Back on topic Wkmac,
I keep hearing how bush has abused his powersto spy without warrant. Do we have anyone out there claiming their rights to engage in illegal activity were violated?
isn't that what this issue is really about aka I'm engaged in drug trafficking and do not want the bush administration spying on me under the pretense of looking for terrorist?
With this bill isn't the drug trafficker still free to sue the government for illegally interrupting his drug trafficking business?
Tie,
I don't need a victim although it is possible I myself am one because one on the Telecom providers is also my provider. You yourself could be one but this isn't the point with me. The point is that the President and Congress may have in fact just voilated the 4th amendment
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.
but we may never know or for that fact we may never know that no violation actually occured at all because this now IMO buries the issue. If this or any other adminstration can bring in some law expert as legal advisor and their advice is no harm no foul and this stands that any adminstration advisor can on their own determine or interpret constitution intent to mess with their pubic policy,(and we 8itch about judges) then IMHO none of the Bill of rights are safe from any side of the political flavor of the month.
The idea of the bill or rights was to guarantee NO ONE, under any pretext could position themselves to abuse power and adversly effect the citizery as a greater whole. There are times in life that situations arise where bad people do bad things, very bad things and like you I get frustrated to with what happens when it seems bad people get away with something or so it seems. But the fact is our foundational premise of society was built upon specific fundamental rules that specificed what gov't could and could not do and when need be how to go about doing it. If we think because of today's modern age that these laws are flawed then there is a process to go about amending them in order to make them work. The law is stil the law. If any person or persons is allowed to circumvent the law whether justified or not, the legal precedence is there to circumvent it again and next time that very precedence may in fact make you a victim. Many who screamed about clinton circumventing the law (and he did IMO too) are now defending similar acts of law breaking all because they believe the pretext to be justified. I remember back in the day when conservatives screamed about the "situation ethincs" of what they called humanism and now today's conservatives have thrown in the towel and joined the fray!
If we can circumvent the 4th amendment today, maybe tomorrow it will be your right to religious worship, or free speech or even your right as a parent to tell your own children some truth that the gov't now finds offensive. I know you and others see this all down to some contest meaning that if you are or seem to be against one you are for the other or in some sense you've politicized the debate down to either republican or democrat. You also IMHO are over reacting illogically out of fear because in the earliest of days, there may well have been a case for such surveillence but IMO it was obvious in short order that Al Qaeda operatives weren't dropping a dime in the nearest phone to get marching orders. Internet? Maybe, but even now that seems a stretch. But for the gov't to continue surveil into 2007' IMO suggests another motive that "MAY" and I say "MAY" not be geneuine.
The gov't may be completely innocent and this is much ado about nothing but let me ask you this. If that's the case, then why the need for immunity for the telecoms? I mean the terrorist and everyone knows the gov't was looking so protecting gov't operations is kinda out the window now. So what's to protect by putting sunshine on this whole matter?
How long before the gov't using this telecom deal and public safety has UPS start inspecting the contents of all packages? We both laugh of such suggestion but should we? What would the cost be to UPS to inspect every package for it's contents? Could a package through UPS pose a great a safety risk to the general public as a phone conversation or an email? Where's the law that protects us as a company from such draconian and costly measures? What if Fred S and the FedEx folks came up with a patented device to inspect every package on the grounds of public safety and for them the cost was nothing but lobbied Congress and the President to mandate UPS to follow suit and we had completely change our methods and buy the patented devices from FedEx? What if that cost was such that it was a deal breaker and caused UPS to give up US domestic shipping altogether? How would you then feel about the legal foundation that you supported?
Crazy! Conspiratorial! Grassy Knoll and Art Bell hysteria! Yeah, but we've already decided via precedence that there is no rule of law so we are free to make them up as we go and in all the discussion we've had here on so many topics, is that not in most cases the root cause of bad gov't? When gov't decides to ignore law and "wing it" we some how seem to get screwed in the end and the initial problem always gets much worse.
I won't kid you or anyone else, that becuase of the nature of what we are dealing with, this is a tough call. It's a damn if you do and damn if you don't but it comes down to this for me. Al Qaeda and it's minions have some reach but I don't believe at this time it is near what it may have been prior to 9/11. I still believe there was a lot of luck on that day but the American people are more observant now as a result which makes it harder to pull off another attack. However,
the case can be made of the far greater threat to the American public and that threat IMO is the politician and the political operative. They've shown to lie, to flip flop and turn on a dime for political advantge and no matter how justified Bush is now, I fear the people coming after him even more who might take that inch and turn it into a mile.
Now, let me leave you with this scary thought. The precedence is already there for the gov't to listen to our phone calls and inspect our emails and they've had it for decades even though the internet didn't exist. They already have the right to inspect ever package or even all the mail or to force UPS, FedEx or USPS to inspect the inside of every letter/parcel they carry. It's all there and has been for many years and now we finally have a gov't ready to really exploit this fact but instead of telling us the truth that the authority already exists, they instead do what others in the past have done and try and hide it from public view.
I'll go you one futher Tie, The reason for going into Iraq was a sound and valid one but it's none of the reasons ever given!
I've told you guys before about reading these boring and obsecure think tank reports that shape gov't but you just won't listen!
Sorry it took so long to respond but I took some vacation days and went vacationing! I've decided from here on out that I will no long call them vacation days but rather retirement training days!
