Dubya took away my privacy

Hmm. Dubya took away my right to privacy, to not have my personal phone calls tapped and monitored without sign off from a Judge (well, he didn't really take away the right, but he's walking all over it, ignoring it, etc.).

Sorry PettyFog, while I usually avoid political discussions on this board, I am very well versed in the Patriot Act and what civil rights Dubya has taken away in all but name, so big spoutings of "Dubya didn't do anything" tend to catch my attention.

 

Didnt SAY 'Dubya didnt do anything'.. do you want to point out where I said that or are you protecting something?

Do you want to give a hypothetical example here, Andy.. like you're saying when you call your cousin Bill in Grand Rapids, or Billings or Tulsa, Dubya's goons are listening?

When and why would he listen in?

Actually he's made it WORSE than the original tempest in a teapot... by far.
It happened in August, but you probably didnt notice.
I dont like it {THAT version} either but I have to trust him.

What worries me is how he's going to reverse it to keep a Dem President from using it actually when you call your cousin Bill.

Like Clinton used IRS records against his political enemies.

 

This was the quote that caught my eye.

As for the privacy issue, I'm not worried that he will (or even that he is); I am disagreeable that he can. Our government is based on checks and balances and the Patriot Act and similar legistlation has taken great steps to remove those checks and balances, placing too much power in the hands of the Executive Branch.

The fact that I could be, theoritically, locked up, long-term, without due process or without even being charged is very, very troublesome to me.

And I don't really care who is in the White House with these powers; I want them removed regardless. Dubya takes the blame because he proposed them, backed them, argued for them, and got them passed.

During wartime, I don't mind temporarily giving up some of my civil rights. However, the President saying we are at war is not the same thing as Congress declaring war; the latter is backed by Constitutional Law, the former is not.

 

What do you talk about on the phone that is so secret?

 

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Supreme Court cases have ruled that private conversations are protected under the 4th Amendment, including telephone conversations - hence the usual need for a warrant for a phone tap.

What do you have in your home that is so secret? Nothing? OK, then you won't mind Federal Agents breaking into your house while you are out and spending hours sifting through all your possessions? Or perhaps apprehending you and conducting sundry and miscellaneous medical tests on you, just to see how you tick?

Me, I prefer to fight for my 4th Amendment Rights now, before searching my home or my person without due process or checks and balances becomes a question of "well, if you have nothing to hide..."

 

A hot issue.

All I'll say is if tapping phone calls prevents one terror attack every hundred years, then feel free to listen to me chat to the girlfriend about groceries and movie dates all you want.

 

Weren't the arrests made in Germany because of this law?

The truth of the matter is that you won't ever know your "privacy" has been affected unless the government ivestigates/prosecutes you or whoever you called as a terrorist. Not really a serious loss of liberty (being a terrorist) if you ask me.

 

Did I miss something? How do you know this?

 

Optimizer. I'll let you do your Google searches yourself. You will find plenty of hits.

 

A bit simple Don, a bit too simple.

 

Heres somthing related, make of it as you will as it seems no ones mind can ever be changed on this subject

http://www.twincities.com/ci_6964180?IA ... ck_check=1

To me, it seems a reasonable request of the government to have probable cause and then get a warrant before listening to my phone calls. Look not to sound like a nut here but are we really naive enough to think that the government, regardless of who is in charge, is using this power only for what they say they're using it for? Personally I'm a bit skeptical.

 

With all due respect, Andyns, your argument sucks. This is not about you, or your girlfriend. It is about letting those assholes take away citizens' freedoms and rights by scaring the many into thinking they need their rights taken away to protect them. The Founders would be deeply dissapointed.

But then again, no offense, but perhaps they view things a wee bit diffrently in Halifax.

 

No Liberty is actually taken away. If you're talking to someone abroad, someone might listen to it if you're likely to being talking terrorism. Nobody can ever know they're being listened to... unless you or your foreign phone partner are investigated for being terrorists.

What liberty is gone? Someone is listening to you, and you don't even know. Oh no.

Google saves everything you write in gmail and whatever you search. That's a hell of a lot worse, I'd say.

 

Thats fine, so why can't they get a warrant? If they have probable cause it shouldn't be a problem. I really don't think its to strenuous a task.

 

The "if it stops even one terrorist attack, then its worth it" argument is used quite a bit. The problem is, the Radical Islamic Terrorists aren't trying to kill us all, they are trying to change us all. The American way of life, the freedoms we enjoy, are a threat to the way of life that they espouse.
Every time that we remove those freedoms in order to prevent a terrorist attack, that is a victory for them, far more so than if the attack had gone on as planned.

"Give me Liberty or give me Death" used to mean something.

 

Google is not the government. At least not my government.

I have a very limited expectation of privacy when I am involved with a private entity. However, I have a much higher expectation of privacy when I am in my home (and not on the computer).

Wire tapping is against the law for a reason, as is using technology to listen in on conversations in someone's home. You let the government perform these actions without a warrant, as Spencer points out, and you are indeed taking away my liberty, my expectation of liberty and right to privacy.

You may not be able to carry around your rights and freedoms in a grocery bag, but they still exist none the less.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson (as engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.)

Edit: For spelling.