A threat from Bin Laden (possible debate)

[CathrynRose]

So...just how many of your rights are you willing to give up before you stop cowering in fear of the .00000001% chance that you could die in a terrorist attack ?

Oh nice....

See *I* am also concerned about WHOMEVER the .00000001 % person is whom IS killed in a terrorist attack.

Do you feel if you ignore it, it will go away? Do you remember how you felt on 9.11 ??? Did you see what people lost? Did you remember how terrifying that was??!?

Cowering in fear.... please.

 

[Chicago526]

I have no problem at all with wiretaps, as long as the goverment has a warrant. From what I've read, getting a warrant isn't a problem 99% of the time. WHY warrents weren't applied for by the government in the past, I just cannot fathom.

In a free society, one of the risks you run is that bad people can use that very freedom to harm inocent people. It's the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy.

If someone in the US is getting phone calls from a terrorist, I want and expect the government to place a wiretap on that phone line. All I ask is that they run it past a judge either before hand or in the 3 days after that the law allows them.

 

[Puffy2]

I have no problem at all with wiretaps, as long as the goverment has a warrant. From what I've read, getting a warrant isn't a problem 99% of the time. WHY warrents weren't applied for by the government in the past, I just cannot fathom.

Exactly. and the way the law is written, they can even wiretap and THEN apply for the warrent within 72 hours (if it's an "emergency") . But the Bu$h administration doesn't want to be bothered with that...hum...wonder why? Could they be trying to hide something? Could they be wiretapping people that they have absolutely no business wiretapping? This has got to be one of the most corrupt administrations in our government. I just hope that there are other leaders out there who have the courage and ability to expose them.

 

[Independent]

I believe wiretaps are absolutely needed and ok. As long as proper procedure is followed. There is a reason our founding fathers put in place the checks and balances of our government.

Off to purchase my plastic sheeting.

 

[CheshireVal]

Yes, by all means...the closer we can come to 1984 where Big Brother knows everything that we do and say, the better off we'll all be. Who needs the fourth amendment, anyway ? Why...I'd be too scared to go out in public if it weren't for the good, just government of George Dubya Bush watching out for all them evil-doers !

[/sarcasm]

Yeah...um...no. Thanks. I think I'd like to keep the constitution the way it is.

I have to agree with wvrevy here.

I'm really not comfortable giving up what were once constitutional rights to the government this way. I'm not a huge believer in slippery slope fallacies, but I'm a little bit scared at the little slippery slides I've been seeing concerning civil liberties violations in this country under the current administration.

 

[Chuck S]

Off to purchase my plastic sheeting.

Don't forget your duct tape, now available in designer colors.

 

[Geoff_M]

There is no reason at all to avoid that court unless you were trying to do something that you knew you could not get a subpoena for.

It's comments like this one that is a perfect example why the warrantless searches, that weren't invented by the current administration nor were they the first to use them, aren't politically smart to use. Critics are free to make any manner of charge against the users of such searches with little or no proof. As a bonus to the critics, the Administration is effectivley prohibited from defending against the charges least they further compromise their intelligence gathering efforts. It's this concpet that allows certain ex-VPs to make such claims as "the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years..." and say other stuff that lets people's imaginations run wild. People can assign all of the ill intent they wish without fear of facts being presented to dispute the claims or examples being cited where warrantless searches were the right option to use. The people that know the specifics can't talk about it.

 

[Independent]

Don't forget your duct tape, now available in designer colors.

Duct Tape has that contest, where high school students can win a scholarship if they design their prom clothes entirely out of duct tape.

Wonder if they will start sponsoring a decorating contest on the "best decorated sheeting and duct tape shelter?"

 

[wvrevy]

Oh nice....

See *I* am also concerned about WHOMEVER the .00000001 % person is whom IS killed in a terrorist attack.

Do you feel if you ignore it, it will go away? Do you remember how you felt on 9.11 ??? Did you see what people lost? Did you remember how terrifying that was??!?

Cowering in fear.... please.

Why else would you be willing to let the government do "whatever it must" to protect you from the terrorist boogeyman ?

I used to work at one of the places hit on 9/11, so kindly keep the lectures about it to yourself. Thanks

We live in a free society (or, at least, we used to). In a free society, sometimes bad people are going to use that freedom to do bad things. So be it. If that is the price we must pay to live in a Big Brother-free society, then it's one I'm willing to pay. The people that died on 9/11 died in part because of our freedom in this country. It's a real shame that so many are willing to give away that same freedom out of fear.

 

[Laura]

Exactly. and the way the law is written, they can even wiretap and THEN apply for the warrent within 72 hours (if it's an "emergency") . But the Bu$h administration doesn't want to be bothered with that...hum...wonder why? Could they be trying to hide something? Could they be wiretapping people that they have absolutely no business wiretapping?

No kidding! It's not like it isn't easy as pie for Bush to do this legally. Why circumvent the court?

 

[Mom2be]

It's comments like this one that is a perfect example why the warrantless searches, that weren't invented by the current administration nor were they the first to use them, aren't politically smart to use. Critics are free to make any manner of charge against the users of such searches with little or no proof. As a bonus to the critics, the Administration is effectivley prohibited from defending against the charges least they further compromise their intelligence gathering efforts. It's this concpet that allows certain ex-VPs to make such claims as "the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years..." and say other stuff that lets people's imaginations run wild. People can assign all of the ill intent they wish without fear of facts being presented to dispute the claims or examples being cited where warrantless searches were the right option to use.

Yep, Nixon did it to - and we all saw how that turned out.

The fact is that legal action was not followed. Now I am all for investigating whether the steps taken by the administration was legal. But if it is found to be illegal then I'm sorry but the "we aren't the first to do it" defense doesn't fly for me. Not to mention the "we are fighting a different kind of war!" defense doesn't scare me enough to throw civil liberties out the door. In a way doing so gives the terrorist exactly what they want - a limit to American's freedoms.

~Amanda

~Amanda

 

[Nancy]

I didnt have a problem with the wiretaps the first time around. Certainly dont have a problem with it now.

I find it hard to beleive that everyone feels these wiretaps are *new*. Do you honestly think it never went on before??? It just happened to get leaked.

I also have no problems with wiretapping. I have said it before, if you are an honest person with nothing to hide, why would you be against or afraid of something that is being done to protect the country. Listening to something I might say isn't taking away any of my personal freedoms cause I don't so anything illegal.

edited to add: of course if the spell police are around that might be a different thing! I always have to correct my spelling!

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I am all for LEGAL wiretapping.

I am totally against circumventing the system. I am also sick that people are so willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of security. What good is a secure country if we have no freedoms? I'd rather take the gamble.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

We live in a free society (or, at least, we used to).

I believe we still do live in a free society. Last I checked, I can go where I want, say what I want (I know a lot of people say Bush is an idiot...has anyone been jailed for it? Nope). Has anyone's library records been subpoenaed? Nope.

 

[Nancy]

What freedom have any of you had personally taken away? I still live my life the same way I did last year and the year before and the year before. I see no changes. I do see a lot of what ifs and IF this happens and IF that happens, and what good is the 4th ammendment, and we will have all of our freedoms taken away, and I don't want the government conrolling my life......please, the government has had a say in your life for years...but I have yet to hear of one person on here who has not been able to do or say exactly what they want.

 

[CheshireVal]

What freedom have any of you had personally taken away? I still live my life the same way I did last year and the year before and the year before. I see no changes. I do see a lot of what ifs and IF this happens and IF that happens, and what good is the 4th ammendment, and we will have all of our freedoms taken away, and I don't want the government conrolling my life......please, the government has had a say in your life for years...but I have yet to hear of one person on here who has not been able to do or say exactly what they want.

What you've lost isn't anything tangible; it's not something you can see.

Just because your rights haven't been violated as of yet, doesn't mean that they won't be or that they can't be. It's the potential for abuse (legal abuse) that's kind of scary.

 

[Laura]

It's funny how people can justify the Bush administration possibly acting illegally when, evidently, it doesn't need to. Wiretapping legally doesn't bug me so much, doing it illegally creeps me out.

The question is, where does it stop? Someone might mind having the feds listen to their phone calls to mom and dad in Saudi Arabia, someone might not. Which parts of a private life are people allowed to keep? Just because I'm not a terrorist and have nothing to fear doesn't mean the government can put surveillance on me all the time.

 

[Geoff_M]

Yep, Nixon did it to - and we all saw how that turned out.

Last time I checked, Nixon didn't brief Congressional leaders of both parties of his actions beforehand, nor did he seek the opinion of the DoJ, nor is it related in almost any manner.

 

[Hercules10]

#1 - I think Bin Lunacy is bluffing with his "Let's call a truce" -plea. I think he and all his knuckle-heads know their losing the war and they want out. Odd how this happened right after the missle strike in Pakistan huh?

#2 - Wire taps are gonna continue like it or not.

 

[Mom2be]

I am all for LEGAL wiretapping.

I am totally against circumventing the system. I am also sick that people are so willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of security. What good is a secure country if we have no freedoms? I'd rather take the gamble.

All is right in the world again - Miss Jasmine and I are agreeing! WHEW! I was starting to get worried!