Whether or not you have anything to hide is beside the point. The Patriot Act makes it far too easy to abuse the "eavesdropping" ability of the government. I mean imagine if Nixon had legislation like that!?
Besides you start with eaversdropping and then you go to illegal searches and then you go to arresting those who dissent against the government. It becomes a very slippery slope.
Saying "if you have nothing to hide it's no problem" is an ignorant argument and shows a lack of higher level reasoning.
If McCain takes Condoleezza Rice as his vice president, I guarantee McCain would win. Obama was an idiot for choosing Biden. He screwed himself since Biden would rather be McCain's VP.
It's funny to hear Rightwingers talk about LIbrerals destroying the constitution when that is EXACTLY what the Patriot Act has done and the Rightwingers cheared that little piece of eavesdropping privacy interfering constitutional breaking legislation right along. First off, I am not for the Patriot act. Second, I'm not Rightwing. I'm kind of in between, liberal here, conservative there. My freedom of speech and privacy is far more important than my ability to own a gun. Althought, and this is where confusion sets it, most liberals want to limit automatic assault weapons NOT!! handguns, or shotguns, or hunting rifles. There is a difference. NO one outside of South Centeral LA requires an AK4 ****ing 7. These rights need each other. Without the right to bear arms, all other rights are forfeit. Power corrupts.
Xzeno, if I'm talking about you personally, then I'll mention your name. Quit being so egotistical.
Yes, but the problem is that power is easily abused. For example, many people are claiming that ECHELON, another government digital spy network has been used to steal industrial secrets. By allowing such power to exist you allow it to be abused, a truly oppressive government could use this power to listen in on the opposing political parties, to squash them.
I have a question for you. Do you think that no one should own a gun because a small percentage of people use them to kill others? Anything can be misused; should there be no telephones in the US because some people harass others by it? Should the internet be banned because many people abuse its priveliges? Should all libraries close because some people never return books? This is the argument presented.
are u mental without the patriot act think of what could have happen. ill agree that people missuse power every day that doesnt mean u should just codemm it and remove because people might abuse the system. you have to work harder to find people that wont abuse it and actully use the power to make the country better.
Saying "if you have nothing to hide it's no problem" is an ignorant argument and shows a lack of higher level reasoning.
All I'm saying is, the only reason that someone would be afraid of others overhearing their conversations, etc. is if they have something to hide. If the Liberals would stop putting up a face and just show who they really are, they wouldn't need to worry about people hearing what they say in private.
are u mental without the patriot act think of what could have happen. ill agree that people missuse power every day that doesnt mean u should just codemm it and remove because people might abuse the system. you have to work harder to find people that wont abuse it and actully use the power to make the country better.
That's exactly my point!!!
I know that people could misuse it, but that's no reason to condemn it...
What are you talking about "without the patrior act what could have happened"? What has the patriot act accomplished?! Not too much. Warentless eavesdropping is one of the major "accomplishments" of the Patriot Act. You know why warrants have been needed for decades now?!!? So police and other law enformenct agencies aren't harrassing people without probably cause. Without P.C. there is no need to survey someone, simply because they're muslim? IS that reason enough to tap someones phone? Because of their religion? It's racist. If you have some sort of suspicion that someone is going to or has broken the law, then provide your evidence to a judeg, get your warrant, and do things legally. The founding fathers would be horrified to know that such legislation is in existance.
Saying "if you have nothing to hide it's no problem" is an ignorant argument and shows a lack of higher level reasoning. All I'm saying is, the only reason that someone would be afraid of others overhearing their conversations, etc. is if they have something to hide. If the Liberals would stop putting up a face and just show who they really are, they wouldn't need to worry about people hearing what they say in private.
NO! That's not the point. It doesn't matter if a person has something to hide or not. Their privacy shoudl be respected. It is no ones business who I talk to on the phone or what numbers I call. I have nothing to hide but that doesn't negate the fact that my personal business is my personal business. What if I was cheating on my wife (I'm not married so this is hypothetical) does the government have the right to know that? What if I'm talking to my doctor about my cancer? Who has the right to know that? No one except who I decide should know.
Police, FBI, CIA, etc. have been able to tap peoples phones in the past they simply needed to have some sort of evidence that such measures were necessary and then obtain a warrant. There is no reason why the status quo should have been changed. Becauswe the Republicans play on our fear of terrosit attacks. They are taking advantage of the tragedy of 9-11 and that is an audacious act and should be looked down upon.
What are you talking about "without the patrior act what could have happened"? What has the patriot act accomplished?! Not too much. Warentless eavesdropping is one of the major "accomplishments" of the Patriot Act. You know why warrants have been needed for decades now?!!? So police and other law enformenct agencies aren't harrassing people without probably cause. Without P.C. there is no need to survey someone, simply because they're muslim? IS that reason enough to tap someones phone? Because of their religion? It's racist. If you have some sort of suspicion that someone is going to or has broken the law, then provide your evidence to a judeg, get your warrant, and do things legally. The founding fathers would be horrified to know that such legislation is in existance.
3 points:
1) The reason there is warrantless wiretapping is becaues all warrants are public record, and all the suspect would need is to go down to the police station and ask for the records... 2) No one said anything about Muslims... Some of my best friends are Muslims... 3) This is how the founding fathers got intel. during the Revolutionary War! Do you think they needed a warrant to eavesdrop on the Redcoats? NO!!! These terrorists are the modern Redcoats, and why would we need a warrant to eavesdrop on international conversations between known terrorists!?
Don't you suppose there is a reason why warrants are public record? I guarantee that the majority of people who have had their phones tapped by the patriot act are muslims. I don't think I'm going to agree with your comparrison of Redcoats and Terrorists. If anything american settlers were the terrorists. Finally, if the suspect was a known terrorist I don't see why a warrant for a wire tap would be a difficult thing to obtain.
Don't you suppose there is a reason why warrants are public record? I guarantee that the majority of people who have had their phones tapped by the patriot act are muslims.
Maybe, but I don't even want to get into the religious aspect of things...
I don't think I'm going to agree with your comparrison of Redcoats and Terrorists. If anything american settlers were the terrorists.
Well, considering that the Redcoats were the agressors, and they were destroying the American's land, I would consider the Redcoats the terrorists.
Finally, if the suspect was a known terrorist I don't see why a warrant for a wire tap would be a difficult thing to obtain.
A warrant takes weeks to get. In that time, the suspect could be out of the country.
Well, considering that the Redcoats were the agressors, and they were destroying the American's land, I would consider the Redcoats the terrorists.
Um, not really. I'm going to skip the part about how they owned the land in the first place and say: The British had an organized army. We fought a guerrilla war. We were much more like terrorists then they.
