Check this out-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4410/
So the Dems are POed about their representatives not stopping this garbage, why aren't the Republicans POed that their representatives would even consider spying on them? How is this minimal government? How is knowing what nudie pictures Americans look at on the internet going to stop terrorists? How much does the government have to become Big Brother before Republicans, the voters not the representatives, get mad about being spied on in their own homes?
2007-10-09 05:44:07 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's just more hypocrisy from cons.
2007-10-09 05:47:45 · answer #1 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 5⤊ 6⤋
It's so interesting. This issue of wiretapping is a big battle cry for the liberal side. Even to combat terrorism--it is being spied on in our own homes. Hasn't happened yet and wiretapping without a warrant under specific circumstances has been legal for going on 40 years or so. Look up the RICO act. Oranized crime was categorized as an organized threat to America--under certain circumstances-wiretapping without a warrant is allowed. (By the way this was ramrodded by Bobby Kennedy). As we haven't lost any of our rights over the last 40 years and organized crime is less powerful than it used to be--why is such a bad idea of including islamofascist terrorists in the same light. Americans have a huge leeway in what they can and can not do--more so than anywhere else on earth that I know of. Personally I don't talk to terrorist organizations, crime lords, or drug lords so I'm not particularly worried about my phone being wiretapped without a warrant. Common sense prevailed when the constitution was written. If a terrorist calls the United States the call will be done with by the time a warrant could be issued. It is common sense that if a person overseas placing a call is known to be a terrorist or on the terrorist watch list, then under written guidelines there should be no problem with tapping that conversation. Man decided to become a terrorist he gives up his right to privacy.
2007-10-09 05:59:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The problem with the whole thing about them just targeting terrorists is that there is no accountability.
They have no one checking to see whether the people being spied on are terrorists. Its ridiculous what is allowed, even if it isnt being abused now its worded in a way that makes it very easy to abuse.
Everyone needs to be speaking out against this now. Supplemental laws and orders have made the gov't secretive to an extent never seen in our history. The way things are setup now, if someone decides to abuse the power it is already too late to stop it. Challenging anything allowed lately is usually illegal, and if it isnt then other laws already in existence would make it simple to declare the challenger an enemy and have them silenced.
___
Joe Lib, please go pickup a forth grade American Gov't text book. The President cannot make laws-under any circumstances.
2007-10-09 06:14:52 · answer #3 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hell, if my phone calls are the governments biggest worries....that would be a pretty damned good thing. I'm one of literally hundreds of millions - I highly doubt anything I do will attract any attention. Besides, privacy in the digital age is merely an illusion. Any idiot with enough patience and a little money can find out all they want to about you. THAT is scary.
I find the continued assault on the 2nd Amendment by the left to be a far bigger issue than eavesdropping on calls to terrorists. I find it horrifying that challenges to the 2nd are so commonplace that we don't think much about it anymore. Funny how so many of the same people who bleat about losing their rights under this administration are the same people who think nothing of trampling on MY rights. Privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution. My right to bear arms is.
2007-10-09 05:54:31 · answer #4 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because I'm not a terrorist, nor I'm I speaking to them oversees.
By the way check out President Clinton's Echelon Project, much more invasive and with much less necessary. I'm not entirely uncomfortable with that project either.
2007-10-09 05:58:31 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Scorn 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I love the way the Reps frame the argument, we are at war, we need to be safe, we need to peek under your stall at the airport.......OK not that last one.
Its the aura of fear that they are hoping will make you forget that they are having a ball taking your freedoms away in the name of security.
If you want security, get a blanket.
They only want the government out of things like pollution controls on business, oversight of the executive branch, legislation for health care, investigations of excessive bank charges, and interest rates, hedge funds, oil prices. Those are all sacrosanct and no one should mess with them.
Abortion, gay right, gay marriage, freedom of the press, religion, they want the Congress right there, right now, prying into what books you are reading and what you are thinking and whether or not granny is wearing an underwire bra while flying. I feel so much safer now.
2007-10-09 05:56:54 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Tell you what, Skippy..
The next time a call originating from outside the US comes in that has intelligence that the US could use and it DOESN'T get listened to, you and every other bleeding heart pinko's will be crying in your cornflakes because "something wasn't done to prevent it".
Quit whining
2007-10-09 05:54:11 · answer #7 · answered by Mark A 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wire tap me>Why> It 's the terrorists there trying to get>When were hit again watch who screams the loudest>Why didn't you wire tap them>
2007-10-09 06:00:52 · answer #8 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because a Republican administration proposed it. If a Democrat was in office during 9/11 Republicans would have blemed the Democrats for the attack, and, dismissed any measures to fight terrorism with a sanctimoniousness as witnessed in the Clinton debacle.
2007-10-09 05:50:42 · answer #9 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Why do you think anyone is persuaded by your lefty websites of anything? I am on the lookout for the first American who says they were actually hurt by the Patriot Act, but all I get is paranoid diatribes about how our rights are being trampled...I haven't noticed any "trampolation" on my rights.
2007-10-09 05:51:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Republicans traditionally(conservatives) stand for less government obtrusion, but the neocons(also republican) are all about making sure they keep an eye on you so they know when you are not doing your patriotic duty.
2007-10-09 05:51:13 · answer #11 · answered by Boss H 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋