New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Dude. A theatre fire doesn't have to be in the same damn room as the people. HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID? People are not going to wait around to see if maybe there is a fire or maybe there isn't. They are going to haul ass.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Dude. A theatre fire doesn't have to be in the same damn room as the people. HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID? People are not going to wait around to see if maybe there is a fire or maybe there isn't. They are going to haul ass.

Sounds like someone wasn't reading. I just finished saying that it doesn't matter, because that's not the main argument. It's just some trivial bullshit on the side.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Then why the hell do you keep bringing up how it's not your fault that a bunch of stupid people can't see a fire in the same room? If it's not the main argument, then quit bringing it up.

The fact remains that there are limits to our rights, inalienable as they may be. Maybe that's not the way they were intended, but that's the reality. If your problem with the reality is because you think things should be your own fantasy version, then that's your problem. But if you have actual, valid reasons, then that's something people can talk about.

So far you've just come off as flippant and dickish with anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their reasons for doing so. You're insulting everyone's intelligence, telling them that they just don't understand what you are saying, or that they are illiterate, or anything to distract you from having to actually address the points they are bringing up.

Way to debate.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Then why the hell do you keep bringing up how it's not your fault that a bunch of stupid people can't see a fire in the same room? If it's not the main argument, then quit bringing it up.

Wow. You're not paying attention at all. I just got finished saying that it was trivial and it wasn't worth talking about anymore.

The fact remains that there are limits to our rights, inalienable as they may be.

The limits are in place based on probable cause, not unknown agendas. The reason we have probable cause is because we can establish that if this right isn't circumvented, other rights may be or have been violated.

I'll finish when I get back. Going to the store.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Wow. You're not paying attention at all. I just got finished saying that it was trivial and it wasn't worth talking about anymore.

I am paying attention. You said it didn't matter, but then got in one final jab about how only stupid people wouldn't notice a fire in the same room. Which - not the point, but it does show a little bit of your character in that you simply must have the last word.

The limits are in place based on probable cause, not unknown agendas. The reason we have probable cause is because we can establish that if this right isn't circumvented, other rights may be or have been violated.

I'll finish when I get back. Going to the store.

So what would you have the government do instead? I mean, yes, I get that there is a danger of slowly chipping away at our freedoms, but on the other hand, I'd kind of like the government to do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety of myself and my fellow citizens. It's a difficult call to make.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

What you are all saying is that just because there are cases in which the advocation of rights are debatable, you're using that as an excuse to bypass the whole process for investigations we wouldn't be aware on any matter for no reason. By that logic, we should throw out the concept of checks and balances and let the government proverbially shit all over the Constitution.

Originally I started claiming that I didn't think this was that big of a deal considering there were "larger fish to fry" and that the effects of this were negligible. This sort of thing is always going to happen. ALWAYS. As much as it shouldn't it is, so pick your battles. Someone listening to a phone call you have with a suspect overseas is petty crap. Think of the legal proceedings that would need to take place for warrant to listen to each call from a suspect to each citizen. By the time you get it, you've missed some information that might have mattered. This doesn't effect the everyday citizen for the most part, granted I can see how it can be distorted and taken that way, of which I personally am not too concerned. Also, I hate to make a fool of myself, but inalienable rights are impractical. Yes, they're ideal, and I would personally like them to be like that, but in the real world there needs to be give and take. This is a minor give. Watch out for major takes, such as the Patriot Act.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

The reason for the limits on our rights is predicated upon real and public threats. What the Bush administration is doing is stirring up panic and paranoia in order to get the people to give up their otherwise inalienable rights to pursue a relatively unknown agenda. And "since you can't seem to wrap your head around it I'll say it plainly again just this once": Inalienable rights cannot be given or taken away, by definition.
The Constitution is the law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret it. Not dictate it.

I don't know where you think this herding is going, but last I checked more than 60% of the country was disapproving of the current administration. Also, I think there is a real and public threat between communication between suspects in other countries and individuals here, and yes, I know what inalienable rights are, but I view that as impractical in certain situations. I am against things like unwarranted seizures, general wiretaps, uncharged arrests, etc... but I personally feel that this is something alright to deal with in weight with the benefits that might result from it. Also yeah, the Constitution is law, but laws change and NEED to change to keep up with the different changes within the flow of society. The constitution isn't going to last us till this nation dies or dissolves.

[Cometgreen]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

To say that it might be a 'miracle' that this country will have any personal rights left in 20 years, when we've only been gaining more and more over the past two centuries is an ignorant thing to think.

To pretend that there has been no degradation of our liberties in the past few years is even more ignorant. And I'm not sure how you can say we've been gaining "more and more" rights over the last 200 years, given that the government has only grown larger since 1789. Governments grow -> liberties shrink.

Oh, and about SCOTUS making a decision. Right or wrong doesn't matter, what they say is law.

Though it's always fun to remember that Supreme Court decisions can be completely ignored. They could suddenly rule that the Congressional pension plan is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean Congress has to stop the program.

The big danger of this legislation is that it's such a slippery slope. The Executive Branch was recently given the power to confiscate your property if they decide you're damaging the political or economic reconstruction in Iraq. Will this eavesdropping program mean they'll now listen in when you're discussing the war in Iraq with your Swedish friend? What if you mention you think the troops should come home, regardless if it means chaos in Iraq? What if I simply say I hate Bush and can't wait for a new President? They could decide that I'm a potential threat to the Iraqi government, and given the extraordinary powers they now have to search and confiscate my property, this could mean more than listening in on a personal conversation. It seems like, in every piece of legislation these days, it's left up to the President to decide what constitutes a terrorist.

There's also the issue that the Democrats have yet again caved into the Administration. I wonder if things will actually change in 2008.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I am paying attention. You said it didn't matter, but then got in one final jab about how only stupid people wouldn't notice a fire in the same room. Which - not the point, but it does show a little bit of your character in that you simply must have the last word.

You got the times mixed up. I said it didn't matter after I was debating it.

So what would you have the government do instead?

I'm a critic. Not a politician. Not my call.

I mean, yes, I get that there is a danger of slowly chipping away at our freedoms, but on the other hand, I'd kind of like the government to do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety of myself and my fellow citizens. It's a difficult call to make.

If our country didn't have an imperialist agenda, we wouldn't be hated by other countries. Besides, we don't even know if our government is doing what is necessary, because they aren't disclosing anything about the process and they are pulling out the stops to make sure no one finds out. And frankly, I don't have a doubt in my mind that Bush isn't doing much, as he has yielded no results from the suspension of our right to privacy and habeas corpus.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I'd kind of like the government to do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety of myself and my fellow citizens

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with the government allowing and even licensing people to drive cars? Nearly fifty thousand people die every year in the United States from traffic accidents, that's FAR more than would be killed in most typical terrorist attacks.

I know disallowing nongovernment use of motor vehicles would do a HELLUVA lot more good than unchecked spying on anyone who happens to talk to someone outside the country.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with the government allowing and even licensing people to drive cars? Nearly fifty thousand people die every year in the United States from traffic accidents, that's FAR more than would be killed in most typical terrorist attacks.

I know disallowing nongovernment use of motor vehicles would do a HELLUVA lot more good than unchecked spying on anyone who happens to talk to someone outside the country.

Talk about a ridiculous argument (that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). Drivers are fully grown adults who accept the risks of being on the road in a vehicle, and are subject to the necessary costs, laws, and other applicable rules for that. Yes, there are a lot of accidents, but just because a lot of people die in auto accidents doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be doing what it can in order to prevent further acts of terrorism, or other problems in our country (disasters, epidemics, etc.) That's their job.

You used that same argument last week to suggest that because a bunch of people die one way, people shouldn't be upset when less people die another way. It makes sense logically, but humans aren't wholly logical creatures, so as an argument, it fails.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I'm a critic. Not a politician. Not my call.

Exactly. You're an armchair politician. You want the right to bitch freely, but you don't want to have to do anything about it, or apparently, even come up with a theoretical solution.

If our country didn't have an imperialist agenda, we wouldn't be hated by other countries. Besides, we don't even know if our government is doing what is necessary, because they aren't disclosing anything about the process and they are pulling out the stops to make sure no one finds out. And frankly, I don't have a doubt in my mind that Bush isn't doing much, as he has yielded no results from the suspension of our right to privacy and habeas corpus.

If it matters to you that much, then write a letter to your congressman. Vote in your local and national elections, etc. I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. Bitching about it on a Final Fantasy forum isn't going to do anything at all.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Talk about a ridiculous argument (that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). Drivers are fully grown adults who accept the risks of being on the road in a vehicle, and are subject to the necessary costs, laws, and other applicable rules for that. Yes, there are a lot of accidents, but just because a lot of people die in auto accidents doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be doing what it can in order to prevent further acts of terrorism, or other problems in our country (disasters, epidemics, etc.) That's their job.

You're a piece of work. He just gave a parallel example that contradicts your argument. If giving up our right to privacy supposedly saves lives, then why not give up our right to drive and save even more lives?

Exactly. You're an armchair politician. You want the right to bitch freely, but you don't want to have to do anything about it, or apparently, even come up with a theoretical solution.

Didn't I just get finished saying that I'm not a politician? You're just calling me a whiner because you can't prove me wrong.

If it matters to you that much, then write a letter to your congressman.

Last I checked, my politicians don't support Bush.

Vote in your local and national elections, etc.

I'm 16.

I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. Bitching about it on a Final Fantasy forum isn't going to do anything at all.

No, but it's enjoyable knowing that you can't prove me wrong. Perhaps you should get off your ass and do something for once.

[Cometgreen]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I know political discussions almost always lead to flame wars, but I don't understand how this one started. It's like you two are trying to get into a petty shouting match.

Feba's example is acceptable, I think. Your response that adults drive cars knowing the risks is, I assume, just the point he is making. I know going outside to the store means I could be mugged, run over, hit by lightning, or blown up by a terrorist, but I accept the risks as they are. I leave my front door unlocked during the day, even though it means someone could walk in and shoot me. A bureaucrat watching me in my house could deter criminals and increase my safety, but I don't want the government watching me in my own house.

Essentially, as Ben Franklin said, those who give up liberty for a little security deserve neither, and will lose both.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

You're a piece of work. He just gave a parallel example that contradicts your argument. If giving up our right to privacy supposedly saves lives, then why not give up our right to drive and save even more lives?

Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. Hence the licensing, purchasing of a vehicle, and so forth. It's not a parallel example at all.

Didn't I just get finished saying that I'm not a politician? You're just calling me a whiner because you can't prove me wrong.

No, I'm calling you a whiner because you're being a whiner.

Last I checked, my politicians don't support Bush.

So write to the ones who do?

I'm 16.

Well, that explains a lot.

No, but it's enjoyable knowing that you can't prove me wrong. Perhaps you should get off your ass and do something for once.

What is this "prove you wrong" business? You have an opinion. It's a stupid one, but it's still just an opinion. You can't prove opinions wrong, genius.