A Matter in Bad Need of Attention

[sitarro]

Let me just ask you something. Was the internment of hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens necessary during WWII? (Japanese Internment Camps) Moreover, was it legal? Would you take the same steps today?

60 years ago dildo.....are you going to bring up slavery next? Why don't you take a look at what was happening at that time, the fact that they didn't have television, the iliteracy rate, etc. Once again, judging the past using todays standards is wrong!

 

[sitarro]

Really now? Because the last time I checked they were doing the tapping without a warrant. Which is my main problem about it. I don't care if they have a warrant to tap, because they have probable cause. When you don't have a warrant or can't be bothered to get a warrant, thats when I have major issues, because there is no oversight.

Wire tapping? So who do you think is listening to every call in the U.S.? What size Army would be required for every call to be "tapped"? You are an idiot, a computer looking for phone numbers being called is not wire tapping!JEEEZ what an ass, no nwonder the Democrats get votes.....there are plenty of ignorant dolts that they can get to buy any distortion of the truth.

"Really, George Bush is listening to every meaningless conversation you are having and taking notes.....I'm not kidding, really, and he stole both elections."

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Well, it's nice that you think my post only applies to liberals. I didn't mention liberals at all. That tells me that you believe the stereotype is true.

My point was that you cannot have individual freedoms AT ALL unless you allow the government some latitude in protecting those rights. It is obvious that we (at times) sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. It is an individuals right to have private conversations. When that conversation between individuals conspires to commit a crime does the right to privacy still apply? I know you will say "get a warrant" but that is not the point...the point is that we all have agreed that a warrant trumps the individuals right to privacy.

Still, not an excuse to proceed without warrants. If you can somehow justify that this is legal without warrants then go ahead. Otherwise just concede that there is no need for the government to be monitoring us. Monitor those with reasonable cause, leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

60 years ago dildo.....are you going to bring up slavery next? Why don't you take a look at what was happening at that time, the fact that they didn't have television, the iliteracy rate, etc.

Wow. Just wow. Perhaps the analogy there was a bit too much for you to comprehend.

Once again, judging the past using todays standards is wrong!

I'm just going to copy and paste this quote everytime you bitch about anything in the past.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Wire tapping? So who do you think is listening to every call in the U.S.? What size Army would be required for every call to be "tapped"? You are an idiot, a computer looking for phone numbers being called is not wire tapping!JEEEZ what an ass, no nwonder the Democrats get votes.....there are plenty of ignorant dolts that they can get to buy any distortion of the truth.

"Really, George Bush is listening to every meaningless conversation you are having and taking notes.....I'm not kidding, really, and he stole both elections."

And again, if this is so legal then why can the government not be bothered to get warrants for these activities? Honestly? Its in the Consititution. Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't the primary job of the President to uphold the ideals of the US Consitution?

 

[Gunny]

Let me just ask you something. Was the internment of hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens necessary during WWII? (Japanese Internment Camps) Moreover, was it legal? Would you take the same steps today?

You cannot call them "innocent" except after the fact, because of the internment. You do not know how many, if any, would have otherwise acted against this Nation had they not been interred.

During a time of declared war, the Commander in Chief can take whatever steps he feels are necessary to secure the Nation and win the war.

Would I take the same steps today? You mean round up all the Arabs? No. But I WOULD immediatey round up and deport ANY members of Islamic hate groups and all their imams who preach their hate-filled, fanatical rhetoric under the protection of our laws. THAT is just pure BS. We are at war with radical Islam, and that would include the radicals within as well as without.

 

[Gunny]

Still, not an excuse to proceed without warrants. If you can somehow justify that this is legal without warrants then go ahead. Otherwise just concede that there is no need for the government to be monitoring us. Monitor those with reasonable cause, leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

Where'd the "us" come from? The government has stated over and over again who they are monitoring. It is only the left operating on the assumption that the government is eavesdropping on their affairs and drug deals.

However, it is a matter of personal security to assume at all times that somebody is listening. I never have and never will trust a device that can be monitored.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

You cannot call them "innocent" except after the fact, because of the internment. You do not know how many, if any, would have otherwise acted against this Nation had they not been interred.

What happened to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in this country? Who is to say they would have abided the enemy? Careful what you say, you are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent with this line of logic.

During a time of declared war, the Commander in Chief can take whatever steps he feels are necessary to secure the Nation and win the war.

Even if those acts are in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution?

Would I take the same steps today? You mean round up all the Arabs? No. But I WOULD immediatey round up and deport ANY members of Islamic hate groups and all their imams who preach their hate-filled, fanatical rhetoric under the protection of our laws. THAT is just pure BS. We are at war with radical Islam, and that would include the radicals within as well as without.

So, its ok to shred the Constitution whenever you please? As much as you may hate their speech, it is fundamentally protected by the Constitution.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Where'd the "us" come from? The government has stated over and over again who they are monitoring. It is only the left operating on the assumption that the government is eavesdropping on their affairs and drug deals.

However, it is a matter of personal security to assume at all times that somebody is listening. I never have and never will trust a device that can be monitored.

Then you must use no devices that are connected to any network of any kind.

 

[Gunny]

What happened to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in this country? Who is to say they would have abided the enemy? Careful what you say, you are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent with this line of logic.

I doubt I am setting any sort of precedent on this line of logic. Nor is there a need for me to be careful.

I did not say they would have aided and abetted the enemy. I merely said you cannot say for a fact they would not.

As far as precedent goes, it was set. They did not aid and abet the enemy because they were rendered unable to.


Even if those acts are in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution?

Even if it is in defense of that Constituion; which, is a meaningless piece of paper without being backed by enough force to defend it. If you rights are temporarily inconvenienced to defend that piece of paper, I will surely get over it.

So, its ok to shred the Constitution whenever you please? As much as you may hate their speech, it is fundamentally protected by the Constitution.

Obviously a few corrections need to be made.

 

[Gunny]

Then you must use no devices that are connected to any network of any kind.

Is it a full moon tonight? I keep getting things attributed to me that haven't been said.

Let's review: I said I always assume they are being monitored. I did not say I did nto use them.

I also have said that anyone listening to my conversations must indeed be bored as Hell.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Is it a full moon tonight? I keep getting things attributed to me that haven't been said.

Let's review: I said I always assume they are being monitored. I did not say I did nto use them.

I also have said that anyone listening to my conversations must indeed be bored as Hell.

Gunny, you know what I find interesting, and I rarely, if ever see this pointed out.
Fact is, we have extremely little privacy on our conversations and we are openly allowing it legally. Whenever you talk on a wireless network, which my keyboard typing right now is, or on a cell phone, or a cordless phone at home (how often do you see anyone ever, EVER talking on a corded phone anymore?), ALL OF THAT INFORMATION HAS THROUGH OUR OWN WILLINGNESS, BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IT IS NO LONGER PRIVATE INFORMATION. ANYONE SITTING IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE CAN INTERCEPT THAT INFORMATION, TOTALLY, LEGALLY AND WITHOUT WARRANT. IT IS AS THOUGH YOU PUT IT ON A CHAT MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET.

The liberals scream loss of freedoms, yet not a one of them truly believes it.

OH, and its a full moon when they DONT attribute things to you that you didnt say....

 

[Hobbit]

Gunny, you know what I find interesting, and I rarely, if ever see this pointed out.
Fact is, we have extremely little privacy on our conversations and we are openly allowing it legally. Whenever you talk on a wireless network, which my keyboard typing right now is, or on a cell phone, or a cordless phone at home (how often do you see anyone ever, EVER talking on a corded phone anymore?), ALL OF THAT INFORMATION HAS THROUGH OUR OWN WILLINGNESS, BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IT IS NO LONGER PRIVATE INFORMATION. ANYONE SITTING IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE CAN INTERCEPT THAT INFORMATION, TOTALLY, LEGALLY AND WITHOUT WARRANT. IT IS AS THOUGH YOU PUT IT ON A CHAT MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET.

The liberals scream loss of freedoms, yet not a one of them truly believes it.

OH, and its a full moon when they DONT attribute things to you that you didnt say....

Many types of two way and ham radios are capable (if accidentally) of communicating on cell frequencies. According to the expectation of privacy ruling, if it is reasonable to believe that a third party may be listening to the conversation, then the contents of the conversation cannot be excluded, even on the grounds of priviledge, such as spousal, attorney/client, doctor/patient, or priest/penetant. However, in cases of priviledge, any unauthorized listeners who are asked to dismiss themselves and don't have anything they hear protected by priviledge, but I digress.

 

[Adam's Apple]

what freedoms have you lost?

Guess he is purposely ignoring your post, Manu, but I sure wish he would respond. I would like to know what these freedoms are that he thinks we all have lost because of this government program put in place to protect us.