Bush wants a permanent law stating that your government can spy on you. Is that okay?

Question

Right now, the temporary statute states that eavesdropping can take place if one party is "reasonably believed" (read: not proven beyond doubt) to be outside the U.S. and the other party is American, as long as that American is not the focus of the spying.

But if the conversation involves two people, how is one of them NOT a focus of that surveillance?

And has it occurred to anyone that all the government would have to do to spy on domestic conversations is say, "Oops. We thought this guy was in Canada. Our bad."?

Why can't the government find another way to protect us?

It kills me how few of you understand the precedent this sets for far more intrusive laws.

Can Bush open your mail? Can he seize your house and throw you and your family out on the street if he says it will help defeat terrorism?

Answer 1

'I have nothing to hide.'

People with this attitude scare the crap out of me. Those words send a chill up my spine. It's sad that they seemed to have missed the point of living in a free country.

Answer 2

I'm constantly stunned by the number of Americans who are totally oblivious to the Bill of Rights and the importance of its protections. Terms like "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "speedy and public trial" aren't just legal jargon. They're straight from the Bill of Rights. If we allow our most important Constitutional rights and freedoms to be taken from us so easily, the terrorists will have won and the USA will no longer be the "land of the free".

[edit]
Jim, I hate to single anyone out, but your statement, "I could give a hoot less if big brother listens to my phone calls.", absolutely demands a rebuttal. Have you ever read "1984"? Do you understand why George Orwell wrote it? He said that it was so that we would recognize Big Brother when we see him. It's one of the most dystopian novels ever written, a nightmare of the worst-case scenario of a government gone mad with power, yet you are so oblivious to the danger you're ready to welcome Big Brother with open arms. For God's sake, read "1984" before it's too late. Domestic spying is at the heart of Orwell's vision of evil totalitarianism. You can't understand how insidious that spying can be unless you've read the book. Sure, it's a work of fiction, but he wrote it out of a sense of social consciousness. He saw the warning signs and felt compelled to warn everyone. If we don't heed the warning, we'll lose the war on terror...to our own government. That could be just as bad as losing to the terrorists.

sha sha Sharona, you just don't get it. The Bill of Rights is for ALL of us. If those rights are taken away, NOBODY is guaranteed them any more. You can't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't and pretend that it only affects the terrorists. Meddling with the Constitution affects everyone.

Artimorty, I like your answer so much I'd give it two thumbs up if I could. I've always thought it was interesting that Benjamin Franklin was clearly the most intelligent of our founding fathers, but he never was President of the United States. That trend continues to this day. The most intelligent people know better than to want the job, so we wind up with people like you-know-who.

Answer 3

There is another way. That's why the FISA court was established. Basically it is there to provide judicial oversight in a manner thatt protects legitimate secrecy needs. It does two things, essentially:
1) provide warrents for spying when needed and
2) Provides judicial review in cases where fast action is required and there isn't time to get a warrent

The FISA law does need updating--there's a lot of new technology out there that it doesn't cover--but tht's basically a procedural problem, and both sides in Congress have made it clear they have no problem with such updating.

So--there is no legitimate reason for Bush to want spying powers beyond that. There is only one possible motive--to have the power, prohibited by the Constitution--to gather information on Americans-for illegitimate reasons and without being accountable.

Only one kind of person wants that kind of power--a would-be dictator.

Answer 4

The problem I have with this type of program is that it would be endless... terrorism is part of life and has been for the entire of the history of mankind. To use terrorism as a excuse for this program is basically saying that from now on the government has a right to spy on all of us forever.... We used to criticize the Soviet Union for these types of practices; we have chastised and criticized other nations for not protecting civil liberties. If this type of program becomes a permanent law then we have become what we once despised... we have truly lost our moral compass; the fact that we are considering this is bizarre.

Terrorism is truly winning if we are having to sacrafice civil liberties.

Answer 5

When we give up our rights for protection it's wrong! Some dead president said that!

or something simular i have no brain cells sorry!~

But my deviuse mind thinks that they allready do so now like in poker they are feeling the bet! Lets speak on this and see what the reaction is! So when we say were going to put surveillance everywhere we won't have work to do cuz it's done.. plus if we do this now we won't get busted and have our peeps feel as if they were distrusted!

Sad but if you think about it no one in there right mind will do stuff from out of the states the next attack will be from with in! WHO knows who but it's the logical thinking due to the Highten security to get in the states!

Answer 6

Good grief. If you have nothing to hide... It isn't a matter of what a person has to hide or not. It is a matter of freedom. Those of you that say this tired old line are the same ones that ***** about socialism, communism, etc. Don't you think that by allowing our government the freedom to do as they want is the beginning of the end of our freedom. Get a clue and wake up! No it is not OK.
I am incredibly scared by how naive some of you are. If it isn't naive then it is straight up foolishness.

Answer 7

Americans have now been under a paranoid fear for nearly 8 years, and there has been no easing of pressure on that fear... the propensity of this government to exert it's power into our personal lives is so un-nerving and intrusive to me that i haven't a clue how to fight them.
If i resist..i am considered an anarchist .. if i capitulate, i am a pacifist .. if i voice my opinion, i am an extremist.. if i vote out of 'party' i am a turncoat.. what the hell do we do?
We only have 2 choices... republicans, or democrats.. and nether of them are on the side of individual freedoms at this time.
Even if another presidentual candidate with a viable solution runs and reaches the election finals the burocracy of political influence will just stick THERE choice in that office...AGAIN.
Have you got a solution?

Answer 8

The problem with the law is the fact that this "law" allows for too much ambiguous interpretation. You can "reasonably believe" anything. That phrase leaves enough room to drive a semi through. You can "reasonably believe" that this law will be abused in the name of national security for years if it's made permanent and OK'd by the Supreme Court.

Answer 9

Either you are horrible at paraphrasing, or you have done it with great intent. What would happen if you were driving erratically and pulled over? The officer who pulled you over would then have "Probable Cause" enough to search your vehicle -- without a warrant. Hmmm.
The military always monitors phone calls to and from its installations. It's a practice that's gone on for decades and you have said nothing. Why? Ignorance? It's bliss isn't it?
Your personal use of YOUR telephone has very specific guidelines. It is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Hmmm.
I doubt seriously that there is anything anyone here could say (who does not already agree with you) that would help you to see the light and perhaps change your mind. I swear, the liberals here are the most closed minded group of squeaky wheels I've been exposed to.

Answer 10

This is all about power. They want to be able to fish for charges against anyone that they don't like, whether it's because of their religious beliefs, their political views, or whatever. Any conservative who feels that this is fine with them, should voluntarily allow the police to physically search their home without a warrant and to have easy access to their financial and medical records. After all, if they have "nothing to hide" then they don't mind giving up their right to privacy.

As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play. If anyone knows of any government agents who would be involved in this program, you should spy on them and see how they like it.

Answer 11

The Patriot Act is designed to gather intelligence to prevent another terrorist attack on the US. Personally, since I am not a criminal, I could give a hoot less if big brother listens to my phone calls. The only people that that should find intelligence gathering activities objectionable are terrorists and criminals.

Now, if my "dirty talk" to my wife while we're separated for business trips or whatever shows up in a tabloid or is made public, then the bigger problem than them listening to my phone calls is the security leak within our intelligence community. Basically, unless I see or hear documented proof that benign conversations between Americans are being made public, the government can make them a part of a party line with my phone any time, I have nothing to hide.

As far as "finding another way to protect us" I suggest that if you have a better intelligence gathering plan, write your representatives and share your ideas.

If you don't have a better solution then complaining about the plan that is in effect is non-productive. I was told many years ago that if I perceived a problem then it is incumbent on me to work on a solution, not merely complain about the problem.