OK no comments on it being illegal, it isnt illegal because congress says so and wont be unconstitutional until the supreme court says so. that aside why are you for or aganist it (im guessing were gonna see a lot of aganist so ill say the for side)
there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution so it can not violate our "right to privacy" there is a right aganist unlawful search and seizure, but that relates more to personal being, wire tapping is no different then an informant overhearing something in the bar. not to mention why does anyone really care if the feds are listening? its not an actual person doing the listening but a machine and the records arnt made public unless you are convicted of being a terrorist.
23 comments
May I reference Roe v Wade for a moment here? RvW upheld a previous precedent that all people have a right to privacy. Unless and until you can overturn RvW, you cannot argue against a right to privacy, for it is precedental law.
Okay, some people lack the insight that telephones and wiretapping wasn't really a big issue when the constitution was written because the telephone wasn't invented yet.
A lot of modern technology just isn't mentioned because it didn't exist at the time, but if they had knowledge of it, then it would have been mentioned that the government shouldn't be allowed to do that.
You might not value your rights, Alex, but some of us do, at least what few rights there are left since the Chimpeperor stole the last two elections.
It's alright if you want to give up your rights and be a sheep, but I'm not willing to go so quietly.
You're person/machine analogy makes as much sense as, "I didn't stab him, the knife in my hand did."
DoctorX wrote:
Oh, I *love* the "It's not Unconstitutional until the Supreme Court Says So" idea
Don't forget the disclaimer: "if the Supreme Court says so but I don't agree with it, it was because of activist judges and we can disregard the ruling entirely!"
"its not an actual person doing the listening but a machine..."
That's right, guns don't kill people, and even people with guns don't kill people; bullets kill people.
Alex, is there ANY point at which you would consider yourself to be twisting the law beyond recognition? Because for me, you passed that point quite some time ago.
~David D.G.
I think all those in favor of wiretapping laws should volunteer to post their tax returns, medical records, and financial records on the internet for all to see. Just to show that they have nothing to hide. I think it should be MANDATORY for these fuckwits. Put up or shut up.
Back when the FISA law was passed, the FBI planted bugs in the bedrooms of antiwar protestors, civil rights activists (including Martin Luther King), the KKK, and even a sitting Supreme Court judge. A great deal of political information was obtained, including information about congressmen involved in legislation on which the President had a stake. Some of the wiretaps were of lawyers' phones and netted legally-protected information about their clients. Other taps gave politicians a secret heads-up on future news stories. Information collected from bedrooms gave the FBI information about marital problems, sex lives and other private conversations that could be used to coerce or silence people. It's just a dumb idea to give politicians the right to snoop on people without neutral oversight.
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And, the most important one in this instance, the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There is a right to privacy. Saying "the Constitution doesn't give the people a right to privacy" is a contradiction of the 9th amendment. Plus, the 4th amendment gives us a right to privacy in many respects.
"...wire tapping is no different than an informant overhearing things in a bar..."
One problem with your logic; In a bar you are in a public environment and there is the assumed possibility of someone overhearing your conversation. On the phone however, it is assumed that whatever conversation you are having is private.
To take this on a complete tangent, it would be easier to ban bullets than ban guns. Bullets, after all, have to explode. Guns have no such requirement.
--GF
To all my freedom loving friends in the USA. It appears as though your Constitutional Rights are under attack by this administration, and your worst enemies aren't the politicians, but retards like Alex who haven't a clue what they're rights really are.
You have my sympathies.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.