General discussion


I spy...

By azul ·
Bush autherized spying on US citizens and is unapologetic.

While I admire the mans conviction and hard-headedness I have to wonder about the legality of it.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a new precedence.

If he can do this sort of thing, why do we need the patriot act? Does this not subvert the legislative process and the legal process?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

OH NO! England SPYING on citizens

by maxwell edison In reply to I spy...
Collapse -

OH NO! Auatralia spies on the WORLD

by maxwell edison In reply to I spy...
Collapse -

So if the herd

by Dr Dij In reply to OH NO! Auatralia spies on ...

jumped off a cliff, you'd go along?

the beauty of this country is that we stand up for freedom and human rights even when the rest of the world is ignoring them.. (well I thought we did.. I guess not..)

Collapse -

That's not what I'm suggesting at all

by maxwell edison In reply to So if the herd

I posted those links for the benefit of our Canadian, Australian, and British friends, so they could comment on them as well. They were also, of course, dripping with sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

I don't need those other nations to stand-pat on my argument that what's being done is both legal and legitimate. And I find it interesting that no one has commented on my other messages supporting it.**1798**2002

So try again, Dr Dij. Your attempt to characterize me as you did is very lame.

Collapse -


by azul In reply to That's not what I'm sugge ...

I have been in the hospital and have had no access to a PC for a few days.

To make it short and somthing, It is about principals. If we subvert our principals, we have no authority. We have and are moving far away from the pincipals that our freedom and liberty are based upon.

I agree with much of what you, JD and others have said.

If Bush worked to maintain checks and balances and recognized that ALL have inalienable rights, I would be a lot more supportive.

That is it in a nutshell for me.

Thank you for your comments.

Collapse -

Sometimes 'rights' must take a backseat to prudence.

by TonytheTiger In reply to Sorry,

For example, if you are sitting at an intersection and the light turns green, you have the right to proceed through the intersection. If, however, you choose not to use prudence by looking for cross traffic before proceeding and get mowed down by a tractor-trailer, you may very well have been right, but you may also be very well dead!

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to I spy...

Suppose a legal wiretap was being conducted on a gangster. Now suppose the gangster calls his mother and that call is recorded. Are the mother's rights being violated? Of course not.

Apply the same logic to the wiretapping going on between suspected terrorists outside this country (who Bush doesn't NEED a warrant to tap) and whomever they call and receive calls from in this country (equated to the mother in the previous paragraph).

Precedence? Hardly. It's just that back then, the New York Times wasn't in the habit of divulging TOP SECRET plans relating to national security. (Personally, I think the paper should be forcibly shut down until the names of those 'anonymous government sources' are revealed, then these sources should be tried for treason.)

The Patriot act is needed when the suspects are operating wholly within our borders.

Collapse -

I look at this a little differently

by road-dog In reply to I spy...

I see that a temporary relaxation of civil protections (not the case here) is part of the government's PRIMARY job of protecting citizens by preserving the political structure that supports those very protections.

If terrorism causes anarchy and removes the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then the government has failed to comply with it's Constitutional responsibilities.

I liken this to Field Medics removing a leg to save the patient. At some point, preservation of the "body politic" overrides the value of the leg which would ordinarily be preserved in circumstances which would permit it.

I believe that the Executive branch has carte blanche to spy on terrorists as part of defense responsibilities. Phone calls are bi-directional and the government should only need one end of the call to involve a terrorist suspect to be allowed to monitor the call.

The way I see it, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. I notice that the Congress members making the biggest noise about this are not the ones involved directly in oversight! In other words, those who are in the loop about the conditions and extent of these activities apparently see the propriety of the spying.

Collapse -

corrections are now being made......

by husp1 In reply to I spy...

to the constitution in tiny paragraphs witch should not obscure the original text. wonder what new changes will be made in the next 10 years? ( pardon my sarcasim)

Related Discussions

Related Forums