Bush is distorting the issue of spying on americans....

He says, "If al Qaeda is communicating with someone in this country, we want to know why..." Uh, yeah? Doesn't everyone? But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Mr Bush has been spying on average Americans or political opponents? How can we ever know if there is no oversight? Are we supposed to simply trust him? Like we did when he said there were WMDs in Iraq? And other lies too numerous to mention. He shouldn't be permitted to twist his law-breaking into such a rationale. As if nobody but him wants to know if al Qaeda is calling into this country. The law is the law, GEORGE, and you are not above it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he said he could do it legally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What else would the fool say? Senate Judiciary Hearings begin Feb. 6, 2006 to determine the truth of whether it is legal or not. Even many republicans have doubts. They fucking better have doubts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've quoted Section II of the US Constitution elsewhere.

The President has no such duty, nor provisional power, according to the USC.

No statement by the US's 80th Atty Gen thusfar has referenced a single sentence or paragraph of the USC, nor any domestic or international law case, nor treaty supporting his bogus assertions; as recently as this week, Gonzo Gonzalez has simply declared "the President has the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps" by fiat.

Grounds for removal from his job if Gonzo is either THAT incompetent, negligent, or unethical (simply lying for his Quid-Pro-Quo-appointer's benefit).

 

George thinks he is above the law, he wants to be king, hence the appointment of Alito. The question is what can we do to stop it? We will see today if the democrats will fillibuster.

 

Ah too bad nobody was talking this kind of crap when Clinton did the same thing...

Why do you wish for Gonzales to quote the Constitution? No other part of the US government gives a damn about anything that the Constitution says, so why should only the president be held to it?

When will art 1 sec 8 be respected?

10th amendment?

When will judicial activism become illegal?

 

When did Clinton wiretap Americans without a warrant?
Your reasoning that the Constitution was already being ignored, therefore Bush can ignore it is not worthy of consideration.
Article 1 Section 8?

Which part isn't being respected?

The phrase "judicial activism" is a piece of propaganda. Judges are free to make their determinations within the context of their own values. Conservative judges do it as well as liberal ones.

 

You know honestly, the people that are worried about this are the people that have something to hide. I was talking to someone the other day and I said, you know if they spied on my phone conversations, they would be completely bored and tune out in 2.5 seconds.

The political people who are concerned about this issue aren't concerned about the constitution or what's right or wrong, but they are worried about their own asses. The thought of the power of the government to be able to spy on their (the politicians) conversations is what scares them. One thing is for sure, politicians have something to hide.

I think it has been made pretty clear that the government isn't "spying" on me, my wife, or the people I work with, but they are listening in on those who have terrorist ties or if certain words are pulled out during a conversation. I am sure there is a whole framework to how this all works, but I'm sure it's not as simple as, "Hey Hillary Clinton is making a call, lets listen in"

I don't know whatever happened to it and I believe it is happening in other countries (outside USA), but remember the Airport X-Ray machines that allowed a person to basically see through a persons clothes to try and detect weapons and such. It pretty much allowed someone to see you nude in attempts to protect civilians and eliminate searches. I would venture to say that this airport security measure is a bigger violation of rights than listening in on phone conversations.

 

Politicians do have something to hide, their strategy, which is no one's business but their own. Can a football game be fair if one team stole the other's playbook? Spying on the strategy of politicians is the kind of criminal action that forced Nixon to resign. If Republicans have the political advantage of the world's greatest intelligence agency at their disposal, and the Democrats do not, so long democracy, it was nice while it lasted.

Besides, you have no idea wether or not the government is spying on you. All you have to go on is their word, which they have already proved is worthless.

 

Politicians have more than strategy to hide, but anyway, based on their word which is all you can really go off of at this point, they gave their intent, so you believe it 100%, 50%, or not at all.(or some variant) I would say you would be stretching big time to say that they were stealing democratic songs for the grand opera. You would be not only be not believing them at all, but taking your opinions a step further by offering prophetic/psychic insight into what they were really up to. If you had such powers, I would hope that you wouldn't be posting your opinions on sciforums, but you would be out helping the world for good with your powers.

I understand you haven't accused the republicans or Bush of doing this, but I have heard others make the remark that the spying was really on the Democrats and it was under a guise of sifting out terrorists.

 

Bullshit about having something to hide.

Just as you say afterwards:

That's exactly the same reason why people don't want to be wiretapped, have their internet searches logged, have their computer searched through, or any other sort of domestic spying done. Why? As you mentioned with the X-ray machine, it's pretty fuckin' uncomfortable to have done! Oh, but those people just have things to hide, like their gut and cottage cheese asses by not wanting to be seen nude or they're just highly insecure. But this is all for the security of our country. You should be willing to pay that price.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please, give me your address. Since you have nothing to hide, I want to watch you watch TV. I want to look at you while you take a crap on the toilet. I want to watch you have sex with your husband/wife. I want to see you take your kids to school. I want to hear what kind of pizza you're ordering on the phone. I wanna know what book you're reading. I wanna know what time and date your next Bingo party is. I wanna know what you buy with your credit cards and also dig through your trash.

You have nothing to hide, no? Those are all harmless activities you're doing so you shouldn't mind me watching over you. Oh, but you do? What, you're uncomfortable with it and you should be able to have a right to privacy? Well there you have it!

Having something to hide; that's the biggest friggin' copout of an excuse ever. It's so laughable and absurd that someone could actually use that as defense for allowing the government to spy on its citizens. Freakin' morons, I swear.

- N

 

So angrybell, quigly, etc....

Do you honestly think it's fine for the president of the US to break the law? That doesn't concern you in the least?

 

We are talking about phone conversations, which is very different than the other items listed wouldn't you say? If you don't recognize the difference than your either ignorant or just stupid.

 

We shouldn't have to trust in the restraint of our elected officials. We have a rule of law that is supposed to limit their powers, otherwise it's no different than a dictator.

The fact is, the Bush administration HAS been spying on peace activists, such as the Quakers. Maybe they are spying on members of their own party to keep them in line with administration policy.

 

It doesn't matter because one can pick up all that information off of nothing but phone calls. And if you also think domestic spying is limited to only phone calls, you're only kidding yourself.

Those other examples I gave were to show how uncomfortable it can be simply being spied on. Hell, just having someone watch your kids walk to school is bad enough even if there is no harmful intention. All of those examples are simple things that doesn't require anything to hide, but is still pretty damned uncomfortable.

I don't see how you don't mind someone listening in on your phone calls yet not other activities. There's a reason why it's illegal to look and spy into someone's window or even listen in on people's phone conversations with a short range radio or a cordless phone. But you don't mind it? Cool, again, gimme your address and I'll have some fun. Yep, you won't realize I'm having fun, I'll promise to be trustworthy, but I'll be enjoying myself. Oh, and I'll also limit it to just using a cordless phone to pick up on your phone calls. Afterall, you've nothing to hide.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Yeah right, you propogandist, conspiracy theorist. Our government would NEVER dare waste their time spying on unimportant people such as them. You're just paranoid and I bet them Quakers have something to hide, if they were, in fact, spied on, which I doubt since our government would never waste their time on them in the first place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Neildo,

It is quite possible that I live a much more boring life than you, but if you looked in my window tonight, I would be either making dinner or watching TV on the couch while eating dinner. Maybe jumping on the computer a bit and helping straighten up the house. Any phone conversation I would get would most likely be from a telemarketer or someone wanting to talk about nothing for 10 minutes. The difference between some stranger looking in my window or monitoring my calls is intent. I wouldn't know their intentions, whereas the government has stated their intentions. If their intentions were to get off on watching me watch TV, well, I don't know what to say about that, but I'm not that good looking. If we trust that the governments true intention is to sift through and unravel terrorist plots and ploys, then I would say ok. If their intention is to "get off", then it would be a different scenario.

You will argue that the government isn't "trust worthy", but I don't completely buy that. I believe it takes a lot for a government to work properly and them not revealing the whole truth on certain issues is classified and I'll probably never know the truth or extent of why they do or did this or that, but that is most likely how every government is. As far as intentions, I do not see the government as out to get me and my family. I truelly believe the powers that be are trying to keep America a "free nation".

 

the major problem with this whole situation is
the definition of terrorism or of terrorist

 

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists"
George W. Bush

Unless there is some minimal oversight, such as the FISA court, which I have a problem with anyway, since it's mostly a rubber stamp, there is no way to know for sure what the Bush administration is doing with their newly found wiretapping powers. They aren't allowed unlimited surveillance power on Americans, end of story. The Quaker thing is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Why peace activists, and not, for instance, the KKK? Because peace activists oppose administration policy.

Quigly, you should consider the issue beyond your boring life. They can wiretap suspected terrorists while staying within the FISA laws, you must question why they would chose to circumvent a process already as user-friendly as it could possibly be.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "

George W. Bush

 

Quigly, you fail to realize that the government are people too. Our government isn't run by Jesus and Buddha incarnates.

Here, have some fun and watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on the Patriot Act. It's amusing and shows the nature of we humans.

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1131534171/Penn_amp;_Teller_Bull****_Patriot_Act

- N