"If he wants to listen in to my calls, it's OK. I'm all for it."

[sabra]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/29/terror/main1170209.shtml

Americans Split On Domestic Spying

Marilyn Acosta, a Boeing employee from Los Angeles, has a message for President Bush: "If he wants to listen in to my calls, it's OK. I'm all for it."

Not so fast, says Rosey Bystrak, who works for an architectural firm in San Diego. "Bush thinks he's a king and not a president, so it doesn't surprise me," she says, referring to the recent revelation that after 9/11, the president authorized the interception of communications between the U.S. and other countries without a judge's approval.

...

Retired construction worker Robert Hobbs comes down on the president's side. "We have to stop terrorists when they start talking about doing something," Hobbs says from his wheelchair in the park, watching dogs run in a canine-friendly grassy area. "You need to get them then. You can't wait for a court order."

...

In Garner, N.C., Michael Akins will give his name, but won't let a reporter take his picture. Akins worries a newspaper picture with his anti-administration opinions next to it would spark interest from federal agents. "They'd be tapping my phone. I'm serious," he says.

...

At Chicago's Intelligentsia coffee shop, Bonnie Angel says surveillance without a warrant could be justified if the government had good reason to suspect someone of involvement in terrorism. "Sometimes it's justified without a warrant," says Angel. "If you put too many strangleholds on they can't do their job. And the 'bad guys' know they can't do their job and take full advantage of it."

[Roland99]

1. "too many strangleholds"

That's what this administration has over our freedoms and liberties.

[shance]

2. Is Marilyn okay with Bush inviting his buddies to enter her house

look at her computer, and gathering that information without any search warrant. Is she okay with them editing such information in a way they could blackmail her, even if it's totally misconstrued or an all out lie?

You think Marilyn would be "all for it" then?

[Vincardog]

3. Joe Sixpack may be confused but the Constitution and Law are clear

Domestic spying without cause or warrant is illegal and unconstitutional

PERIOD

[dean_dem]

7. Not to mention that...

most people fail to understand that there already are ways to get a wiretap and then get a search warrant afterwards. Authorities don't always have to wait for a search warrant before they act. What people fail to understand is that Bush was trying to evade oversight from Congress and the Courts altogether. This scare tactic of pretending that authorities' hands are tied when chasing terrorists is just more BS.

[Vincardog]

17. But why would bushit want to evade oversight from Congress and the Courts

You would think he wanted to spy and maybe frame domestic opponents. That would be unprecedented wouldn't it? Do you think that is why the Framers of the constitution forbade Congress and/or the courts from messing with the Fourth Amendment? :wow: :thumbsup:

[Stephanie]

4. Question 2, Marilyn. When President Hillary Clinton listens in is that ok?

I didn't think so.

[ima_sinnic]

5. dumbasses

soooo--Bushitter can't get warrants AFTER THE FACT because--?

(for the idiots in the article who think it's a good idea, the answer is b/c he can't get a warrant against his political opponents and that is why he doesn't even try -- DOH!)

these people are so STUPID they deserve what they are getting: a tyrant.

[HereSince1628]

6. It;s about Bush breaking the law not my willingness to be spied on

How is it that is so hard for the masses to see?

[jobycom]

8. Hope she's never broken a law, or had an affair, or voted for the wrong

party. If they can tap phones and read emails without any oversight, they can go after people for anything they want. Bush and the Republinazis can put together lists of who has said they'd vote for the Dems. They can make sure these people are audited, or profile stopped on the way to the polling station, or they can make sure that a naighborhood with a majority of people who are likely to vote against them winds up with a blackout or some voting machine "glitch" on election day.

And if that doesn't scare her, remind her that the Democrats will have the same files one day. And the same powers.

[BOSSHOG]

9. Conservatives are extremely ignorant

One only has to wait a few short minutes for them to prove it. However, I'd love to know if Marilyn Acosta would be alright if Bill Clinton wanted to listen to her calls. And just what is "good reason to suspect someone of involvement in terrorism?" Voting for democrats? Posting on DU? Being a member of the ACLU? Conservatives are ignorant, constitution hating bastards.

People who voted for and continue to support george bush are the number one domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States.

[shance]

16. They are deluded to think it won't happen to them.

n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. And we'd be even safer if:

The police could enter and search anybody's house, any time, for any reason.
The government could listen in on anyone's phone conversations, any time, for any reason.
The government could open and read anyone's mail at any time, for any reason.
Trials of suspected enemies of the state could be held in secrecy.
People accused of crimes against the state did not have the right to counsel.
Defendants in criminal trials could be forced to testify against themselves, and prosecutors didn't have to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Suspects were presumed guilty instead of innocent, making convictions easier.
People, especially those fitting a certain racial or ethnic profile, could be detained indefinitely.
Convicted criminals could be summarily executed or imprisoned indefinitely in secret prisons.

Totalitarian states typically have low crime rates. They are "safer" places to live.

If you call that living.

Too bad these morAns don't understand what a slippery slope is created by the argument that the executive has essentially unlimited power to "fight terrorism." And at the bottom of that slippery slope is a police state.

[Generator]

15. Yep safe and paranoid

Does anybody know any history? How long ago was Stalinist Russia? THAT cold war thing? The spying on neighbors, the enemy lists, the no privacy, and ONE party-state thing. It sounds okay to a SIMPLETON-I'm innocent I will always be innnocent and I will never be accused of anything that I didn't do. They have missed the point of the great American experiement completely. It's not absolute safety but the most liberty for all.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. You can be all for it all you want. I want my 4th amendment back!

How about we do this: we let the people who say it's OK to be spied on get spied on, and those of us who value our rights get to keep them instead? So, Marilyn Acosta, Robert Hobbs, Bonnie Angel-you can have Bush rifle through your house at 3 am whenever you want. I'd rather have my rights, thank you.

[NanceGreggs]

12. Putting the legal issue aside for a moment ...

... think about the millions of phone calls that go on in the US every day, and the millions of emails that are sent.

Does anyone honestly think that the gov't, even with their vast resources, can read/listen to ALL of them? If that's ALL the gov't was doing with this program, it would be a needle-in-a-haystack scenario that would be (a) extraordinarily time-consuming and vastly expensive, and (b) the chances of randomly finding some solid information would be virtually billions-to-one.

Apparently these people (quoted above) must believe that Bush and his minions are prescient, and can zero in, without too much difficulty, on a single phone call or email message that may be of some value.

Impossible -- but then, these are probably the same people who believe Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of 9/11, and we found WMDs in Iraq the minute we got there.

They probably also think that 'the bad guys' have their phones listed under names like Mr. Wannabe Terrorist or Ms. Ties-to-Al-Queda ...

[Vincardog]

19. They can and do. They have the ability to monitor all phone lines at the

same time. They feed it to a super computer to screen the calls for "Key Words and Phrases" and flag the ones of interest for review. The process is automated. It does not take manpower until the review stage. Do not think they can't because they can.

[NanceGreggs]

22. You miss my point ...

The process you've described may be automated, but it still takes time, money, and human resources to analyze all of that information. It then, if deemed 'viable information', has to be followed-up on -- again, human resources and time come into play.

Have you any idea how often 'key words' come up in normal conversation over a phone, a via an email, in a single day? Do you honestly think there are the human resources available to then follow-up, in detail, on every, single one of those calls/messages?

My main argument is (as I said, putting aside the legal issue -- which is the BIGGIE here), these people quoted above think the gov't is only listening-in on phone calls between 'the bad guys'. How does the gov't know who the 'bad guys' are in the first place? They seem to be under the delusion that a red flag goes up somewhere when someone uses words like 'explosive devices' or 'terrorist agenda', and that somehow that red flag only pops up when the person using the words is 'a bad guy'.

If Grandma is BumFart, Middle America, mentions that the current idea of a 'terrorist agenda' scares her, and she worries about the 'explosive devices' killing soldiers in Iraq, do these people honestly believe that a gov't agent listening-in says, "Oh, that's just Grandma in Bumfart, and I know she's not a terrorist, so I'll just move on"?

We ALL KNOW what the true agenda is here -- they're interecpting messages between Dem organizations, Dem political offices, anti-Bush activist groups, etc. That's why they circumvented the FISA court.

[liberal N proud]

13. The Constitution was written to stop people like the bu$h regime

from running roughshod over the people.
It protects the people while providing LEGAL means to accomplish what they need to do to protect the country.
Anyone who thinks different is completely misinformed and misguided.
"Those who give up liberties so easily do not deserve them" Ben Franklin.

[yknot]

14. The law = "stranglehold" How the hell did we get here? n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

18. Just lie down and let Bush tickle your tummy!

aren't these people dumb? They just don't get it.

At leat there's a few who see through

[Union Thug]

20. Many Americans don't care...

so long as it doesn't infringe upon their ability to shop for and hoard poorly made, inexpensive crap at WalMart. What it comes down to is that Americans have exchanged liberty for shithoarding and they justify it by pretending that America is the way, the truth and the light. Whatever helps ya sleep, I suppose.

[WeRQ4U]

21. "So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause."

Amidala - Revenge of the Sith