Roving Wire Taps?

LadyJeepFreak

New member
:purple: :purple: Just cuz I love to see ya'll discuss things, what do you think about the recent roving wiretap situation?

I'm not too discouraged by it and I think it's fine. I guess if I was done wrong while being innocent I'd think otherwise but I can't imagine anything I'm doing being that interesting to the man. You never know I guess.

Lady
 

It's necessary... unfortunately.

I don't have phone-sex or anything...so I'm okay with it.:lol:
 
Since I moon-light as a drug dealer and run a 4 million dollar a month sports gambling racket out of my house I have a serious problem with it.
Ok even when I am not joking I have a problem with it.
We Americans expect a certain amount of privacy from our Government. And the right to live our life's free from Government interference. And at one time it took a court order before a spook from the CIA could listen in to my phone conversations with my friends about the best place to off-road that week. Now they can just scan the air waves waiting for my next cell-phone call...

Hello Domino's?!?
 

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin "
 
I thought the whole thing was about the government tapping those individuals who are suspected of having ties to Al-Quieda. In that case I'm all for it. If we would've been listening a little harder a few years ago I'd probably be at home right now taking a Christmas vacation instead of being in the desert! As far as the rest of us innocent people are concerned my opinion is about the same as LJF's......I'm not doing anything wrong so they can waste all the time they want listening to me. Plus, since I'm in the Army I've pretty much given away all my rights to privacy so they can pretty much do what they want to me no matter what I say. I'm used to it.
 
Last edited:
jumppr said:
If we would've been listening a little harder a few years ago I'd probably be at home right now taking a Christmas vacation instead of being in the desert!

This is why I'm still undecided about the whole mess. Far too many of our soldiers are being taken from their families, some of them permanently, because somebody dropped the ball prior to 9-11. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that Bush is doing this unchecked. Problem is, we don't know who he is listening to, or why. One of the biggest problems with the Patriot Act is the fact that it gives the pres unlimited, unchecked power to pull stuff like this. For all we know, this site is being monitored, my phone is tapped, and I'll end up on an unmarked jet headed for Kabul because of my statements against him. (For those of you who watched 60 Minutes Sunday).
 

Yeah I somewhat agree with that statement. I know that the government does not always know what they're doing believe me I speak from first hand experience lately. I must believe that before they put someone on a plane headed for Gitmo or here that they would do a lot of research into finding out if you're truly a threat to our national security. Just speaking badly about your president or saying you agree with one Muslim or another is not going to be the deciding factor in these cases.
 
jumppr said:
...............Just speaking badly about your president or saying you agree with one Muslim or another is not going to be the deciding factor in these cases.

Maybe not now, but this is a dangerous, dangerous precident. Just one step closer to a police state.
 
Terry climbs on his soapbox....

This is why I'm still undecided about the whole mess. Far too many of our soldiers are being taken from their families, some of them permanently, because somebody dropped the ball prior to 9-11.
From what I heard Traq had nothing to do with 9-11 (assuming that you meant soldiers stationed in Iraq). I believe we invaded Iraq to destroy their nonexistant weapons of mass destruction. I'm not saying we shouldn't be there, or anything like that - only that we didn't go there because of 9-11

Just speaking badly about your president or saying you agree with one Muslim or another is not going to be the deciding factor in these cases.
Just to give you something to think about -

Sedition laws:
After World War I, several cases involving laws limiting speech came before the Supreme Court. The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Under the Act, over two thousand prosecutions were commenced. For instance, one filmmaker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment because his portrayal of British soldiers in a movie about the American Revolution impugned the good faith of an American ally, the United Kingdom. The Sedition Act of 1918 went even farther, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government.

Then...

Freedom of speech was influenced by anti-Communism during the Cold War. In 1940, Congress replaced the Sedition Act of 1918, which had expired in 1921. The Smith Act passed in that year made punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." The law was mainly used as a weapon against Communist leaders. <snip> Thus, even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party's ideas, their speech was restricted by the Court.



It just seems like we have a history of making knee jerk laws during or after wartime. The sedition laws of WWI were widely seen as a really bad thing. they criminalized about anything bad that was said about the government.
Anyone remember the communist hunt that went on around the cold war? I hate to see us repeat the same mistakes we've already made so many times.

Sorry for the long - overly political post (terry climbs off soapbox)


You can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 

Orwellian? Absolutely. And the precedent is dangerous. But like Sparky... I'm definitely back and forth on this.

We live in a nuclear and biochemical age. Security is no longer a matter of shielding ourselves from canon balls being launched from a ship, Zero's sneak attacking a port, or infantry penetrating our borders.

Dead men have no Liberty. Imagine the implications of a nuclear bomb going off in Manhattan? The people...that's 19 Million people.

And another "Red Scare" (As Terry pointed out) would be terrible. Concentration camps. Black-listing. Freedom of speech being reigned back. Those are dark times in our countries history. I'm a liberal at heart, and it's in my nature to go against security measures that infringe on our civil liberties, but I just can't bring myself to risk 19 Million lives over it.

Here's what I don't understand, and maybe some of the more learned on here can shed some light on this. But it seems to me that we should be able to solve the problem of the: "No court order needed in order to expedite the process" arguement.

There definetly needs to be a check and balance, but don't get me wrong...I hate it.
 
Last edited:
Where does it end?

Go back and read the quote that 90Xjay posted and if you still believe that this is right.....then go back and read the quote that 90Xjay posted. Repeat as necessary.
 
As I said, I'm on the fence about this. I agree it's a dangerous precedent and "Orwellian" in it's intent.

And as "kitschy" as the quote by Benny Franklin is, (if you fall for that kinda thing) with all do respect to such a great man:
The biggest threat to security in his day was a cannon ball and a musket round. Hardly comparable to a planted vial of chemical compounds or a nuclear bomb.

Before 911, I wouldn't have even questioned it, anything "big brother" was bad. And for the most part, still bad. But times have changed. Again, I'm not a proponent of it, I'm suggesting that such measures shouldn't be instantly dismissed, and you have to weigh out all of the angles.

Mostly what I'm suggesting is a healthy medium. I don't agree that the gov't should just be able to go around "willy nilly" and plant taps whenever they want, but that such things need to have some system of CHECKS and BALANCES. What I was curious about is why we can't think of a better solution other than to just give them free reign over something as precious as our privacy.

We have to evolve, and perhaps "Freedom" isn't something that is a consistent idea. Your liberities have been redefined, like it or not. And if you must blame someone for such a travesty, look no further than ourselves, for our history with the middle east, and our policy mistakes regarding that region. The wheels for this were set in motion long before Al Queda and Osama.

Ask everyone that died in the Twin Towers if they'd have minded that their phone lines were tapped, if it meant they'd still be alive today...

But at the same time, I have no desire of becoming the poster boy for such policies either, so please don't pin that on me.
 
Last edited:

Please don't use the 9-11 disaster to justify this........that is exactly what "they" want. We had foreign students (Arabs) going to our flight schools wanting to learn only how to take off!!! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. And these same "rocket scientists" now want free rein to shred the constitution? All I can say is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!

Another great one (FDR I think) once said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"...................Believe it.
 
I read the first few lines of your post and then stopped, so I could post and point out that I wasn't referring to you when I made my post. That better? I was referring to anyone who takes the attitude that it doesn't matter because they aren't doing anything wrong. Now they can be offended, or whatever. You're clearly on the fence about it as most people should be.

I'm sorry guys, I try to avoid these topics in gen chat. I really don't know what I was thinking.

**You beat me to posting Mud, I was talking to Mingez.
 
Last edited:
I read the first few lines of your post and then stopped, so I could post and point out that I wasn't referring to you when I made my post. That better? I was referring to anyone who takes the attitude that it doesn't matter because they aren't doing anything wrong. Now they can be offended, or whatever. You're clearly on the fence about it as most people should be.


I'm a big jerk! Sorry... I think I need a nap.
 

Nothing against 90 or anyone else, but I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the quote from a long gone dude. lol Today is today not two hundred years ago! Our entire playing field is totally different! Not that he wasn't a great man or he didn't know great things and certainly not that Bush is any smarter or knows ANY great things, of course. However, I can concede to things like this for the sake of protection. I must say the patriot act in general irritates me though. I think parts of it are too broad and too enchroaching on American's rights. I'm sure some of the conservatives feel this way too.

My problem with government control would come more into play if they placed controls over my internet usage, my choice of churches, my interstate travel, my choice of jobs, or my grocery store. Things reminisant of what Castro does in ruling Cuba.
 
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.

Amendment IV, United States Constitution.


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.

SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

The day you decide that the founding fathers were antiquated and their ideals are meaningless in a modern world, is the day you relegate our constitution to the status of 200 year old toilet paper.
 
LadyJeepFreak said:
..........................My problem with government control would come more into play if they placed controls over my internet usage, my choice of churches, my interstate travel, my choice of jobs, or my grocery store. Things reminisant of what Castro does in ruling Cuba.

Unfortunately, this is the way it starts. That stuff doesn't just happen over night. It's a little thing here ("Oh, that's good because of 9-11), and then a little thing there ("Oh, yes, that's good because the "terrorists" will come an kill me here in the mountains), then a 'nother little thing (Oh, that's good - give me air bags so when I hit a tree............), and before you know it, you're in Cuba. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW......I probably have quite a lengthy record on file somewhere in Washington. :shock: :x :cry: :evil:
 
Back
Top