Warrantless wiretapping petition

[ViolaLee]

I tried 3 times to add a post to this thread:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=6750&page=3

And it just kept taking me back to the first page when I clicked submit.

So here is what I wanted to say.

Sign the Petition (http://pol.moveon.org/capitulation/?r_by=10919-5198018-8k9MYc&rc=comment_paste)
Full petition text:

"I'm outraged that Congress capitulated to President Bush and gave him more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. I demand Congress act swiftly to reverse this reckless act."

[3.14]

I'm frankly amazed unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act were ever approved.

[Stoner]

I'm frankly amazed unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act were ever approved.


That's because they're not unconstitutional. Same for this new bill just recently passed. Neolibs like to scare people and use sensational and dramatic words like, "illegal" and "unconstitutional" but in reality it's all perfectly legal and constitutional.

[3.14]

I'm frankly amazed unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act were ever approved.


That's because they're not unconstitutional. Same for this new bill just recently passed. Neolibs like to scare people and use sensational and dramatic words like, "illegal" and "unconstitutional" but in reality it's all perfectly legal and constitutional.


I disagree. Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers. Sure, the powers that be have taken advantage of some vague wording, but that doesn't make the law any less unconstitutional.

FWIW, part of the Patriot Act had been struck down a while back in a court of law, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

[preservanation]

The libs refuse to defend this nation.

They do not understand the asymmetric war which has been waged on the west by Islamofascists.
The methods which are needed to defend ourselves against a weaker and suicidal enemy are not the same as conventional wars, because terrorist tactics are not the same as in a conventional war. Comparisons and old rules are false and useless.

The libs must be willing to pry their heads of our collective asses and realize that terrorism is a global threat. They must stop trying to thwart at every turn any attempt for this administration to keep us and our families safe.

Bush and I are willing to defend this nation.
The left is not.
They put politics and personality over the security of America.

[micfranklin]

I'm frankly amazed unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act were ever approved.


That's because they're not unconstitutional. Same for this new bill just recently passed. Neolibs like to scare people and use sensational and dramatic words like, "illegal" and "unconstitutional" but in reality it's all perfectly legal and constitutional.


Please....

The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping aren't any more constitutional than slavery.

[3.14]

The libs refuse to defend this nation.

Stereotyping never really works. ;)


They do not understand the asymmetric war which has been waged on the west by Islamofascists.
The methods which are needed to defend ourselves against a weaker and suicidal enemy are not the same as conventional wars, because terrorist tactics are not the same as in a conventional war. Comparisons and old rules are false and useless.

If laws (that erode the very legal principles that form the backbone of the United States legal system) are enforced, simply as a response to terrorism, then the terrorists have won, to be quite honest. . .

But, let's assume for a minute here that the Patriot Act actually helps in the war against terrorism. Can you be specific, and detail how exactly it helps?


The libs must be willing to pry their heads of our collective asses and realize that terrorism is a global threat. They must stop trying to thwart at every turn any attempt for this administration to keep us and our families safe.

Again, I really don't see how spying on a law abiding citizen (remember, the US legal system works this way - innocent until proven guilty) helps anything and keeps us safe - and this is just one example.


Bush and I are willing to defend this nation.
The left is not.
They put politics and personality over the security of America.


More stereotyping. As for Bush, he's done just about everything possible to drag the nation down into a quagmire rather than "defend it".

[lawless168]

The libs refuse to defend this nation.

They do not understand the asymmetric war which has been waged on the west by Islamofascists.


That’s an understatement...

[Questerr]

I will gladly sign this petition.

As someone who has worked with intelligence, specifically signals intelligence, I can say that the warrantless wiretapping program is not only unneccessary, it is immoral. Everytime we had to submit a FISA request, it was granted in a timely manner and caused no problems with our mission. This program is yet another way to remove accountability.

Going further, the PATRIOT Act is not needed either. The government has a way to legally do everything that the PATRIOT Act allows, but it requires a judge, a justification, and a warrant. We can get all of the information that we need to fight terrorists, but it requires that you show that someone is a possible threat before you begin looking more closely at them.

And before PATRIOT supporters begin to ask "well if we can't collect on them until we know they are a threat how are we supposed to know they are a threat to begin with?". The answer to that is simple, most threats are identified through other captured terrorists or by surreptitious collection that is completely legal and doesn't require a warrant.

If the administration really wanted to make intelligence more effective, they would have made domestic and foreign intelligence sharing easier. They would have dissolved the CIA, DIA, NSA, State Department office of Intelligence, the FBI Intelligence Branch, military intelligence, and all other intel groups and combined them into a single Joint Intelligence Agency with a single mandate, close scrutiny to ensure that everything is legal and constitutional, and able to conduct both domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.

That is what should happen in my opinion.

[Drocket]

I disagree. Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers. Sure, the powers that be have taken advantage of some vague wording, but that doesn't make the law any less unconstitutional.

Actaully, you're wrong: the Constitution DOES address these issues. And it says the government can't do these sorts of activities without a warrant.

It seriously amuses me that the party that continuously claims that because the Constitution doesn't specifically allow things like Social Security means that they're not permitted have absolutely no problem violating things that are right there in black and white.

And regarding the continuous refrain of "terra, terra, terra! Evil scary Muslims gonna getcha!" that's always drug out to justify these sorts of things, let me just say: Give me liberty or give me death. Even if it's conceded that obeying the Constitution does reduce our safety (a point which I most emphatically do NOT concede) - so what? There are things more important than safety. Justice, freedom and liberty, for example. What can be more unAmerican than throwing away those things for nothing more than a vague promise of slightly improved safety?

[Questerr]

[/i]
I disagree. Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers. Sure, the powers that be have taken advantage of some vague wording, but that doesn't make the law any less unconstitutional.

Actaully, you're wrong: the Constitution DOES address these issues. And it says the government can't do these sorts of activities without a warrant.

It seriously amuses me that the party that continuously claims that because the Constitution doesn't specifically allow things like Social Security means that they're not permitted have absolutely no problem violating things that are right there in black and white.

And regarding the continuous refrain of "terra, terra, terra! Evil scary Muslims gonna getcha!" that's always drug out to justify these sorts of things, let me just say: Give me liberty or give me death. Even if it's conceded that obeying the Constitution does reduce our safety (a point which I most emphatically do NOT concede) - so what? There are things more important than safety. Justice, freedom and liberty, for example. What can be more unAmerican than throwing away those things for nothing more than a vague promise of slightly improved safety?[i]


That is what I've been saying for a while now. When does the sacrifice of liberty in exchange for marginal increase in security become too much? When someone begins thinking about it in the first place.

Liberty first.

[ViolaLee]

Give me liberty or give me death. Even if it's conceded that obeying the Constitution does reduce our safety (a point which I most emphatically do NOT concede) - so what? There are things more important than safety. Justice, freedom and liberty, for example. What can be more unAmerican than throwing away those things for nothing more than a vague promise of slightly improved safety?


WELL SAID. You my friend are a good patriotic American.

[exigent]

They do not understand the asymmetric war which has been waged on the west by Islamofascists.
The methods which are needed to defend ourselves against a weaker and suicidal enemy are not the same as conventional wars, because terrorist tactics are not the same as in a conventional war. Comparisons and old rules are false and useless.

The libs must be willing to pry their heads of our collective asses and realize that terrorism is a global threat. They must stop trying to thwart at every turn any attempt for this administration to keep us and our families safe.

Bush and I are willing to defend this nation.
The left is not.
They put politics and personality over the security of America.


So, uhhh...whats the status on securing our borders and beefing up security at our ports of entry?

What you dont understand is that we dont want to give up our liberties for the trade off of potentially stopping a terrorist attack. I see that as a victory for the terrorists in that they REALLY are nothing more than just a nuissance. Unless they can physically destroy america, in every sense, I will not fear them, and I will not happily trade in my liberties to stop them.

We are spending a trillion dollars (the same amount that world war II cost us) just to "defend america" by "defend america" we mean "stop another terrorist attack to occur on our soil" correct? that doesnt seem a wee bit excessive?

[lily]

I tried 3 times to add a post to this thread:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=6750&page=3

And it just kept taking me back to the first page when I clicked submit.

I signed it over on the other page. It worked over there, but here is good too, since it is sparking more debate.

[preservanation]

They do not understand the asymmetric war which has been waged on the west by Islamofascists.
The methods which are needed to defend ourselves against a weaker and suicidal enemy are not the same as conventional wars, because terrorist tactics are not the same as in a conventional war. Comparisons and old rules are false and useless.

The libs must be willing to pry their heads of our collective asses and realize that terrorism is a global threat. They must stop trying to thwart at every turn any attempt for this administration to keep us and our families safe.

Bush and I are willing to defend this nation.
The left is not.
They put politics and personality over the security of America.


So, uhhh...whats the status on securing our borders and beefing up security at our ports of entry?

What you dont understand is that we dont want to give up our liberties for the trade off of potentially stopping a terrorist attack. I see that as a victory for the terrorists in that they REALLY are nothing more than just a nuissance. Unless they can physically destroy america, in every sense, I will not fear them, and I will not happily trade in my liberties to stop them.

We are spending a trillion dollars (the same amount that world war II cost us) just to "defend america" by "defend america" we mean "stop another terrorist attack to occur on our soil" correct? that doesnt seem a wee bit excessive?

Throwing you guns and your balls out the door is no way to defend your family.

[lily]

What everyone said about the constituion I can't really add on to, you've all said it better than I could. I'd just like to add what is so wrong with this new bill........They are getting rid of the FISA court so that Gonzales and the NIA have complete power over it.

So, they are getting rid of the very agency they set up to regulate this......the agency that brought it to the attention of the public that this was un-constitutional and putting in charge the man who fought to have this put in place........and not only that, but the NIA answers to him?

To borrow a phrase from NC. Hooo Boy!

[preservanation]

Pah,
asymmetric war baffles the left.
Ignorantly or purposely...
yet to be decided.

[Buck Laser]

I'm frankly amazed unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act were ever approved.


That's because they're not unconstitutional. Same for this new bill just recently passed. Neolibs like to scare people and use sensational and dramatic words like, "illegal" and "unconstitutional" but in reality it's all perfectly legal and constitutional.

Stoner, you keep saying that, but you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. It's the role of the congress to pass legislation, the executive branch to carry out the laws, and the judicial to decide whether or not a particular law is constitutional. You can't change that by your declaration, despite your delusions of grandeur.

In another thread, you've said that if congress passes a law and the preznit signs it, it's therefore constitutional. Sorry Charley, it just ain't so. Mind telling us where you got this cockamamie idea?

[3.14]

I disagree. Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers. Sure, the powers that be have taken advantage of some vague wording, but that doesn't make the law any less unconstitutional.

Actaully, you're wrong: the Constitution DOES address these issues. And it says the government can't do these sorts of activities without a warrant.

Hey, thats exactly what I said too. :)

Requoting "Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers" . . .

And regarding the continuous refrain of "terra, terra, terra! Evil scary Muslims gonna getcha!" that's always drug out to justify these sorts of things, let me just say: Give me liberty or give me death. Even if it's conceded that obeying the Constitution does reduce our safety (a point which I most emphatically do NOT concede) - so what? There are things more important than safety. Justice, freedom and liberty, for example. What can be more unAmerican than throwing away those things for nothing more than a vague promise of slightly improved safety?


I am not saying the Constitution erodes any freedoms - in fact, I am arguing the opposite. I do believe the current Bush administration is rapidly eroding the concept of liberty, though. . .

I would disagree in that there are things more important than safety - if this Patriot Act actually helped abate terror, I'd be far more willing to re-consider my opinions. However, the way I see it is that all that ends up happening is that the government spies on those who really haven't committed any crimes, merely on the basis of suspicion - and this could set a very dangerous predecent.

Thanks.

3.14

[exigent]

We are spending a trillion dollars (the same amount that world war II cost us) just to "defend america" by "defend america" we mean "stop another terrorist attack to occur on our soil" correct? that doesnt seem a wee bit excessive?

Throwing you guns and your balls out the door is no way to defend your family.


I'm definitely not a pacifist, but how can we go abroad to keep my family safe, when the border 10 miles from my house is wide open?

[Drocket]

Requoting "Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers" . . .

What I'm disagreeing with you with is that saying that it doesn't state that the government doesn't have these powers make it sound as though the issue isn't addressed. That spying on citizens without a warrant is simply something that the founding fathers didn't consider. They did consider it - and they explicitly forbid it.

Warrantless wiretapping isn't unconstitutional because it's a power that wasn't granted to the government. It's unconstitutional because it's a power that the government was quite clearly barred from. That's pretty much a whole other level of unconstitutional, a much more serious one.

The rest of my post was directed more towards Stoner and preservanation. It just happened to be attached to a reply to you :P

[3.14]

Requoting "Spying on people secretly, tapping their phone lines, gathering information about their Internet usage without warrants is all extremely fishy and a massive violation of civil rights/privacy, and nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government has these powers" . . .

What I'm disagreeing with you with is that saying that it doesn't state that the government doesn't have these powers make it sound as though the issue isn't addressed. That spying on citizens without a warrant is simply something that the founding fathers didn't consider. They did consider it - and they explicitly forbid it.

Warrantless wiretapping isn't unconstitutional because it's a power that wasn't granted to the government. It's unconstitutional because it's a power that the government was quite clearly barred from. That's pretty much a whole other level of unconstitutional, a much more serious one.

The rest of my post was directed more towards Stoner and preservanation. It just happened to be attached to a reply to you :P


Agreed, the Constitution does forbid it, however, if I'm not mistaken, Bush took advantage of some loopholes in the Constitution while "passing" the Patriot Act which is how it got passed anyway.

I'll look for the site where I read this, and post the link here. . .

[preservanation]

We are spending a trillion dollars (the same amount that world war II cost us) just to "defend america" by "defend america" we mean "stop another terrorist attack to occur on our soil" correct? that doesnt seem a wee bit excessive?

Throwing you guns and your balls out the door is no way to defend your family.


I'm definitely not a pacifist, but how can we go abroad to keep my family safe, when the border 10 miles from my house is wide open?

Excellent point.
Both parties in the fed gov have done nothing to secure our boarders for obvious reasons.
This is an egregious problem which can no longer ignored nor be remedied by granting amnesty.
We tried that before and I hope we have the brains not to go down that road again.

The states can't even enforce their own laws restricting illegals without a law suit.
We have aggressively prosecuted boarder agents while granting immunity to lying drug dealers.
Politicians better wake up to the fact that we are fed up with this bus-load of balderdash.