So how do you argue against this statement?

[Rabid Trekkie]

Since it came to light about Bush spying on America (this isn't really going to be about politics so you can keep reading) I've been arguing with my sister and my Mom about it. My brother and I are against it and when we start arguing it always comes down to this: If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

That line bothers me on just about every level, but for the life of me I can't think of anything good to say to counter it. I've tried to say that all of us are innocent till proven guilty, and they say that this proves who is innocent and who is guilty.

So, what is a good way to defeat their argument?

[Cotton]

You could just say you want privacy. What if what you're trying hide isn't criminal but just embarrassing? For example, what if you had a secret love for foot fetishes but are too embarrassed to admitt it? You wouldn't want anybody to know about that crap.

[BlairH]

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.


When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out

Just say that! You get bonus points if you impersonate Liam Neeson whilst doing so.

[Sabrinaset]

You could just say you want privacy. What if what you're trying hide isn't criminal but just embarrassing? For example, what if you had a secret love for foot fetishes but are too embarrassed to admitt it? You wouldn't want anybody to know about that crap.

Is this foot fetish thread going to spill out onto everything at CBR?

[Night]

Similar, I would ask them what they thought of public nudity. If they're against it ask what are they trying to hide.

[Michael P]

Blair beat me to it. Basically, the govenrment is deciding for itself who fits the definition of guilty. Ask your mom, "And what will you say if they decide *you* fit that definition?"

[BlairH]

Blair beat me to it. Basically, the govenrment is deciding for itself who fits the definition of guilty. Ask your mom, "And what will you say if they decide *you* fit that definition?"

Indeed, whilst the Bush administration may have the best intentions in mind for this anti-terror measurement, what's to stop future administrations abusing this illegal measure? The only way to prevent abuse is to kill the measure entirely and to take a firm stance against it (indeed, I hope both parties will in '08)

[PatrickG]

If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.


You SHOULDN'T have anything to worry about if you're innocent. However, it's not up to the executive branch to decide what "innocent" is and they've been trying to do just that.

The executive branch should NOT decide what is or is not permissible. That is the function of the legislative branch.

The executive branch should not decide whether or not someone has violated what is permissible. That is the judicial branch's job.

I realize that I'd sound nuts if I said that I thought Bush was going to use illegally gathered information to assassinate political rivals to the Republican party. However, seeing as how he has no problem violating procedure in the name of what he sees as his principles, he HAS established that he is the type of person whose behavior can't be predicted by whatever the "rules" are. And that's frightening. Because, effectively, whatever he says goes, by and large.

It's the same basic argument that we'd have regarding a monarchy.

Would you rather have a secure monarchy with a wise, intelligent, morally decent ruler or would you trade that for a corrupt, unstable democracy?

Because on principle, I think we as humans have the obligation to choose the latter, even if it means greater risk and struggle for ourselves and our children. Because monarchy is immoral, even in the hands of a saint.

And I don't consider ANY of the men who've held office in the White House (with maybe one or two exceptions) to be particularly morally decent men and certainly not the type of men who I'd want to give an inch of leeway to, in terms of power, even if my life depended on it.

[Night]

The only way to prevent abuse is to kill the measure entirely and to take a firm stance against it (indeed, I hope both parties will in '08) If they do, it'll be a lie, your quote works both ways... everyone is a critic of abuse of power until they're the ones wielding the power.

You might also rent a copy of "Enemy of the State"

[west3man]

Since it came to light about Bush spying on America (this isn't really going to be about politics so you can keep reading) I've been arguing with my sister and my Mom about it. My brother and I are against it and when we start arguing it always comes down to this: If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

That line bothers me on just about every level, but for the life of me I can't think of anything good to say to counter it. I've tried to say that all of us are innocent till proven guilty, and they say that this proves who is innocent and who is guilty.

So, what is a good way to defeat their argument?It's about two very important things: rights and rules.

I believe we have the right to privacy.
If you do, as well, then there's your response. Innocent people deserve to be free to unreasonable violations of their rights. Does that mean they'd NEVER have to sacrifice it, even a little? Probably not, but it means that a damned good overall reason to violate ANYONE'S rights isn't enough. One needs a damned good reason to violate MY rights or YOUR rights or THEIR rights in a given situation.

Think of the irony of condemning those who violate the rights of others, while doing the very same thing to CATCH those rights violators.


The second thing, which I touched on above, is the fact that we have rules.
We've basically got a contract to give to work for our government and for our government to work for us... abiding by certain rules and laws. The government choosing not to honor its end to us, while wanting us to honor ours is a dangerous brand of hypocrisy.

Hypocritical irony.

[Michael P]

If they do, it'll be a lie, your quote works both ways... everyone is a critic of abuse of power until they're the ones wielding the power.

You might also rent a copy of "Enemy of the State"
Or read Kafka's "The Trial," which makes the same point and doesn't suck.

[PatrickG]

If they do, it'll be a lie, your quote works both ways... everyone is a critic of abuse of power until they're the ones wielding the power.

You might also rent a copy of "Enemy of the State"

That's why we need people who oppose either side being given too much power.

You can never have too much gridlock.

[Charles RB]

So, what is a good way to defeat their argument?

Well, the "if you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about" line assumes the government is going to be infallible and competent all the time. It will never screw up, and it will never go mistake innocent people for terrorists due to a mess-up on their part.

Except the government isn't infallible and always competent. So innocent people will have something to worry about.

[tricksterpup]

I guess my response would be the same as Adam Ant's," YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEY ARE OUT TO GET ME" while waving a pistol around.

[Michael P]

Pointing them to the Declaration of Independence would also be a good move.

"See this? This is the kind of shit we kicked the British out for."

[BlairH]

Or read Kafka's "The Trial," which makes the same point and doesn't suck.

Does "The Trial" have Gene Hackman in it? NO! Therefor I doth decree that it sucks!

[PatrickG]

Does "The Trial" have Gene Hackman in it? NO! Therefor I doth decree that it sucks!

Yes. Kafka pales before the cinematic masterpiece that was SUPERMAN IV. I hear the AFI only forgot to rank it as the #1 film of the 20th century because they knew it would be too obvious as the greatest film ever made to any TRUE film afficanado.

[Adam Crocker]

Blair beat me to it. Basically, the govenrment is deciding for itself who fits the definition of guilty. Ask your mom, "And what will you say if they decide *you* fit that definition?"

Exactly. And to add a real-word example, shortly after the Abu-Gharib scandal broke it was found that close to 90% of the people held in the prison were not in fact guilty of the allegations they were held on, and many were picked up at random on patrol sweeps.

[Gilda Dent]

If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

This is true, you shouldn't. That, however, is an idealistic statement. In practice, the innocent often do have something to worry about. In reality, we often have things that are not in and of themselves harmful, illegal, or immoral, which nonetheless we would like to keep private.

Privacy is a necessary component lying beneath all individual rights, the right to free speech, religion: it's the foundation of the concept of private property and the family as the basic unit of society, of capitalism as an economic system. Far too much of our way of life simply does not function efficiently without a degree of privacy.

Gilda

[west3man]

Gilda's highlighting this sentence kinda put it in a new light for me: "If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about."

That's right. You shouldn't have anything to worry about... including unreasonable and unnecessary rights violations perpetrated by the folks who are supposed to be protecting you.

[Sanagi]

In addition to the above... Granting the government the power to spy on you requires trusting the government not to abuse that power. Which is an offense against common sense worth sending the offender back to preschool to get learnt up proper this time.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I may be in the minority here, but I think it's okay for America to spy on us. For one thing, it's worked hasn't it? I mean, I'm still here, and am not that worried about any terrorists, or whatever, attacking me, so it's gotta be working, at least somewhat, right?

And besides, isn't the government only searching for terrorist related activites? If you are somehow related, shouldn't we be thankful that our government is actually trying to protect us?

What good are rights if we're all dead?

[Sanagi]

What good are rights if we're all dead?
If you're worried about getting killed, worry about cars. They're thousands of times more likely to kill you than terrorists.

[BlairH]

I may be in the minority here, but I think it's okay for America to spy on us. For one thing, it's worked hasn't it? I mean, I'm still here, and am not that worried about any terrorists, or whatever, attacking me, so it's gotta be working, at least somewhat, right?
I'm still worried about terrorists attacking the US. Terrorists are crafty buggers who will avoid any dragnets set up to catch them. Instead of spying on civvies y'all could have had more air marshalls or more funding for the National Guard.

And besides, isn't the government only searching for terrorist related activites? If you are somehow related, shouldn't we be thankful that our government is actually trying to protect us?
I don't see this as "protection". I see it as "intrusion", and that is not the job of the Government. Ultimately self defense and protection is the responsibility of the individual, and a good way to start protecting yourself is to help to ensure that you aren't being spied upon.

What good are rights if we're all dead?
Ever heard of "live free or die"?

[PatrickG]

I may be in the minority here, but I think it's okay for America to spy on us. For one thing, it's worked hasn't it? I mean, I'm still here, and am not that worried about any terrorists, or whatever, attacking me, so it's gotta be working, at least somewhat, right?


By that logic, the government spying on us has also prevented attacks by flying elephants from Saturn with cybernetic tusks that shoot concentrated X-Rays.

I mean, that hasn't happened since the government started spying on us either.


And besides, isn't the government only searching for terrorist related activites? If you are somehow related, shouldn't we be thankful that our government is actually trying to protect us?


If the government can do what it pleases in my interests without regard to what I feel my interests are, what's to keep their searching confined to the subject of terrorism?

What good are rights if we're all dead?

If rights aren't more important than staying alive, they don't exist in the first place.

[Cotton]

And to add on to my post earlier, basically, the government shouldn't have that kind of power because for its potential for abuse. The government doesn't know what's best for everybody.

As I said before, and you should say it to your mom and sister:

This isn't Communist China:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

[DrewTheXenocide]

Ever heard of "live free or die"?

Well, yeah, but it's not a total infringement of rights. It's been a while since rights haven't been bended during desperate times.

I mean ,it's not like the U.S is turning into a complete despotism or something. Could one argue that this would be a step towards it? Yeah, sure. But as long as we have checks and balances, and proper representation, and all that fun stuff, we oughta be okay.

[DrewTheXenocide]

And to add on to my post earlier, basically, the government shouldn't have that kind of power because for its potential for abuse. The government doesn't know what's best for everybody.

As I said before, and you should say it to your mom and sister:

This isn't Communist China:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg


For some reason, I've alwasy remembered that guy being a lot smaller, and the tanks a lot bigger.

[Iangould]

What was Martin Luther King Jr. guilty of? (Because J. Edgar Hoover spent millions of dolalras in public money spying on him.)

[PatrickG]

I mean ,it's not like the U.S is turning into a complete despotism or something. Could one argue that this would be a step towards it? Yeah, sure. But as long as we have checks and balances, and proper representation, and all that fun stuff, we oughta be okay.

We don't HAVE checks and balances if the executive branch doesn't need warrants.

I'm not crazy about domestic spying in general but all it takes for these cases is a warrant that can be issued AFTER THE SEARCH.

If Bush wanted to do more searching than the judge could reasonably issue warrants for, all it would have taken -- in my eyes -- was to go for more judges in that position so that more warrants could be issued.

Instead, he chose to operate without respecting the checks and balances in place. Which were already REDUCED from the normal approach regarding how to get a warrant.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I may be in the minority here, but I think it's okay for America to spy on us. For one thing, it's worked hasn't it? I mean, I'm still here, and am not that worried about any terrorists, or whatever, attacking me, so it's gotta be working, at least somewhat, right?

Do you see this pencil I'm holding? It's a polar bear repellent. It has a magical enchantment that prevents polar bears from approaching within five miles of it (unless they're already in zoos).

And it must be working, right? After all, there are no polar bears anywhere near me!

[Noah Johnson]

I mean ,it's not like the U.S is turning into a complete despotism or something. Could one argue that this would be a step towards it? Yeah, sure. But as long as we have checks and balances, and proper representation, and all that fun stuff, we oughta be okay.
It's understandable that you'd think that. That's been the spin in the media, but you need to know what that spin is trying to distract you from.

The issue is not the government tapping our phones. They've been able for years to get retroactive warrants to do so if there's suspicion of terrorist activity. They want you to think the issue is tapping our phones. In fact, what they've been doing is tapping phones without warrants, and claiming a legal right to do so based on executive authority. Let me explain how that's very different.

The first, and less scary, difference is that they're not actually going after terrorists. The FBI confirms that almost none of the warrantless wiretaps had even the remotest conceivable connection to terrorism. This makes sense; if there's any connection to terrorism, they can get a warrant. So first, ask yourself why they would need to bypass the warrants unless they KNOW they're tapping people they have no cause to tap.

The second, much worse, difference is that they are claiming that the law does not apply to the president. The legal argument they're making is that the president is the "sole organ" of the United States in matters pertaining to security, and cannot be bound by either laws from the legislative branch or rulings from the judicial branch. This is not exaggeration, this is the actual position being taken by the current administration.

So to correct your understandable misapprehension, the president's position is that we are in fact a despotism, and we do not in fact have any checks and balances.

That's why it's a big deal.

[PatrickG]

The second, much worse, difference is that they are claiming that the law does not apply to the president. The legal argument they're making is that the president is the "sole organ" of the United States in matters pertaining to security, and cannot be bound by either laws from the legislative branch or rulings from the judicial branch. This is not exaggeration, this is the actual position being taken by the current administration.


We need a presidentectomy.

[Paul McEnery]

Since it came to light about Bush spying on America (this isn't really going to be about politics so you can keep reading) I've been arguing with my sister and my Mom about it. My brother and I are against it and when we start arguing it always comes down to this: If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

That line bothers me on just about every level, but for the life of me I can't think of anything good to say to counter it. I've tried to say that all of us are innocent till proven guilty, and they say that this proves who is innocent and who is guilty.

So, what is a good way to defeat their argument?
No one is innocent.

[MKTerra]

Interestingly enough, this issue came up the other day on Slashdot too, with the posting of this news story (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html) about the Houston police chief wanting to put video cameras in homes. And yep, that reasoning comes up: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

Anyway, someone reposted someone else's words from a few months ago. See if this makes any sense:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"

"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

[Paul McEnery]

Does "The Trial" have Gene Hackman in it? NO! Therefor I doth decree that it sucks!
Roddy McDowell and Orson Welles trump Gene Hackman.

[Michael P]

Do you see this pencil I'm holding? It's a polar bear repellent. It has a magical enchantment that prevents polar bears from approaching within five miles of it (unless they're already in zoos).

And it must be working, right? After all, there are no polar bears anywhere near me!
Aaron, I would like to buy your pencil.

[Night]

What you do if you really want to make a project of it... buy a bunch of mini spy cams... record them for a week (make sure you get one in the car) and show them a highlight video. The warning against doing so to family is you might see things you'd rather not.

[Johnny Morningstar]

If you don't have anything to hide in your rectum, then you won't mind the cavity search.

[BlairH]

No one is innocent.

There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.

[nubly]

Since it came to light about Bush spying on America (this isn't really going to be about politics so you can keep reading) I've been arguing with my sister and my Mom about it. My brother and I are against it and when we start arguing it always comes down to this: If you are innocent then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

That line bothers me on just about every level, but for the life of me I can't think of anything good to say to counter it. I've tried to say that all of us are innocent till proven guilty, and they say that this proves who is innocent and who is guilty.

So, what is a good way to defeat their argument?
i dont think there is an argument for it. and if there is a law that allows bush to do what he did then i dont see what the problem is

[Shellhead]

If you don't have anything to hide in your rectum, then you won't mind the cavity search.

That's excellent, but Rabid Trekkie probably doesn't want to use that line in his argument with his mom and his sister.

[Winslow]

It's unconstitutional:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

What's the next right your Mom and Sister want to cede to the government because it's not their concern? Freedom of religion? Freedom of Speech?


As long as their religion and speech don't "threaten the government" - why should they care?

[nubly]

He is damned either way. americans will bitch if He doesnt do anything to protect america from terrosists and they'll bitch if He does something to protect america against terrorists. no matter what your opinion on bush is, you have to agree that he is one man that gets what he wants

[PatrickG]

So if he is damned either way, he should be damned on the side of the constitution he took an oath to protect.

[Calybos]

One way to counter that argument is by pointing out that it reverses the basic principle of our justice system: it says that government should treat everyone as "guilty until proven innocent."

In other words, they're allowed to violate my rights, your rights, and (quite frankly) anybody's rights whenever they feel like it, as long as it winds up catching some guilty parties. By treating everyone like they have no rights, even before proof of any wrongdoing is obtained.

That's a tyrannical regime, and it's pretty clearly in conflict with the operating principles of our democracy.

[Hoss]

What you do if you really want to make a project of it... buy a bunch of mini spy cams... record them for a week (make sure you get one in the car) and show them a highlight video. The warning against doing so to family is you might see things you'd rather not.


Actually, this is a good point. Just put a camera in the bathroom and record what goes on in there 24/7 and send the tape to some stranger that lives in the next town over. Then ask them to allow a complete stranger that lives in your town to listen to all of their phone conversations. Then ask them to allow someone they know socially to read all of their e-mails.

People tend to think of these things happening in a way that will never touch their lives. They fail to realize that it might be the guy up the street that works for the government and will be reading their e-mails.

[nubly]

So if he is damned either way, he should be damned on the side of the constitution he took an oath to protect.
but the law does allow Him to do what He did. i forget what its called but i'll post it when i get home

[Calybos]

Really? I'd love to see any constitutional support whatsoever for this "Unitary Executive" nonsense they've been spewing, let alone the power to spy on citizens without a warrant.

As I recall, we once had an impeachment over a president lying and spying on people illegally.

[Noah Johnson]

He is damned either way. americans will bitch if He doesnt do anything to protect america from terrosists and they'll bitch if He does something to protect america against terrorists. no matter what your opinion on bush is, you have to agree that he is one man that gets what he wants
nubly, did you even read my earlier post?

This program is not about terrorism and it is not, in any way, legal. Let it go.

[nubly]

Really? I'd love to see any constitutional support whatsoever for this "Unitary Executive" nonsense they've been spewing, let alone the power to spy on citizens without a warrant.

As I recall, we once had an impeachment over a president lying and spying on people illegally.
basically what happend is that He asked the attorney general to find a loop hole, which he did. it contradicts itself with another law though

[Paul McEnery]

basically what happend is that He asked the attorney general to find a loop hole, which he did. it contradicts itself with another law though
What? "The attorney general, who I appointed because he's a neo-fascist who'll back me all the way, said it was okay, so it must be." Is that the idea?

[nubly]

What? "The attorney general, who I appointed because he's a neo-fascist who'll back me all the way, said it was okay, so it must be." Is that the idea?
the attorney general said it was ok because he found a law that said its ok

[Noah Johnson]

the attorney general said it was ok because he found a law that said its ok
No he didn't.

He said he found a law that says it's okay.

If you read the law, it says it is not okay.

End of debate.

[nubly]

we were talking about this at my political science class the other day. attorney general gonzalez went bac to some pamphlets that were written in (i beleive it was) the 1700s. they arent really the lw but called the exectuve priveldge allows bush to use these pamphletes without congress OKing what he did

[Paul McEnery]

we were talking about this at my political science class the other day. attorney general gonzalez went bac to some pamphlets that were written in (i beleive it was) the 1700s. they arent really the lw but called the exectuve priveldge allows bush to use these pamphletes without congress OKing what he did
Er, exactly.

It's illegal. Gonzalez is megareaching to find an excuse, and failing.

Now when did it become the job of the attorney general to make legal excuses for the government?

[nubly]

Er, exactly.

It's illegal. Gonzalez is megareaching to find an excuse, and failing.

Now when did it become the job of the attorney general to make legal excuses for the government?
im not into politics. i dont follow current events. im just parroting what my teacher said. she said what he did was legal, by law. gonzalez found a loop hole with those pamphlets (i'll get the names of them when i go home). the reason why bush is in trouble isnt because he was spying. its because he didnt go through congress (or FISA or something like that), which the exective privlegde states he doesnt need to go through congress

[BlairH]

she said what he did was legal, by law.
No. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme source of law, and domestic spying without a warrant certianly isn't in the spirit of that particular document.

That said. I'm a man who likes Bush :D It's just I'd rather he stop being an arse with constitutional matters, the man should learn to respect his own citizens. Whilst I do approve of his foreign policy of kicking-ass and taking-names, I'm not too keen on a few matters of his domestic policy:

a) Social security reform: I was hoping he'd adopt something akin to what Loren posted a wee while ago, as this would be more in-keeping with small-government conservative principles.

b) That friggin' border! The mexican border is wide open, and this is allowing drug smugglers through (some disguised as Mexican military)

c) Wiping his ass on the Constitution: We have a Republican president, and both houses are held by the Republicans for now. Why doesn't the President aim to repeal the unconstitutional and useless import ban on firearms? The ban in question is an affront to the principles of free market capitalism (it's basically protectionism) and indeed the 2nd ammendment.

Then there's this whole domestic spying malarky, which has already been discussed at length.

[nubly]

No. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme source of law, and domestic spying without a warrant certianly isn't in the spirit of that particular document.
i agree. unfortunately it doesnt work that way. especially when the person we are talking about has money

[PatrickG]

i agree. unfortunately it doesnt work that way. especially when the person we are talking about has money

So... What you're saying is, people with power don't have to obey the law?

Why would you be willing to accept that?

[Calybos]

I don't think he's saying we should accept that... just that it's how things are.

[Michael P]

Gonzalez tried to pull out executive privelege? Seriously?

Christ, the balls on these people. Executive privelege is a no-go when the President doesn't want to testify about his blowjobs, but apparently hunky-dory when he wants to spy on innocent citizens.

[Samurai]

Gonzalez tried to pull out executive privelege? Seriously?

Christ, the balls on these people. Executive privelege is a no-go when the President doesn't want to testify about his blowjobs, but apparently hunky-dory when he wants to spy on innocent citizens.
What innocent civilians? No one has yet proven that they spied on anyone who was not receiving phone calls from Al Queda...

[Noah Johnson]

What innocent civilians? No one has yet proven that they spied on anyone who was not receiving phone calls from Al Queda...
So you implicitly acknowledge Bush's dictatorial powers, implying that it is right that the American president should not be subject to American law, and in support of this you make a statement that has already been proven false (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html).

I think it's time to admit that the Republicans are just plain wrong about this.

[Michael P]

So you implicitly acknowledge Bush's dictatorial powers, implying that it is right that the American president should not be subject to American law, and in support of this you make a statement that has already been proven false (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html).

I think it's time to admit that the Republicans are just plain wrong about this.
And as long as we're wishing, I want Alyson Hannigan to show up on my doorstep wearing a bikini made of blue Saran Wrap.

[MKTerra]

What innocent civilians? No one has yet proven that they spied on anyone who was not receiving phone calls from Al Queda...Guilty until proven innocent?

[nubly]

Guilty until proven innocent?
yes. if americans were innocent until proven guilty, then there wouldnt be any need to arrest and/or lock up people before a trial

[Paul McEnery]

And as long as we're wishing, I want Alyson Hannigan to show up on my doorstep wearing a bikini made of blue Saran Wrap.
Green, surely.

Blue wouldn't go with her hair.

[PatrickG]

What innocent civilians? No one has yet proven that they spied on anyone who was not receiving phone calls from Al Queda...

If Al Queda was smart, they'd divert some of the suicide bombers to start calling random people to get them investigated.

Imagine a few thousand innocent people being investigated by the FBI and possibly arrested...

[PatrickG]

yes. if americans were innocent until proven guilty, then there wouldnt be any need to arrest and/or lock up people before a trial

If I believed what you were saying, I would consider a full scale revolution perfectly justifiable.

[heretic]

What was Martin Luther King Jr. guilty of? (Because J. Edgar Hoover spent millions of dolalras in public money spying on him.)
Disruption of the social order. Besides, only a Communist would speak against the Glory that is America.

Seriously, citizens should have at least as much of a view into the Government as Government has into the lives of Citizens.

HTG

[redlantern2051]

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out



I love this peice of writing. It brings shivers to me, every time.