| Author |
Message |
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
 Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:30 pm NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional |
|
| CNN wrote: | | (CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:37 pm |
|
Why post this when it's so late? The judge is full of BS. She's a liberal and doesn't know half about what the program really is.
It's as unconstitutional as me saying I love Star Wars.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:26 pm |
|
Well STV was down when it happened, if I recall correctly. It's only 4 days old.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:29 pm |
|
Six days. Do the math  j/t
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:50 pm |
|
Oops. I'll settle for five, based on the time the article was posted on CNN and the time I posted it here, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:53 pm |
|
It's still late Anyways, we're off topic, so...
This judge is wrong, plain and simple.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Admiral Dani�l
Dutch Admiral
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2177
Location: Borg Cube 31572 - Join us now!
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:56 am |
|
National security not allowed to tap off phone calls from suspected Al-Qaida people... yip that's the way how Bush does it... hurray...
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:45 pm |
|
| Admiral Dani�l wrote: | | National security not allowed to tap off phone calls from suspected Al-Qaida people... yip that's the way how Bush does it... hurray... |
What? Bush does it so that the NSA can tap international phone calls with terrorists. Bush is the one who's trying to keep the program. This idiot judge, who manipulated the 4th amendment to her Carter appointee (which she is)-agenda, ruled it unconstitutional, but the Circuit Court will no doubt reverse the decision.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
ILoveHarry
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 7909
Location: Houston
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:56 pm |
|
Hey, we all know I'm a pretty big Liberal. Yet, I have no problem with this program. I can say for certain no one will be listening in on any of my conversations. Nor will anyone listen in on any of your conversations. None of us are that fascinating to the government. Sorry. Hell, even if my calls were tapped, I wouldn't care. It's not like Good Ol' W, is going to make a world-wide announcement about the goings-on in my life. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Besides, it's about our saftey.
|
|
|
Admiral Dani�l
Dutch Admiral
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2177
Location: Borg Cube 31572 - Join us now!
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:29 pm |
|
O I now see lol I misreaded... sorry... I think the National security may tap ANYONE off if they suspect even the tiniest bit, but I'm Dutch, and they're so smart in here they only tell it when they have succes!
-------signature-------
We are the Borg
You will be assimilated
Your Technological and Biological distinctiveness will be added to ours.
Resistance is Futile
----------------------
"Resistance is and always will be FUTILE"
-Locutus, Star Trek Armada.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:38 pm |
|
| Admiral Dani�l wrote: | | O I now see lol I misreaded... sorry... I think the National security may tap ANYONE off if they suspect even the tiniest bit, but I'm Dutch, and they're so smart in here they only tell it when they have succes! |
lol. Well, we have Constitutional protections for domestic survailence, but this qualifies as National Security.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
| ILoveHarry wrote: | | If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Besides, it's about our saftey. |
Can we mount cameras in everyone's house "for their safety"? How about chipping everyone too and monitoring their movements 24/7?
What really gets me is, why ever tell anyone? Bush could just slip the NSA director a classified document, hidden in a classified binder, give a wink and a nod (a nudge is as good as wink, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more!), and the matter's done. The NSA secretly taps calls and no one is the wiser. Why make it public at all since they know it's going to cause backlash? Unless they have a darker ulterior motive. . . .
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
Tach, your a hero. I was begining to wonder if I was the only one that thought that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:49 pm |
|
They didn't make it public. The idiot New York Times did when they leaked the story in December. Somebody leaked it to them, and then they printed the story. It's not like Bush came out and said, "Hey, we've got this program, and now I'm gonna tell you about it and let all the terrorists know that we're doing it." It's not like that.
And there are limits to how far monitoring goes, in terms of wiretapping, cameras, etc., especially in this country.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | They didn't make it public. The idiot New York Times did when they leaked the story in December. Somebody leaked it to them, and then they printed the story. It's not like Bush came out and said, "Hey, we've got this program, and now I'm gonna tell you about it and let all the terrorists know that we're doing it." It's not like that. |
And I suppose that The New York Times is to be blamed for leaking it? They are the Press, it's their job to be annoying. The government should not blame the press for its own shortcomings.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And there are limits to how far monitoring goes, in terms of wiretapping, cameras, etc., especially in this country. |
I'm aware of that. I am simply disagreeing with ILoveHarry's broad generalisation to justify this particular action. Personally I'm in favour of wiretapping international calls of suspected terrorists--they must have done something to warrant suspicion in the first place, and since it is going some place other than the U.S., it isn't as if the NSA is going to eavesdrop on a mom talking to her sister in the next city over. But the common "if you have nothing to hide..." ideology is both tired and flawed.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:06 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | They didn't make it public. The idiot New York Times did when they leaked the story in December. Somebody leaked it to them, and then they printed the story. It's not like Bush came out and said, "Hey, we've got this program, and now I'm gonna tell you about it and let all the terrorists know that we're doing it." It's not like that. |
And I suppose that The New York Times is to be blamed for leaking it? They are the Press, it's their job to be annoying. The government should not blame the press for its own shortcomings. |
I disagree with that. Yes, the government needs to keep closer tabs on its employees that leak programs, but the press also has the responsibility (though not Constitutionally stated) to be responsible in what they share. The Times, in my opinion, deserves almost all the blame for this, because they should know better than to release such a vital program to the public when terrorists could easily get their hands on it. And this isn't the first time they did it (and for political purposes). They did it in June as well, when they released the banking story, which they were specifically asked by the government not to share the story. They did. That, sir, is irresponsiblity, and the paper deserves all the blame for that. Now the terrorists know about two critical US programs, and who's fault is it? The Times, for not being responsible enough to know what it should and should not release.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:10 am |
|
They really dont care for that other then being the first to have the story, so yeah they can have some blame, but the person that leaked it to the press has a good deal of it to, because when something gets to the press, it's going to be made public.
BTW, I agree, I have nothing to hide, but still, it would make me rather uncomfortible if I was being monitored simply due to that fact.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:15 am |
|
So a government official leaks to the Times an operational plan for invading Iraq as the war began (which they didn't) and the Times releases that story in their Sunday paper. Iraq learns of this information and prevents a critical blow from being waged against them.
Sure, the leaker, being essentially a traitor to the US, should face much responsibility, but what about the irresponsible newspaper for irresponsibly posting such an article? Does the press not have the obligation to its country and its readers/viewers to be responsible and careful in what it presents? This is why I give the NY Times more blame than the government leakers--because they know better than to release this story to the public, a much wider audience than one leaker saying, "Hey, this program's going on here." The NY Times releasing the story does far more damage than the leaker reading the story because it covers a far greater range of subscribers. See what I mean?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:27 am |
|
Please, that is nothing like wiretapping. A wiretapping program is a matter of concern to the public, and they do have a right to know if the government may be infringing upon their privacy. Otherwise it is a violation of their civil liberties--terrorists or no.
(To clarify, the above paragraph states that the wiretapping program is fine, as long as it is transparent. If it were done in secret, then yes, it would be unconstitutional, because the government would be deceiving its own citizens.)
So what if the terrorists know that the NSA is monitoring their calls? They would be very poor terrorists if they haven't already taken precautions against something like that. Being naturally paranoid and intelligent people, I suspect that they would have set up defences against such a threat long before the program's existence was confirmed. And if they hadn't, then they deserve to get caught for being so lax in their planning.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:36 am |
|
It's worked numerous times before, including, it is reported, in the recent thwarting of the London threat. It's been proven to succeed.
Anyways, it's not a matter of concern to the public so much as it is a matter of concern to our national security. There are certain limits to knowledge of military programs that the public should be permitted to know. We don't want the enemy finding out what our plans are in wars, and this is a war, and so we do not want them discovering what we are doing to thwart them here, in this case. Hence it is poor judgement to alert the public of this program. It is not infringing on the right to privacy, because terrorists don't have a right to privacy. They're terrorists, after all, and it's not like my conversations with my friend are being monitored. It's Akmed's communications with Abu from Afghanistan to the US.
If we were monitoring bin Laden's calls to the US, would we want him to know that we were monitoring them? No, of course not, and that's exactly what this story did--it let the terrorists know far more specifics than they already did on this program, and that is a danger to national security.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:39 am |
|
"Ahem!" Not to metion Canada's big success on wire tapping terrorist.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:01 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It is not infringing on the right to privacy, because terrorists don't have a right to privacy. |
I'm not saying that they are. However, ordinary people do. Last time I checked, the program does not have a way of infallibly detecting a non-terrorism phone call from a terrorism phone call. Thus, it will at times infringe the privacy of innocent individuals.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | If we were monitoring bin Laden's calls to the US, would we want him to know that we were monitoring them? No, of course not, and that's exactly what this story did--it let the terrorists know far more specifics than they already did on this program, and that is a danger to national security. |
How is it dangerous? How does it possibly give the terrorists an advantage? Because they suddenly know that they are being monitored by the government? As I pointed out above, most terrorists would be used to operating under the assumption that any communication they make could be monitored. The terrorists did not read The New York Times and then suddenly gasp in shock and say, "Oh my, we might be wiretapped! This idea had never remotely occurred to me before, and it is the one weakness in my extensive security precautions taken to ensure that my plans are never discovered! And that Verizon guy, he must be in on it too--his seemingly innocent reptition of 'Can you hear me now?' must be the NSA testing their wireless reception! Egads!"
I can see how it would be dangerous of the government developed a revolutionary new way of monitoring telecommunications that would give them an edge on the terrorists because there were no effective precuations against the method. But wiretapping has been around for long enough that it's inexcusably sloppy of a terrorist to not safeguard against it.
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:22 am |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | | "Ahem!" Not to metion Canada's big success on wire tapping terrorist. |
They'd been monitoring that family for a while and had all the necessary warrants. It was done legally and is not done the same way throughout Canada like in the US.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:00 am |
|
I'm on the fence with this issue. To me, I don't really care if the US is listening in. Not to mention, they're listening to people who are suspected terrorists, not anyone at random. Anyone here saw the movie "Enemy of the State"? I think it's a lot like what Gene Hackman said. I think if they pick up any "suspicious words" like "Bomb" "President" "Allah" etc, then they'll listen in closely. Also, they have documents from other countries, CIA, and other stuff about presumed terrorists. Those are the only people they really listen in on. I'm assuming little old me isn't on their lists, so I don't care.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I do understand Liberals fear of this. It's not that they have anything to hide, but they're fearful of the US government having this power. I don't blame them. BUT, if anyone honestly thinks that it was Bush that started this? They're naive. You may call me a conspiracy nut, but I think that the US and the phone companies have been in bed with each other for some time. I think the US listens in on us all the time. Just to..."ensure" our patriotism I guess. I don't know. I do know they have the power and won't care if we don't like it.
I feel bad for the people that have to listen in actually. Can you imagine how boring that job must be?
"Jim! I think I got one!"
"Turn it up."
"Welcome. I'm John Smith, President of the Phi Beta Cappa fraternity. We're having a party this week and it's gonna be the bomb!"
"Oh this is so great! Allah will bless this event!"
"Shut up Ahmed. We're college liberals. You know we're athiest."
"Oh...right."
"Damnit Jim!"
"My bad..."
|
|
|
Admiral Dani�l
Dutch Admiral
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2177
Location: Borg Cube 31572 - Join us now!
|
| Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:44 am |
|
What are people afraid for that people would hear???
Example:
*Dials phone*
Yes... yes what a idiot! I hate him!
*Discovers NSA is tapping off phone*
NOOOOOO!!!!! Im gonna sue you!
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
