Comparing McLame and NObama campaign issues

[IEATV8S]

Issues: Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

[Gothmog]

they both support warrantless wiretapping of US citizens

the END

Nader 08

[87NAT]

A picture is worth a 1000 words...

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

they both support warrantless wiretapping of US citizens

the END

Nader 08

Goth, stoners like you should love warrantless wiretapping. If they bust you for calling your dealer, anything you said is inadmissible in court and if they do use it, you have grounds to get it thrown out.

Warrantless wiretapping is like a Monopoly get out jail free card for citizen-stoners.

If you are a non-citizen, plotting to blow stuff up, however, its a one way ticket to gitmo.

I know you libs hate it when we don't treat non citizens like citizens, like giving them free healthcare and all, but you just have to deal with it. I guess voting for Nader works, too.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by UNGN

Goth, stoners like you should love warrantless wiretapping. .

Not a stoner, but Are you one of those people who says, i didnt do anything wrong, I dont care if they wiretap?

You probably are

But YOU dont know who is keeping that information, what corporations have access to it, and how it will be used in the future. How do you feel about every phone call, every web site hit, and every email you ever sent becoming PUBLIC information?
The credit card companies get compromised ALL THE TIME when hackers get in, now, there is a database on YOU, that someone can hack.
It will happen, just a matter of time

[Turbo RX-6]

Goth, since your so informed tell us how wiretapping is done, tell us when they actually record and for how long. Tell us about this so called data base that records and stores every phone call ever made.

But before you do that, sit back and think about how many phone calls are made in just one day, and what would be involved in recording and storing all of them, then maybe you'll come back to reality

I explained this once on here, now if you want any credibility, tell us how the program works.

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Not a stoner, but Are you one of those people who says, i didnt do anything wrong, I dont care if they wiretap?

You probably are

But YOU dont know who is keeping that information, what corporations have access to it, and how it will be used in the future. How do you feel about every phone call, every web site hit, and every email you ever sent becoming PUBLIC information?
The credit card companies get compromised ALL THE TIME when hackers get in, now, there is a database on YOU, that someone can hack.
It will happen, just a matter of time

They already have this right now.

If you piss someone off at city hall, you don't think they don't look you up

If a "Hacker" gets my information for a big corporation or the government, and it actually harmed me in any way, it would be like a ticket to the gravy train for me.

The FISA bill doesn't remove the liability from the government or big corporations if they give my info to a criminal hacker.

If that is your argument against warrantless wiretapping, it is a pretty stupid one.

[V8Assassin]

I really hate this, but I agree with Goth on this one. There is no way I have ever or will ever support warrentless wiretaps, secret grand juries, or the Patriot Act in general. The goverment already has too much intrusion into our lives. Unfortunately our system of law enforcement and protection is set up by its nature to be reactionary not proactive. Being proactive seems to give power to big brother maybe he should not have.

Now don't go getting all excited Goth, My beliefs diverege over the second amendment. I believe we have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from terror both foreign and domestic. I don't think we can have it both ways. On the one hand one of the arguments for less gun control is an armed citizen can better defend themselves against all threats as well as form an armed militia for the purpose of defense, but then we say give the goverment the power to come into our homes whenever they want to defend us. One thing has always puzzled me, however, I have never read a provision for the right to privacy in the constitution, any thoughts?

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

I really hate this, but I agree with Goth on this one. There is no way I have ever or will ever support warrentless wiretaps, secret grand juries, or the Patriot Act in general. The goverment already has too much intrusion into our lives. Unfortunately our system of law enforcement and protection is set up by its nature to be reactionary not proactive. Being proactive seems to give power to big brother maybe he should not have.

Now don't go getting all excited Goth, My beliefs diverege over the second amendment. I believe we have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from terror both foreign and domestic. I don't think we can have it both ways. On the one hand one of the arguments for less gun control is an armed citizen can better defend themselves against all threats as well as form an armed militia for the purpose of defense, but then we say give the goverment the power to come into our homes whenever they want to defend us. One thing has always puzzled me, however, I have never read a provision for the right to privacy in the constitution, any thoughts?

Assassin, as always you make some very good points, and I really hate to write this, as it is contradictory, but IMHO necessary.

These current surveillance techniques used by the government, are being used under what I call "Special Circumstances". With the advent of terrorism, our 9/11 debacle, and current WARS on terrorism ranging throughtout the world. we have run up against threats that no nation has ever had to face before. A WORLD WIDE conspiracy to overthrow MANY different governments.

Admitted it is a loose conspiracy, with large and small groups not necessarily talking to each other, but with these groups having the same outcome as their goals. It is a force without uniforms, country, or language binding them, but all seem to be based on the corrupted ideas of the Islamic religion binding them.

Extraordinary times, like these, call for extraordinary measures. We can not afford to have another 3000 or so people killed, it would ruin our trust in the government to be able to protect its people, and would have a catastrophic effect on not only our economy, but the entire world's economy. Again, one of the goals of these terrorists is to take down the Western countries economically!

Like this President, or not, agree with him on some, all or none of his programs, is something everyone must decide for themselves. But as he has personally stated back in April 2006 and probably way before that "My biggest job is to protect the American people."

We, as a country, have given him our permission to do what he feels is necessary to do that job! Again, I see many on here, including you that disagrees with what he has done in the name of security and has taken away some of your's and others perceived rights of privacy. You did write it best when, and I quote you, "I have never read a provision for the right to privacy in the constitution".

Another thing Bush said was "Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is offensive in mind: press the enemy, find the enemy, bring the enemy to justice, never relent, never give them quarter, understand you cannot negotiate with these people. You can't rationalize with these people, that you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is precisely what we're doing."

Again, I admit that he hasn't always had his eye on THIS BALL when it comes to OBL and all things relating to Afghanistan. Iraq, a completely separate matter, has taken it's toll on the players, our forces, and our objectives in Afghanistan. I see that this has currently changed with additional troops from both our country and other countries being sent back into Afghanistan. Hopefully this will lead to the KILLING of OBL (phuck capturing OBL, only to be brought back and put on trial!), and the elimination of as many Taliban and AlQaeda as possible.

Getting back to surveillance, wire tapping and the Patriot act. AG Mukasey has said, "The government "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States." Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. You've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that."

It's also interesting that "A congressional investigation found in 2003 that the National Security Agency had intercepted messages between one of the Sept. 11 hijackers and an al Qaeda safe house in the Middle East as early as 1999, but had not shared the information with other agencies." I believe we have another president's administration here who also "DROPPED THE BALL" when it came to America's security, but that's a whole other story.

Where does one draw a line between security, the fact that THOUSANDS of American citizens can DIE from one simple terrorist act, and the right's of privacy of a person? To my mind, that is illogical, as we have the technology to do such without interfering with anyones life, but to hear a conversation between 2 people that could possible save our citizens such horrors and heartbreaks for their families. How many times have we heard that I put my family BEFORE anything else?

Those that believe that PRIVACY is most important have pointed to the supposed quote by Ben Franklin that "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" has a valid point. I would just like to point to the dissenting voice on the recent 2nd amendment case before the Supreme Court where that great bastion of LIBERAL THOUGHT, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons". He felt that any new technology or any restrictions on our people that would end up as a supposed BETTERMENT for our people should be made mandatory.

Odd that he was WRONG in our rights to own guns, as it has now been decide by the court that ALL CITIZENS, with exceptions, have the RIGHT to own a gun for self protection. but he was RIGHT with his thoughts as it would apply to wiretapping, etc. as that situation is NOT CONSIDERED a RIGHT as gun ownership now is!

Since the Congress has now come to terms with the president on this issue, it would have to be brought up before the Supreme Court by SOMEONE to try and have it overruled, once signed. The SC can just as easily REFUSE to hear an argument about it, and it would remain a law passed by Congress!

[G. Price]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

I really hate this, but I agree with Goth on this one. There is no way I have ever or will ever support warrentless wiretaps, secret grand juries, or the Patriot Act in general. The goverment already has too much intrusion into our lives. Unfortunately our system of law enforcement and protection is set up by its nature to be reactionary not proactive. Being proactive seems to give power to big brother maybe he should not have.

Now don't go getting all excited Goth, My beliefs diverege over the second amendment. I believe we have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from terror both foreign and domestic. I don't think we can have it both ways. On the one hand one of the arguments for less gun control is an armed citizen can better defend themselves against all threats as well as form an armed militia for the purpose of defense, but then we say give the goverment the power to come into our homes whenever they want to defend us. One thing has always puzzled me, however, I have never read a provision for the right to privacy in the constitution, any thoughts?

Read the fourth amendment. That covers your right to privacy.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by G. Price

Read the fourth amendment. That covers your right to privacy.

Yes, it does, but the Exclusionary rule allows "when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States" has been quoted as a viable reason for wiretapping conversations from outside the U.S. to a person inside the U.S. This has NOT been placed before the court yet, as far as I can find!

[V8Assassin]

Thanks for the reply. I have been doing some research on the right to privacy. Not ready to reply yet, the wife has me on the honeydo list for the rest of the day, had to sneak away to check the board.

I want to take time to give a meaningful response, will be back tonight.