Part 2: If you said yes to my first question, then do you have a problem with the Gov. listening in on calls?

Question

If the Government is listening to key words and phrases that would indicate mass murder would you still have a problem with it?

If you said no to this question...and yes to the other...please point out why you differ in the answer. I am curious to know your reasoning.

Sorry...about being late on this question

Answer 1

I always have a problem with the Government listening in on phone calls without a warrant.

No thought police! No warrantless taps!

Answer 2

If the government had a warrent for probable cause I would have no problem with it. The problem with the so called "patriot" act is that the government doesn't need a warrent to tap one's phone. It is like the cops coming into your house without a warrent and tear the place up looking for drugs. You don't and never have had illicit drugs but they look anyway. No reason just trying to see if they can find some or hassle you because of something you said or did to tick someone off.

Answer 3

If a private citizen hears something and reports it, there is no constitutional violation. If the government, without a warrant or reasonable cause listens in on private conversations, there is a constitutional violation. Thus, your two questions, while they may appear to be the same question, are not. It is therefore easy for anyone who is informed of the law to answer the two differently.

Answer 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Source: Fourth Amendment, US Constitution

Why does the lunatic right-wing fringe have such a difficult time trying to wrap their subhuman little brains around such a simple concept?

Answer 5

well... I would answer yes to your first question... and

yes, I could have a problem to this one...

the real question is oversight... and how much do you trust the government...

remember Nixon... he was LIVING EVIDENCE that people can AND WILL abuse these programs...

I mean... you could use your example to set up an entire police state that violated everyone's privacy in every circumstance... 1984...

where do you stop? where do you arbitrarily draw the line? and how do you keep people from abusing it and how do we stay free?

I can tell a difference between overhearing a possible crime and a direct intentional invasion of privacy to find such crime...

Answer 6

the construct between these two questions are
a bit confusing to me as being relevant to each
other. i guess you are trying for a broader scope and
according to your 'mission statement' on
your profile: "(Look at this way...would you rather
be humbled by me or be dumb for the next 30 years?
I'm saving you from yourself. You will thank me later)"
you will explain this as we are too ignorant to grasp
your objective. until then i will assume your are
referring to the FISA issue. i don't have 30 years to learn.

“Even our Founding Fathers battled over balancing this
issue. In the blue corner, wearing green trunks is Ben
Franklin who said, ‘He who would trade liberty for some
temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.’
In the red corner, coming in 225 pounds is Thomas Jefferson who said, ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.’”

for the first time in our history, we have an enemy that has
declared war on us but without a country to support it.
it is a new kind of war and requires new tools to combat it.
the enemy utilizes the latest technology, should we be denied this tool to combat them? this is complex but i for one want all the tools available to avoid another spectacular event on american soil.

i don't believe the government is wasting valuable resourses on listening to the average citizens plans for dinner and a movie or the next visit to grandma's house and wonder why others fear they are.

what methods do you purpose be used to be able to track these people and how would it work. we demand that our government protect us so how would you suggest they do this.

Answer 7

There is a big difference in the American Justice system between passively overhearing a conversation and actively and covertly listening in on a conversation.

Our founding fathers understood this and knew that the latter would lead to abuses of power.

Answer 8

If they have reasons to suspect someone and they are under investigation then fine... But in general no.. we should have our privacy.. I'm sorry but I don't understand what the government is going to get out of tapping into my phone.. with me talking to my friends about what color highlights I should get...

Answer 9

i say the word kill on the telephone a lot. The last thing I want is the government follwing me around cause I said dude i killed that pint of vodka on the phone. Please don't let the gov open up that pandoras box.

Answer 10

Yes, I have a problem with ALL violations of the forth amendment.