Domestic Spying without a Court Order by the FBI
Whispering Death
Active member
bulldogg, because defending everything at once is a recipe for disaster. You have to understand the capabilities and methodology of your enemy. You wouldn't defend yourself from nuclear ICBMs in a war against Somalia, you're resources are much better spent in other ways in such a fictional war. Same thing with al-quaida, true you don't want to believe the bedtime fairy tale you laid out but it's equally dangerous to turn them into a nightmare boogyman story.
Duty Honor Country
Active member
Domestic Spying without a Court Order
Anyone who follows the news in the US knows all about this issue. President Bush, after 11 SEP 01, created a domestic surveillence without any type of court approval. There is also debate as to if congress approved the progam. The White House says yes, most of congres says know.
There are a few Constitutional issues here. By bypassing court approval, the program may violate the system of checks and ballances of the US Constitution. Then there is the 4th Amendment
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, Verdana]"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."
[/FONT]Lastly, the President may have acted outside his delegated powers granted to him under the constitution. In history class, this is called the usurpation (unlawful siezure) of undelegated powers.
How does everyone feel about this
Anyone who follows the news in the US knows all about this issue. President Bush, after 11 SEP 01, created a domestic surveillence without any type of court approval. There is also debate as to if congress approved the progam. The White House says yes, most of congres says know.
There are a few Constitutional issues here. By bypassing court approval, the program may violate the system of checks and ballances of the US Constitution. Then there is the 4th Amendment
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, Verdana]"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."
[/FONT]Lastly, the President may have acted outside his delegated powers granted to him under the constitution. In history class, this is called the usurpation (unlawful siezure) of undelegated powers.
How does everyone feel about this
FULLMETALJACKET
MilForum Bad Apple
I dont really agree with it.
DTop
Active member
I just thought I'd throw this out here for your consideration. Whether right or wrong, this is certainly nothing new and nothing unique to the Bush administration. Evidence in point:
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
END "
SOURCE
"CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
END "
SOURCE
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well I am the "Not Sure" vote, on principle no I dont support it but there may well be times where it is not prudent or timely to get a court order and in those cases I do support it.
ie If you have a limited window of opportunity to get the information that may save lives and following protocol would mean you will miss said opportunity then by all means go for it otherwise follow the rules.
ie If you have a limited window of opportunity to get the information that may save lives and following protocol would mean you will miss said opportunity then by all means go for it otherwise follow the rules.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
If you disregard the rules regardless of intent or reasons you establish a precedent and in the case of the US with its inherited common law system it is a dangerous one indeed. It is this same method that has lead the "freedom of speech" to now encompass people thinking they have the constitutional right to "say anything". Was this the intent of the drafters of the constitution? NO. Is it the reality of the US today? YES. How did it happen? "Salami method". Small imperceptible slices, whittle and eroding away liberties and intent one piece at a time till you're left with nothing but a worthless piece of parchment.
First its the writ of habeaus corpus. Next its the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Next its the posse comitatus... it will NOT end until the once great experiment in a democratically elected republic deriving its power from the people becomes an authoritarian capitalist police state and 100 years from now our children's children are writing on a forum asking "How did this happen?"
The authours of the US constitution placed checks and balances on all parts of the government including the office of the president. Nothing supercedes the constitution. No law. No emergency. Nothing. IT is the supreme law of the land. It must follow the process of amendment and be ratified according to the provisions laid out within in order to change this. Why the people responsible, the Attorney General, is not persuing the enforcement of the applicable laws is a testament to just how far the US has strayed from her noble foundations. It sickens me, yet I acknowledge I am powerless to change anything. Money runs the show and it has a stranglehold on our government.
First its the writ of habeaus corpus. Next its the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Next its the posse comitatus... it will NOT end until the once great experiment in a democratically elected republic deriving its power from the people becomes an authoritarian capitalist police state and 100 years from now our children's children are writing on a forum asking "How did this happen?"
The authours of the US constitution placed checks and balances on all parts of the government including the office of the president. Nothing supercedes the constitution. No law. No emergency. Nothing. IT is the supreme law of the land. It must follow the process of amendment and be ratified according to the provisions laid out within in order to change this. Why the people responsible, the Attorney General, is not persuing the enforcement of the applicable laws is a testament to just how far the US has strayed from her noble foundations. It sickens me, yet I acknowledge I am powerless to change anything. Money runs the show and it has a stranglehold on our government.
Last edited:
Forrest_Gump
Active member
DTop beat me to my first punch, my second is this. Google ECHELON and CARNIVORE, and educate yourself beyond what the Washington Post feels like telling you. These programs have (Had in the case of CARNIVORE) been going on for well over a decade, and even though the info was out there (it was actually a pretty poorly kept secret), nobody cried about it until the last few days.
When I first learned of these programs, around 1998, they had already been up and running for a while, and it didn't bother me then. I have NEVER known, or heard of any law abiding citizen getting taken away because they said something anti-government on the phone or in an e-mail. They bother me even less now.
The sheeple of this country need to wake up and realize we are at WAR. There is a large group of people that want us DEAD. They cannot be reasoned with, they will NEVER stop, and they don't care about "rules".
The only reason the WP is writing about this now is the clear bias against the current Administration. If they were so concerned about "spying on Americans", why did they not write about the above mentioned Programs during the Clinton years when this program came up to full speed?
When I first learned of these programs, around 1998, they had already been up and running for a while, and it didn't bother me then. I have NEVER known, or heard of any law abiding citizen getting taken away because they said something anti-government on the phone or in an e-mail. They bother me even less now.
The sheeple of this country need to wake up and realize we are at WAR. There is a large group of people that want us DEAD. They cannot be reasoned with, they will NEVER stop, and they don't care about "rules".
The only reason the WP is writing about this now is the clear bias against the current Administration. If they were so concerned about "spying on Americans", why did they not write about the above mentioned Programs during the Clinton years when this program came up to full speed?
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I'm not sure I can support you on this one.
I'm divided on this one.
In the aftermath of 9/11, congress passed a resolution that stated in simple terms that the president was to take whatever action *within law* that was necessary to ensure the safety of the United States and her citizens.
You all know how I personally feel about Bush - I don't like him.
BUT (shudder) I had to vote yes on this one.
Prior to implementation of the Presidential Directive for wiretapping, administration officials fully briefed congress and congress concurred with the justification for the wiretaps. All during the wiretap operations, congress was kept up to date with continuous briefings.
It may not be exactly what you expect from the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law was maintained throughout the wiretap operations.
Extreme measures are sometimes required for extreme reasons. I believe the threat to the United States because of turncoat American citizens that aid and abet terrorist activity aimed at their own country and citizens falls into this category - don't you?
There was credible information that certain AlQueda operatives were having conversations with American citizens and that these citizens were suspected of operations against Americans within the United States and American interests abroad.
Leaks in the press, have disclosed that wiretap information was used to counter operations against Americans and American interest - thus human lives WERE saved and the terrorists WERE thwarted.
Not too many things that Bush has had anything to do with sit well with me, but just this once I have to support him in his decision.
We can't have it both ways - we can't holler for his head when we are attacked (9/11) because the intelligence community dropped the ball and then turn around and holler for his head when he undertakes operations that save American lives by thwarting terrorist activities.
Not even Bush deserves that.
I'm divided on this one.
In the aftermath of 9/11, congress passed a resolution that stated in simple terms that the president was to take whatever action *within law* that was necessary to ensure the safety of the United States and her citizens.
You all know how I personally feel about Bush - I don't like him.
BUT (shudder) I had to vote yes on this one.
Prior to implementation of the Presidential Directive for wiretapping, administration officials fully briefed congress and congress concurred with the justification for the wiretaps. All during the wiretap operations, congress was kept up to date with continuous briefings.
It may not be exactly what you expect from the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law was maintained throughout the wiretap operations.
Extreme measures are sometimes required for extreme reasons. I believe the threat to the United States because of turncoat American citizens that aid and abet terrorist activity aimed at their own country and citizens falls into this category - don't you?
There was credible information that certain AlQueda operatives were having conversations with American citizens and that these citizens were suspected of operations against Americans within the United States and American interests abroad.
Leaks in the press, have disclosed that wiretap information was used to counter operations against Americans and American interest - thus human lives WERE saved and the terrorists WERE thwarted.
Not too many things that Bush has had anything to do with sit well with me, but just this once I have to support him in his decision.
We can't have it both ways - we can't holler for his head when we are attacked (9/11) because the intelligence community dropped the ball and then turn around and holler for his head when he undertakes operations that save American lives by thwarting terrorist activities.
Not even Bush deserves that.
Last edited:
Isn't this something where you can say: "sometimes, it is best"? Sure I can think of a reason or situation or two where it is acceptable without a court order. But policy should not be made on perhaps' s or sometime's. It should be clear, non-negotiable and adhered to. The fine red line is so easily passed and therefor shouldn't even be approached. You can always think of an exception, but the law of the land should not be based on the exceptions of the day! We are it's citizens and our rights are not open to discussion. Besides if getting court orders would be made more efficient, it would simple to get them. And then the excuse of running out of time is also redundant.
Bullpup_two
Active member
Curtailing human rights is BAD!
Hi everyone.
This is my first time posting...Should I introduce myself???I guess I do:smile: My name is bullpup_two, I'm Japanese and I'm writting this little essay becasue Mr. bulldogg tole me to...he's my English teacher. 
I have to obeyray: him...hahaha...I'm 15 year old and I like playing socc...Aww he just told me that you guys know me...well never mind then...I'll just go straight to essay...:crybaby:
I think it's really bad idea to curtailing human rights. There are 3 main reasons that support my argument. First, there wouldn't be freedom second, people can't trust goernment and last, there wouldn't be any privacy. I'll explain my points in following paragraphs. These are based on my opinion and some facts.
First, there wouldn't be freedom. Government is now able to arrest people and not telling why they were arrested and don't even give them chance to do trial. Poople don't have freedom. It's not fair and people will get angry. It's not right way to avoid us from terrorists unless the government is 100% sure who the terrorists are and where they live. They obviously don't, that's why there are many people arrested by no reasons. Furthormore, some people are not even able to contanct with attorney.
Second is that people wouldn't be trusting government. Government is controling many the citizens(making them follow government) and it's the way whole society is running. Then what if all of sudden, your friend just "dissapper" and figured out that he had arrested by government for no reason? or police walking around you with gun? We(at least I) won't be trusting government anymore and that's what's happening in America. If you don't trust government, the whole country will just collapse, it doesn't work that way.
Third reason is that they don't have their own privacy. These days, if government thinks someone is dangerous, they wire-tap thier conversation on the phone, surveillance them for 24 hours and look at their E-mails. You wouldn't be able to keep secrets anymore. This, disturbing their privacy is not stressful for them because they wouldn't know they are actually doing it but it's not right way of finding terrorists.
From those reasons, no freedom, no trust and no privacy, it's really bad thing to do. It doesn't even have benefit, it's actually what terrorism want. It is right that government should find the terrorists, there shouldn't be another 9/11 occuring, but also government have to realise this is not right way as soon as possible and fix this problem.
Thank you for reading all this rubbish hahaha,,,your eyes are hurting?hmm but there are 4 more students posting,,,good luck!!! kekeke:lol:
Hi everyone.
This is my first time posting...Should I introduce myself???I guess I do:smile: My name is bullpup_two, I'm Japanese and I'm writting this little essay becasue Mr. bulldogg tole me to...he's my English teacher. I have to obeyray: him...hahaha...I'm 15 year old and I like playing socc...Aww he just told me that you guys know me...well never mind then...I'll just go straight to essay...:crybaby: I think it's really bad idea to curtailing human rights. There are 3 main reasons that support my argument. First, there wouldn't be freedom second, people can't trust goernment and last, there wouldn't be any privacy. I'll explain my points in following paragraphs. These are based on my opinion and some facts.
First, there wouldn't be freedom. Government is now able to arrest people and not telling why they were arrested and don't even give them chance to do trial. Poople don't have freedom. It's not fair and people will get angry. It's not right way to avoid us from terrorists unless the government is 100% sure who the terrorists are and where they live. They obviously don't, that's why there are many people arrested by no reasons. Furthormore, some people are not even able to contanct with attorney.
Second is that people wouldn't be trusting government. Government is controling many the citizens(making them follow government) and it's the way whole society is running. Then what if all of sudden, your friend just "dissapper" and figured out that he had arrested by government for no reason? or police walking around you with gun? We(at least I) won't be trusting government anymore and that's what's happening in America. If you don't trust government, the whole country will just collapse, it doesn't work that way.
Third reason is that they don't have their own privacy. These days, if government thinks someone is dangerous, they wire-tap thier conversation on the phone, surveillance them for 24 hours and look at their E-mails. You wouldn't be able to keep secrets anymore. This, disturbing their privacy is not stressful for them because they wouldn't know they are actually doing it but it's not right way of finding terrorists.
From those reasons, no freedom, no trust and no privacy, it's really bad thing to do. It doesn't even have benefit, it's actually what terrorism want. It is right that government should find the terrorists, there shouldn't be another 9/11 occuring, but also government have to realise this is not right way as soon as possible and fix this problem.
Thank you for reading all this rubbish hahaha,,,your eyes are hurting?hmm but there are 4 more students posting,,,good luck!!! kekeke:lol:
Bullpup_seven
New Member
OK ... HI
--== CURTAILING HUMAN RIGHTS IS SAFETY FROM TERRORISM?
WELL
OFCOURSE,......NOT
curtailing human rights does not keep people safe from terrorism. BECAUSE if you have no rights you have no freedom. If you have no freedom you have no life and in the end terrorists will aventually Win. SO OBVIOUSE
Why do you think You LIVE? what makes you enjoy life? Do you thiNK Its enjoyable if you have no right? i wouldnt want to live -
Well while the security guards are beside us(The gov. says its for our protection; when its NOT) ok , some might feel/ that you suddenly became a king or a real Star- guards here there every where guarding you.
YIKES guards every where how impressing = )
People who thinks they are safe because security sets are every where.. ok if SO then why are there people died because of terrors? why is every one scared? IF ITS SAFE PEOPLE WONT BE SCARED -
Its Free LIfe! We have rights to do what we want. if there is no Rights for us... then.. no Freedom for us. Think how stressfull you will be.
---NO FREEDOM ->NO LIFE-> NO RIGHT TO LIVE
why people kill them selfs stop living?
whats the point living when its so STresssfull and Boring!!!!zzzzzzz
IF there is no rights for us - there is more things that we CANNOT do than we CAN do. ITs DEPRESSING you know :crybaby: hahah = = okay anywayzzzz
Actually NEws and Guards makes us more scared and guilty . and in that way thats how Terros win. THEY LOVE WHEN WE ALL ARE AFRAID And SADDDDD
remember - SEPTEMBER 11, MANy PEOPLE ......... have died
-its defenetly NOT safe
- what did the security guards could do ?
nothing
------------------------------------------------------------------
i PERSONALLY think
to keep us Safety
does not matter to
curtail our rights-
We are LIVING in aGAINT PRison Don't YOU NOTICEE
its nothing really different if we live out of prison or in the prison -
because there is no right for US ....
- as i said - no freedom
IF there is no FREEDOm, people cannot do anything .
people cannot do anything .
it will effect alot in OUR society
there is no right to live if there is no ,.,,, nothing
Therefore Curtailing human rights does not keep people safe from terrorism
- i would like to finish my arrgument by here
--== CURTAILING HUMAN RIGHTS IS SAFETY FROM TERRORISM?
WELL
OFCOURSE,......NOT
curtailing human rights does not keep people safe from terrorism. BECAUSE if you have no rights you have no freedom. If you have no freedom you have no life and in the end terrorists will aventually Win. SO OBVIOUSE
Why do you think You LIVE? what makes you enjoy life? Do you thiNK Its enjoyable if you have no right? i wouldnt want to live -
Well while the security guards are beside us(The gov. says its for our protection; when its NOT) ok , some might feel/ that you suddenly became a king or a real Star- guards here there every where guarding you.
YIKES guards every where how impressing = )
People who thinks they are safe because security sets are every where.. ok if SO then why are there people died because of terrors? why is every one scared? IF ITS SAFE PEOPLE WONT BE SCARED -
Its Free LIfe! We have rights to do what we want. if there is no Rights for us... then.. no Freedom for us. Think how stressfull you will be.
---NO FREEDOM ->NO LIFE-> NO RIGHT TO LIVE
why people kill them selfs stop living?
whats the point living when its so STresssfull and Boring!!!!zzzzzzz
IF there is no rights for us - there is more things that we CANNOT do than we CAN do. ITs DEPRESSING you know :crybaby: hahah = = okay anywayzzzz
Actually NEws and Guards makes us more scared and guilty . and in that way thats how Terros win. THEY LOVE WHEN WE ALL ARE AFRAID And SADDDDD
remember - SEPTEMBER 11, MANy PEOPLE ......... have died
-its defenetly NOT safe
- what did the security guards could do ?
nothing
------------------------------------------------------------------
i PERSONALLY think
to keep us Safety
does not matter to
curtail our rights-
We are LIVING in aGAINT PRison Don't YOU NOTICEE
its nothing really different if we live out of prison or in the prison -
because there is no right for US ....
- as i said - no freedom
IF there is no FREEDOm, people cannot do anything .
people cannot do anything .
it will effect alot in OUR society
there is no right to live if there is no ,.,,, nothing
Therefore Curtailing human rights does not keep people safe from terrorism
- i would like to finish my arrgument by here
Last edited:
Bullpup_four
New Member
Curtailing human right does not make people safe from the terrorism. It makes people feel uncomfortable since the government can put people into prison without a reason why, it makes the Patriot act and other civil rights useless according to the terrorist movement made in the past few years. Also it leads the U.S to have new motto worse than the original one that U.S had.
I have nothing to do with gun or any such thing like that. But I would hate to know that someone else but the opponent on the phone, listens to the conversation. It just makes a human being not to have the person's own privacy. Privacy is considered as the property. And to add the historical evidence, in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, humans have rights to own their own life, liberty and property. Even though knowing someone else's privacy is fun, its the person's own property that no one should know. As Bulldogg said "feeling uncomfortable knowing people are being held without being charged and without knowing the evidence against them," the feeling of somebody else knowing someone else's privecy is uncomfortable. Also if a person gets to go into jail without knowing what rule the person have broke, the person will feel uncomfortable too. It is said in the U.N's human rights that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile," but the government does not obey this human rights by just putting people into prision without reason why, or at least without letting the person who broke the law know why.
There have been several terror attackes that were trying to be made in past few years. But when the terror attack was going to happen, was there any Patriot act or any civil rights curtailing laws made to prevent the act from happening? I don't think so. As Whispering Death mentioned "The origional 1993 world trade center bomber caught his apartment on fire while making bombs, left his laptop with all his terorrist information INSIDE the apartment for us to find, and we STILL didn't get him," and also in the 9/11, not a single Patriot act or the civil rights curtailing laws was made. This proves that Patriot Act and the civil rights curtailing laws wasn't used to stop anything that was happening with the terrorism, which as people can say, it is USELESS.:x
U.S's motto was originally e pluribus unum, which Latin and means liberty for all. But since many terrorism attack was attempted in the U.S and that U.S. government had to curtail people's human rights, lead the U.S to have new motto like Whispering Death had said. It leads the U.S to change their motto to "America, home of the brave and land of the free-er than North Korea!" Which is totally different from it's original motto, peace to all.
With people feeling lost to their property of owning their privacy, not able to know the fact of the reason why people go into jail, and other things mentioned in this writing just makes a person to go mad of losing the rights. But people should not go mad since they are owning their own life and that it is one thing that the govenment or any other things cannot take away from a person. Therefore, I should say that curtailing human rights just makes person to get mad and not safe from terrorism.
I have nothing to do with gun or any such thing like that. But I would hate to know that someone else but the opponent on the phone, listens to the conversation. It just makes a human being not to have the person's own privacy. Privacy is considered as the property. And to add the historical evidence, in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, humans have rights to own their own life, liberty and property. Even though knowing someone else's privacy is fun, its the person's own property that no one should know. As Bulldogg said "feeling uncomfortable knowing people are being held without being charged and without knowing the evidence against them," the feeling of somebody else knowing someone else's privecy is uncomfortable. Also if a person gets to go into jail without knowing what rule the person have broke, the person will feel uncomfortable too. It is said in the U.N's human rights that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile," but the government does not obey this human rights by just putting people into prision without reason why, or at least without letting the person who broke the law know why.
There have been several terror attackes that were trying to be made in past few years. But when the terror attack was going to happen, was there any Patriot act or any civil rights curtailing laws made to prevent the act from happening? I don't think so. As Whispering Death mentioned "The origional 1993 world trade center bomber caught his apartment on fire while making bombs, left his laptop with all his terorrist information INSIDE the apartment for us to find, and we STILL didn't get him," and also in the 9/11, not a single Patriot act or the civil rights curtailing laws was made. This proves that Patriot Act and the civil rights curtailing laws wasn't used to stop anything that was happening with the terrorism, which as people can say, it is USELESS.:x
U.S's motto was originally e pluribus unum, which Latin and means liberty for all. But since many terrorism attack was attempted in the U.S and that U.S. government had to curtail people's human rights, lead the U.S to have new motto like Whispering Death had said. It leads the U.S to change their motto to "America, home of the brave and land of the free-er than North Korea!" Which is totally different from it's original motto, peace to all.
With people feeling lost to their property of owning their privacy, not able to know the fact of the reason why people go into jail, and other things mentioned in this writing just makes a person to go mad of losing the rights. But people should not go mad since they are owning their own life and that it is one thing that the govenment or any other things cannot take away from a person. Therefore, I should say that curtailing human rights just makes person to get mad and not safe from terrorism.
Last edited:
Bullpup_five
New Member
Hi~ My name is Hannah. I'm here to tell you how bad the domestic spying wihtout court in the order of FBI is. Curtailing human rights do not enhance safety from terrorism. Frist of all, domestic spying is totally against human rights. America was a land of freedom but now freedom is being eloded. People are not told what law brought to hold , arrest them and think they are terrorists or enemys but they just have to be held. Similar things had happened before in Korea. If anyone rised up against what government did or trying to do, they were just disappeared. Statistics for the amount of people who were killed or tortured or put into jail, are not told but these things had happened in a generation of my grandfather. He always told me the former president Zhen sent soldiers and police officers to arrest him druing 60's wihtout any law or evidence. My grandfather and other Korean citizens had no freedom, power, civil or human rights to against this system or attitude of the government during that cold, bloody times of 1960's. For me, now, the U.S government seems trying to do the similar thing as the Korean government stole citizens's freedom and privacy under the name of safety and security for people from communism and North Korea.
According to CNN report, president Bush authorized NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands. The administration is just trying to to fight to save provisions of expiring the U.S Patriot Act which they believe are key tools on the fight against terrorism. However, I want to question that how much the safety of people from terrorism had been improved? Have people feel safe, comfortable from terrorism since Patriot Act? I don't think so. Still, a lot of people don't feel any safe but rather feel lacks of freedom and a security of privacy. According to "Bulldogg", he feel rather more free and safe in China where most Americans think it is a communist country. Some people who completely support the U.S. government's harsh domestic spying, said they don't care. They might not care how much their private informations had been spied by the domestic spying of FBI. However, they should be aware of importance of their privacy. Possibly, the FBI or the government might know their weakness or some bad habits and stuff. Do you feel good and still don't feel anything? Many people say that they should respect some famours and popular entertainers or actresses. Don't you think that the government also should respect and keep Americans's human rights and civits rights?
The U.S government is going too far. They are neglecting American citizen's rights on freedom. I've heard that just after 9/11, people in certain areas couldn't go anywhere unless they told the security people where they are going and what is the purpose of going there. Some day, they might ask you what you are doing at your home or they are just watching inside of your home even bed room and bath room under the reason of protecting you from terrorism.
According to IQNA(Iranian Quran New Agency), the U.S confirms they are spying on Muslim sites. The U.S. government is even spying on other country's sites. I believe it is illegal. They should come up with reasonable reasons why they should spy on Muslim's website. People in the States think Muslims as terrorists because the U.S government is persuading people that most of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims. Some Americans even think that Muslim is a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. According the IQNA, the FBI spying 126 sites per day nearly all target Muslim. I claim that anti-Muslim feelings in America and a public relations problems for American against Muslim countries are all caused by the U.S governments and agency's attitude toward Muslim as enemys. Muslim advocacy group called the program by the U.S government as misguided targets " the wrong people" and it is a waste of time and they also said it caused them to be concerned about their citizenship and constitutional rights.
Americans should be aware of their neglected freedom by the U.S government under the name of safety from terrorism. I only can think that they were just looking for new unvisible enemys. Domestic spying only cause of no freedom and privacy of American citiznes. What's the result of domestic spying? It's not safety. I wish America will not be another Korea in 1960.
According to CNN report, president Bush authorized NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands. The administration is just trying to to fight to save provisions of expiring the U.S Patriot Act which they believe are key tools on the fight against terrorism. However, I want to question that how much the safety of people from terrorism had been improved? Have people feel safe, comfortable from terrorism since Patriot Act? I don't think so. Still, a lot of people don't feel any safe but rather feel lacks of freedom and a security of privacy. According to "Bulldogg", he feel rather more free and safe in China where most Americans think it is a communist country. Some people who completely support the U.S. government's harsh domestic spying, said they don't care. They might not care how much their private informations had been spied by the domestic spying of FBI. However, they should be aware of importance of their privacy. Possibly, the FBI or the government might know their weakness or some bad habits and stuff. Do you feel good and still don't feel anything? Many people say that they should respect some famours and popular entertainers or actresses. Don't you think that the government also should respect and keep Americans's human rights and civits rights?
The U.S government is going too far. They are neglecting American citizen's rights on freedom. I've heard that just after 9/11, people in certain areas couldn't go anywhere unless they told the security people where they are going and what is the purpose of going there. Some day, they might ask you what you are doing at your home or they are just watching inside of your home even bed room and bath room under the reason of protecting you from terrorism.
According to IQNA(Iranian Quran New Agency), the U.S confirms they are spying on Muslim sites. The U.S. government is even spying on other country's sites. I believe it is illegal. They should come up with reasonable reasons why they should spy on Muslim's website. People in the States think Muslims as terrorists because the U.S government is persuading people that most of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims. Some Americans even think that Muslim is a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. According the IQNA, the FBI spying 126 sites per day nearly all target Muslim. I claim that anti-Muslim feelings in America and a public relations problems for American against Muslim countries are all caused by the U.S governments and agency's attitude toward Muslim as enemys. Muslim advocacy group called the program by the U.S government as misguided targets " the wrong people" and it is a waste of time and they also said it caused them to be concerned about their citizenship and constitutional rights.
Americans should be aware of their neglected freedom by the U.S government under the name of safety from terrorism. I only can think that they were just looking for new unvisible enemys. Domestic spying only cause of no freedom and privacy of American citiznes. What's the result of domestic spying? It's not safety. I wish America will not be another Korea in 1960.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
To all of the Bullpups
From your upbringing I really wouldn't expect any other stance other than "violation of civil rights".
I won't ruffle a lot of feathers out there by taking exception to any of your posts. All I will do is to say that there are a couple of items that you seemed to miss when you took exception to President Bush's Wiretap Executive Order. I would refer you to the following post within this same forum thread.
December 22nd, 2005 04:46 AM
Chief Bones I'm divided on this one.
========================================================
The checks and balances between the branches of government were maintained. There was oversite of the operations by an impartial group of our lawmakers to ensure that violation of civil rights DID NOT go to extremes. The actual wiretaps were actually intended to intercept conversations between AlQaeda operatives (phone call originators) and whoever answered in the United States. The individuals that were subject of wiretaps in the US had already been overheard in conversations with "KNOWN" bad guys.
I commend all of you on your well thought out postings.
I had no problems following what you were trying to say even though I don't completely agree with your reasoning.
From your upbringing I really wouldn't expect any other stance other than "violation of civil rights".
I won't ruffle a lot of feathers out there by taking exception to any of your posts. All I will do is to say that there are a couple of items that you seemed to miss when you took exception to President Bush's Wiretap Executive Order. I would refer you to the following post within this same forum thread.
December 22nd, 2005 04:46 AM
Chief Bones I'm divided on this one.
========================================================
The checks and balances between the branches of government were maintained. There was oversite of the operations by an impartial group of our lawmakers to ensure that violation of civil rights DID NOT go to extremes. The actual wiretaps were actually intended to intercept conversations between AlQaeda operatives (phone call originators) and whoever answered in the United States. The individuals that were subject of wiretaps in the US had already been overheard in conversations with "KNOWN" bad guys.
I commend all of you on your well thought out postings.
I had no problems following what you were trying to say even though I don't completely agree with your reasoning.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Its ok to pick at their arguments... the opinions expressed are their own, I am merely working on their abilities to support their opinions. No politics lessons in my class, honest.
I agree with your reasoning Chief but I think my point of contention is the lack of oversight.
I agree with your reasoning Chief but I think my point of contention is the lack of oversight.
Rabs
Active member
The way this is done is the US government has a list of terriost phone numbers, and when one of those numbers is used they listen to that call. So its not like this is Suzy calling Beth down the street to talk about there husbands. This is mohammed in Afghanistan calling abdul in New York, by god i want that conversation listend to, and is talking to people that have there phone numbers on that list not probable cause enough? I do agree that there should be some kind of standard to have a number put on this list but not to trace indvidual calls once the number is on the list.
Well when you were trying to get out of the country back to Syria days after the 9/11 attacks, thats a bit fishy.
That reasonable reason is that its talking about killing Americans, and Russian sats can look at the USA just as much as we can look at Iran. Actually go download google earth and you can look at any place in the USA you want.
Thats cause almost all attacks are done by muslims. Not much persuadion needed.
No i think most americans realize that terriost are a small portion of the muslim community, however anti-muslim feelings dont generate from the government they generate from them flying planes into our buildings.
Well bulldog and I need to have a chat, and btw china is a communist country
Good format, good points bullpup.
-edit.
One more thing, the diffrence between what the United States is doing and what N. Korea does is that.
If you dont like what the governments doing right now, you can vote them out of office, and also, you can publicly critize it, as you all are proveing on here.
Bullpup_four said:
Quoteing WD is a dangerous thing to do
Last edited: