Spying on Americans, so What?

Published on May 31, 2006 By Moderateman In War on Terror

Simple question time.

Why do you care if the government is listening to your phone calls? I don't care at all. If they capture one terrorist or break up one attack on America then it's well worth it.

If you have something to hide from the government, I suggest you do not use the phone any longer. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOVE THIS WAS GENERATED OUT OF FEAR AND A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY I WOULD BE GIVING UP. i WAS WRONG IN WRITING IT AND ASK SIMPLY FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I TO DO SOME DUMB THINGS TIME TO TIME. ELIE

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on May 31, 2006

Since polls mean everything.

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

#1 by Island Dog
Wed, May 31, 2006 09:34 AM

Since polls mean everything.

thanx, but I am looking for how you feel about the government spying on YOU.

thatoneguyinslc

on May 31, 2006

Simple answer time....

The government does not have the right to violate it's citizen's privacy. If the G feels they need to listen in on someone's phone conversations, They can get a warrant.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2006

Moderateman,

Simple question to counter your question:

How many rights does the US Constitution give us as citizens?

If you answered NONE, that is correct. And that is why the government spying matters. You see, the founding fathers knew that a government tht assigns rights to its citizens has a right to REVOKE those rights. That is why they clearly worded the founding documents to express that these were our rights, God given and inalienable (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence), and went on to enumerate SOME of those rights in the US Constitution, which was meant, not to assign rights to citizens, but to limit the power of the government.

If you truly feel that our rights do not matter as citizens, you have a right to tht opinion. But be honest and open about it, and lobby for the abolition of the US Constitution, because that, effectively, is what you are doing.

Draginol

on May 31, 2006

I care because it's none of the government's business.

The federal government has no rights over me. It is a service provider. It is only allowed to do what I choose to allow it to do.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: thatoneguyinslcPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Simple answer time....The government does not have the right to violate it's citizen's privacy. If the G feels they need to listen in on someone's phone conversations, They can get a warrant.

and in the time it takes to get the warrant an attack is planned and the others disappear.

I break no laws so I do not care if they li9sten.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Moderateman,

If you truly feel that our rights do not matter as citizens, you have a right to that opinion. But be honest and open about it, and lobby for the abolition of the US Constitution, because that, effectively, is what you are doing.

it would not be the first time the constitution was violated to protect the country, honest Abe did it during the civil war. I am not saying do away with the constitution, there are just times when the needs of the people z{remember the 3000 dead on 9-11?} MUST BE PUT AHEAD OF A WHAT IS IN essence a piece of paper. A wonderful piece of paper filled with the most incredible thoughts and Ideas.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: Brad WardellPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006I care because it's none of the government's business.The federal government has no rights over me. It is a service provider. It is only allowed to do what I choose to allow it to do.

and would you allow it to save lives?

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2006

What is it about having 72 hours AFTER the fact that you fail to understand, moderateman?

the Nazis were a pretty damn effective police force, too...do we really want to emulate them?

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2006

It is not a "piece of paper", Moderateman. It is the LAW. Just as you and I are bound by the law, so is the government. If you don't like a law, change it, but don't disregard it.

This "piece of paper", as you so contemptuously refer to it, is the same "piece of paper" to which these Congresspersons and our president have sworn an oath. If the fourth amendment, which you so readily spit on, is rendered invalid, so can every other amendment, including the first and second. If the government will not respect the rule of law, how can it expect its citizens to do so?

Using the "Lincoln did it, so other presidents can, too" excuse is NO excuse. If someone else robs a bank, does that give me the inherent right to do so, just because they were never convicted of it?

I expect better of you, frankly, moderateman. Suggesting that the Constitution be rendered irrelevant is, effectively lobbying for the death of democracy, because those are the rules we have chosen to guide our government.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006It is not a "piece of paper", Moderateman. It is the LAW. Just as you and I are bound by the law, so is the government. If you don't like a law, change it, but don't disregard it.This "piece of paper", as you so contemptuously refer to it, is the same "piece of paper" to which these Congresspersons and our president have sworn an oath. If the fourth amendment, which you so readily spit on, is rendered invalid, so can every other amendment, including the first and second. If the government will not respect the rule of law, how can it expect its citizens to do so?

you are way off base here gid. you are accusing me of thought I never have had! Try to remember I fought to preserve the constitution it is the entire foundation of our great country. I spit on nothing nor do I hold it in contempt. YOU owe me an apology.

While I hold the constitution in high regard I hold life of my countrymen even higher. If you knew that tapping a phone with no warrant could have prevented the horror of sept.11th 2001, would you still say no do it? What if that illegal wiretap saved your childrens life? would you still feel that the constitution is more important that your kids? The constitution is a "living document" it has been changed hence "amendments"

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006What is it about having 72 hours AFTER the fact that you fail to understand, moderateman?the Nazis were a pretty damn effective police force, too...do we really want to emulate them

and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2006

and if for some reason the judge decides there was not enough reason to issue a wiretap, What then?

Well, then, the government needs to be held accountable, doesn't it?

While I hold the constitution in high regard I hold life of my countrymen even higher. If you knew that tapping a phone with no warrant could have prevented the horror of sept.11th 2001, would you still say no do it? What if that illegal wiretap saved your childrens life? would you still feel that the constitution is more important that your kids? The constitution is a "living document" it has been changed hence "amendments"

No, it is NOT a "living document". That is an idea the liberals use to advance a socialist agenda. It can be amended, yes, but it has a procedure that must be followed to be amended. It IS the law of the land.

You are advancing the argument of the liberal gun control crowd, who argue that if we seize every gun in the US, it will be worth it if it saves one life. Maybe terror attacks could be prevented if we were forced to live as slaves and wear tracking devices, moderateman, but would it be worth it? Seriously?

What I find frightening about this article, moderateman, is that it COMPLETELY contradicts just about everything else you've ever written. This is a manifesto for a socialist, totalitarian government, and if you are even remotely serious about it, it is frightening.

Moderateman

on May 31, 2006

I will not discuss this anymore till you issue an apology.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2006

Well, I guess there's nothing to discuss. There will BE no such apology.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!