You know what's funny about wire tapping.. you don't really know you're being wiretapped until someone tells you that they tapped your wire. So I really don't see what difference it makes.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Wiretapping
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
grizfaninkalamazoo said:
You forgot the Illuminati as long as you are going off the deep end on this one. The WMD's are in Syria - almost every intelligence agency comes to the same conclusion.
By the way, tell the Kurds that their never were WMD's. Did they all just lay down and fake dying when Saddam gassed them?
PhxGriz said:
**looking for a grassy knoll**
1) It is possible that the wmds are in syria but the main question would be do they know how to use them
2) the more seriousl question at hand is what about iranian wmd's. I bet that if Israel atacks that plant we are in for a major war. the isralies dont have the patients we do with regards to dealing with s*** for brains *sadam* since 1992 (how many un resolutions....17? tell me this war was very quick in happening)
3) thank god john kerry is not president
Don't think I am going to the left on all this. I would never want to be called a Democrat.
GrizBiz
Well-known member
The problem isn't that the government could be tapping Osama's phone calls - nobody gives a rats ass about that. The problem is that you can't trust the power hungry politicians of either party to restrict the wire taps to Osama and his ilk. Without the warrant and the resulting paper trail, we are left to trust the politicians and their political appointees to do the right thing. We are left to trust that the politicians in power won't use the wire tap authority to spy on their political opponents (Watergate, anyone?) and use the information from the wire taps to stay in power. Fuck that.
Power corrupts, my friends, and that little truth is not bound by party lines. No politician from any party can be trusted with unchecked power. Our founding fathers were pretty damn specific about that. The president is not a king - even the president has to be held accountable for his actions. Warrants are the Judicial check that balances the Executive power in this case. If we start removing the checks and balances that the founding fathers established, we are on a very slippery slope.
I always ask this of my Republican friends: would you trust Hillary with warrantless wiretapping authority? Al Gore? John Kerry? Would you trust them to responsibly use wiretaps that have no paper trail and no accountability whatsoever? Do you trust their judgement? If your answer is no, then you can't be in favor of Bush assuming those same powers. Remember, this whole "executive primacy" thing that Bush is pushing won't end when he leaves office. The next president is likely to be a Democrat and if so, then all of the powers that the GOP is investing in Bush will sit in the hands of someone from the other party. Scary thought, eh?
Ben Franklin said it best in 1755(!):
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporaty safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He also said
"God made beer because he loves us and wants us to be happy" so I, for one, will not question his wisdom. :thumb:
Power corrupts, my friends, and that little truth is not bound by party lines. No politician from any party can be trusted with unchecked power. Our founding fathers were pretty damn specific about that. The president is not a king - even the president has to be held accountable for his actions. Warrants are the Judicial check that balances the Executive power in this case. If we start removing the checks and balances that the founding fathers established, we are on a very slippery slope.
I always ask this of my Republican friends: would you trust Hillary with warrantless wiretapping authority? Al Gore? John Kerry? Would you trust them to responsibly use wiretaps that have no paper trail and no accountability whatsoever? Do you trust their judgement? If your answer is no, then you can't be in favor of Bush assuming those same powers. Remember, this whole "executive primacy" thing that Bush is pushing won't end when he leaves office. The next president is likely to be a Democrat and if so, then all of the powers that the GOP is investing in Bush will sit in the hands of someone from the other party. Scary thought, eh?
Ben Franklin said it best in 1755(!):
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporaty safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He also said
"God made beer because he loves us and wants us to be happy" so I, for one, will not question his wisdom. :thumb:
AGAIN... where were you when the Clinton administration was caught red-handed with FBI files on U.S. Citizens in their White House? THAT WAS INDEED ILLEGAL! For some reason that didn't seem to be an issue with the dems/liberals.... however, let the Bush administration attempt to hear phone calls coming into this country from known/suspected terrorists and you guys are screaming bloody murder!
Also.. what about all those dems in congress that KNEW of what Bush was doing and didn't seem to care until it "leaked" to the press? Now their "outrage" is very suspicious, don't you think? Besides, why would Bush fill the congress in if what he was doing was illegal?
I just love listening to all of these people who turn a blind eye to all that happened under the Clinton admin (I forgot, I don't know, I don't recall, it depends on what the definition of "is" is... etc) and yet are ready to pounce on the Bush Admin for any perceived weakness. Remember, Clinton (& Gore & Kerry) were convinced during the previous adm that Iraq had wmd's... especially since he had used them against his own people. Hell... even the United Nations felt Iraq had wmd's. The question is, not why aren't there any... BUT WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? (Syria, perhaps?) As a bare minimum Saddam Hussein was a mass-murder that at one time possessed wmd's. Yet... the dem's feel as if that's not enough.
Lately, I have felt nothing but extreme shame for the rants of people like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. :loser:
Also.. what about all those dems in congress that KNEW of what Bush was doing and didn't seem to care until it "leaked" to the press? Now their "outrage" is very suspicious, don't you think? Besides, why would Bush fill the congress in if what he was doing was illegal?
I just love listening to all of these people who turn a blind eye to all that happened under the Clinton admin (I forgot, I don't know, I don't recall, it depends on what the definition of "is" is... etc) and yet are ready to pounce on the Bush Admin for any perceived weakness. Remember, Clinton (& Gore & Kerry) were convinced during the previous adm that Iraq had wmd's... especially since he had used them against his own people. Hell... even the United Nations felt Iraq had wmd's. The question is, not why aren't there any... BUT WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? (Syria, perhaps?) As a bare minimum Saddam Hussein was a mass-murder that at one time possessed wmd's. Yet... the dem's feel as if that's not enough.
Lately, I have felt nothing but extreme shame for the rants of people like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. :loser:
Well put ponezone :clap: :clap:
ponezone said:
i tried stating such on bnation but at the time...kinda gave up tho
HighLineGRIZ
Well-known member
I'm sure the govrenment knows more about us than by just "wiretapping" by other means. I personally feel that it is necessary for it to happen to protect our national security. It it an infrigment on our rights? Of course it is and its too bad that it has to be this way. All I know that there are terrorist out there who want to hurt the United States and its people and have been sucessfull at it before. Not only did 9/11 cause destruction and a loss of thousand of lives, but it sent our economy into a recession and is a HUGE reason why the deficet grew to large amounts. Every day our government receives threats of similar acts happening, if they didn't take action to extinguish those threats, then i feel they aren't doing their jobs in protecting us. It is an infringement on my rights if they don't do whats neccessary to protect me and my family from threats of avoidable violence.
coyote said:
Can I point you to some recent polls?
GrizBiz
Well-known member
ponezone said:
Careful who you paint with that broad brush, ponezone. If you knew me when Clinton was president, you would know my views on that particular bastard. This is, by the way, the newest favored trick of the right - someone questions Bush and you immediately bring up something that Clinton did in order to justify Bush's actions. Weird, that.
AGAIN, I don't trust the Bush administration - or any adminstration - to restrict their warrantless wiretapping to known terrorists. It just kills me that the party of conservative values - small, non-intrusive government - is now the party of big, intrusive government. I have yet to have anyone tell me why Bush needs to avoid the warrants. Existing law says that they can apply for the warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap, so time isn't really the issue. For "known terrorists", the wiretap is merely a formality. What they don't want, IMHO, is a paper trail.
I wish I would have been the guy to trademark the phrase "I love my country but I fear my government". When Clinton was president, I could have sold the bumper stickers to the Republicans and now that Bush is president, I could sell the same bumper stickers to the Democrats. Talk about a cash cow.
