Bush spies on Americans

I have always operated under the assumption that government / police could ALREADY look up anything they wanted about me on some central computer. So I guess that's why this 'news' doesn't worry me too much.

 

Um, how about this: Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior

It does not have to be something illegal which brings you to their attention. In this case he student was apparently having a perfectly good reason to check out that book. Now, what would happen if , let's say, I'd just be curious and borrow that book. Then it might be not so easy to explain it.

And about the argument that you don't really care if what you do is public knowledge: more power to you, but apparently not everybody thinks so:

 

While there have been conflicting reports about this case, it it nevertheless instructive of what can happen if your name appears on THE LIST. Remember, you don't have any rights if the government says "you don't" under the current regime. It amazes me that people are willing to sell out their liberties so cheaply.

Jefferson felt that the people needed the Bill of Rights to protect them from the government (not from violent crminals). "The government is best, which governs least." That was Tom Paine. He was also a smart man. Too bad we don't have more of them in the current regime.

http://www.counterpunch.org/oden4.html

 

I still assumed that they already had access to the information. Maybe this is because of all those police movies where they always seem to be able to bring up anybody's details on their screen at the touch of a button.

 

I think that the communist book thing pretty much illustrates the point of why it is a bad thing for the government to be doing this - for starters, the book didn't have anything to do with terrorists. It's about communists - and while the American government traditionally has a phobia of communists - that doesn't mean that they/their literature should be targeted by homeland security. That has nothing to do with security, and one might hesitantly suggest (at the risk of being lynched and called paranoid) an attempt to intimidate political opponents...

 

I already said I dispise this goverment control, but in the case of commies, they should indeed be kept under tight control and observance. Of course this is not the case with this guy who have bought the book for academic purposes. Just to know the goverment controls everything that you buy is disturbing enough.

 

OK, I've read articles on this, and while it is very unnerving, I can't believe that technically, this isn't illegal. What justification does Bush have for expanding these powers so dramatically?

 

9/11. What other justification has he ever needed?

 

The thing to do is when you have a phone call don't say anything beyond:

1. Hello (but don't say your name)
2. I'm sorry I can't talk to you my government doesn't recognise my civil rights.
3. Goodbye

You may still get arrested for un-american activities and held for trial without process or human/civil rights; I'm sorry that was McCarthy wasn't it

 

DarkStrider, you can do the same that I do(because I know that SÄPO, the Swedish CIA practically, is checking up on me every now and then for being an open, demonstration-organizing, leftist*) is to end every phone conversation with this:

"Oh yeah, and by the way, <insert government leader name> is gay."

So simple, but still so fun.


*It have been revealed that SÄPO have been monitoring over 60000 Swedish leftist politicans and activist.

 

I am of the firm belief that the governments of the world would be much better off actually punishing the guilty than spying on the innocent. Once they catch some bona fide terrorist or criminal, they should be able to do more than slap them on the wrist.

 

Be careful LKD that's close to treason, next you'll expect the security forces to stop terrorism, the police to catch criminals and the justice system to work for everybody not for who has the biggest wallet.

EDIT: Oh and of course the government to work for the people that vote, not big business that pays them

 

Democracy at work. Remember that all the governments you are talking about were voted in by a large chunk of the population.

But until one of you is personally impacted by all of this so-called spying, I still think you're being cynical and paranoid.

 

That's not the point. Almost anyone can get elected these days if he/she has a fat enough wallet. Nixon was elected by a large chunk of the population and had to leave office. It is because of him that the 1972 laws were reviewed around government surveillance of its citizens. It may be that under those laws it is illegal for Bush to wire-tap the phones of unsuspecting Americans, without the due process of law. In that case he has done something illegal. If he has then he should be prosecuted, just as anyone else would.

 

First off...the very title of this thread is misleading...let's try and make thread titles relevant to the pertinent news story, not what we want it to be.

Read the stories and get the facts, people. Bush has not been spying on Americans...the CIA has been keeping track of suspected terrorists by monitoring telephone calls leaving and entering the country. The Executive order to monitor these international calls has been renewed 30 times, with the knowledge of senior members of Congress.

This is far less than has been done in wartime by presidents from either end of the political spectrum. This modern era with readily obtainable cell phones and the ability to quickly pick up a new number, use it for a short period of time, then dump it for a new one requires that action be taken quickly. Heck, this process of "number jumping" is one of the tip-offs that the Justice Department uses to pin point suspects.

The old standby system of going to court to obtain an order for wiretap just won't work in these cases. Besides...as has already been said...these are people who are already suspects, and it's only the calls entering and leaving the Country. I'm glad they're doing it, and hope they keep it up.

 

Yay. That is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

 

Harbourboy, I have been personally impacted by government over-kill. Now not recently but going back to McCarthy. I was a bit young then but friends and family members were affected.

And, yes, this does make me parinoid when the government goes beyond its legislated powers. If the CIA, FBI or whatever is not subject to the law everyone is in trouble.

I also remember the Kent University killings. Perfectly legal but innocent people died. I have very strong feelings about the government over reaching itself. I have known people whose lives were ruinned for no other reason then that in their youth they belonged to an organization that the government decided was questionable.

But then I consider myself a 60's child and right there I'm in trouble. I do not wish to be put in the position of needing to agree to what my government is doing. Jefferson would turn over in his grave and we don't want that do we?

 

A fair point, but there should be some provision for obtaining a warrant after the interceptions have commenced. Operational necessity sometimes demands greater flexibility than the law allows, which is why you'd introduce an emergency provision. I haven't heard anything at all about that in connection to this matter (which isn't to say it doesn't exist).

Um, weren't quite a few of the people under technically-illegal surveillance anti-war activists? I find some of them fairly offensive, sure, but they're hardly suburban terrorists. I am more concerned with the seemingly politicised use of this executive discretion by Bush and the side-stepping of due process.

To be fair, it isn't my country where this is happening. Australia has a tendency to follow the US, though.

 

And that is why representative democracy sucks - after you've voted them in, you're back to being powerless.