| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
It has been a while since anyone here spoke of anything political. I would like to know how everyone else feels about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without warrants.
Do you think its legal or illegal? Do you think such government listening is acceptable in order to protect Americans from potential terrorists, or do you think such listening is an unacceptable intrusion upon our right to privacy, etc.? If you think it is illegal, do you think it is impeachable or not?
I have my own opinions, but I want to hear (or rather read) what everyone else thinks.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:43 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
I don't really have a problem with it. It's not like I've got anything to hide. That said, it's certainly a slippery slope.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:54 pm |
|
|
titus
Survivor of Hell
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 778
Location: Standing at the Hell mouth |
well I may not be an American but I would be against it, eventhough if you got nothing to hide, you have the right on your privacy and , wel lwiretapping without a well founded reason would be a violation fo your privacy.
Tell bush that Big Brother is a TV show and A book but not a real way of living 
_________________
Want to become a vampire? a warrior in the battle between vampires and werewolves?
http://monstersgame.nl/?ac=vid&vid=12007139 |
|
Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:34 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Itīs another proof that "terrorist" or "good guy" is only a matter of perspective and definition. Islamist fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalist - all the same.
Didnīt similar stuff cost Nixon his presidency? Where is the uproar now?
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:39 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Not being American it's hard to find the right perspective but I definitely think it's a slippery slope. Many generally define our western existences as having freedoms and liberties other places in the world don't have - erroding them eats at the core that makes us what we are.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:13 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I guess everyone who cares to leave an opinion has left one so I will now state mine.
Whether the people feel okay with it or not is irrelevant. It is clearly illegal. The test for legality is simple in this case. 1)Does the law say he must get a warrant? 2) Did he get a warrant? Since the law says that he must get warrants, yet he did not get warrants, he broke the law pure and simple.
It is unacceptable that any government official be allowed break the law, especially the one person at the top of the government. Pointing to a threat doesn't matter. There is always someone who doesn't like us. There is always going to be a threat. When this threat passes another will rise. That is the way of life. President Bush wants or expects us to be cowards about it. He needs the people to be so afraid of terrorists and the threat they pose that they don't focus on anything else. He seems to figure that if people are afraid that they will give the President the power to protect the public from itself.
I know there are terrorists out there but I am not afraid. The school yard bully can't simply shake his fist at me and make me wet my pants. By the same token, I am not going to give Bush my lunch money because he says he can protect me from the bully. I am not afraid of terrorist. We are not afriad of terrorist. I, We, are going to go about life as usual until we find any terrorist(s). Then I, We, are going to break his spirit and go looking for the next one. In the mean time its business as usual. This "license to break the law" crap, is not gonna fly.
I don't want the government monitoring my communication. But that someone may have heard what I said is doesn't bother me, like Dteowner, I have nothing to hide. However, what bothers me far more than the listening is the fact that Bush held a press conference and announced that he had broken the law and that he was going to keep breaking the law, and that as President he had the authority to break the law. The President of the United States does not have the power to break the law. That he says he does is a makes his offense impeachable. But I don't want to see him impeached. Because, frankly, I trust Bush more than I trust Cheney.
I would like to see Congress issue some sort of formal reprimand or punishment short of impeachment.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:08 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Not sure that I'm convinced, Darrius, but I'll ask you this:
Were Congress to address the issue, do you really believe it would have anything to do with the laws of the land?
It would be political grandstanding at its very worst. Both sides of the aisle would be wrapping themselves in some sort of moral highground (probably one side more than the other, but both nonetheless) seeking to gain some political advantage. The glowing ideal at the core of the discussion would be lost amidst all the slung mud.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:27 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
Not sure that I'm convinced, Darrius, but I'll ask you this:
Were Congress to address the issue, do you really believe it would have anything to do with the laws of the land?
It would be political grandstanding at its very worst. Both sides of the aisle would be wrapping themselves in some sort of moral highground (probably one side more than the other, but both nonetheless) seeking to gain some political advantage. The glowing ideal at the core of the discussion would be lost amidst all the slung mud.
Yes, it would be about the laws of the land, I think. I agree that there would be quite a bit of political grandstanding as well, although I don't know if it would be the worst though.
That is irrelevant as well, though. The end result would be necessary, that is Congress would express the message that the President can not wiretap without a warrant.
So they would grandstand, but they are always grandstanding. One side would claim the moral high ground, but one side is always claiming the moral high ground. They would seek to gain political advantage from it, but again they always seek to gain political advantage from everything. So really there is no change there.
The issue is important enough to go warrant congressional action. A President can not be allow to break the law because there is a terrorist somewhere. That is not even an unusual circumstance. A terrorist can be one man. A terrorist can come from any country including our own, and can subscribe to any philosophy. Once Islamic terrorists are defeated, there will be some other wacko believing in some other lunacy and using terrorism. We can not be afraid of that to the point that we give away liberties.
Added on 01/30/06 10:39 AM CST
The Los Angeles Times just released a poll. In that poll, 51% of people said that "Americans should be willing to give up some other their civil liberties so the government can keep the country safe from terrorism" 40% percent of the people said that we should not.
If that is not a sign of cowardice, I don't know what is. 51% percent of the people are willing to become second-class citizens in hopes of avoiding people who are so weak that they only attack when no one is looking. It's stupid. It's stupid. It's stupid.
Only a coward would give up their rights without a fight. They are afraid to take a punch and woulld go to any lengths to avoid confronting that bully. But that is dumb because its going to help the terrorists. Any liberty taken from us they will retain. They know they are breaking the law anyway. Our giving up liberties would make them more powerful and make us weaker.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
