Government appeals wiretapping decision

[JustinM]

Do you support legislation passed against the posession of firearms? If a person gets convicted of a felony, he is no longer afforded the rights of our Constitution. Someone that associates themselves with a terrorist is committing a felony. I could care less about anyone's rights if they're witnessed committing a crime and I will always oppose any law that prohibits me from "observing" a crime in progress. The victim's rights are what needs to be protected not the assailant's. After 9-11 all Americans became victims, because we all suffered in one way or another.

If an American hates his country enough to where he is supporting, aiding or becoming a terrorist, then his rights are no longer my concern, because he is enabling more victimization against us, the people that truly love this country.

[JustinM]

You people have your priorities mixed up. Criminals are given more liberties than their victims.

People are doing more time in prison for insider trading than they are given for systematically molesting and raping a child. Tell me that makes sense.

PC has gone overboard in this country and now we want to protect terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The same people that oppose the wiretap legislation have also opposed and exposed every anti-terrorism measure this country has tried to pass.

Our government is not a threat to its people. People with anti-victim ideologies are. If they are to gain power in this country. Forget about prison. The barbed wire will be torn down, the fences removed and all prisons will be ranamed restorative/rehabilitative centers for the mischevious in society.

[buckthesystem]

Do you support legislation passed against the posession of firearms? If a person gets convicted of a felony, he is no longer afforded the rights of our Constitution. Someone that associates themselves with a terrorist is committing a felony. I could care less about anyone's rights if they're witnessed committing a crime and I will always oppose any law that prohibits me from "observing" a crime in progress. The victim's rights are what needs to be protected not the assailant's. After 9-11 all Americans became victims, because we all suffered in one way or another.

If an American hates his country enough to where he is supporting, aiding or becoming a terrorist, then his rights are no longer my concern, because he is enabling more victimization against us, the people that truly love this country.

Justin what you've got to understand is that you are assuming that all this is a case of "them" and "us". You have to consider that any one of us could very easily become an alleged "felon". Under all these Bills the definition of "terrorist" is incredibly broad. Those who you accuse of being "the bad guy" are not, by definition, until at the very least, they have been found to be so under due process.

But, you have advocated the government getting rid of habeas corpus! Now you cannot go taking away peoples' constitutional rights because some idiot government employee has assumed that they associate with terrorists.

Do you think it is a good idea to violate everybody's (yes, the Bill does say that everybody and anybody's could be privacy could be violated "without a warrant") for what could turn out to be a case of government incompetence?

Are you going to brand anyone who is accused of "associating with terrorists" an "America hater"? What ever happened to "freedom of association"?

[LadyRaven]

Do you support legislation passed against the posession of firearms? If a person gets convicted of a felony, he is no longer afforded the rights of our Constitution. Someone that associates themselves with a terrorist is committing a felony. I could care less about anyone's rights if they're witnessed committing a crime and I will always oppose any law that prohibits me from "observing" a crime in progress. The victim's rights are what needs to be protected not the assailant's. After 9-11 all Americans became victims, because we all suffered in one way or another.

If an American hates his country enough to where he is supporting, aiding or becoming a terrorist, then his rights are no longer my concern, because he is enabling more victimization against us, the people that truly love this country.

Nobody ever loses their rights because the constitution does not give them rights in the first place, GOD gives us these rights. Our rights are inalienable. Nobody is supressing the rights of my children for any reason without my objection, not even to stop terrorists. If our rights are supressed we have changed as a people and we have placed our government above the law of the land. The terrorist have then succeeded in destroying us and they have won. They don't NEED to blow us up anymore.

[LadyRaven]

You people have your priorities mixed up. Criminals are given more liberties than their victims.

People are doing more time in prison for insider trading than they are given for systematically molesting and raping a child. Tell me that makes sense.

That's not my fault, I would give a child rapist the death penalty. Our entire society has begun to fall down around our ears.

PC has gone overboard in this country and now we want to protect terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The same people that oppose the wiretap legislation have also opposed and exposed every anti-terrorism measure this country has tried to pass.

Any legislation which violates our constitution is illegal, regardless of what the supreme court says. Any law which supresses our inalienable rights is wrong. Period. It's oppressive and tyrannical. And most of it is what is known as "security theatre." In other words its a big production which accomplishes nothing and makes people who don't know any better feel good.

This does not mean we should do nothing about terrorism it means we're doing the wrong thing. If we wanted to invade nations which harboured terrorists, then we should have done so in a manner which was much more decisive. We sent only a part of what our generals requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. The ones who kill enough people and break enough things to bring the oppenent to his or her knees wins, that's the way it goes. The insurgents in Iraq were not broken and brought to their knees. Afghanistanian Lords who harboured osama were not either. So we still have to fight when we should have been done. Do we hear from that nutcase in Libya anymore? No, cause he's decided it's too risky to cause problems. We didn't stay there, we went in shook their world and left.

Frankly, when the US got attacked on 9-11 we should have gone after Osama. Thing is, we had practically stripped our intelligence network and thus had to use conventional warfare when covert operations and assassinations would have been much more appropriate (and would have worked on Saddam too) and cost effective. We were no longer able to accomplish this effectively, because we'd spent too much time on things I can't discuss but were not useful for doing anything other than in country spying as opposed to overseas ops. We knew Osama was a threat to us back when I got out of the military, we'd sit there and talk in the lunch room about how this was going to come back and bite us in the can, and guess what, it did.

Our government is not a threat to its people. People with anti-victim ideologies are. If they are to gain power in this country. Forget about prison. The barbed wire will be torn down, the fences removed and all prisons will be ranamed restorative/rehabilitative centers for the mischevious in society.

People who are victims will always be oppressed. People who rise up after being insulted or hurt and refuse to rearrange their lives to suit those who offended or hurt them are the ones who will always be free. That's just the way it is. When you live in fear you remain a victim when you should be an overcomer. When 9-11 happened we vowed we'd never rearrange our lives to suit these nuts, and now what are we doing?

And yes, any government which becomes above the law is oppressive, tyrannical and as such a threat to the people. Any time you supress the rights of the people you hurt them, whether they think they are being hurt or not. Remember that most abused women (and men) don't realise that they are being mistreated long before the first punch is thrown. Many many bounderies are breached before the violence starts.

Our constitution is not what give us our rights, it is the tool our founders gave to protect those rights. There are safeguards there to keep the government at a safe distance from the average person. When these safeguards fall, it is quite possible that the people don't realise they are oppressed because their lives don't appear to change right off. Then another thing changes and then another and then another until one day you wake up and realise that hey, I'm being oppressed. Well it didn't start that day it started years beforehand, one small and seemingly innocent step at a time. Sorry I don't buy this crap and I never will.

And while I am a civil libertarian do not confuse this with liberal, who thinks that mankind is basically good and in need of rehabilitiation and a group hug. I know that mankind is fallen and evil at it's character and as such prone to push bounderies and grab for power. A group of fallen beings (as in a bureaucracy) is even worse than a singular individual and must always be watched for signs of getting too big for their britches...and when it starts it needs to be stopped before it hurts someone.

[JustinM]

bucthesystem: "Are you going to brand anyone who is accused of "associating with terrorists" an "America hater"? What ever happened to "freedom of association"?"

Yes I am, and it isn't freedom of association, it's freedom of peaceful assembly.

You do not have the freedom to associate with a known fugitive, if caught, you can be charged for obstructing justice, aiding and abetting a known fugitive, both of which carry tough penalties.

We've got one side that believes in a vast government conspiracy to oppress its people, then we have another side that believes people are out to get us and will use the most ruthless tactics they can find to do so. I want the government to find those people and neutralize them.

Our government has tightened the belt of liberty all throughout its history, during times of war, but it has always loosened it up after it ended. We have no idea when the war on terrorism will end, but when it does the world will either be safer or more dangerous than ever before.

If a person chooses to protect and support another person whose life ambitions are to kill as many unsuspecting Americans as possible, then yes that person hates America. How could he say he loves it, when he is allowing someone to attack and try to destroy it.

[buckthesystem]

bucthesystem: "Are you going to brand anyone who is accused of "associating with terrorists" an "America hater"? What ever happened to "freedom of association"?"

Yes I am, and it isn't freedom of association, it's freedom of peaceful assembly.

You do not have the freedom to associate with a known fugitive, if caught, you can be charged for obstructing justice, aiding and abetting a known fugitive, both of which carry tough penalties.

We've got one side that believes in a vast government conspiracy to oppress its people, then we have another side that believes people are out to get us and will use the most ruthless tactics they can find to do so. I want the government to find those people and neutralize them.

Our government has tightened the belt of liberty all throughout its history, during times of war, but it has always loosened it up after it ended. We have no idea when the war on terrorism will end, but when it does the world will either be safer or more dangerous than ever before.

If a person chooses to protect and support another person whose life ambitions are to kill as many unsuspecting Americans as possible, then yes that person hates America. How could he say he loves it, when he is allowing someone to attack and try to destroy it.

Fact 1. The operative word here is "accused".

Fact 2. Once liberties are lost, it is almost impossible to regain them.

Fact 3. America is not at war! The "war on terrorism" is an artificial concept that will have no end.