Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

One must think that when the Constitution was written it was a bit short sighted because it was a different world then. Terrorism wasn't something that people thought about. That is why the Bill of Rights was created so that the Constitution could be ammended as needed. So, as times change, so have the Bill of Rights. The purpose of this was so that a growing and changing nation could have the ability to change the laws. Not many other nations have this privledge as does America.

I also think we as a nation have gone overboard with every issue being a civil liberty issue. Laws are/were created for the benefit of the masses, not just a few.

Teachers will understand that you cannot have a group of rules for just a few in the classroom because they are too sensitive or too white, too tall, too short..etc.....

Just as the nation changed after Pearl Harbor, we have changed after 9/11.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Posted by BabyAvocado

Okay - it's what I thought.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling.

Ever since 9/11 the government has run away with right to privacy and other civil rights violations that everyone is gleefully accepting because they keep it all under the umbrella of "it's to protect our country from more terror attacks like 9/11". And so many of us hear that and immediately accept these violations because of that little clause without realizing that little by little, our government is eating away the very freedoms and way of life we are supposed to NOT be letting the terrorist affect. So in essence we are letting the terrorists win by blindly accepting things like this and letting our government slowly but surely erode our freedoms.

It's become really scary to me. When I walk into Pathmark and have to see a sign that says "We reserve the right to search and inspect any and all packages of our patrons" I'm like . Suddenly Pathmark, a supermarket, has the right to search my purse if they feel like it? Granted, right now that power is not being abused, and even if they've had it all along - NOW they are advertising it. It's only a matter of time, IMO before they start using and abusing it. Scary scary scary.

So I say for this ruling. The court decided in the best interests of the country and the government went about this all the wrong way. What they should have done was fight to make it EASIER to get wire tap warrant.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Like some have said, I'm on the fence about this. I do think that for security reasons this may be a good idea. However, this doesn't give the government the right to tap into whom ever they choose.

the president's remarks in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

I just hate all the lying and manipulation, so I am somewhat glad to hear of the ruling.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Posted by MrsS2005

Posted by BabyAvocado

Okay - it's what I thought.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling.

Ever since 9/11 the government has run away with right to privacy and other civil rights violations that everyone is gleefully accepting because they keep it all under the umbrella of "it's to protect our country from more terror attacks like 9/11". And so many of us hear that and immediately accept these violations because of that little clause without realizing that little by little, our government is eating away the very freedoms and way of life we are supposed to NOT be letting the terrorist affect. So in essence we are letting the terrorists win by blindly accepting things like this and letting our government slowly but surely erode our freedoms.

It's become really scary to me. When I walk into Pathmark and have to see a sign that says "We reserve the right to search and inspect any and all packages of our patrons" I'm like . Suddenly Pathmark, a supermarket, has the right to search my purse if they feel like it? Granted, right now that power is not being abused, and even if they've had it all along - NOW they are advertising it. It's only a matter of time, IMO before they start using and abusing it. Scary scary scary.

So I say for this ruling. The court decided in the best interests of the country and the government went about this all the wrong way. What they should have done was fight to make it EASIER to get wire tap warrant.

Very well said. I completely agree. The ruling isn't banning all wiretapping. It's simply requiring a warrant (i.e. probable cause) before setting up a wiretap. If there's any evidence of suspicious activity, especially realted to terrorism, I'm sure there will be no problem finding a judge to sign the warrant.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

i do NOT agree with the ruling. I am more than willing to give up some of my privcay for my safety and I will never understand those that think the opposite.
No sense in arguing with me because that is just how I feel.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Message edited 8/18/2006 3:32:21 PM.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Posted by BabyAvocado

Okay - it's what I thought.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling.

Ever since 9/11 the government has run away with right to privacy and other civil rights violations that everyone is gleefully accepting because they keep it all under the umbrella of "it's to protect our country from more terror attacks like 9/11". And so many of us hear that and immediately accept these violations because of that little clause without realizing that little by little, our government is eating away the very freedoms and way of life we are supposed to NOT be letting the terrorist affect. So in essence we are letting the terrorists win by blindly accepting things like this and letting our government slowly but surely erode our freedoms.

It's become really scary to me. When I walk into Pathmark and have to see a sign that says "We reserve the right to search and inspect any and all packages of our patrons" I'm like . Suddenly Pathmark, a supermarket, has the right to search my purse if they feel like it? Granted, right now that power is not being abused, and even if they've had it all along - NOW they are advertising it. It's only a matter of time, IMO before they start using and abusing it. Scary scary scary.

So I say for this ruling. The court decided in the best interests of the country and the government went about this all the wrong way. What they should have done was fight to make it EASIER to get wire tap warrant.

Re: The Wiretapping Decision:

Absolutely! Our rights are being eroded one by one because of this administration and their scare tactifcs. If they want a wiretap all they need do is get a warrant, which any judge would give them. This a democracy, not a dictatorship. The president does not have absolute power and never should have.