Originally Posted by ballz2wallz this has been going on for years. as to the laws regarding this i don't know much. Well, obviously there is a long standing requirement that you get a wiretap warrant before you wiretap someone's phone, without any question if we're dealing with domestic wiretaps. I ...
07-26-2006, 03:47 PM
| #41 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death!  libertarian Lake Stevens, WA 
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Well, obviously there is a long standing requirement that you get a wiretap warrant before you wiretap someone's phone, without any question if we're dealing with domestic wiretaps. I see no reason that it should change just because one end of the call is outside the country, but our President has argued that this makes a difference. That's up to the courts to decide though. This has roots in the 4th amendment of the highest law of our land - the Constitution.
If they are indiscriminately wiretapping everyone, then obviously there is no probable cause. There is no specific place (everywhere?). There is definitely no description of what they are searching for either. That's my argument for the legality of it (or lack thereof). Now lots of folks argue "well we need this in the age of terrorism, security is more important than giving up these rights". That's an argument that I wholeheartedly disagree with, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be made. Regardless, however, until the law is changed (the 4th amendment), the law IS the law, and has to be respected. | ||||
     |
|
07-26-2006, 03:47 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| guess we'll wait and see what evidence is provided and what the courts say. if the democrats get into congress, we'll see it sooner than later, right? alternatively, if the democrats are indeed in charge, and they decide they will wait for warrants to go through, what are you going to do when bombs are going off and the government did nothing because they are waiting for warrants? my bet is, you'll be angry at the government. | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:47 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz the judges are the ones that decide if it's legal, my point is that I suspect it wouldn't be accepted by the judge because it's too much of a wide net.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:50 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by motivez Secret courts seem a little too orwellian for me too, but at least it would be an improvement.
 | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:51 PM
| #45 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Dude, you're not getting it. No one has to wait for warrants to go through.
Under FISA, if they have a suspect and a need to wiretap, they can go ahead and do it right then. Immediately. No waiting. They can still gather and benefit from intelligence that will protect America. However, after a period of time they are still required to bring that warrant before a judge so that it can be reviewed. So that there is oversight. To ensure that this system is not abused. What you said isn't even one of the possibilities of something that will happen if Democrats force them to abide by the law. | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:53 PM
| #46 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by thewise1 Well, things should be released after any immediate situation with whoever the warrant is for is executed and done with, but I do accept that certain things need to remain secret in the very short term to prevent people from being aware that they're under surveillence.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:54 PM
| #47 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Why would I be angry at the government instead of the people who set off the bombs?
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:55 PM
| #48 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by motivez I dunno, I understand the argument and maybe my point of view is for a more innocent time, but maybe if they did know, they wouldn't go ahead and try
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:56 PM
| #49 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| I think they'd simply switch to other forms of communication that weren't as easily tracked.. but I also don't think they're stupid enough to believe they can talk on a phone without a risk of being listened to.. so maybe you're right  | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 03:58 PM
| #50 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by thewise1 it's their job to protect you.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:08 PM
| #51 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz That is where you and I have some fundamental differences.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:25 PM
| #52 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by thewise1 if not for security and safety, what IS the job of the government?
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:26 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz It's outlined in the Constitution... and I'm not saying they aren't there to protect us, but that it's not in the same way you're suggesting.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:28 PM
| #54 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by thewise1 The what?
 | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:31 PM
| #55 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by thewise1 how exactly does it differ from what i'm suggesting?
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:31 PM
| #56 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent you're the funniest guy ever.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:35 PM
| #57 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I'm fine with all the protection they want to provide, provided they do not overstep the bounds laid out for them in the Constitution, Amendments I through X.
That means you get a warrant if you wiretap me. That means you don't limit my free speech, press, or religion. That means you leave my firearms alone. That means I get a fair, speedy trial by a jury of my peers. That means, most of all, that the government stop ignoring Amendment X. | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:39 PM
| #58 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by thewise1 no no, i want you to show me how it DIFFERS from what i was suggesting, since you seem to know i have a different view of it.
| ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:43 PM
| #59 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death! libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz You are apparently implying that it is the government's job to protect us by casting a wide net in their eavesdropping/wiretapping to prevent bombs from going off.
I am suggesting that doing so directly violates the restrictions placed on the government by the Constitution and the founding fathers. | ||||
| |
|
07-26-2006, 04:45 PM
| #60 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by thewise1 do you forget that the US government knew about the guys that flew the planes into 9/11? did you forget that they had tons of information on them, but could do nothing because of these 'laws'? do you forget how many people are blaming the US as a result for not taking preventative measures against these attacks?
despite all this 'i support the law' stuff, reality sets in and changes everything when the time comes. | ||||
| |
