gut wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Anything can be justified in the name of "safety."

No it cannot. You are painting this in black & white. Healthy, logical and rational debate prevents anything arbitrary from being justified in the name of "safety".

Carte blanche dismissal of the issue is no better than carte blanche acceptance. Reality dictates there is a middle ground where balance is found.

Oh really? We seem to have passed something called the Patriot Act in the name of "safety". We also invaded Iraq because they were a "danger" to us.

The ends do not justify the means here. You can't protect your citizens against terror by stripping away all of their privacy and civil rights.

The same people claiming that this is no big deal even though it's unconstitutional are the ones that usually get all up in arm with "but it isn't constitutional!" "it goes against what we are founded on!".

You know what goes against what we were founded on? Stripping away the right to privacy in the name of safety.

gut wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: This is exactly the attitude that has created the mess our government is in.

Let the government do as they wish it is for our betterment.

Bull...Nowhere did I say such a thing. There are trade-offs that have to be made, and failing to recognize that or deny it is both irresponsible and naive.

Just like you can't playfully yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is ultimately a restriction of your right to free speech, the harm to you (and everyone else) in denying that is virtually nil, while the danger in allowing such speech presents a real threat to people there whom, given the choice, would nearly unanimously oppose it.

Yes there are already trade-offs we do not have complete freedom and such would be impossible but is another topic.

You need a warrent to wiretap and wireless wiretapping is against the law. You are advocating that breaking the law is good as long as it is the government to protect us.

Needing to get a warrant is the trade off. Not warrantless illegal wiretapping.

People reactions are what the government looks at to takes its next steps and your attitude of they can break the law is one of the major problems in this country. They need to be held to a measuring stick and that measureing stick is the law.

If they want to do warrantless wiretapping and invade your home without a warrant then they need to change the laws not be sneaky cockroaches invading privacy.

The reason I do not think it is a big deal is, it is not being used as the nail in the coffin, and it is the worst the government is doing to infringe on my liberties. If the FBI wants to listen in to my conversation with my friends, family or girlfriend I don't care, so long as they do not make up some trump charge. I mean, it is just a phone conversation. Sure, it is private, but I am comfortable with giving away some, emphasis on some, of my privacy's for security. The line where I get upset is a little further over.

Now, again, it was a mistake. But, given the time and chaotic, knee jerk reaction of the period, it is understandable what happened. Should they be punished by being fired, no. Maybe reprimanded in some fashion, but not fired.

and yes centerBHSfan, I am a mod and have been for a month or so. Took ya long enough lol.

I Wear Pants wrote: The ends do not justify the means here. You can't protect your citizens against terror by stripping away all of their privacy and civil rights.

That is not remotely close to what happened and who it happened to. The sky is not falling.

eersandbeers wrote: It is black and white. You either value your freedom or you don't. When government is granted leeway on a certain issue it will take far more.

I value living more. And you are actually confusing the issue - the govt "taking more leeway" is a separate issue. I want people to make GOOD decisions. I'm all for holding them accountable for those decisions. I don't want BAD decisions made on the basis of bureaucracy and legal red tape. And that's NOT an ends-justifies-the-means argument but rather that a just action should not be invalidated by a technicality.

BCSbunk wrote:
You need a warrent to wiretap and wireless wiretapping is against the law. You are advocating that breaking the law is good as long as it is the government to protect us.

Needing to get a warrant is the trade off. Not warrantless illegal wiretapping.

Exactly.

If you want to change the law then I won't have an argument.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: The reason I do not think it is a big deal is, it is not being used as the nail in the coffin, and it is the worst the government is doing to infringe on my liberties. If the FBI wants to listen in to my conversation with my friends, family or girlfriend I don't care, so long as they do not make up some trump charge. I mean, it is just a phone conversation. Sure, it is private, but I am comfortable with giving away some, emphasis on some, of my privacy's for security. The line where I get upset is a little further over.

Now, again, it was a mistake. But, given the time and chaotic, knee jerk reaction of the period, it is understandable what happened. Should they be punished by being fired, no. Maybe reprimanded in some fashion, but not fired.

You are quite naive if you think this is the worst the government has done. We already know of worse things that happened under Clinton.

If you want to sign your rights over then be my guest. However, do not speak for me and my constitutional rights.

gut wrote: I value living more. And you are actually confusing the issue - the govt "taking more leeway" is a separate issue. I want people to make GOOD decisions. I'm all for holding them accountable for those decisions. I don't want BAD decisions made on the basis of bureaucracy and legal red tape. And that's NOT an ends-justifies-the-means argument but rather that a just action should not be invalidated by a technicality.

Living without freedom is not living.

Either way, it appears you have completely fallen for the government fear propaganda. You have a .0001% chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'm not all that worried.

Taking more leeway isn't a separate issue. It is a natural evolution of the leeway you grant them. Again, one need only look at history.

You need a warrant for a reason. If you want to change the law and amend the Constitution then lead the charge.

eersandbeers wrote:
You are quite naive if you think this is the worst the government has done. We already know of worse things that happened under Clinton.

If you want to sign your rights over then be my guest. However, do not speak for me and my constitutional rights.

I'm not naive. I'm just realistic. I know the government can never totally be removed from our lives and given the type of world we live in, surrendering a limited number of rights is acceptable. Now, that does not mean ignoring due process laws and evidence laws.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, it is just 2000 phone calls, it is not the feds breaking down their doors making up charges as they go. We are a long, long, long, long way from 1984. I know you think we are close, but I don't think so.

fish82 wrote: I think it's safe to say that if the FBI was in any danger here whatsoever, Eric Holder would already be pontificating eloquently on the subject. The fact that he's not jumped in front of a microphone someplace today speaks volumes.

I don't think that this issue is a partisan platform situation. Besides, the Democrats have just as many skeletons in the closet, when it comes to homeland security.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:
You are quite naive if you think this is the worst the government has done. We already know of worse things that happened under Clinton.

If you want to sign your rights over then be my guest. However, do not speak for me and my constitutional rights.

I'm not naive. I'm just realistic. I know the government can never totally be removed from our lives and given the type of world we live in, surrendering a limited number of rights is acceptable. Now, that does not mean ignoring due process laws and evidence laws.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, it is just 2000 phone calls, it is not the feds breaking down their doors making up charges as they go. We are a long, long, long, long way from 1984. I know you think we are close, but I don't think so.

I don't think we are close to an Orwellian society which is why we need to defend against every single encroachment on liberty. Even when it is only "2,000" phone calls. If they admitted to 2,000 you can guarantee its way more than that.

We are steadily on our way to an Orwellian society. Tacit approval by Americans and a perpetual state of war.

eersandbeers wrote: Living without freedom is not living.

I personally have experienced no less freedom while I've continued to live these past 8+ years. People acting like this makes us one step away from Stalinism are overreacting just a wee bit.

Seriously, there are far more alarming things going on in Washington to be worried about.

gut wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Living without freedom is not living.

I personally have experienced no less freedom while I've continued to live these past 8+ years. People acting like this makes us one step away from Stalinism are overreacting just a wee bit.

Seriously, there are far more alarming things going on in Washington to be worried about.

Who said it is one step away from Stalinism? I worry about every single encroachment because it is one step closer. And because I worry about one thing doesn't mean I can't worry about another. I possess the ability to multi-task.

Sorry I'm a quote whore, but I like quoting those who are smarter than I.....

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. —Thomas Jefferson

gut wrote:
No, I think I just have a much better grasp of reality and probability. I'm not a fringe criminal and I don't feel my liberties have been threatened at all, arguably less than my chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'm not worried about the govt OR terrorism.

I mean, really, you are showing the same irrational fear from a different perspective as you just accused me of.

You do not appear to have a grasp of reality if you are worried about being killed by something that is nearly statistically zero.

This is not about protecting the rights of criminals. It is about protecting the rights of innocents.

I do not fear government. I am not speaking from a state of fear. I am defending my rights.

eersandbeers wrote: Either way, it appears you have completely fallen for the government fear propaganda. You have a .0001% chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'm not all that worried.

No, I think I just have a much better grasp of reality and probability. I'm not a fringe criminal and I don't feel my liberties have been threatened at all, arguably less than my chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'm not worried about the govt OR terrorism.

I mean, really, you are showing the same irrational fear from a different perspective as you just accused me of. I always find the hypocrisy of the conspiracist sheeple to be very entertaining.

gut wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: The ends do not justify the means here. You can't protect your citizens against terror by stripping away all of their privacy and civil rights.

That is not remotely close to what happened and who it happened to. The sky is not falling.

I can still pretend it is.

eersandbeers wrote:

gut wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Living without freedom is not living.

I personally have experienced no less freedom while I've continued to live these past 8+ years. People acting like this makes us one step away from Stalinism are overreacting just a wee bit.

Seriously, there are far more alarming things going on in Washington to be worried about.

Who said it is one step away from Stalinism? I worry about every single encroachment because it is one step closer. And because I worry about one thing doesn't mean I can't worry about another. I possess the ability to multi-task.

Sorry I'm a quote whore, but I like quoting those who are smarter than I.....

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. —Thomas Jefferson

gut wrote:
No, I think I just have a much better grasp of reality and probability. I'm not a fringe criminal and I don't feel my liberties have been threatened at all, arguably less than my chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'm not worried about the govt OR terrorism.

I mean, really, you are showing the same irrational fear from a different perspective as you just accused me of.

You do not appear to have a grasp of reality if you are worried about being killed by something that is nearly statistically zero.

This is not about protecting the rights of criminals. It is about protecting the rights of innocents.

I do not fear government. I am not speaking from a state of fear. I am defending my rights.

Exactly. I have no fear of terrorists. You are more likely to be struck by lightning that get hit by a terrorist. The overreaction is being done by the government and those who support them breaking the law in the name of "protection" that is not needed.

Better to spend our time and resources finding the criminals who rape murder and rob people here in the US that are US citizens. That would be a much more valuable use of wiretapping. Oh and get a warrant that is the LAW.

Basically when you cut it down to the base there are people who believe that the govenment can be above the law. That is truly much more frightening than terrorists.

eersandbeers wrote: You do not appear to have a grasp of reality if you are worried about being killed by something that is nearly statistically zero.

There's always someone to cry wolf every time a few feathers get ruffled. And the telltale sign of the tinfoil hat crowd is pretending like a few thousand wire taps is the same as every third American getting their door kicked in.

Take off the tinfoil hat for one minute and realize that BOTH your chance of having your own personal rights violated and getting blown up by a terrorist are nearly zero. Then again, maybe you're a subversive. I have no idea.

BCSbunk wrote: Basically when you cut it down to the base there are people who believe that the govenment can be above the law. That is truly much more frightening than terrorists.

Above the law? Stretching it a bit now, aren't we? Surely you can't possibly see wiretapping of a few thousand people, many of whom undoubtedly provided pretty good reasons, as worse than terrorists.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements about the govt using fear to justify this? Are you not doing exactly the same thing? My position is not borne of fear but recognition that the innocent and guilty have more protection in the US than just about any other place in the world. As I've said repeatedly, the sky is not falling no matter how badly some want to believe it is. Same thing as conspiracy theorists who seem to derive a sense of self worth for believing the govt is evil and seeing an agenda behind every step.

gut wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: Basically when you cut it down to the base there are people who believe that the govenment can be above the law. That is truly much more frightening than terrorists.

Above the law? Stretching it a bit now, aren't we? Surely you can't possibly see wiretapping of a few thousand people, many of whom undoubtedly provided pretty good reasons, as worse than terrorists.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements about the govt using fear to justify this? Are you not doing exactly the same thing? My position is not borne of fear but recognition that the innocent and guilty have more protection in the US than just about any other place in the world. As I've said repeatedly, the sky is not falling no matter how badly some want to believe it is. Same thing as conspiracy theorists who seem to derive a sense of self worth for believing the govt is evil and seeing an agenda behind every step.

I don't care if they were the shadiest looking dudes in the whole country, if they didn't have the proper warrants to tap the lines then it is absolutely unacceptable no matter the reasons.


Edit: And you are holding them above the law. If I break a law, even on accident with no malice, I receive a full reprimand and any fines/jailing associated with that infraction. Government agents/agencies should be no different.
It's not like you can just tap someones line on accident, I'm assuming they know what they're doing (maybe that's too much faith in the FBI) and had reasons for tapping the lines. But those reasons don't matter without a warrant.

Their doesn't have to be an evil intention behind the act of a government or an individual for it to be unacceptable. We don't have tin hats on we just don't like seeing peoples rights violated. People put too much blind trust in our authority figures (police, FBI, CIA, etc). That's not to say they are evil, far from it, but that people tend to always take the side of "well they're just trying to help" which is likely true. But they aren't helping.

gut wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: You do not appear to have a grasp of reality if you are worried about being killed by something that is nearly statistically zero.

There's always someone to cry wolf every time a few feathers get ruffled. And the telltale sign of the tinfoil hat crowd is pretending like a few thousand wire taps is the same as every third American getting their door kicked in.

Take off the tinfoil hat for one minute and realize that BOTH your chance of having your own personal rights violated and getting blown up by a terrorist are nearly zero. Then again, maybe you're a subversive. I have no idea.

You don't appear to know the definition of "tin foil hat." Saying tin foil hat implies this is a conspiracy with no evidence behind it. This isn't a conspiracy since it is already a proven fact. So it is simply true regardless of how you try to spin it.

Actually the chances of having my rights violated are far greater. This is 2,000 that we know of by the FBI. That doesn't include the NSA illegal eavesdropping program.

I know I'm crazy, why care about those rights. We can trust government to only take the appropriate amount of power.