More of that deafening silence

[sirs]

>>Government secrecy has increased a LOT more.<<

The left throws this accusation around a lot. I've never heard any of them give an example. Considering we are at war, what types of "secrecy" have increased that didn't exist during the first gulf war? Or Vietnam? Pick a war?

It's kinda like how much "torture" this administration performs or how widespread our Military is at abusing and terrorizing everyone, validated apparently by how well its kept secret.  Kind of a nifty way to claim something without an ounce of substance to it.  But it sure sounds good

[Xavier_Onassis]

And I repeat:

Clinton never appeared on TV begging us to waive all rights to sue Ma Bell if they tapped our phones for no valid reason.

Bush has been doing this for several weeks now.
------------------------------------------------
Why the Hell would he be doing this if they already had the authorization?

[Amianthus]

Why the Hell would he be doing this if they already had the authorization?

You can always sue, even if you have no case. It's a big waste of time and money for both sides.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is not the problem and you know it.

[Amianthus]

That is not the problem and you know it.

I guess the problem is that you don't understand that what you're complaining about was going on before Bush was elected.

[Rich]

>>I guess the problem is that you don't understand that what you're complaining about was going on before Bush was elected.<<

Not only that but most people who dream these kinds of things up don't realize how much new technology effects electronic surveillance. It's a brave new world out there, and the terrorists are using it to their advantage.

But then this has been gone over time and time again and the left doesn't seem interested.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not only that but most people who dream these kinds of things up don't realize how much new technology effects electronic surveillance. It's a brave new world out there, and the terrorists are using it to their advantage.
=============================
What are they using? Airliners are hardly new.

The Fisa law allows sufficient spying, actually MORE than sufficient spying, but it requires, eventually, a warrant. Juniorbush is begging and pleading for a law that allows him to spy on each one of us, within the country or without, with NO warrant whatsoever, and we don't even have the right to sue Ma Bell for invading our privacy.

 Don't you dare tell me that Clinton was doing this, because he wasn't. The original law was in the patriot act, and the Democrats in the house have refused to put it to a vote.

And I say good for them!

NO one should be able to spy on anyone without something in writing about who is being spied on or why.

[Amianthus]

Don't you dare tell me that Clinton was doing this, because he wasn't. The original law was in the patriot act, and the Democrats in the house have refused to put it to a vote.

I suggest you figure out the impact of the "roving wiretaps" that Clinton authorized via executive order.

[Rich]

>>Juniorbush is begging and pleading for a law that allows him to spy on each one of us, within the country or without, with NO warrant whatsoever, and we don't even have the right to sue Ma Bell for invading our privacy.<<

I'm sure lots of leftist believe this however, it is absolutely false. It's just like the big "secrets" being kept. Some leftist says Bush wants to spy on everyone and they instantly believe it.  I have no idea why. It's similar to the people on the right being convinced Clinton was going to declare martial law and second.

I was referring earleir to roving wire taps. With the advent of cellur phones, time can be of the essence. Laws need to keep up with the threat and the technology used to carry them out.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was referring earleir to roving wire taps. With the advent of cellur phones, time can be of the essence. Laws need to keep up with the threat and the technology used to carry them out.

====================================================
You say that is what you referring to, but did not mention this by name.


Look, according to FISA, they can put a tap on a phone and then AFTER THE TAP apply for a permit, and the phone companies are also off he hook.

At no time did I indicate that I thought that Juniorbush was planning top spy on everyone, just that he wanted to be able to do it without a scrap of writte evidence that this had been done. Not before the tap, nor after it.

I do not want any government of any persuasion to be able to listen in with no permission from anyone and no paper trail to indicate that the spying had been done. I suppose you will admit that even if President Juniorbush listening to your phone with no paper trail, you will not awant President Hillary or President Obama to do this.


Eventually, there will be the technology to have machines tap all phones and listen to them, and flag everyone that uses certain words or phrases, which could be codes. Te phrase "Deliver the package" comes to mind. Suddenly you calling UPS or FEDEX gets you on the subversive list.
I can't imagine why any citizen would want this in this country or any other. Congress should firmly Juniorbush to F*ck off.

[Amianthus]

I do not want any government of any persuasion to be able to listen in with no permission from anyone and no paper trail to indicate that the spying had been done.

As I said, you should look into roving wiretaps (that Clinton implemented with an executive order) and see how they work.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Look, there should be NO LAW permitting ANYONE to tap any phone without  written documentation and legal participation in authorizing it. And Pelosi should tell Juniorbush to F*ck himself. If they had told Clinton to f*ck himeslf too, that would have bee fine with me.

It is NOT excusable to say that Juniorbush has committed no crime because some predecessor has done the same thing.

[Amianthus]

If they had told Clinton to f*ck himeslf too, that would have bee fine with me.

They did, that's why he used an executive order. Later on, it was included in a "must pass" budget item as an amendment. So, it is now legal.

It is NOT excusable to say that Juniorbush has committed no crime because some predecessor has done the same thing.

No; I'm pointing out that it was not considered a crime then, so I don't see why it should be considered a crime now.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It should have been considered a crime then, and should be considered a crime now.

Look, Juniorbush wants to make it easier to spy without a warrant and wants a law that will permit him to do this without the phone companies getting sued. I am opposed to passing that law, because this should be illegal.

[Rich]

>Look, Juniorbush wants to make it easier to spy without a warrant and wants a law that will permit him to do this without the phone companies getting sued. I am opposed to passing that law, because this should be illegal.<<

So what's your alternative? How do we deal with the new threats posed by new technology?