Why is everyone whining about wire-taps/privacy?

Question

O.k. what the heck is wrong with people. They are still complaining about FISO and privacy of cell phone records when we have proven this kind of intelligence saves lives and maybe could have stopped previous terrorism. If you aren’t doing anything illegal who the hell cares what/who listens in on your cell phone calls or looks at your list of inbound/outbound calls?

Answer 1

People confuse the two issues. One is keeping records of who called who, in case someoen turns out to be a terrorist, they can go back and trace their calls.

The other is listening in to phone calls to places like afghanastan (DURING A TIME OF WAR!!!) without having to get a warrant, because the numbers are not known until the calls are made. People think W. is trying to listen in on our local calls to our grandmothers.

Sme peopoe don't realize that this has been done in every war since WWII, and has been approved by congress. But the bush haters are raising kain because they want to make it look like he is violating our rights.

Answer 2

Because many of us object to our elected officials willfully violating federal law, ignoring the constitution, and betraying their oath of office.

Nobody is above the law. Why is that so hard to understand?

As far as the argument that "if you don't have anything to hide, why should you care", that must be one of the most moronic attempts at an excuse I've heard since the Twinkie defense.

Here's an analogy. A total stranger breaks into your home, sits down on your couch, and starts watching your TV. Then eventually leaves. If you don't have anything to hide, why should that bother you. Just because it's criminal shouldn't matter if no actual harm is done.

Or another analogy. A person orders child pornography magazines from another country. The magazines are very old. The children pictured in them died 50 years ago. The person just sits in their home and fantasizes about having sex with children, but never is in the presence of any living child. They've hurt nobody, so no harm done, right?

One more. A person sneaks into the US. They don't tell the INS they're here. They get a job, pay all their taxes, pay rent, and otherwise live their life without anyone knowing they're an illegal alien. So what's the problem. Just because it's criminal shouldn't matter if no actual harm is done.

That's the point about the warrantless wiretapping. It is illegal. It is a willful violation of federal law. And it is a betrayal of Bush's oath of office to defend the constitution and faithfully execute the law.

So, why do people who are so opposed to other illegal activity think it's OK for our own elected officials, especially those who have sworn an oath to uphold the law, to break the law without being held accountable for their actions under the law.

Answer 3

You are making a very dangerous assumption - that the government is using it to protect us. You need to look at the other side, even if it's just a "what if."

So tell me, do you think that there is a possibility that this power could be grossly misused and used against us? Are you 100% convinced that Bush is actually concerned about the average American citizen? Or do you think there's any possibility that he's using fear tactics to scare us into thinking we "need" the government to have all this spying power to "protect" us? And tell me this, do you actually think the hunk-of-junk they call the Patriot Act, which is 342 pages long, was written in just a little more than six weeks after 9/11?

THAT, my friend, is what scares me - is that the wire-taps are being used for alterior motives.

One other thing...do you really think we haven't spied on our enemies before now? Do you really think we needed the Patriot Act to approve such tactics in times of war?

Oh yeah, one other thing - nobody in congress even read the stupid act before voting on it.

Answer 4

We have to find a constitutionally legal balance between "saving lives" and "fascim." Few have a problem with wiretaps if they are legally warranted by a judge. This is part of the system of checks and balances our forefathers designed so that we don't end up with a dictator - many feel we are headed that way now because of the administration's loopholes and ignoring the laws.

You can disagree and support wiretaps if you wish. You have the right to say whatever you want. But God help you if you say something that the White House, now or in the future, doesn't like, and they decide to accuse you of treason "just in case," to prevent someone losing his life.

Not everyone who opposes surveillance does so because they have something to hide. Privacy is part of dignity and freedom. Just because someone wants privacy doesn't mean they are planning something sinister or illegal.

Answer 5

Most people have nothing to hide, but the problem is that some are worried about the governmet setting precident for incriminating innocent people. If they are allowed to do something once, they will always be allowed to do it.

If they arrest someone for saying something that is "Anti-Patriotic" then that opens the doors for random accusations and arrests. This is not a problem if people in power are inherently honest and are looking out for the well-being of American citizens, but if there is a greedy power hungry basard that gets elected into office, the precident set by things like the patriot act will allow such power to be abused in order to further someone's own political agenda, for good OR ill.

Answer 6

So you dont mind if I listen to your phone calls, right? You've got nothing to hide. Can I look through your wallet and computer files too? You've got nothing to hide, right?

Its a problem because Congress has already passed laws saying that this program is illegal and spell out the exact procedure the executive branch must follow. Why is the President above the law?

Answer 7

People keep answering you with invalid answers. Bush is NOT listening to ANYONE's phone calls without a warrant. He is tracking who calls who internationally. If you call Iraq, they keep the NUMBER of who you called, not a recording of the call. Then if they find you that you are a terrorist they can go back and see who you were calling in Iraq and in the U.S. to find out if you were calling more terrorists.

Very logical and not intrusive into anyone's life at all.

There is a delicate balance in freedom. I do not believe that this crosses it.

Answer 8

We consider government to be our servant, not our master. It has to prove itself to us, not we to it. Eliminating the whole Constitution would make it easier to stop terrorism, but would you want that? As in Vietnam, where an Army officer said "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," would you destroy freedom in order to save it?
Benj. Franklin: "They who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
You who support the current President in his grab for new powers should remember that these powers will belong to every future President, even the ones you don't like.

Answer 9

You are the first one I have heard whining about it since Nixon.