Slashdot Mirror
Poll Finds Mixed Support for Domestic Wiretaps
aspenbordr writes "The NYTimes reports that Americans are growing more and more concerned about the tradeoff between 'fighting terrorism' and civil liberties. Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'." From the article: "Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program' to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses."
Just enlist a few members of Al Queda to start dialing wrong numbers. Then the NSA will be too busy tracking down who's who for the program to continue. :-)
I find that the breaches of national security to spy on u.s. citizens is disturbing. It is only one of many steps that is being slowly and subtly put into our country in order to make it a fascist regime.
From a website, these are some aspects of fascism and they are hauntingly close to what our country is becoming all because of terrorism:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with National Security
Religion and Government are Intertwined
Corporate Power is Protected
Labor Power is Suppressed
Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fraudulent Elections
---
I think our forefathers would be proud if we citizens stood up to our government and said hey wait a second things are starting to get out of hand, and we need to step back and take a close look at things before we all just agree to whatever the president wants just because of terrorism.
If any of you have ever watched the film "Brazil" by Terry Gilliam, you will see how the government uses constant terrorism to enforce its rule upon its citizens.
I guess the question was fairly straight forward, i.e. please state your political affiliation, republican or democrat.
Honestly, if you are not doing anything illegal, what part of "liberty" is being taken away by wiretaps?
One of the wiretaps was on the husband of Kerry's campaign manager...
I would assume to indirectly monitor his wife's work on the Kerry Campaign. That is up for opinion though...
So tell me again how this is keeping us safe from terrorism?
It's appropriate that the following post below yours was about how at least fifty percent of Americans are below average intelligence.
You definitely qualify.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Kind of like how SCOTUS (for decades) and Bush (recently) have ignored the 9th and 10th Amendment limitations on their scope of authority?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Um ... we did. And Bush deliberately circumvented the system. That's the point.
Which constitutional amendment was that? The 53rd? I can never remember my imaginary constitional law.
Wake up Jack ass, if you don't think there is a problem with terrorist blowing up people all over the world, start reading something other than slashdot. Get your head out the sand and your own ass. Impeach the president for protecting america from attacks, huh???? The american people elected him and would again if the elections were held today. No one except a few liberals\dems think the president broke the law, and if it is breaking the law, then the laws will be changed; as sugested by the dems themselves. Monitoring terrorist phone calls to people in the US during a war is just common sense you idiot. Go join the Talaban.
You still have all your rights. Now, please tell us which of your rights are being violated when the NSA records without a warrant a telephone call that you receive from a known terrorist. Please be specific, and cite precedent when available.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
That does not make the President exempt from those laws.
Yes it does.
He is still liable for prosecution.
No he isn't.
Congress simply can't make any law that would affect the President's power to exercise his Constitutional authority. Can't do it. Any such law would be void. Congress can pass a law that says the President has to file a tax return, but not paying taxes isn't part of the President's executive powers. Congress could not pass a law that said the President has to ask their permission before giving pardons.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
However, that doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted once he's removed from office (either by impeachment or his term expires).
He's probably immune for any acts committed in good faith in the performance of his duties as President. That's what we're talking about here. Not Clinton sexually harrasing subordinates, or Nixon spying on his personal enemies, but official acts. Big difference. Huge.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
FBI agents getting busted for insider trading using illegal wiretaps
People get busted for insider trading from all walks of life. Take a finance officer who scours over financial figures daily, they have a lot more access to sensitive information, they pride themselves on their strong sense of ethics, but you'll always have your Anderson Coopers.
What the fuck? Jose Padilla the terrorist? Possibly other cases? There are plenty of cases where enemy combatants are detained. I don't know why you bring him up, like I'm supposed to feel sorry for him or something. We should have dropped a guided bomb on his house, in the US, wouldn't that go over well? Heh heh.
What's your point? Might makes right? That the police are above the law like Bush thinks he is?
Allow me to clarify. A right to privacy doesn't exist, it isn't written law, the constitution talks about freedoms, freedom of speech, the law puts limits on what agencies can do, but there is no statutory right to privacy. The president has wartime powers, specifically he is obligated to protect the people and uphold the constitution, the right to LIFE. It's plain as day if you know how to read the constitution. You think the president is just some schmuck who does his job like a cop does his, but no, I'm not relating the president to cops, his job is much different.
Oh wouldn't you like to see some domestic spying allegations. If you ask me the whole plan is already ruined, some fucking senator leaked what we were doing, now all lines are probably dead. They should be imprisoned for it, undermining war efforts for political gain is all it is. He/SHE remains anonymous.