US court dismisses spying case

[forrestkc]

Thank God there are other people out there watching out for our nation who understand the nature of this threat better than you.

t.

It's not that I don't think they should be doing everything they can to intercept the communications between terrorists. I just think that we have to have some form of judicial oversight to keep such a program from being abused.

[MorningGlory]

I always thought fascism and totalitarianism was "un-American".

Oh, absolutely, those things a very 'un-American'! If I believed my government had the resources to spy on all 300,000,000 of us, or that they were even interested in what Glory is up to with her e-mail, or if this was not lawful, then I would have a problem with these things. This is directed at terrorism, it's an important tool but it needs to be closely watched. We are not a democracy here, bts, we are a federalist republic. In other words a group of fairly autonomous states united under a central govenment. In the U.S., states can over rule the federal government; case in point, the recent Real I.D. act passed by Congress has been challenged by many states who are refusing to abide by that law.

[forrestkc]

I always thought fascism and totalitarianism was "un-American".

Oh, absolutely, those things a very 'un-American'! If I believed my government had the resources to spy on all 300,000,000 of us, or that they were even interested in what Glory is up to with her e-mail, or if this was not lawful, then I would have a problem with these things. This is directed at terrorism, it's an important tool but it needs to be closely watched. We are not a democracy here, bts, we are a federalist republic. In other words a group of fairly autonomous states united under a central govenment. In the U.S., states can over rule the federal government; case in point, the recent Real I.D. act passed by Congress has been challenged by many states who are refusing to abide by that law.

Go to a few anti-war protests, and they may well be interested in what is in your email or what you are up to.

[buckthesystem]

Put very simply: "......the decision effectively protects the wiretapping programme from any judicial review. is unconstitutional and should never happen under ANY circumstances at all. Nothing justifies this.

Every decision that is made for any reason must have safeguards against abuse, and be subject to judicial oversight, there is no good reason for secrecy. If this is allowed to happen without public and judicial scrutiny then that means that the NSA has ABSOLUTE power and this is never acceptable.

And also if you really think that this is aimed at only terrorists, then think again, it is aimed at American citizens.

America went through the cold war with Russia, WWII with the Japanese threatening to invade the country, the American civil war and the War of Independence (where their very existance was threatened, not only peoples' lives), yet at no time before did a president propose and get something like this.

[buckthesystem]

Good. If you're worried about the government spying on you, don't. Unless you have something to hide.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

--Benjamin Franklin

It's a sad thing to think about the millions of men who have fought and died for our freedom since our nations founding just for us to be so cowardly as to give it up the first time we felt threatened.

I wonder how Ben would have revised that statement if he were aware of the circumstances today...

You "wash your mouth out..."

This is exactly the sort of thing that Ben Franklin was referring to in that statement.

Saying "I wonder how Ben would have revised ............." would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous.

[ted]

Put very simply: "......the decision effectively protects the wiretapping programme from any judicial review. is unconstitutional and should never happen under ANY circumstances at all. Nothing justifies this.

Every decision that is made for any reason must have safeguards against abuse, and be subject to judicial oversight, there is no good reason for secrecy. If this is allowed to happen without public and judicial scrutiny then that means that the NSA has ABSOLUTE power and this is never acceptable.

And also if you really think that this is aimed at only terrorists, then think again, it is aimed at American citizens.

America went through the cold war with Russia, WWII with the Japanese threatening to invade the country, the American civil war and the War of Independence (where their very existance was threatened, not only peoples' lives), yet at no time before did a president propose and get something like this.

Buck, I'm sorry, but the US did have programs aimed at US citizens during these times in history. In fact, we've always had them in some shape or another. They may have been called different things, or had various scopes of influence, but they've always been there. to some degree or another.

Your country has them, too.

t.

[ted]

Thank God there are other people out there watching out for our nation who understand the nature of this threat better than you.

t.

It's not that I don't think they should be doing everything they can to intercept the communications between terrorists. I just think that we have to have some form of judicial oversight to keep such a program from being abused.

As do I.

However, my comment was directed toward your inability (albeit framed from your last post on this issue) to understand a complete picture of the nature of this threat.

What we are trying to do is do our best to make sure the current threat does not escalate into something which Hilter or Stalin enjoyed.

Up until 2001, our policy was appeasement. That didn't work, so Bush is trying a different approach. It may not be the perfect solution, but it's something. Personally, I think we simply have to find the perfect balance of diplomacy and force, but even that may not work against such a fanatical base as terrorist islam. The future will tell.

But, to say that these current threats are not the same as the ones we have faced in the past is only a half-truth. Yes, currently, the scope of the terrorist's influence is smaller than, say, Nazi Germany.

But unless we can stem the tide of their stated intentions, we will soon find ourselves in a position that proves us ineffective in the ability of a effective defense against them.

We just happen to live in an age where all of these things are just now growing. We need to recognize the threat and deal with it now, and not wait until it's almost too late, such as what the world did in the late 1930's. That's what's going on right now.

Yes, it's a bad time to be on earth, but we're here none the less.

And we have to deal with it, today.

t.

[hmh]

And if we don't deal with it today, tomorrow will be too late.

[MorningGlory]

I always thought fascism and totalitarianism was "un-American".

Oh, absolutely, those things a very 'un-American'! If I believed my government had the resources to spy on all 300,000,000 of us, or that they were even interested in what Glory is up to with her e-mail, or if this was not lawful, then I would have a problem with these things. This is directed at terrorism, it's an important tool but it needs to be closely watched. We are not a democracy here, bts, we are a federalist republic. In other words a group of fairly autonomous states united under a central govenment. In the U.S., states can over rule the federal government; case in point, the recent Real I.D. act passed by Congress has been challenged by many states who are refusing to abide by that law.

Go to a few anti-war protests, and they may well be interested in what is in your email or what you are up to.

You may be right about that, forrestkc, which is why I am for oversight without tying the government's hands when it comes to tracking terrorists. The recent 'AQ doctors' who were plotting online from the UK is a prime example of why governments have to be able to monitor some people. It's a toss up really, do we give up some things for security or do we give up security to protect rights? I don't know. But I definitely don't want the FEDERAL government to have total control.

[buckthesystem]

Glory2000 quote: "do we give up some things for security or do we give up security to protect rights?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security is not dependent upon giving up rights! That is a totally erroneous belief, and is only perpetuated by those who want to take away your basic human rights.

If maintaining security is to be slowed by not compromising any human rights than it must be done. What EVER is the harm if policies are subject to public scrutiny or judicial oversight? That's all that is asked really, nobody is saying that "alleged or suspected" terrorists' communications shouldn't be monitored, they are only asking that the NSA should get a warrant first! And do everything through the proper channels. What is wrong with that?

If you have to give up your basic human rights to be "safe", then "the terrorists" have won, and life really isn't worth living anyway.

I'll go back to the old saying: "Better to die standing up than to live on your knees".