NSA building massive database of phone records

[Arlos]

Taking over the world, naw. He's antagonized too many other countries to get away with taking over the world. In the US, however, he sure as hell is ruling without any appreciable check from Congress. Even when they pass a law, like reaffirming the ban on torture, he just issues a presidential finding stating that he'll take it under advisement, but plans on ignoring it if he feels like it. (that's exactly what he did do, by the way.)

If Clinton could get impeached for lying about getting a blow job, WTF is nothing being done to Bush for all the crap he's doing? (warrantless wiretaps, ignoring the will of congress, etc.) Mind boggling.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I'm just saying... if the government decides to engage in some wiretapping in the name of national security then so be it. Nobody in government cares about you calling your grandma to wish her a happy birthday, or if you call you friend to talk about the game, or if you call a coworker to discuss business issues. If you're not regularly communicating to somebody in the middle east then you're probably not going to be wiretapped. The government shouldn't have to obtain a warrant to listen in on suspicious people. The government should be given carte blanche to investigate whomever they feel may be a threat to national security, no matter how they go about doing it.

[Arlos]

In the name of National Security is the "warrant." Just think of it that way and you'll be fine.

Oh hell no. Before I comment more on this, let me introduce you to something you seem to be ignoring:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Show me where in there there's an exception for "Except in the case of National Security"? You can't, because it's not there. There are NO exceptions to the requirement for the government to follow the due process of law in dealing with its citizenry. The Constitution is *NOT* some old piece of paper you can conveniently ignore whenever you happen to feel it would be expedient.

If you want to change it so that the government can unilaterally decide what is and is not a case of "National Security" and thus ignore all existing statutes, then feel free to get such a change passed as a Constitutional Amendment. Somehow, I think you're not very far with such a campaign, but as I said: it's your right as an American.

-Arlos

[Donnel]

I'm just saying... if the government decides to engage in some wiretapping in the name of national security then so be it. Nobody in government cares about you calling your grandma to wish her a happy birthday, or if you call you friend to talk about the game, or if you call a coworker to discuss business issues. If you're not regularly communicating to somebody in the middle east then you're probably not going to be wiretapped. The government shouldn't have to obtain a warrant to listen in on suspicious people. The government should be given carte blanche to investigate whomever they feel may be a threat to national security, no matter how they go about doing it.

]
No


Just no...

And you call yourself a conservative?

[Narrock]

I'm just saying... if the government decides to engage in some wiretapping in the name of national security then so be it. Nobody in government cares about you calling your grandma to wish her a happy birthday, or if you call you friend to talk about the game, or if you call a coworker to discuss business issues. If you're not regularly communicating to somebody in the middle east then you're probably not going to be wiretapped. The government shouldn't have to obtain a warrant to listen in on suspicious people. The government should be given carte blanche to investigate whomever they feel may be a threat to national security, no matter how they go about doing it.

]
No


Just no...

And you call yourself a conservative?

lol how is my stance not being conservative? Conservatives are in favor of the greater good of America. The greater good of America is keeping our people safe and secure. If you start demanding warrants for observing, wire-tapping, home searches, etc. in the name of your "rights" you're going to start seeing more and more terrorist activities on our own soil. No thanks.

[Zanchief]

Conservatives are in favor of the greater good of America.

Shit, that simplifies things for me.

[Hatak]

If you start demanding warrants for observing, wire-tapping, home searches, etc. in the name of your "rights" you're going to start seeing more and more terrorist activities on our own soil. No thanks.

I thought this was the land of "innocent until proven guilty" and not the other way around? So let's allow the government to spy on its own citizens just to make sure we're not terrorists. After all, you know we're all suspects!

[Arlos]

So, Mindia, let me get this straight: You're advocating the following:

1) Completely ignoring the Constitution

2) Giving the government uniloateral power to decide who is and is not a "threat to national security"

3) The complete stripping of all rights from anyone, whether innocent or not, who the government claims is such a threat.

4) No checks on government's power over its citizens: ie, if they decide they want to, they can make people disappear in the middle of the night, with no recourse.


There's more that your stance implies, but that's just an initial 4.

See, there used to be a society that had all those things. It was known as Soviet Russia in the 1950s and 60s. What you're advocating would lead to the US becoming a modern totalitarian state. It is the Constitution and the concurrent forcing of the Government to abide by LAW that is what protects us all from degenerating to situations like Russia or Nazi Germany.

I can actually understand Donnel's comment. I was always under the impression that most conservatives were in favor of a completely strict reading of the Constitution, and holdint it to be the final authhority, even arguing against powers the US Government had taken upon itself that are not enumerated there, such as Income Tax, etc. You are advocating completely ignoring the Constitution as if it never existed, which is completely counter to the entire history of this nation.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Fascism != Conservatism.

In fact, it is more in line with socialism/liberalism that wants Govt to be the be all end all, instead of lean and out of the way.

[Narrock]

So, Mindia, let me get this straight: You're advocating the following:

1) Completely ignoring the Constitution

2) Giving the government uniloateral power to decide who is and is not a "threat to national security"

3) The complete stripping of all rights from anyone, whether innocent or not, who the government claims is such a threat.

4) No checks on government's power over its citizens: ie, if they decide they want to, they can make people disappear in the middle of the night, with no recourse.


There's more that your stance implies, but that's just an initial 4.

See, there used to be a society that had all those things. It was known as Soviet Russia in the 1950s and 60s. What you're advocating would lead to the US becoming a modern totalitarian state. It is the Constitution and the concurrent forcing of the Government to abide by LAW that is what protects us all from degenerating to situations like Russia or Nazi Germany.

I can actually understand Donnel's comment. I was always under the impression that most conservatives were in favor of a completely strict reading of the Constitution, and holdint it to be the final authhority, even arguing against powers the US Government had taken upon itself that are not enumerated there, such as Income Tax, etc. You are advocating completely ignoring the Constitution as if it never existed, which is completely counter to the entire history of this nation.

-Arlos

All I got out of that was liberal bias/spin. And Donnel's statement would hold water if our nation wasn't attacked on 9/11. I'm all for monitoring muslims to help pick out the terrorist cells lying in wait for the next command from OBL, or anybody who is a possible threat to our national security, including far-right extremists (even if they are self-proclaimed "Christians"). I would sacrifice a few rights here and there if meant living peacefully and terror-free in my own home country.

[Drem]

So basically Mindia isn't a conservative... he's just afraid.

[Narrock]

So basically Mindia isn't a conservative... he's just afraid.

So basically your reading comprehension is tantamount to a 5 year old.

[Spazz]

Our founding fathers put lots of rules on what govt can and cant do for a reason. Its a fuckin tragedy that most of you here cant seem to think of what the reason for the rules was. Chasing terrorists is fine and dandy but what happens when they start doin it to people they SUSPECT of being drug offenders....gun owners..... anyone that bought fertalizer.....anyone who bout a book cd or movie that has anti US govt ideas etc? Lemme put a twist on a real old saying for yall maybe it will help the denser of you wake up and realize what the fuck is going on.They came for the terrorists but since i wasnt a terrorist i did not speak out. Then they came for drug trafficers since i am not a trafficer i did no speak out... and then when they came for me there was no one left to speak out.

Im not saying everything has gone to shit yet but we are laying the groundwork in this country for a lot of possible problems that i think are a lot scarier than a terrorist attack. Id rather get blown the fuck up living free than live like 1984 or V for vendatta any day of the week.

[Drem]

So basically Mindia isn't a conservative... he's just afraid.

So basically your reading comprehension is tantamount to a 5 year old.

Why? You're the one saying it's okay to bend all the rules just so you can feel safe. You're the one that sounds like a scared little girl.

[araby]

I feel like a douche, pardon my ignorance-totalarian is what I meant to say but didn't know. either way, I feel as though it's got nothing to do with what *might* happen, I'm not that scared! I don't live my life that way-I thought about terrorists for two weeks after 9-11 and then moved on. Now, I have to consider every single time I'm on the phone that it's possibly being recorded/monitored and that is wrong.

Wiretapping or whatever should only be used when there is a reason for it-court order, even association with names I can accept. When there is reason for suspicion then sure...but recording everyone? It's a violation.

Our government is up in their neck with bullshit to handle and they can't...so they take to the privacy of their own citizens and hope they can catch someone doing something that way. No thank you-do your job and close our borders, police immigration, police people that hurt other people and fucking find Bin Laden instead of listening to my phone calls, protect us and that doesn't mean invade our privacy. and do something about the fucking oil prices for crying out loud.

I wish some really smart people with good ideas about how to run a country got together.

[Arlos]

I wish some really smart people with good ideas about how to run a country got together.

They did, in 1789. They wrote something called The Constitution and added to it The Bill of Rights. I'm guessing you might have heard of them?

They form an admirable framework for running a country in general, though especially recently, people in power have started to ignore it entirely. Most especially Bush & his cronies in the name of "Security". Some people, like Mindia, are apparently fine with tossing the Constitution out the window. I am not.

The Constitution is, in a very real sense, America. If you ignore the Constitution and throw it out the window, you're making America into something else entirely.

I encourage you to read though the sections on Search & Siezure in the Bill of Rights. I even posted the relevant passage here. *NOWHERE* in there does it give ANY excemption for when it is or is not applied. Nowhere. I don't care if it would make us 10,000 times safer to ignore it, it MUST NOT be ignored. Period.

If fear of terrorists causes us to destroy the very underpinnings of oru society, then it can fairly be said that they have already won. I said before, and will say again: If given the choice between seeing my entire family die in a terrorist explosion and giving up the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to us under the Constitution, I would pick the first option, even if I were to die in the same blast, because I wouldn't want to live in an America that is no longer free.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Didnt you vote for that dickhead?

[Narrock]

So basically Mindia isn't a conservative... he's just afraid.

So basically your reading comprehension is tantamount to a 5 year old.

Why? You're the one saying it's okay to bend all the rules just so you can feel safe. You're the one that sounds like a scared little girl.

I'm very conservative. And yes, I'm concerned about things getting too lax here in America, leaving us prone to another disaster. Our borders, language, and culture on the constant attack. Something has to be done about it.

[Spazz]

Our culture is under attack .... By who

[Arlos]

Our culture is under attack .... By who

Christian fundamentalists, mostly.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Thats what i think too arlos but i was tryin to get mindia to tell us bout liberals and such

[Minrott]

I wish James Madison would come back to life and bitchslap Mindia into eternity. You're letting the government take the place of your messiah, little lamb.

[Lyion]

Now, I have to consider every single time I'm on the phone that it's possibly being recorded/monitored and that is wrong.

Wiretapping or whatever should only be used when there is a reason for it-court order, even association with names I can accept. When there is reason for suspicion then sure...but recording everyone? It's a violation.
.

Because, ya know, there are all those people arrested and detained from wiretapping without warrants and government is doing massive wiretapping and leveraging it..Wait, thats complete bullshit and not a single domestic person has been arrested and there is no proof of wiretapping at all, outside of flailing left wing fear mongers speaking complete bullshit, and sensationalist newspapers spinning faster than a top.

Nobody is listening to you, unless you are talking to a drug dealer. Then there's probably a good chance the FBI is, and legally via a court order, but I bet many feel that should be illegal, too.

[Arlos]

Obviously Lyion failed to listen to his personal jesus Bush, who outright admitted, publicly, that the warrantless wiretapping program was real, and it was going on. It's not the invention of "left wing media" or any such nonsense. It is *VERY* real, and it *IS* happening. Period. As I recall, Gonzales or Bush even gave a rough figure for how many people they've tapped under the program.

So, Lyion: Given the existence of government search & siezure WITHOUT warrant, do you still support it? Please remember, that Article 4 of the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY states that the Government may *NOT* do any such thing without FIRST getting a warrant.

So you're agreeing with specifically ignoring Constitutional law?

Isn't the President sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution? How exactly does he get away with ignoring it?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

No, nice spin but completely wrong. The wiretapping was from calls originating in middle eastern countries that ended in the US. It is and was under congressional review and is also being presented to the Secret Court.

Show me ONE example of anyone wiretapped or anything domestic done, Arlos. Just ONE!

Show me some proof besides the typical hot air bullshit without any substance.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/11/D8HHN4VO0.html

Remarks by President Bush Thursday on reports of the National Security Agency building a secret database of U.S. telephone records, as transcribed by the White House:

After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al-Qaida or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying.

Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al- Qaida to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.

First, our international activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates. Al-Qaida is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaida and their known affiliates. So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.

As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.