms like that.

See, since you don't have anything to hide, why not allow police the power to search you, your car, or your house at any time? How about the power to take anyone at anytime in for interogation? Oh wait, that would be Nazi Germany.

Trading privacy and individual rights in exchange for the illusion of safety is (or was) pretty much the total opposite of everything America stands for.

Khyron

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by Toma
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm

He authorized "spying" on people with ties to "known terrorsits" inside the US... unauthorzied wire taps etc...
lmao

Well, we already know that's BS...they dont "know" shiat lol

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by Cyruss12
Well heres the deal, Im an American and whatever makes my country safer is alright with me. they might be "infringing" on my rights but i have nothing to hide so it doesnt bother me, and it shouldnt bother anyone else who doesnt have anything to hide. things changed after 9/11 all the rights arent but and dry anymore and for Toma who isnt even American you should be less worried about what our country is doing.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.— Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

[iceburns288]

Originally posted by Cyruss12
Well heres the deal, Im an American and whatever makes my country safer is alright with me. they might be "infringing" on my rights but i have nothing to hide so it doesnt bother me, and it shouldnt bother anyone else who doesnt have anything to hide. things changed after 9/11 all the rights arent but and dry anymore and for Toma who isnt even American you should be less worried about what our country is doing.

Get out of this country. I want my freedom.

[Carfanman]

Interesting article...

If they are known to be terrorists, or have links to terrorists, I don't give a damn about whether or not their rights have been violated. If he was tapping random people, then I'd object. As far as we know, these people were terrorists.
If this "breach of privacy" stopped another nine eleven, while infringing on terrorists "rights" would it be worth it?

He is right to be pissed at the NY Times. This IS confidential information and it IS illegal to be sharing it with the public.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.— Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

I'm not giving up my essential liberties, I'm giving up the terrorists' essential liberties.
Fuck the terrorists.

When they start tapping MY phone, then we'll talk.

[Khyron]

Like they have big tattoos on their foreheads saying "Terrorist".

If you have proof they're terrorists then arrest them, or get a warrant for the tap. But the whole point of this is to let them tap anyone who they think MIGHT be.

If you can't see the danger in that, we can't spell it out for you. But it's many times worse than any 9/11.

Khyron

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Carfanman
Interesting article...

If they are known to be terrorists, or have links to terrorists, I don't give a damn about whether or not their rights have been violated.

If they are known to be terrorists, or have links to terrorists, they wouldn't need to be tapped, would they?

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Khyron
Like they have big tattoos on their foreheads saying "Terrorist".

If you have proof they're terrorists then arrest them, or get a warrant for the tap. But the whole point of this is to let them tap anyone who they think MIGHT be.

If you can't see the danger in that, we can't spell it out for you. But it's many times worse than any 9/11.

Khyron

I don't agree with you on some threads but you hit it right on the head here, couldn't be said much simpler or better.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Khyron
Like they have big tattoos on their foreheads saying "Terrorist".

If you have proof they're terrorists then arrest them, or get a warrant for the tap. But the whole point of this is to let them tap anyone who they think MIGHT be.

If you can't see the danger in that, we can't spell it out for you. But it's many times worse than any 9/11.

Khyron

I wouldn't mind if a police officer searched my car for guns or drugs - I've got nothing to hide, and there's a better chance they'll get the gang members. But things such as unauthorized phone taps are crossing the line, that's for sure.

I'm just happy I don't live in the Patriot Act-ified USA.

[Atombomb]

Liberty is not the ability to do certain guaranteed things, that is an idea put forth by the enlightenment. These people believe that they are able to secure their personal liberties in a social trust.

Liberty is the ability to act with out coercive force. Plain and simple.

A wire tap is only infringing only on the Liberties that were outlined in the European enlightenment. They believe this is a violation of their social trust.

If the marines came into my home forcefully searching my property for terrorists, this would be a direct violation of my individual liberty.

However, a wiretap designed to find coercive agents is only infringing on societies liberty which cannot address an individual because an individual is abstracted from everyday society. The threat an individual terrorist posses to other individuals is an effort to coerce. Pursuing these agents simply excentuates my liberties to be free from the coercsion

[Carfanman]

Bush said that they were known terrorists. I made my posts based on that. Obviously if they weren't terrorists for sure, then that's different.
Maybe the government has a bit more info than you do? I'm not saying it's impossible that they are lying and it was only a hunch, but I find it unlikely. If that's not the case, and they didn't know beyond a shadow of doubt that they were terrorists, then it's not all right. And I never said it was. I stated over and over that I didn't care about their rights IF THEY WERE TERRORISTS.

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Carfanman
Bush said that they were known terrorists. I made my posts based on that. Obviously if they weren't terrorists for sure, then that's different.
Maybe the government has a bit more info than you do? I'm not saying it's impossible that they are lying and it was only a hunch, but I find it unlikely. If that's not the case, and they didn't know beyond a shadow of doubt that they were terrorists, then it's not all right. And I never said it was. I stated over and over that I didn't care about their rights IF THEY WERE TERRORISTS.

Logically(and there is not always anything logical about the Bush government) if they were known terrorists then to obtain the wire taps legally with a court order would have been easy. However Bush did not however say they were terrorists, only that they were linked or associated one way or another with a known suspected terrorist, and that can be stretched along long way for example.........Hairdresser Lucy cuts terror suspect Hassims hair....Lucy could now be linked to Hassim, or...... known terror suspect Hassim took a cab driven by Tom to the airport, Tom could now be "linked" to Hassim. Bush has refused to say exactly what "linked" means but either way to me it seems wrong.

[Atombomb]

Originally posted by eljefe


Logically(and there is not always anything logical about the Bush government) if they were known terrorists then to obtain the wire taps legally with a court order would have been easy. However Bush did not however say they were terrorists, only that they were linked or associated one way or another with a known suspected terrorist, and that can be stretched along long way for example.........Hairdresser Lucy cuts terror suspect Hassims hair....Lucy could now be linked to Hassim, or...... known terror suspect Hassim took a cab driven by Tom to the airport, Tom could now be "linked" to Hassim. Bush has refused to say exactly what "linked" means but either way to me it seems wrong.

How did the consuls fight foreign aggressors in ancient Rome? Why is it that they were elected dictator? Is the American system of government not like that of ancient rome, and by extension ancient Greece? Why did Rome make effectual practises such as these?

Once again this argument assumes that individuals liberties can be identified distinctly from society, while still maintaining societal liberty. See post above.