[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To my knowlege, mine nor anyone elses civil rights have been violated at this time.
How do you know? Do you even know who this system has been used on specifically? I don’t. I also would never claim to know it is being used the right way now in all circumstances.
There is and has been for some time the ability of the President to listen in on potential National security calls.
To my understanding, there still needs to be protocol followed and warrants obtained. Is this not the case suddenly?
What rights are you losing, then of course why would you care if you get them back. If your actions don’t meet national security criteria you have lost no rights. You have given up nothing. To then spotlight that this MAY lead to (x) or (y) is a nonsense argument. The gov’t and police always have the potential to abuse power. I wouldn’t give them carte blanche here, there would be oversights and regulations.
What if “national security criteria” is used broadly to cover anything suddenly dubbed “a threat”? Isn’t the whole problem the perception that “oversights and regulations” were bypassed?
I don’t care about Clinton, my reference was simply this is not new or even clandestine. This power was given to the office long ago. Why an issue now? If you really believe it is because of some red hering like individuals rights you are mistaken. This was purely political to bring this out to the publics knowlege and now you are all wrapped up in the loss of your precious rights. It was in fact going on before–what rights have you lost.
If it was going on before and it is viewed as wrong, then it was wrong then as well. Does that mean we ignore any new issues that pop up now? Could you please bring up specific instances where this was used in the past that circumvented court authority?[/quote]
You’re vrooming this whole thread. You are basing all of your decisions on this subject on possibilities. While always good to consider such issues, it should only be part of the equation.
ps–sorry vroom, that was somewhat smarmy on my part, but I think you are well aware of your forte.
Warrant requirement is certainly the sticking point. My understanding is the eavesdropping can occur without said warrant, but one must go through the process within a time frame. I believe this to be 72 hours post. The contention that this opens up the possibility to leaks is valid. Some very smart people felt that there was wiggle room here–we’ll see.
Of course I don’t know of specifics, but I could throw that back at you as well. You/I don’t know. I think we would both agree that it would be quite aggrievous and the potential for serious issues and personal privacy inflictions is valid should this power become abusive. My opinion is that is abridge we will cross at that time. I believe most people of power understand the ramifications and the potential for abuse and therefore I feel it actually becomes less of a potential issue as we move forward.
I can not tell you a circumstance that happened before but my gut tells me it did. Again, I go back to the red hering issue here used at the time of ‘outing’ this security measure. This was political mudslinging at its worst. A vote=less national security.