Yet another example of the encroachment of authoritarianism in the name of protecting freedom.
Can’t always get what you want
But it’s to keep us safe from the eevil terrorists! How can you possibly object?
won’t somebody think of the children!?!
Yeah, it seems like as long as there are any civil liberties left, then the terrorists have won.
I think it’s pretty appalling how these things go on and most people don’t know or care.
The media in general hypes the stupidest shit while ignoring this kind of stuff that actually is a valid concern.
I also find it pretty telling that while there was a lot of controversy over this sort of thing during Bush’s presidency, people hardly seem to care now. Is it that people have given up, or is it just that Obama fans don’t want to point out his hypocrisy on this issue?
Don’t you just love how the one thing that both parties apparently can agree on is trampling over individual rights?
This is not a good thing. I’m glad that Obama was re-elected, especially considering his opponent, but this doesn’t make me happy at all. There must be a more effective way to stop terrorism than this. It’s almost like the politicians endorsed this policy because it was the easier method.
But if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need?
Who is really surprised anymore that Obama isn’t much better than Bush in over-reaching Presidential authority and treading on the Constitution?
I think it goes beyond that. It’s every president. Once they put on the Ring of Power, it’s just too seductive.
Power does not corrupt, it just lets the corruption shine through.
As long as 51% of the people want it, we are not allowed to complain about it. I think that’s how it goes, right?
Boooooooo . . .
- to all involved.
(I know that’s not a constructive statement, but what can we on a piddling little message board do to stop the erosion of American freedoms?)
Fat lot of good it does for us little people to complain.
Yes, definitely. In 2008, we voted for change - and on the civil liberties front, got more of the same. How do you effect change when both the major parties seem to feel that the Bill of Rights is best used as toilet paper and our voting system effectively shuts third parties out? 
There were already warning signs before the election. According to Glenn Greenwald’s most recent article:
By voting for third parties anyway, and trying to get others to acknowledge what the major parties are both doing wrong. Obama’s CIA is a paramilitary organisation responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, deaths cited by terrorists and Al Qaeda supporters as the reason why they feel America must be fought. Romney is in favour of torture, a useless practice that achieves nothing except to destroy intelligence sources and inspire hatred. Neither is fit to be President, no matter how they pretend the other is worse.
I know it’s all about rights of privacy, but what could you possibly be worried about? What secret information of national intelligence do you share with “foreign intelligence targets abroad?”
I never understand these kinds of threads at all. I couldn’t care if every world leader simultaneously listened in on my phone conversations. What the hell is the problem here? You think the CIA is going to actually track YOU down and listen to your mundane bullshit?
Obviously the program is intended to thwart actual bona fide terrorist attacks, not whether you need to get eggs on the way home. Just after 9/11 there was a lot of chatter about what was known, and what was unknown, and I’ll bet being able to listen in on some key conversations may have provided some advanced warning. It would have been nice to have known about that, wouldn’t it?
I don’t get it. Jeez, I hope the CIA or CSIS isn’t reading this. :rolleyes:
That is true. Unfortunately, no other electable Democratic potential nominees were any better.
That’s a good plan, except for the fact that it won’t work. Politics is boring, while watching “Dancing with yhe Stars” is fun. And even worse, much of the public LIKES the anti-Constitutional crap that the two major parties are doing. They want to “feel safe” at any cost, and they don’t see how the weakening of constitutional safeguards affects them in any way (since they are clearly good people, and the government never abuses good people, only bad ones).
“Why are you opposed to letting the government hear your phone calls and read your email if it helps us catch terrorists? If you’re not a terrorist, you don’t have anything to hide!”
I’m very much afraid we’re getting the government we deserve.
And Leaffan proved my point before I could even finish typing my post. sigh
“Obviously”? What are you basing that on? Corrupt men always use such excuses for seizing power - Stephen Conroy tried to create an unaccountable censorship program under the excuse of combating child pornography, but he was going to use it against legal pornography, online gambling, religions, and even a tour operator.
Then why can’t they just get a warrant?
I couldn’t give less of a fuck if the government wants to listen to my phone calls or read my emails.
If the information gets misused, I’ll sue their bitch asses for several million dollars, and get paid. Otherwise, I’m not doing anything illegal.
Besides, the wiretapping is only for phone calls made to or from a foreign country, AFAIK. It’s not like they listen in when I’m calling my wife/daughter/etc…