Thread: Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

Originally Posted by MW

Let me ask the ALIPAC members against the wiretapping this: Would you support wiretapping if there was a way it could be used to deport a bulk of the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing and working in the United States?

Hey, why hasn't anyone answered my question?

I think that no one has answered for the same reason that I did not answer: The question is meaningless. There is no chance that wiretapping or anything else will result in the deportation of 12-20 million invaders. That's like asking if putting on a pair of ruby slippers and clicking your heels three time could accomplish the same, would any of us be willing to wear ruby slippers.

But I'll even tackle the absurd hypothetical and answer it in the extreme negative. Rights, once lost, may mever be regained without years or centuries of struggle and substantial bloodshed. The cost is simply too high. Beyond that, I would submit that if illegal wiretaps could accomplish that goal, then legal wiretaps with proper warrants could accomplish the same goal with just a little more effort but without eroding our rights.

FALSE. The side that says that the government should be constrained from spying on us whether or not we "have anything to hide" has the clear distinction that it is backed by the verbiage of the Bill of Rights. It is a position that states legal fact rather than opinion, unless you accept that the Bill of Rights is now null and void. Is that your premise?

Go back and read my post in response to nitty asking me to explain things.

Is it your idea that a simple majority, not even of citizens but merely of elected representatives or worse yet, simply the Executive Branch in the person of the President, may set aside any provision of the Bill of Rights that they or he find problematic for their policies? That seems to me to be a recipe for instant tyranny.

What, because I said the governement could and probably would do it anyway? Look at it realistically. Sure, a judge can make the government stop doing something. Then what will happen? The President can turn around and sign a piece of paper authorizing it all over again. It's been done before, no reason to think it won't happen again.

Or are you upset because I personally don't care if they watch/listen to me? If you'd read my posts, you'd know the reason I don't care. You'd also know that I said I would be as ticked as those who are against the wiretapping if my own circumstances were different. For me, I cannot justify getting angry for losing my own privacy when I made my own choice and voluntarily gave it up.

There are proper procedures for altering the BINDING compact between We the People and our government. Amendment of the Constitution requires a supermajority, and for good reason. How long do you think any of our rights would last if they could be dismantled by the opposition just once obtaining a simple majority to overturn them? Tyrant will always prey upon fears in times of trouble to make good people make bad decisions and to divide us with straw man arguments, such as that whether or not a person may or may not have something to hide has anything whatsoever to do with whether his rights should be waived. Rights protect the innocent and guilty alike.

Perhaps more people should look much closer at what has already happened before asking "how long our rights would last". Like it or not, they have been slowly and quietly chipping them away. How long until they are all gone? Not very long at all.

Rights protecting the innocent and guilty alike does poorly in practice. Be realistic.

A person who murders another retains every right that he has stolen from that child. What rights does that innocent now have? What exactly where the rights that protected them?

What rights did all those people who died in the WTC have? What rights protected them?

No, rights (freedom) don't protect anyone. Protection means security. You can't have it both ways. Oh right, I said that before. Again, please go back and read my posts.

In case you missed it before, I'll say this again. I can understand both sides of the argument and I think both sides have valid points. If someone should still think I'm wrong for saying that I understand both sides of the argument, so be it.

In the end, all that will matter is how far we each will go to do what we think is right.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

FALSE. The side that says that the government should be constrained from spying on us whether or not we "have anything to hide" has the clear distinction that it is backed by the verbiage of the Bill of Rights. It is a position that states legal fact rather than opinion, unless you accept that the Bill of Rights is now null and void. Is that your premise?

Go back and read my post in response to nitty asking me to explain things.

[quote:2ymig445]Is it your idea that a simple majority, not even of citizens but merely of elected representatives or worse yet, simply the Executive Branch in the person of the President, may set aside any provision of the Bill of Rights that they or he find problematic for their policies? That seems to me to be a recipe for instant tyranny.

What, because I said the governement could and probably would do it anyway? Look at it realistically. Sure, a judge can make the government stop doing something. Then what will happen? The President can turn around and sign a piece of paper authorizing it all over again. It's been done before, no reason to think it won't happen again.

Or are you upset because I personally don't care if they watch/listen to me? If you'd read my posts, you'd know the reason I don't care. You'd also know that I said I would be as ticked as those who are against the wiretapping if my own circumstances were different. For me, I cannot justify getting angry for losing my own privacy when I made my own choice and voluntarily gave it up.

There are proper procedures for altering the BINDING compact between We the People and our government. Amendment of the Constitution requires a supermajority, and for good reason. How long do you think any of our rights would last if they could be dismantled by the opposition just once obtaining a simple majority to overturn them? Tyrant will always prey upon fears in times of trouble to make good people make bad decisions and to divide us with straw man arguments, such as that whether or not a person may or may not have something to hide has anything whatsoever to do with whether his rights should be waived. Rights protect the innocent and guilty alike.

Perhaps more people should look much closer at what has already happened before asking "how long our rights would last". Like it or not, they have been slowly and quietly chipping them away. How long until they are all gone? Not very long at all.

Rights protecting the innocent and guilty alike does poorly in practice. Be realistic.

A person who murders another retains every right that he has stolen from that child. What rights does that innocent now have? What exactly where the rights that protected them?

What rights did all those people who died in the WTC have? What rights protected them?

No, rights (freedom) don't protect anyone. Protection means security. You can't have it both ways. Oh right, I said that before. Again, please go back and read my posts.

In case you missed it before, I'll say this again. I can understand both sides of the argument and I think both sides have valid points. If someone should still think I'm wrong for saying that I understand both sides of the argument, so be it.

In the end, all that will matter is how far we each will go to do what we think is right.
[/quote:2ymig445]
There is so much wrong with your often self-contradictory response that I don't know where to begin.

First off, I am a person who stands on principle. Whether I have any reason to fear having my phone tapped or not is immaterial. As a matter of fact, because of my political activism, I HAVE had my phone tapped back during the crooked Clinton administration. Then again, applying the word "crooked" to any of the last several administrations is a redundancy. The taps were no more than a minor nuissance because as it happens I was not doing and never have done anything that would give me reason to fear prosecution. That is entirely beyond the point. The point is that none of us (so far as I know) wants to live in a damned police state, and that is exactly where we are heading.

Allowing rights to be further eroded because you feel they are already badly eroded is the most unconscionable form of defeatism. Surrendering to tyranny because tyranny has already gained a foothold actually goes far beyond irresponsibility and hedges on complicity. We each have a civic resposibility to uphold the principles and ethics upon which this nation was built, which is why most of us are here.

Now, I'm going to draw an apt analogy that you won't like. I'm going to apply the same logic you have applied to this topic to the topic of illegal immigration. Here's what that looks like:

There are already some 20 million illegal aliens here. There is no point trying to stop them from coming because the President will just have the border patrol stand down and let them in. Our border integrity has been eroding for some time and is almost a thing of the past anyhow. Besides, many companies need the illegal aliens if we are to compete with emerging economies like China, so it is in our nation's security interest to allow them to come. We should just get used to the idea of illegal aliens, because this is a different world than the one we lived in when immigration was strictly limited. Yes, I know that the government has an obligation imposed on it by the Constitution to protect the borders and control immigration, but securing the border works very poorly in practice.

See how lame that looks?

There is so much wrong with your often self-contradictory response that I don't know where to begin.

Nothing contradictory about stating that I understand both sides of the argument. That was my point when people questioned the logic for those who are concerned about freedom, it was my point when their logic was questioned.

First off, I am a person who stands on principle. Whether I have any reason to fear having my phone tapped or not is immaterial.

Never implied you aren't a person of principles. Are you accusing me of saying something I never said or implied? And I said specifically that the issue is NOT, read that again, IS NOT about hiding anything. How you missed that, I do not know.

The point is that none of us (so far as I know) wants to live in a damned police state, and that is exactly where we are heading.

Please quote me where I said that people do want a police state. I agree with you, that's exactly where we are headed and we are closer to it than people think.

Just because I understand the point of view that differs from yours (and mine) does not in any way make me obligated to join in with calling bs on them. I'm not obligated to criticize them for having concern for the safety of their families.

Allowing rights to be further eroded because you feel they are already badly eroded is the most unconscionable form of defeatism. Surrendering to tyranny because tyranny has already gained a foothold actually goes far beyond irresponsibility and hedges on complicity. We each have a civic resposibility to uphold the principles and ethics upon which this nation was built, which is why most of us are here.

Please quote me where I said I would/do support the further erosion of rights. Which I do not. Quote me where I said I would surrender to tyranny. Which I would not. I said specifically that I personally cannot get upset if the government choses to listen to me (and me alone) because I voluntary gave up my privacy by joining the military. That does not mean I would not fight.

Now, if joining the military and giving up MY rights for purposes of keeping this country free and defending her is surrendering to tyranny, then consider every former and current member as supporting that which you oppose.

Now, I'm going to draw an apt analogy that you won't like.

Maybe, we'll see, yes?

I'm going to apply the same logic you have applied to this topic to the topic of illegal immigration. Here's what that looks like:

There are already some 20 million illegal aliens here. There is no point trying to stop them from coming because the President will just have the border patrol stand down and let them in. Our border integrity has been eroding for some time and is almost a thing of the past anyhow. Besides, many companies need the illegal aliens if we are to compete with emerging economies like China, so it is in our nation's security interest to allow them to come. We should just get used to the idea of illegal aliens, because this is a different world than the one we lived in when immigration was strictly limited. Yes, I know that the government has an obligation imposed on it by the Constitution to protect the borders and control immigration, but securing the border works very poorly in practice.

See how lame that looks?

I don't hate the analogy at all. I'm not sure how it looked to you while you were typing it but it seems in your attempt to insult/discredit me or my intelligence, your analogy pretty accurately describes the very actions/attitude the government has and continues to display. Lame as it may seem, I think many of us can agree that's exactly the attitude the government (and lots of American citizens) holds currently. If they didn't we wouldn't have any reason for being here on these boards in the first place.

In the end, even though I don't care if the government listens to me (and me alone), I'll not tolerate the stripping away of more rights. You can make of that what you will. If it's too difficult or seemingly too obscure of a concept for you to understand, then I apologize because I can't help you on that. If instead you wish to continue thinking that I'm being contradictory or illogical or whatever, so be it.[/b]

LadyDrake, BRAVO! Good Job!

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

There is so much wrong with your often self-contradictory response that I don't know where to begin.

Nothing contradictory about stating that I understand both sides of the argument. That was my point when people questioned the logic for those who are concerned about freedom, it was my point when their logic was questioned.

You claim to understand both sides of the argument, but you only demonstrate understanding of one side of the argument. My entire point is that while it may be valid to question whether the 1787 Constitution serves our needs in 2006, there is a lawful process for changing that Constitution that does not involve the government capriciously casting aside the rights guaranteed therein.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

First off, I am a person who stands on principle. Whether I have any reason to fear having my phone tapped or not is immaterial.

Never implied you aren't a person of principles. Are you accusing me of saying something I never said or implied? And I said specifically that the issue is NOT, read that again, IS NOT about hiding anything. How you missed that, I do not know.

And I never said that you made such an accusation. I was simply pointing out the difference between my own philosophy and the capricious nature of many of those who would allow the government to skirt the constitutional method for amendment and support tyrannical disregard for the rights that my forefathers (and probably yours as well) braved unknown seas and fought a monarch to secure.

I understand full well what the issue is, and it is whether or not those of us who hold our liberties dear will be browbeaten into abandoning them in the same way that we are being browbeaten into laying down while this nation is invaded by illegal aliens.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

The point is that none of us (so far as I know) wants to live in a damned police state, and that is exactly where we are heading.

Please quote me where I said that people do want a police state. I agree with you, that's exactly where we are headed and we are closer to it than people think.

Just because I understand the point of view that differs from yours (and mine) does not in any way make me obligated to join in with calling bs on them. I'm not obligated to criticize them for having concern for the safety of their families.

If it is your contention that we should allow the government to rewrite the rules of our binding compact with it because of a few timid individuals being cowed into submission, then you are certainly supporting the concept of federal tyranny. The setting aside of guaranteed rights is, by definition, tyranny. Do you believe that the government should be allowed to set aside rights when it feels like it or not? If you believe that there is any proper method for setting aside rights other than amendment to the Constitution that secures those rights, then you are for tyranny whether you wish to admit it or not. I submit that it is not my words but your own that convict you on that count.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Allowing rights to be further eroded because you feel they are already badly eroded is the most unconscionable form of defeatism. Surrendering to tyranny because tyranny has already gained a foothold actually goes far beyond irresponsibility and hedges on complicity. We each have a civic resposibility to uphold the principles and ethics upon which this nation was built, which is why most of us are here.

Please quote me where I said I would/do support the further erosion of rights. Which I do not. Quote me where I said I would surrender to tyranny. Which I would not. I said specifically that I personally cannot get upset if the government choses to listen to me (and me alone) because I voluntary gave up my privacy by joining the military. That does not mean I would not fight.

Now, if joining the military and giving up MY rights for purposes of keeping this country free and defending her is surrendering to tyranny, then consider every former and current member as supporting that which you oppose.

Again, if you believe that the government should be allowed to tap private phone conversations without a warrant, you are, by definition, supporting tyranny, because the Bill of Rights provides protections against such searches without warrants. It's a simple premise, so I don't understand your confusion. If you wish to allow the government to set aside rights, you support tyranny. Period. If you do not, then you seem to have done a poor job expressing yourself.

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

Now, I'm going to draw an apt analogy that you won't like.

Maybe, we'll see, yes?

[quote:33s34veb]I'm going to apply the same logic you have applied to this topic to the topic of illegal immigration. Here's what that looks like:

There are already some 20 million illegal aliens here. There is no point trying to stop them from coming because the President will just have the border patrol stand down and let them in. Our border integrity has been eroding for some time and is almost a thing of the past anyhow. Besides, many companies need the illegal aliens if we are to compete with emerging economies like China, so it is in our nation's security interest to allow them to come. We should just get used to the idea of illegal aliens, because this is a different world than the one we lived in when immigration was strictly limited. Yes, I know that the government has an obligation imposed on it by the Constitution to protect the borders and control immigration, but securing the border works very poorly in practice.

See how lame that looks?

I don't hate the analogy at all. I'm not sure how it looked to you while you were typing it but it seems in your attempt to insult/discredit me or my intelligence, your analogy pretty accurately describes the very actions/attitude the government has and continues to display. Lame as it may seem, I think many of us can agree that's exactly the attitude the government (and lots of American citizens) holds currently. If they didn't we wouldn't have any reason for being here on these boards in the first place.

In the end, even though I don't care if the government listens to me (and me alone), I'll not tolerate the stripping away of more rights. You can make of that what you will. If it's too difficult or seemingly too obscure of a concept for you to understand, then I apologize because I can't help you on that. If instead you wish to continue thinking that I'm being contradictory or illogical or whatever, so be it.[/b][/quote:33s34veb]
Well, now you seem to be contradicting yourself again, because as best I could tell you were defending the comments of another poster that we should have no problem with the government engaging in warrantless wiretaps. Are you now backtracking? Warrantless wiretaps are a violation of rights. You either support them or you do not. If you support them, then you support tyranny. If you oppose them then you oppose tyranny.

For what it's worth, I find this issue perplexing in that it creates strange bedfellows. For the most part, I abhor the ACLU, yet I agree with it on this particular issue (though probably for different reasons). Others who seem to be at odds with the administration on its abysmal handling of border security support it on this issue. For my part, I don't give a damn who does or does not agree with me on this issue, because it is a simple matter of principle. Usurpation of rights is one of those "line in the sand" issues for me. I don't give a damn what nice things a given politician has done for my community or my nation, when he starts meddling with my inalienable rights he gets moved into the category of tyrant. Whenever a friend or fellow citizen supports the blatant disregard of my rights, he is no longer a friend or fellow citizen, but rather an enabler of the enemies of freedom.

In times such as these, I always return to the words of one of my favorite patriots:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams

Sam Adams aimed those words at his countrymen who chose personal security over rights and liberty and who refused to do what it took to dislodge a tyrant's boot from the necks of the American people. The thought of those so cowed by the fear of the artiificial threat of foreign terrorists that they would surrender not only their own liberty but that of my friends and family sickens me. It fills me with disgust at what now passes for an American.

CrocketsGhost,

You know, usually I agree with you on things. This time, however ... no.

You are simply way out of line with your assumptions. Especially when I have stated very clearly that I would/will fight against rights being taken away from Americans and have defended those who prefer freedom.

If you cannot or will not bother to actually read what I've said, then as I said before, there's nothing I can do to help you. It's not my explanations that aren't clear. It's your own refusal to comprehend what was said or maybe it's your apparent need to hash it out with someone or perhaps it's the very rude awakening you experienced that has you so passionate.

What does that say when you feel the need to attack someone who actually happens to agree with your side?

Talk about strange bedfellows indeed.

Nittygritty,
Im not getting upset over your difference of opinion, It does upset me to see that Americans would allow the government to chisel away at their rights and liberties for the "promise" of "security". When this wiretapping thing first started, I thought the way you did, I have nothing to hide. But then I started to think about it more when I came across Benjamin Franklins quote " They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In my opinion the "War on Terror " will never be won, not because we lack the military strength or power to do it, but because the goverment chooses not to win it ( to much $$$$$ in it for them to draw a quick victory). I'll try to read the book you recommended, but Ive got " In mortal Danger", and "The Everything American Ggovernment Book" ahead of it.

jbird, Thank you for not getting angry and defensive with what I wrote, I didn't mean it to be taken that way. those 2 books you mentioned I also want to read esp. In Mortal Danger. I have a question though a real searching for answers kind of question here. Americans think, (I feel this way also don't doubt that) we have the best government and constitution they any other government in the world. This is just in theroy, what if Isreal, had our same constitution and bill of rights. We know that Isreal has some of the best intelligence out there,they go above and beyond what we would ever dream of to ensure their people's survival. They use any and every tool such as racial profiling in their airport there and here in our country for their passenger airplane's security and safety. They are surrounded by enemies who want to anilialate them from the face of the earth. Their people have given up some of their freedoms in order to survive in their fight on terror, now having said all of that, back to my question, if Isreal had our constitution do you feel, they should maintain strict adherence to that constitution and go out in a big blast of martyrdism for their constitution, then be willing to bend a little in the face of total destruction by thier enemies? Is it really better to allow your children and grandchildren, your whole line of ancestory to die out instead of doing everything in your power to keep these radical islamic fanatics from killing them? Do you think they should give in gracefully and allow themselves to be blown to smithereens because they were more decent then the radicals and refused to fight them on terms where they might have a chance of seeing their childrens future secured? On the part of America, for the life of me, I cannot understand why, if the government makes a mistake and listens in to "my" phone conversatations instead of Jidhadist conversations, how that would be giving up my freedom. If my conversation were innocent the government is not going to do anything about it anyway, they are going to get off the phone, no time to waste on my silly conversations. I fail to see how this one concession, to the fight on terror, is going to totally errode and corrode our constitution.
I may be totally wrong here, it has yet to be proven,any innocent americans conversations have been listened to, the people who bought to lawsuit against the government had no proof their phones had been tapped in this case it was just a suit brought forward to "test" the legalities of what the government did, and the Judge who said it was wrong didn't offer a valid reason it was wrong, that is all in the news now. With all the activist judges we now have, I will not fully understand that it was totally against the constitution until it goes to the Supreme Court for their opinion. I am just one old Indian man, who does not have the arrogance to assume I have total knowledge of our constitution or our government, or the real ability to even be in the class of someone of CrocketsGhost's vast knowledge of the ins and outs of our government and its constitution. I am not trying to start arguments or even bring anyone here to my way of thinking, everyone has to decide for theirselves what is right for them.I guess I am just really on a self search, to see if what I believe and feel is so terribly outside the norm of what other Americans feel! I also want to make clear, I don't want to overturn our constitution or bill of rights! The question about Isreal is just something I have often wondered about if I were in their shoes what or how far would I be willing to go to win at all cost?

Originally Posted by Ladydrake

CrocketsGhost,

You know, usually I agree with you on things. This time, however ... no.

You are simply way out of line with your assumptions. Especially when I have stated very clearly that I would/will fight against rights being taken away from Americans and have defended those who prefer freedom.

If you cannot or will not bother to actually read what I've said, then as I said before, there's nothing I can do to help you. It's not my explanations that aren't clear. It's your own refusal to comprehend what was said or maybe it's your apparent need to hash it out with someone or perhaps it's the very rude awakening you experienced that has you so passionate.

What does that say when you feel the need to attack someone who actually happens to agree with your side?

Talk about strange bedfellows indeed.

Ladydrake, it was this quote that I took and take issue with:

Their position is no more bs than yours. Neither side is right or wrong. There are pro's and con's to both sides. At least you all still get to make that choice. You should be glad for it.

As I have pointed out, this "two sides to every story" nonsense has its limits. My point was to demonstrate the true nature of the premise of "their" position that you defend as equally valid to the premise that rights are clearly being violated.

Yes, I read your "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" post. You would have been better off stopping there. It is not your own comments, but those by others that you defend as somehow equally valid to those rooted in the clear verbiage of the Bill of Rights with which I take issue.

Ladydrake, one of the ways that the tyrants have gained as much ground as they have is with a combination of incrementalism and moral equivalency. Either you put your foot down and say, "we are drawing a line," or else you just give up the farm and come back as a sharecropper.