Judge orders the Bush administration to stop a domestic wiretap

[Alex+R 0]

Has anyone else made a habit of saying a little "hello" to ####### Cheney during their international calls? My fiance never forgets.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The whole idea is incredibly short-sighted. Those who are suspicious of government involvement in public services and free trade, should be just as worried about their privacy as their money IMO.

This opens so many dark doors - what's to stop someone doing someone a favour around election time and abusing the privacy of rival political candidates for their own gain?

Not very much apparently.

[PsychoKat 0]

Has anyone else made a habit of saying a little "hello" to ####### Cheney during their international calls? My fiance never forgets.

LOL oh yeah once we found out about it we started doing all kinds of silly things. Like saying ...ok guys what do you want tonight, some serious conversation,...random garbage...phone sex?

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

Heck I could care less if they tap my phones.. I have nothing to hide.... I am sure I might give them a laugh or two when they hear me talking to my fiance.

There's something very wrong with the assumption that if you don't want the government spying on you, that it follows that you must have something to hide. That idea is the complete opposite of a democratic society - but it is true the plutocratic oligarchy that we've been moving towards for some years.

As I said, I'll take my chances. Fear should never dictate policy.

you probably think they spend all day listening to a specific phone call. no, they record them and run it thru a computer to pick up key words and phrases. odds are that even if they did record the conversations of anyone on vj, not a one was actually listened to by a person - all done with computer. so your sex talk or whatever is safe with the computer.

[pedroh 21]

mhh why dont they make a voluntary wiretap program.. so the people who agree to be wiretapped get the glory to be patriotic and all that bush BS speech of how american can u be by giving ur civil liberties away

obviously those who won't sign up for such may have something to hide, eh?

mhh na.. that's what the bush regime is trying to make people think.. i'd just say, people are just trying to defend their right to privacy.. period..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Heck I could care less if they tap my phones.. I have nothing to hide.... I am sure I might give them a laugh or two when they hear me talking to my fiance.

There's something very wrong with the assumption that if you don't want the government spying on you, that it follows that you must have something to hide. That idea is the complete opposite of a democratic society - but it is true the plutocratic oligarchy that we've been moving towards for some years.

As I said, I'll take my chances. Fear should never dictate policy.

you probably think they spend all day listening to a specific phone call. no, they record them and run it thru a computer to pick up key words and phrases. odds are that even if they did record the conversations of anyone on vj, not a one was actually listened to by a person - all done with computer. so your sex talk or whatever is safe with the computer.

Terabytes of data go through the internet and down phone lines on a daily basis. It is impossible to track and sift all that data (on a daily basis) - so realistically speaking, this "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is ultimately futile.

The point here is that the system is championed by an administration that has shown a tendency towards the consolidation and exercise of executive power without responsibilty, makes the likelihood of abuses not only possible - but extremely likely IMO.

[Alex+R 0]

Terabytes of data go through the internet and down phone lines on a daily basis. It is impossible to track and sift all that data (on a daily basis) - so realistically speaking, this "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is ultimately futile.

The point here is that the system is championed by an administration that has shown a tendency towards the consolidation and exercise of executive power without responsibilty, makes the likelihood of abuses not only possible - but extremely likely IMO.

I thought the internet was a series of tubes?

[PsychoKat 0]

Heck I could care less if they tap my phones.. I have nothing to hide.... I am sure I might give them a laugh or two when they hear me talking to my fiance.

There's something very wrong with the assumption that if you don't want the government spying on you, that it follows that you must have something to hide. That idea is the complete opposite of a democratic society - but it is true the plutocratic oligarchy that we've been moving towards for some years.

As I said, I'll take my chances. Fear should never dictate policy.

you probably think they spend all day listening to a specific phone call. no, they record them and run it thru a computer to pick up key words and phrases. odds are that even if they did record the conversations of anyone on vj, not a one was actually listened to by a person - all done with computer. so your sex talk or whatever is safe with the computer.

The problem with this is you really have no idea what they are listening to at any given time. Unchecked power is a problem, when you allow power to go unchecked it can become destructive.

In recent times we've seen people involved with our government tried for crimes that we would not tolerate in the public sector, such at the DHS aide caught soliciting children online. Our president has lied to us first saying only international communications were being monitored that they were definately NOT monitoring internal communications, then it's discovered that internal communications were also being monitored. And there's the CIA leak issue...when that was first presented do you recall Bush's statements?

in June 2004, Bush was asked by a reporter, "[D]o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent's name]?"

Bush replied, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

His tune has sure changed now that Chaney has been implicated in this.

Now out on the streets...in your neighborhoold, would you trust people with these associations or who have lied to you, completely and unquestioningly with your very life ? Most likely NOT, you would use caution in dealing with them to protect yourself.

If we blindly allow the power of the government to go unchecked, you are also putting your very life in their hands to do with as they will. Piss one person off and they could destroy everything you hold dear, your very life. Not a good thing..it's not about having anything to hide, it's about protecting your life and the lives of those you love and the freedom to actually live.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Heck I could care less if they tap my phones.. I have nothing to hide.... I am sure I might give them a laugh or two when they hear me talking to my fiance.

There's something very wrong with the assumption that if you don't want the government spying on you, that it follows that you must have something to hide. That idea is the complete opposite of a democratic society - but it is true the plutocratic oligarchy that we've been moving towards for some years.

As I said, I'll take my chances. Fear should never dictate policy.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V (paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson)

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

The problem with this is you really have no idea what they are listening to at any given time. Unchecked power is a problem, when you allow power to go unchecked it can become destructive.

In recent times we've seen people involved with our government tried for crimes that we would not tolerate in the public sector, such at the DHS aide caught soliciting children online. Our president has lied to us first saying only international communications were being monitored that they were definately NOT monitoring internal communications, then it's discovered that internal communications were also being monitored. And there's the CIA leak issue...when that was first presented do you recall Bush's statements?

in June 2004, Bush was asked by a reporter, "[D]o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent's name]?"

Bush replied, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

His tune has sure changed now that Chaney has been implicated in this.

Now out on the streets...in your neighborhoold, would you trust people with these associations or who have lied to you, completely and unquestioningly with your very life ? Most likely NOT, you would use caution in dealing with them to protect yourself.

If we blindly allow the power of the government to go unchecked, you are also putting your very life in their hands to do with as they will. Piss one person off and they could destroy everything you hold dear, your very life. Not a good thing..it's not about having anything to hide, it's about protecting your life and the lives of those you love and the freedom to actually live.

yes, there is the potential for abuse. there's lots of potential with it, and there's lots of potential without the program too. take your choice.

i don't give anyone in my neighborhood the opportunity to mess with my life, so that's a moot point, isn't it?

as for pissing one person off and them ruining your life, that can happen in any city. if you don't believe that, go piss off your local drug lord. or pimp. or country sheriff...and so on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've witnessed a government being kicked to the curb for, among other things, disrespecting the people's desire and right to privacy. So, Bush woudn't be the first to get a firm kick in the ####### pursuing this type of nonsense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it ironic that the government have criticised this ruling as "partisanship", when partisanship has been their entire basis for promoting the policy.

Seems noone these days can criticise government policy without being accused of partisan bias, least of all a judge.

[Dean iWait 0]

First of all this isn't a domestic wiretap program. It is for international inbound and outbound US calls to and from suspected terrorists. Do you think they really have time to listen to your mom and your aunt ethel talk about baking cakes? Get a clue. This judge is some left wing nut job and her decision will be overturned by a higher court. Oh and by the way the NSA tipped off Scotland Yard on the liquid explosives bombers in the U.K. after picking them up through phone surveillance. I guess by the looks of it some of you would rather see 10 planes full of people blown out of the sky over the east coast than take a chance that someone might here you talking about what movie you want to go see on Friday night. The U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 and that's no coincidence!

[PsychoKat 0]

The U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 and that's no coincidence!

It hadn't been attacked before 9/11 either, so actually that's not valid backing

Well unless you count the OKC bombings but international wire taps woudn't have done anything to prevent internal terrorist attacks...

Edited August 23, 2006 by PsychoKat

[Mirorgate 0]

The U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 and that's no coincidence!

It hadn't been attacked before 9/11 either, so actually that's not valid backing

Well unless you count the OKC bombings but international wire taps woudn't have done anything to prevent internal terrorist attacks...

kinda... 9/11 was the second known attempt on the towers. truck bomb in basement/parking garage didnt quite do what they thought it would. But I do not support the wiretapping either.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Mirorgate