We Told You So: Government Spying Has Been Targeting Innocent Citizens, not Terrorists

[Makalakumu]

I suspect that none of us know the extent of what is actually being done.

 

[Archangel M]

Think we did in 1945? 1975? 1985?...hell 1775?

Thats what intelligence commitees of elected officials are formed for. If we all knew so would our enemies.

 

[Archangel M]

The article regarding Government spying discuses phone calls, emails, etc. between one party overseas and another within the US. Most of the discussion here, however, has focussed on emails, phone calls, etc. within the US.

May I please break this discussion down a little bit? I suspect that we are getting more than a little hysterical about an issue that may or may not really exist. IMHO, there are too many issues these days truly worth getting hysterical about, that I don't want to waste my time with those issues below the 'hysteria threshhold'.

For the sake of argument, please consider the following four separate cases. I am guessing that most people in this discussion would actually agree on the majority of the answers:

1. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. between two parties, both of whom are outside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were from a 'country of interest'? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

2. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. between two parties, one of whom is outside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If the originator (or the recipient) was from a 'country of interest'? Used certain 'key phrases? Was identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

3. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. without a warrant between two parties, both of whom are inside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were here illegally? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

4. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. with a warrant between two parties, both of whom are inside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were here illegally? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

I suspect this is a far more nuanced debate than what the original article inferred, and I suspect most of us agree on more than we disagree.

Exactly.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, I'm just glad we have them. After all, 8 yr olds are dangerous and must be stopped.
Of course, the lists are accurate too. No one would be added for spite (see above link), to meet quotas, or just because they were non-violent activists.

So, until they can tell the difference between a suicidally inclined religious fanatic, and a hippy tree hugger pot head, I think we need to err on the side of protecting our civil rights and follow due process of law, which includes getting a warrent based on probable cause before tapping the wires and searching the garbage.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another thing to consider is that President Bush is on the way out. We have a new administration coming in. How is this going to change? Look at the two candidates that have the biggest shot at winning. What do they actually have to say on the matter? Will it change that much from what President Bush instituted?

 

[celtic_crippler]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

....'nuff said.

 

[JBrainard]

CC, personally, I like "Big Brother is watching" - George Orwell. I think it's more poignant.

 

[Sukerkin]

And just as true, sadly .

 

[Twin Fist]

Well.

Since I am capable of making my point without attempting to insult or demean you in return ....

i wouldnt know, you tend to be pretty insulting and demeaning whenever anyone disagrees with you. I dont think you MEAN to,it just happens.

....civil liberties we have. These are things terrorists don't want us to have. It's not just about the nation of Islam, it's about more than that.

no it really isnt. they want kill anyone that is not muslim, period.

I would argue that all the people who died on 9-11 died in vain as long as we allow OBL to roam free and as long as we continue to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fear.

then it is a good thing you aint in charge of nothing, cuz i figure they onyl died in vian is we let it happen again.

a noble victim is still a victim

The mentality of the post I quoted above is the GREATEST threat to America, above and beyond terrorism, for it destroys what America *is* and what America *does.*[/quoted]

i put on a uniform and defended this country IN DEED, not just on some internet forum.

have you?

 

[Twin Fist]

Big red letters dont change the FACT that in Ben's time,t he most dangerous threat was a platoon of rowdy brits.

no nukes
no germ warefare
no dirty bombs
no planes into buildings
no suicide bombs
no ricin
no smallpox in weapon form
etc
etc
etc

i could quote Moses, wouldnt make it relevant

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

....'nuff said.

 

[Archangel M]

Note he said "a little temporary safety"...sounds like a caveat to me. Laws in essence are a sacrifice of our "freedom" to do as we wish, for the greater good. Obviously we need to "spy" on terrorists. All we are debating here are operational details.

Thing is, this isnt domestic law enforcement and cant be dealt with as such.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ya'know what, the childish back n forth and shots are getting old fast. Enough.

they want kill anyone that is not Muslim, period.

Some of them, yes.
But in Osama's own words, the reason for the war against America is due in big part to US support of Israel. In some cases, they are seeing the US invasion and continued occupancy in Iraq as a threat, and are reacting accordingly. You don't hear much about all the Al Queida (sp) attacks against Panama, Brazil, India, or Easter Island. Why? They aren't major supporters and backers of Israel nor are they stuck in a war in the mid-east.

The 2,998 people killed in the WTC attacks were the victims of a coward, murdered by fanatics. Their deaths were not in vain, because it mobilized a sleeping nation. Unfortunately, that sleeping giant lurched around and made several panic reactions, including the rights damaging Patriot Acts, and usurpation of unlawful powers by the executive branch, and dereliction of responsibility on the part of the legislative and judicial branches in allowing it and granting it. Those 2,998 people killed on 9/11, the 4,183 allied deaths and 30,634 wounded in Iraq, and the 991 deaths in Afghanistan are however in vain if that which they believed in, lived under, fought for and died for is allowed to become but an empty shadow of itself.

Wearing the uniform is great, but you wore that uniform not in defense of sections 4-6, 8, 14 an 22 of the Constitution, but in defense of the entire constitution, the people and land it covers, and that which it represents. To carve out inconvenient pieces of it and use the defense of it as an excuse is the fallback position of butchers, tyrants and incompetents. Some fight on the front lines, others fight back at home, some with guns, some with words in defense of the United States, it's laws, it's people and it's land.

 

[Archangel M]

I dont know if Id place typing on the internet in the same leauge as putting your life on the line but thats just me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's more than "typing on the internet". It's arguing, with corrupt politicians, holding them accountable, educating people, hell, chaining oneself up to a tree on some property illegally siezed to build a wall on the border.

Without people at home fighting for honest government, you run the risk that those guys dying in Iraq are dying more so for McD. than the Constitution....

 

[Twin Fist]

you know, we were attacked BEFORE the war in Iraq, so it isnt the Iraq war that has thier knickers in a knot.

and you know as well as i do that we have a moral and ethical obligation to support Israel. That support will never end, if for no other reason than they are the only democracy in the region.

and if you pretend they dont want to kill ALL non muslims, I want some of whatever you are smoking.

and BTW there is no right to privacy, it is an assumed right, put in place by judical fiat. It isnt listed outright in the Constitution.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

you know, we were attacked BEFORE the war in Iraq, so it isnt the Iraq war that has thier knickers in a knot.

The USS Cole? First WTC Bombing? or earlier than those?

and you know as well as i do that we have a moral and ethical obligation to support Israel. That support will never end, if for no other reason than they are the only democracy in the region.

I don't know. I see no reason to continue to shore up Israel. They've got a pretty damn good military, who does pretty good for themselves. They don't need my support.

and if you pretend they dont want to kill ALL non muslims, I want some of whatever you are smoking.

It's called education. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

and BTW there is no right to privacy, it is an assumed right, put in place by judical fiat. It isnt listed outright in the Constitution.

This kinda agrees and disagrees with you.

The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

 

[Cryozombie]

and you know as well as i do that we have a moral and ethical obligation to support Israel.

Twin Fist, I am asking honestly because I don't know... why do we have a moral and ethical obligation to them?

 

[Big Don]

Well.

Since I am capable of making my point without attempting to insult or demean you in return ....

But, you take offense, and claim to have been insulted or demeaned every time someone disagrees with you.

There are some people who felt their lives were worth giving up in the name of the freedoms and civil liberties we have. These are things terrorists don't want us to have. It's not just about the nation of Islam, it's about more than that.

No, you're right, the Nation of Islam, has little to do with it. Those purporting to be Islamic and dedicated to terrorism, on the other hand, do.

I would argue that all the people who died on 9-11 died in vain as long as we allow OBL to roam free and as long as we continue to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fear.

General Honore might have something to say about someone so fixated on one man. The life, death or capture of Osama bin Laden, while desirable will NOT change one thing about the war on terror. Not one.

Loving your country does not mean blindly following along and allowing fear mongers to rape the constitution in the name of fighting terror.

As I asked before, where was all this righteos indignation when the Clinton Administration created Omnivore and Carnivore, which, by, the way, had no foreign focus?

This started a long time ago, we agree on that and your assumption that I blame only Bush is baseless upon my statements but based on the general line some people appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

 

[celtic_crippler]

CC, personally, I like "Big Brother is watching" - George Orwell. I think it's more poignant.

True that, brother. Orwell must've been related to Nostrodomus! LOL

Anyone that's read "1984" can see a lot of it happening in recent history.

i put on a uniform and defended this country IN DEED, not just on some internet forum.

have you?

Yes actually....and have the National Defense Ribbon to prove it.

Big red letters dont change the FACT that in Ben's time,t he most dangerous threat was a platoon of rowdy brits.

no nukes
no germ warefare
no dirty bombs
no planes into buildings
no suicide bombs
no ricin
no smallpox in weapon form
etc
etc
etc

i could quote Moses, wouldnt make it relevant

..a platoon of rowdy Brits? Seriously?

Moses isn't relevent because he had nothing to do with the founding of this nation...but the fact that Benjamin Franklin is one of the founders of this country, that his ideology and those of his peers are the foundation of what what we supposedly believe in do make his quote very relevant.

If you don't agree with the ideals, ethics, and principles this country were founded upon then why bother putting on a uniform to defend them?

.....
and BTW there is no right to privacy, it is an assumed right, put in place by judical fiat. It isnt listed outright in the Constitution.

Ever heard of the Privacy Act of 1974?

And the Constitution doesn't outright list privacy as a right but does prohibit illegal search and seizure...the "search" part could easily fall under having one's phone tapped.

In addition, it also prohibits the Fed from depriving citizens of life, LIBERTY, and property without due process. One could easily debate that one's LIBERTY is being infringed upon by having one's phone conversations taped without a court order (that would be due process.)

 

[Big Don]

Twin Fist, I am asking honestly because I don't know... why do we have a moral and ethical obligation to them?

Because they are our allies. We do have a moral and ethical obligation to our allies don't we?