the ACLU supports terrorism

[cowfishrule]

the ACLU pushed a lawsuit against secret wiretapping by the NSA, and successfully defeated it, along with the help of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who declared the wiretapping to be unconstitutional and violates free speech.
are you f'n kidding me?????????????

the NSA isn't a day care facility; they have reasons why they listen to certain people- they are not going to waste their time and resources on joe's like you and i.
ugh, im so outraged right now- my skin is actually hot.
"it violates free speech and privacy", judge Taylor says, agreeing with the ACLU.
hmm- last time i checked, i can still speak my mind. and in terms of privacy, let them listen to me all they want. im not doing anything illegal. are you? only criminals have something to hide, and in which, should be locked up anyways.
wiretapping may have been used to stop those wackos from blowing up 10 aircraft due to the US. do you want to be on a plane that gets blown up because some j/o says that wiretapping people of interest for terrorism is illegal? hope not.
why else is the aclu so against the wiretapping? is it because they want to be become the hand puppets of the democrats, who's only mission is to destroy President Bush (because they do nothing else) ?
As much as i dont like Bush, he has shown more balls than any other President since FDR and Truman.
therefore, i, cowfishrule declare "US JUDGE ANN TAYLOR AND THE ACLU SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM"
anyone disagreeing, pls feel free to chime in.

 

[cowfishrule]

i forgot to add something.
im at work and the phone rang...
this is a different world we live in now.
as americans, we have stop being so pompus and arrogant about our rights and our lifestyles. some of those rights that we enjoy, that we take for granted, we may have to give up for our own safety.
answer this: what is more important- knowing that nobody is listening to you on the phone or knowing that the plane your boarding isnt going to explode because a phone call was intercepted?

 

[gen1dustin]

I feel exactly like you. Hey if they want to listen to everyone of my phone calls I'm fine with that. I don't have anything to hide.

 

[jmick]

When do we stop granting the government increased powers? Sooner or later we will lose all of our freedoms and rights and will be at the mercy of the government.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
as americans, we have stop being so pompus and arrogant about our rights and our lifestyles. some of those rights that we enjoy, that we take for granted, we may have to give up for our own safety.
Some people might feel this dishonors the brave men and women who serve in our military and risk their saftey and lives to protect those rights and lifestyles you are speaking about.....IDK, have to ask them I guess.

 

[imurnamine]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
the ACLU pushed a lawsuit against secret wiretapping by the NSA, and successfully defeated it, along with the help of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who declared the wiretapping to be unconstitutional and violates free speech.
are you f'n kidding me?????????????

the NSA isn't a day care facility; they have reasons why they listen to certain people- they are not going to waste their time and resources on joe's like you and i.
ugh, im so outraged right now- my skin is actually hot.
"it violates free speech and privacy", judge Taylor says, agreeing with the ACLU.
hmm- last time i checked, i can still speak my mind. and in terms of privacy, let them listen to me all they want. im not doing anything illegal. are you? only criminals have something to hide, and in which, should be locked up anyways.
wiretapping may have been used to stop those wackos from blowing up 10 aircraft due to the US. do you want to be on a plane that gets blown up because some j/o says that wiretapping people of interest for terrorism is illegal? hope not.
why else is the aclu so against the wiretapping? is it because they want to be become the hand puppets of the democrats, who's only mission is to destroy President Bush (because they do nothing else) ?
As much as i dont like Bush, he has shown more balls than any other President since FDR and Truman.
therefore, i, cowfishrule declare "US JUDGE ANN TAYLOR AND THE ACLU SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM"
anyone disagreeing, pls feel free to chime in.

While I agree with some of the things said, I don't think it makes them 'supporters' just because they don't do things the way you see fit.
If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. If wiretapping will be okay for just 'that', then it will move into something else, then something else, then the government will be able to tap your home telephone.
I agree that we should take extra measures to ensure the safety of not only our citizens, but citizens of fellow countries, but not at the expense of our own freedom. Does that sound bad...? I'm not good with words.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by ImUrNamine
I agree that we should take extra measures to ensure the safety of not only our citizens, but citizens of fellow countries, but not at the expense of our own freedom. Does that sound bad...? I'm not good with words.

Sounds pretty good to me....I dont think an American wanting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sounds bad at all....or makes them a Terrorist...some Americans may think so and thats scary to me too....plus the Pledge of Alleigence has those words Liberty and Justice in it somewhere....unless THEY took them out already...

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Sounds pretty good to me....I dont think an American wanting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sounds bad at all....or makes them a Terrorist...some Americans may think so and thats scary to me too....plus the Pledge of Alleigence has those words Liberty and Justice in it somewhere....unless THEY took them out already...
Give them time, I'm sure they are working on it.

 

[imurnamine]

America is so messed up right now that it's insane.
It's like 'Well if you don't believe this, then YOU'RE not American!'. I get that a lot.
I like to reply with, "Right you are. I'm not. I'm British."

 

[pontius]

well, for the most part, we're not talking about Americans. we're talking about foreigners who happen to be in America. none of the 19 9/11 terrorists were American citizens. so maybe before we allow people from terrorist friendly nations to come here, we should make them sign some of their rights away, so they'll know that they can be listened to. then if they don't like it, they can stay in their own country. after all, the service men and women died for OUR rights, not Mohammed Atta's rights. that makes so much sense that the government would never go for it.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
well, for the most part, we're not talking about Americans. we're talking about foreigners who happen to be in America. none of the 19 9/11 terrorists were American citizens. so maybe before we allow people from terrorist friendly nations to come here, we should make them sign some of their rights away, so they'll know that they can be listened to. then if they don't like it, they can stay in their own country. after all, the service men and women died for OUR rights, not Mohammed Atta's rights. that makes so much sense that the government would never go for it.
Well, thats why the Consitution gives us a Congress.....and they have made laws....and theres not one for warrentless wiretaps without notifeing the court after three days unless war has been declared...by Congress.

 

[phixer]

No need to brace for flames: you have a good point. However, there could easily be trouble regarding the laxed trap and trace restrictions. Technically, according to this law, you can listen in on anyone so long as it is relevant to a criminal investigation, i.e probable cause? In the hands of an undiscerning judge, this could mean that you can easily be put under surveilance for being in the general neighboorhood of a small-time drug trafficker.
At any rate, what's likely to be more dangerous than this bill is more the attitude of the people and the what the future may have in store. If the people (or simply enough of the people) are too attached to a sense of false security, the ramifications may be nasty since it would permit all sorts of violations. The situation doesn't exactly look pretty, apart from the fact (I think) that there shall be an inevitable liberal movement to counteract it.
Fact is, we are diminishing the very protections we are seeking to protect. History tells us these changes take place slowly and under our very noses. When we allow this tinkering with our basic set of rights, we leave ourselves open to the abuse of these protections we hold so dear. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Try this little quiz to find out what political party your in.
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by ImUrNamine
If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. If wiretapping will be okay for just 'that', then it will move into something else, then something else, then the government will be able to tap your home telephone.
see, thats the thing.
i agree with you that wiretapping may move into something else.
but, that doesnt bother me.
so what if you listen to me? im not saying or doing anything illegal.
im willing to give up my right to privacy if it will protect myself or my son from future harm. i dont have a problem with that.
thats why they have amendments. to change the Constitution- different times call for a different set of rules. did they have the same security at the airports in 1970 that they do now? i dont think so.
its so funny- people complain about big brother, and all the cameras that pop up in nyc on the streets- yet, there is no place in the world with more cameras than a casino, but nobody seems to have a problem with that.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
im not saying or doing anything illegal.
yea but the point is that the Goverment is doing something illegal...if they feel that they need to change the law to make it legal then the Congress needs to do that first.
If a goverment can just do whatever it wants without considering the law...and not let us know what they are doing then how do we know what else they are doing ?...... that you might not be so agreeable with if you knew????

 

[gen1dustin]

Really hearing everyone else's opinons makes it hard to say what is what. Yes we fight to have this freedom, keep it, & try to spread it. Though protecting us from terrorists is protecting our freedom also, right??? I go by the old saying "If you have nothing to hide, don't hide it.". In today's world this phone tapping could save people's lives. Maybe they could have stopped 9/11 if they were doing this previously.

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
yea but the point is that the Goverment is doing something illegal...if they feel that they need to change the law to make it legal then the Congress needs to do that first.
If a goverment can just do whatever it wants without considering the law...and not let us know what they are doing then how do we know what else they are doing ?...... that you might not be so agreeable with if you knew????

but thats why it was secret- to get an advantage on anyone who might be planning something.
if it was made legal, that would be public knowledge
its illegal for me to wiretap your phone, but if the govn't wants to do it to keep us safe, then i give them a big

thats what makes me so aggrivated- nobody has a sense of what needs to be kept quiet-
this battle should have been fought out behind closed doors without the public's knowledge.
but no- the liberals and the media decided to try to use this to destroy Bush and make it public knowledge that we are listening to phone calls. so now the terrorists know not to use the phone, because we are listening. duh

 

[gen1dustin]

Youv'e got a point there cowfish

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
if it was made legal, that would be public knowledge
The law already establishes a secret court just for these circumstances and that would not make it public knowledge......

 

[salty cheese]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
see, thats the thing.
i agree with you that wiretapping may move into something else.
but, that doesnt bother me.
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775