Follow up to guilty until proven innocent question?

Question

Are you for or against the NSA wiretapping? Because many seem to think it is OK to violate our constitution since they have nothing to hide. Do you trust the government to not be corrupt?

who knows WHAT they will do with it...slippery slope

Answer 1

i am personally close 2 an individual who although never convicted of anything, with a clean record, and a hard worker who is being prosecuted for unknowingly helping a couple of convicted criminals. these same criminals her co-defendants, ones case was dismissed, one was run concurrent with their prior sentence even though they walked away from a halfway house in order to go on this new spree.

it gets better, the county judge who bound over the case to district court knowing and hearing by one of the co-defendants that my friend knew nothing and in fact was their victim.
this judge signed the search warrant.

now this same judge presides as the district judge.

the investigator on the case obtained info from a minor at his school after 4 hrs of interrogation without parent consent, or knowledge.

this same cop was arrested for sex related crimes and plead down to a misdemeanor.

this is just the beginning.....

Answer 2

I take exception to the "slippery slope" theory. People always use these two word to defend things they personally don't want: slippery slope. Why not gay marriage? " What's next threesomes? It's a slippery slope!" Actually it's not a slippery slope. Each law must go through process. Laws do not create themselves under the domino effect. There is a lot of case law saying that INTERNATIONAL wire taps are within the Presidents rights. I do not trust the government to be above corruption. I trust the people making calls to the caves of Pakistan even less. You misunderstand the use of these wiretaps. They are used to gain foreign intelligence, they cannot be used as evidence in a domestic court.

Answer 3

I trust the government about as far as I can throw a fat Frenchman. I don't like the idea of domestic wiretapping at all. However, I don't have a problem with monitoring calls that are going to or being received from known terrorist sponsor nations. I think it would be easier to justify it if this was an all out formally declared by Congress war. That it is only an "authorized" military action befuddles issues of censorship and spying on certain citizens. In WWII, we actually threw American citizens of Japanese descent into prisons. That we haven't done that to Arab citizens is a remarkable amount of progress, I think. But I also don't believe that wiretapping of international (and ONLY international) calls into the Middle East rises to the concept of guilty until proven innocent. IMHO that rises about to the level of a roadblock checkpoint to catch drunk drivers. You're setting up a net that will hopefully catch the badguys but will only be an inconvenience to others. On top of that, I doubt they have enough people to actually listen in to phone calls. It is likely to be a computer system "listening" for keywords and putting up a flag when those words come across the system. I could be wrong though. Maybe they're listening far more than we know. Project Echelon leaked during the Clinton years (I only bring him up to date it not as an indictment or "attack") was slated to be a domestic wiretapping program supposedly to catch Timothy McVeigh types. So I see some gray area there - which is unusual for me, I like it black and white. Overall, I dislike the government spying on its citizens period but there are limited situations where it might be necessary.

Sorry if anything is misspelled, the checker conked out on me.

Answer 4

I object to wiretapping on principle, but as long as the laws are followed, we're pretty much stuck with it.

The problem with Bush's NSA program is that the laws are not being followed. They could be. The entire program could be done legally. The laws are just being ignored for no valid reason.

Trust has to be earned. It's bad enough if the government violates the spirit of the rules, but follows the letter of the law. When the government rapes the spirit of rules, and ignores the law, they have shown that they cannot and should not be trusted.

Answer 5

First, what does guilty until proven innocent have to do with wiretaps? They wiretap suspects to find out information. They aren't looking for evidence of innocence. They are looking for evidence of guilt. Therefore, it is still innocent until proven guilty. What your real question is concerns the evidence needed or probably cause needed to set up the wiretap in the first place. It seems that the probable cause for this type of surveillance has become less stringent, potentially violating privacy barriers. At this point I still trust the government to only "listen" to reasonably genuine suspects. Could it go beyond and lead to surveillance on general populace, innocent people. Yes, it could but does not seem likely in the near future.

Answer 6

Are you kidding? Just by posting your question, your name has probably been placed on every watch list there is; NSA, FBI, CIA and many we don't even know about. Without just cause, our government has no right to violate our privacy. Many totally innocent people have been investigated, scrutinized and followed because they inadvertently open an Email or checked out a"blacklisted" website. You know, Borders and Walden books supply lists of names to NSA, based solely on the books people purchase? Anything even remotely radical will land you on someone's watch list. Big Brother is truly watching our every move.

Answer 7

Even if you have nothing to hide a person does not like to have their private conversatons recorded and listened too. Once you start giving up your constitutional right or they start violating them they will just keep right on going. Pretty soon there will be storm troopers coming into our homes without knocking and confiscating all our firearms.

Answer 8

THE SAD THING ABOUT THE NSA WIRE TAPPING IS THAT MOST AMERICANS REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES.AS TRAGIC AS 9/11 WAS, IT STRANGE TO ME HOW EASILY CITIZENS ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS FOR SUPPOSED SECURITY.SOME HOW OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BECOME MORE LIKE LIFE UNDER SOVIET-RUSSIA.IF WE ACCEPT THE NSA WIRETAPPING- ALREADY THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT POLICE OFFICERS CAN ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT KNOCKING,AND THE GOVERNMENT CAN HOLD YOU IN CUSTODY BY DESIGNATING YOU A MATERIAL WITNESS WE MIGHT AS WELL BE IN COMMUNIST CHINA.

Answer 9

It is NOT OK to break the law to preserve that law. How can a country preach freedom and democracy when it doesn't practise them on it's own citizens?

Answer 10

Meh, I really have no problem with it if they are able to save lives. Its not like they are going to wire tap every single person in the US.