20,000 or an average of 50 a day is it paperwork needed for each suspected instance of communcation or each suspected individual? do terrorists communicate with each other on surveilable means that frequent or are there that much suspected terrorists in the US?
To answer your first question, yes you do need paperwork for each different wiretap regardless if its the same person again. Warrants are based on the amount of wiretaps rather than the amount of people. As for the second part, systems like echelon can tap into any form of electronic surveillance. The difference is now they have the ability to tap into digital communication like internet based communications, cell phones, satellite phones, etc.. Being that these are wiretaps within the US, those are generally the modes of communication used here. All of this isn't to say that I support the policy but I definitely understand the logic behind it. I suppose a better solution would be for Congress to amend FISA and simplify the warrant application process and take away the Bush administration's excuse to engage in these types of searches.
No, it is definitely not a human "child," it is a human "fetus." No probably at all. Again, no probably at all. Overthrowing a tyrannical government, creating a new nation, and creating a system of laws to stand up for hundreds of years would rate as FAR more important than worrying about the definition of "life" two centuries in the future. It is not a child, it is a fetus. Thankfully, it is generally not practice for the government to move backwards into taking away rights that have been bestowed, as much as you would like to drag us back into a time when the policy proved in practice to be untenable. What greater right is there to take away than the right to decide what happens within one's own body? If we give up these rights to this President, future Presidents will also be able to infringe upon those rights, even if that future President is much like Hitler. Heck, he wouldn't even have to be like Hitler, he could be like Nixon and it would be bad enough. You just don't show it based on your willingness to let this President do just about anything in clear violation of our laws.
I'm not sure about this. I believe a wiretap is based on tapping a specific line for a specific period of time. Your description makes it sound like every time they listen in they have to get a new warrant. I believe this issue was addressed in the Patriot Act regarding roving wiretaps. If I remember correctly this would allow a warrant for a wiretap on the person to listen in on him regardless on what type of communication he uses.
Why don't you guys just start another, "for or against abortion," thread. I'm not looking into this one any longer. Keep D&D Civil.
so what do you think of the airstrikes in Iraq? howabout the decision to go to war? it takes away life from both sides how do you know? thats the point --nobody knows for certain thats why its important to keep check and balances.. did the German people know about his Hitlerian tendencies? Did people predict what Nixon did? yeah I bet you sleep with one eye open.. watching out for terrorists..
Throwing away? As the terrorism threat wanes, I expect a return to normalcy. My life is not different one iota with or without rubber-stamped wiretaps. I think that making all this fuss about it is more damaging than "looking the other way." If I felt a real threat from the Administration I might sing a different tune. But I don't; I'm sorry you do. Is it just politically motivated or has he really done something to make you think he is trying to constitute a fascist reign for himself and The Twins?
How to argue this with you? Your "probabilities" are certainties in your own mind. It is foolish to cling to that absoluteness. I can live with you calling my probabilities probabilities because I'm willing to err on the side of caution and not assume that an unborn child is not a human being. I look at it cosmically; you look at it legally because that's the only way you can get what you want: abortion on demand. The Right to Life is a right greater than the right to decide what happens to one's own body? Ask the baby inside... What about her body?
That may be true - but for me, it's the principle. My convictions are my life. I do not barter them. It is politic-agnostic. With this adminstration I find it less surprising, but no less contemptable then it would be under any other leadership. And that's great about you feeling so unconcerned. Me, it turns my stomach. I know you'd love to paint me as some paranoid conspiracy theorist, no doubt it would help you feel more secure in your own position. I'm not. I just read a lot of history - perhaps you should too. Trusting the "powers that be" is usually the key ingredient in social/civil change - and almost always for the worse. I'm not going to wast time arguing with you here anymore, I just wish that people such as yourself would not (unknowingly) force me to adhere to your fear-induced acceptance of civil rights abuses. Understand that not everyone sees this as you do - and for reasons that are not trivial or politically induced.
how do you live your life differently with the current terror threat? are you more careful or scared? if its just a rubber stamp so why not get it? my life does not change with human rights violations of people I don't know.. but that does not mean I don't care about them..
Yes you're right. I guess I didnt communicate that correctly Right, but I think the question was regarding the types of communication used by terrorists, which in the US would probably involve computers, telephones, etc.. all of which can be monitored by intelligence agencies. Anyway, you are correct on this point.
I think some have already mentioned this, but it is a significant point, so I'll voice my own confusion on the exact same issue. Greater good? Isn't the greater good, a more being more secure in our established freedoms? I don't see how giving up established freedoms in hopes to be more secure is a greater good. It doesn't matter if the weaponry is a rusty knife, vs. world destruction in fell swoop. The weapons may change, freedom, and tyranny don't. You either treasure the freedoms or you don't. The value you place on freedom shouldn't change because there are new weapons.
so only 1 warrant/court order for 1 person for a specific period of time regardless of what form of communication he uses?
A few things. One, when have rights given up for reason or another ever been given back voluntarily? They have always been won back by outcry, and then some sort of judicial, or legislative action, that I can recall. I am often wrong, and may have overlooked something, so if I have I do look forward to hearing about it. But I honestly can't think of a time where an executive branch on its own just gave freedoms back. Two, when will the threat from terrorism wane? Terrorism in the world has increased not decreased since the patriot act, and Bush use of warrantless wiretaps. Even GW Bush says the war against terrorism, can't be won, so it won't ever be over. If it is supposed to wane, why push to make provisions of the Patriot act permanent? Three, again addressing the war in Iraq and the rationale that a stable free Iraq makes us safer... How is freedom won abroad by sacrificing it at home? The logic behind that just doesn't seem to exist. It is the old "Practice what I preach and not what I do" rationale. Telling someone they should be free and live by the principles of democracy while we buy off their press and deny them a free press in their own land, and meanwhile shrug off the checks and balances and remove freedoms at home, just doesn't seem like the best start or footing to begin a new democracy. You claim that your freedoms are still intact, but this administration proves you wrong. Your freedoms aren't. You are no longer guaranteed a freedom to speak in private about private issues without the govt. monitoring your phone calls. The loss of that freedom may or may not bother you, but that doesn't mean it is any less removed by this administration's actions and rationale of those actions. By bypassing the FISA court, your one protection of that freedom has been removed. Again you may not care whether your freedoms are being removed or taken, or you may even be happy they are being taken, but it isn't accurate to pretend like they aren't.
You know what, giddy? I apologize for the length and possible/probable rambling in that last post. If you can wade through it, then great, but if you can't and don't want to debate or comment on it, I won't be offended. Preserving freedoms is something I feel extremely patriotic and passionate about. So I may run on at the mouth about it, in case you haven't notice
How am I forcing you to do anything; how are you forcing me to do anything? We just disagree; it's okay. I'm the optimist here. I think it is just pragmatic. You are ruled by fear not me-- of different things for sure but ruled by fear nonetheless. It's cool, though, the way you made ME out to be the evil one who "forces" you...
I live in semi-rural North Carolina so I worry very little about terrorism. You are probably "caring" about people who don't even know that their civil rights have been violated. If they are American citizens and consorting with terrorists, they have become enemy combatants and are undeserving of civil rights protections. I don't know the details but from what I understand it is a rather detailed process to go through to get it rubber stamped even.
Don't apologize. Your posts and responses are always well thought out and respectful.... now I have to go back and read it... if I can. Kids, you know!
Detailed process is relative of course, but even regular warrants can sought, and obtained in a matter of hours even in the middle of the night if the situation is dire and urgent enough. The process for the warrants is even less restrictive. The wiretap can begin immediately with no paperwork whatsoever. After that the govt. has 3 days to fill out the necessary paperwork and get the warrant.
Grow up. I am being "forced" since the administration uses people like yourself to justify blatant abuses of the constitution, abuses I do not willingly accept. I am fearful of the government. Any student of history or american politics will tell you that is not irrational. Hell, any student of the founding fathers will tell you that's the reason for the constitution. You are fearful of some unknown "terrorist" threat. That's just... ...silly, or sad. I wish you'd actually debate my points, and address your own convictions... FB, that was a good post, and I certainly agree. You have detailed some of the "history" comments I keep making.
