Bush wiretap programme gets extra week

[buckthesystem]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/...in2048963.shtml

Is this a case of "give him an inch and he will take a mile"? This "leeway" was granted and yet on the very same day they "rushed the Bill through".

See how dangerous it has become:

"U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on Aug. 17 that the program, which targets communications between people in the United States and people overseas when a link to terrorism is suspected, violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution".

And:

"Many of them said they had been forced to take expensive and time-consuming overseas trips because their contacts were no longer willing to speak openly on the phone, or because it would be unethical to ask them to do so when the confidentiality of those conversations could not be guaranteed.

[Akiko]

I'm all in favor of this bill. I figure if you have nothing to hide, why are we freaking out? If you're not a terrorist or a criminal, you've got nothing to fear from this program.

In all honesty, none of us are important enough that the FBI is going to listen to us talk about our personal lives. What are they going to say: 'Ooh. John Smith might get fired' and tell it to the world? XD

I don't see why people are so concerned. o_O But I suppose that's me...

[buckthesystem]

I'm all in favor of this bill. I figure if you have nothing to hide, why are we freaking out? If you're not a terrorist or a criminal, you've got nothing to fear from this program.

In all honesty, none of us are important enough that the FBI is going to listen to us talk about our personal lives. What are they going to say: 'Ooh. John Smith might get fired' and tell it to the world? XD

I don't see why people are so concerned. o_O But I suppose that's me...

I am absolutely mortified. I never thought I'd hear the ridiculous old totally discredited adage of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" ever again. Are you serious when you say this?

How can you say that with a straight face?

I know I'VE got something to hide:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

It is called "privacy".

There is also a basic tenet of law and democracy that has existed for many centuries, meaning that "the onus of proof is on the accuser". This means that government isn't supposed to assume that everybody is a criminal or terrorist and it is up to them to prove that they are not - it is actually the other way around.

If you really have "nothing to hide" you will not object to posting on this site all your family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address - plus a description of your house - and every previous address you've had. That will do for a start, and then you can answer any personal questions put to you - it will be assumed that you have consented to this because "you have nothing to hide...."

Of course you can change your mind at any time and decide that the details of your life are none of anybody's business unless you choose to tell them and that goes for government too.

[Akiko]

Buckthesystem: I can see your point-- I wouldn't go posting all my information on the Internet, even though I have nothing to hide. The difference between the wiretapping program and posting all the information on the Internet is that no one in the CIA or FBI is going to care what my private life is like. They are searching for terrorists, not people with secret collections of Barbies hidden in their closets. In any case, if the FBI really wanted that information (family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address, a description of your house, and every previous address you've had), they could find it without me telling them.

If I was a celebrity or someone of importance in the scheme of the United States, I would definitely object, because my information does have an impact on US life. But I am a girl in Iowa, and no one particuarly cares much about my personal life. Internet stalkers would be the expectation-- which is why I post no real information on the Internet-- so I really don't care if the government wants to make sure that no one in our household is a terrorist.

You also have to figure in the thousands of lives that were lost on Sept. 11th-- for me, it's worth a breach in privacy if even one person could have kept their life. If it means preventing another terrorist attack, and in turn, loss of life, than I can stand knowing that the FBI may be using a computer to scan my calls for buzzwords.

[apothanein kerdos]

Here's the problem we are in. If we stop such wiretapping then we easily allow for other terrorist attacks (in theory).

If we allow such wiretapping, then within the next 20 years Christians are done. Notice the big trend that everyone seems to be ignoring; Christians are being declared terrorists. Dawkins was the first one to do so, however if any of you saw the Kieth Obermann special on "Jesus Camps" he attempted to label all Christians (that are moderate to conservative) as terrorists. THe thing is, this is a growing trend among the intellectual elites and now the media. If you study recent history you'll find that what is declared in the intellectual world finds its way into the arts, then into the media, then into the pop culture, then into regular belief. It usually does this within 10-40 years, depending on the severity and plausibility of the belief.

Guys, it's happening right now in America...we only have a few years left. If wiretapping is allowed then it will only be turned on Christians in the very near future.

[other one]

what you say is very true.... and at this point will cost us dearly to stop.

Sam

[buckthesystem]

Buckthesystem: I can see your point-- I wouldn't go posting all my information on the Internet, even though I have nothing to hide. The difference between the wiretapping program and posting all the information on the Internet is that no one in the CIA or FBI is going to care what my private life is like. They are searching for terrorists, not people with secret collections of Barbies hidden in their closets. In any case, if the FBI really wanted that information (family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address, a description of your house, and every previous address you've had), they could find it without me telling them.

If I was a celebrity or someone of importance in the scheme of the United States, I would definitely object, because my information does have an impact on US life. But I am a girl in Iowa, and no one particuarly cares much about my personal life. Internet stalkers would be the expectation-- which is why I post no real information on the Internet-- so I really don't care if the government wants to make sure that no one in our household is a terrorist.

You also have to figure in the thousands of lives that were lost on Sept. 11th-- for me, it's worth a breach in privacy if even one person could have kept their life. If it means preventing another terrorist attack, and in turn, loss of life, than I can stand knowing that the FBI may be using a computer to scan my calls for buzzwords.

What about the reversal of the onus of proof? Does this not concern you?

[Akiko]

Buckthesystem: I can see your point-- I wouldn't go posting all my information on the Internet, even though I have nothing to hide. The difference between the wiretapping program and posting all the information on the Internet is that no one in the CIA or FBI is going to care what my private life is like. They are searching for terrorists, not people with secret collections of Barbies hidden in their closets. In any case, if the FBI really wanted that information (family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address, a description of your house, and every previous address you've had), they could find it without me telling them.

If I was a celebrity or someone of importance in the scheme of the United States, I would definitely object, because my information does have an impact on US life. But I am a girl in Iowa, and no one particuarly cares much about my personal life. Internet stalkers would be the expectation-- which is why I post no real information on the Internet-- so I really don't care if the government wants to make sure that no one in our household is a terrorist.

You also have to figure in the thousands of lives that were lost on Sept. 11th-- for me, it's worth a breach in privacy if even one person could have kept their life. If it means preventing another terrorist attack, and in turn, loss of life, than I can stand knowing that the FBI may be using a computer to scan my calls for buzzwords.

What about the reversal of the onus of proof? Does this not concern you?

I have a pretty big vocabulary and looked up 'onus,' but that question still makes no sense to me. Could you reword it so I can answer? XDDD Excuse my ignorance.

[buckthesystem]

Buckthesystem: I can see your point-- I wouldn't go posting all my information on the Internet, even though I have nothing to hide. The difference between the wiretapping program and posting all the information on the Internet is that no one in the CIA or FBI is going to care what my private life is like. They are searching for terrorists, not people with secret collections of Barbies hidden in their closets. In any case, if the FBI really wanted that information (family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address, a description of your house, and every previous address you've had), they could find it without me telling them.

If I was a celebrity or someone of importance in the scheme of the United States, I would definitely object, because my information does have an impact on US life. But I am a girl in Iowa, and no one particuarly cares much about my personal life. Internet stalkers would be the expectation-- which is why I post no real information on the Internet-- so I really don't care if the government wants to make sure that no one in our household is a terrorist.

You also have to figure in the thousands of lives that were lost on Sept. 11th-- for me, it's worth a breach in privacy if even one person could have kept their life. If it means preventing another terrorist attack, and in turn, loss of life, than I can stand knowing that the FBI may be using a computer to scan my calls for buzzwords.

What about the reversal of the onus of proof? Does this not concern you?

I have a pretty big vocabulary and looked up 'onus,' but that question still makes no sense to me. Could you reword it so I can answer? XDDD Excuse my ignorance.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

"Onus" more or less means "burdan" or "responsibility". It refers to the centuries-old tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" and means that if you are accused of a crime, it is up to the accuser or the state to prove that you committed the crime, it is not up to you to prove that you did not.

By having a blanket right to eavesdrop on everybody's communications, it is in effect, assuming that everybody is guilty of being a criminal or a terrorist and saying pretty much "if you are not a terrorist, prove it by giving us access to all your private (or otherwise) emails, telephone calls, cellphone calls etc."

It is sort of like if everywhere you went you discovered you were being followed overtly by a group of policemen, who said when you approached them, "we suspect everybody in your street are planning terrorist activities so we are going to be writing down everything that you all do to try and prevent an attack". Wouldn't you be mad at this?

Sorry again for being lazy and not elaborating.

[buckthesystem]

According to an article in USA Today when this whole issue of wiretapping first came to light, it claimed approximately 500 to 600 people in a nation of 250,000,000 had been listened in on. This article was trying to stir up opposition to the program, so I would imagine that their number is correct. They framed it as hundreds of Americans, but when you read the actual story the number was 500 to 600. It should be obvious to everyone that if that is the extent of the program, it can only be involving those the government has a pretty good idea are actual terrorists. I am not going to buy into this liberal propoganda and help the terrorists succeed in more destructive acts. While Bush is human and has certainly made mistakes, I appreciate his efforts to protect innocent American citizens, as opposed to the Democrats who are more concerned with the "rights" of terrorists.

This is obviously not the entire extent of the programme. It probably is for THE TIME BEING, but with "terrorist" not being defined, and the term increasingly broadened, it will soon be massively extended. But the government has convinced people to trust everything to government employees, so by the time they find out that they shouldn't have trusted anyone mooting an idea like this "to protect them", it will be too late.

If you really believe that the number of victims of this Act will be small and that makes it acceptable, and it is all so as "protect innocent American citizens", then you must ask yourself why the NSA just don't get warrants for the interceptions that they want to do. Afterall, if it is all above board they should have no problem complying with this process and obtaining the warrant.

You say yourself "Bush is human and has certainly made mistakes" yet you are trusting an awful lot to him.