It should be available

I didn't hear you say you disagree with the current administration's over use of illegal monitoring. If you're okay with it, certainly you won't mind when Hillary is watching where you get your favorite online porn.

I think you're 100 percent correct. If the government were held accountable and only used eavesdropping for a limited scope that would be fine, the problem is that the bush admin. is so incredibly secretive and it's such a slippery slope to get started on that once we start giving in on issues like this, it will be extremely difficult to get them to relinquish that power.

He mentions the trigger conversation ...911

Well I think we should have the right to easedrop on our Government. No more "priveledged" or "closed sessions for Cheney! And yeah anyone who would kill so many people...ie tens of thousands of Iraqs people, any one like that should be watched! And they should be thrown out of our White house. The problem is that "we the people" are afraid of our government. I am not for violent revolution, but I am for a Democratic "solution". Impeach and fire this president and the world will begin its healing. Until radical moves like that are taken we are in danger with every dollar we spend tward the war. We will reap what we sow.

so it should be available but limited in scope...wait...like getting a warrant to do so...

Victims of fearmongering are easily manipulated into complacency over such issues. Civil rights being eroded incrementally (so as not to raise alarms) and steadily open doors for fascist regimes to assume power. Jihadists are not the only danger facing the world today. Focusing all our attention on this single threat could be a devastating error to the security of our nation.

The checks and balances are there for a reason. It works very well. Fear--not reason--dominates your way of thinking.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. THIS IS FAKE. FAKE. FAKE. Notice how all the 'anti' posts (the ones who the majority does not support here), all use the same cameras, same handheld shaky shots. Same background (kind of looks like the AL GORE background, hmmm)

Stephanielh is the same background, same shakey camera. Leslie Dawn as well. You might want to lose the necklace though bro, because that kind of blows your cover. Good acting though, you get an A for that.

My guess is that Current TV is planting them to stiumulate discussion. Am I right? If I am, it's pretty disingenuous.

The "respectable leash" your opinion requires is already in place with the current FISA Law. Under FISA, the government can eavesdrop without a warrant and gain that warrant retroactively. Are you aware of this? There is no emergency here. FISA provides for any urgency need. What this (Bush) government wants is lawful access to everyone's private communication. Carte Blanche. It's 1984. If you haven't read it yet, put it on your "must read" list.

Darino isn't saying anything that most of the other posters on this topic whose viewpoints are widely supported are also saying. The difference between him and what algore says is a matter of tone: this guy just didn't mention that the 'respectable leash' is broken, not that there isn't a leash. It's an important difference, but otherwise your country's Constitution provides that leash. Fix it. Whip it.

FISA Courts already provide oversight and gives law enforcement all the tools necessary to defend the country, even retroactively like the president claims is necessary.

The argument that "if you are doing nothing wrong, you don't need to worry" is terribly naive. It sounds like Hitler's Germany. If you were Jew there, you did nothing wrong, but look what happened to you?

Our rights to privacy are guaranteed by in the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment says: "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."

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Blanket eavesdropping on innocent Americans, without probable cause, without a warrant, violates our Constitutional rights. Period.

Lastly, the president indicates that the additional powers he is seeking from Congress are necessary for him to "protect the American people" as he took an oath to do. He did not take an oath to protect the American people. The president took an oath to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. He swore this on a "bible" which he claims to believe in, and swore it on that bible before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

If we do not maintain our personal liberties, we are no longer Americans, and he has failed us since he did not uphold the oath he swore to defend. It was Patrick Henry who said: "Give me liberty, or give me death." It was George W. Bush who said: "Bring it on."

GIVE UP AND GET SOME (below)!

Re: Govt eavesdropping?

You said: But it should be limited and accountable.
Darin, you need more education in both writing and critical thinking. Until you get these things in big heaping doses, it is a waste of our time to respond to you.
How should it be limited and accountable, Darin? Your "opinion" shows that you have a firm grasp of the obvious at most and at worst it shows that you fail to develop your ideas to the extent that responders actually know what your position. You are no match for the most of us in argumentation skills; give up and get some!

If the government can hold private conversations that the public isn't privy to, why can't we the people expect the same respect for our private conversations. We the people are not supposed to fear our government, they are supposed to fear us. They are supposed to be worried that their actions will cause a reaction amongst the people that will cripple their power, but instead, here in America, land of the free, our people are slaves of false fears, and therefore tolerate the moves of this administration (and others before them) to manipulate us into submission. We cannot solve this fight through violent revolution, because the government holds all of the cards in that deck. We need to play a whole new game; it's called peaceful resistance. It has worked in the past, and it will work again. Sadly, our people are so scared, so full of fear from the stories they hear, the media they ingest, and the beliefs that they hold; that we cannot organize this movement. We need the peaceful soldiers of America to wake up and see that their fears are illusions and counter-productive. Their fears have allowed our corrupt leaders to lead us down this deep and scary hole. We are trained to sleep when it is dark, and that is what our people do. In this dark and scary place they slumber. But wait, that doesn't mean the sun isn't shining. If we keep showing them the light, they might just wake up, and the nightmare that they believe to be real will vanish. Then, and only then, can we hope for a brighter America. An America that stands up for peace and freedom, not money and control. An America that values the rights of their citizens, not an America where the peoples' rights are dictated by the government. There can be a better future, but we the people must first conquer our fear, wake from our nightmare, and organize a force that our corrupt leaders cannot ignore.

The problem, however, is that you are asking the dog to hold the leash. Our system of checks and balances is currently being unchecked and unbalanced. It seems that the Constitution is being circumvented or completely ignored as of late. If you ask me, Bush is using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to take a big black magic marker to the most important document in the free world. I wish someone with true patriotism, integrity, and foresight would run for the oval office. What do you say, Al?

Rethink what you have said.

A quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin, now believed to be the work of a fellow diplomat named Richard Jackson says this (original script included):

"Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Of course I would find you expounding this short leash. What if that leash were on people expounding Christian agenda? Perhaps we become a nation led by atheists who see Christian teachings as propaganda, subversive, maybe even exposed by enemy combatives. My thoughts, my conversations, my phone and email renderings are meant for the people I send them to. This government has proven that they will stretch if not break the short leash they already have and have created a new, longer leash with the Patriot Act. Let's all count our blessings and work towards a reversal of the loss of the rights of an individual in this country.

Don't be afraid, Don't live your life waiting for a jet plane to fly into your window. Together, We shall over come. Whether it's Osama bin Forgotten or Baby "Big Ears" Bush, this too shall pass.

Government has oversight because human beings need guidance to not fall prey to primitive responses. Eavesdropping on phone calls have been used by the government in the past to subdue political descent. Do you really think this sort of behaviour was an abboration or possibly reasons we put safegaurds and laws in place.

Think about it!

Define "Doing something wrong" - then you may understand why it is important to restore the FISA restrictions. As laws change, and the administration has more influence over what those laws should be, the DOJ and the Supreme Court become less viable, just what constitutes a crime is open to interpretation - by the executive branch.
Then, if you use any means of technology to communicate (such as current.com) you are open to warrentless wiretapping. Is this really what you want?

The argument of "I am doing nothing wrong, therefore I have nothing to fear from eavesdropping" is a false argument. Was the Constitution and Bill of Rights only written for those who do wrong? It was written to protect us from this sort of thing.

Also, the secret FISA court was already in place and is now being largely ignored based on the Bush Administration policy. They broke the law and circumnavigated it.

Your argument is flawed for several reasons. The statement "if you're not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't mind if the government eavesdrops" overlooks that fact that the desire for privacy is the first sign of emotional developement in human beings. We NEED privacy, like we need air.
Second, if you walked into your home and found the FBI and CIA rifling through your private financial records, medical records, email and snailmail would you be alarmed? Offended?? Angry? Outraged? Of course you would because your PRIVACY would have been horribly violated. Well guess what, that's EXACTLY what they are doing, the only difference is that they are not physically in your home (though they also claim the right to do that).
Third, there can be no execptions to protecting our rights. None. No circumstances under which rigorous protection of our freedoms are sacrificed or traded away for a promise of protection. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have forfeited their lives to protect our freedoms and we have no less an obligation no matter how, why or where we may be assaulted, anything else is cowardice.
Fourth you caveat your argument for surveillence saying that it's ok as long as there is oversight. Unfortunately the Bush Administration has already blown your argument apart. They have already broken the FISA laws thousands of times and then lied about it. When congress submitted a bill reiterating that there can be no spying without warrants Bush simply slipped in a signing statement that saying he could still do it if he saw fit.
Our founding fathers were very aware of our human flaws and attempted to protect us from each other with a system of checks and balances that were considered effective for over 250 years...until Bush/Cheney decided otherwise. Something to think about.

It is absolutely obsurd to give up any more rights to live in this country. We should be evesdropping in on OUR government not vice versa. It is this "I have nothing to hide go ahead and listen in on me" mentality that will have us all bent over holding our ankles for a dry ass raping from Uncle Sam.

The broad eavesdropping that you are describing could not have done more to help the government learn about 9-11 than the information that it had at that time - and consciously ignored ("well good, now you've covered your ass) or made no conscious effort to assemble (suspects being tracked + internal FBI memos + flights denied, etc.). The suggestion that our government needs a blanket to throw over everyone suggests that existing efforts are inadequate - which the 9 -11 report shows is not true.

For everyone who believes the government should be allowed to eavesdrop even more than they already do, please look at the following link "The 2007 International Privacy Ranking" http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597

As you can see we are right on the bottom of the privacy pile along with Russia and Communist China. Still feel like this is a democracy and you're "free"?

He metioned something about not worring about being spied on so long as you are not braking the law. And that makes sense BUT at the same time it doesn't matter that what you are doing is or isn't legal. The point is that folks don't want their privacy invaded. I mean there is a cluse in the Consitution about this and how the executive can go about this ethicly and if you are not going to follow the Consition then what's the point. Hey safety is important but can't we find an ethical way?

Anyway all this talk of government evesdroping sounds a lot like big bother is trying to gain more control of the public. It's too much like 1984 and that to me is uber scary.

Isn't getting a warrant from a judge accountability ? The United States Constitution has a process that enables the government to obtain the ability to legally listen in on conversations as long as they get a warrant from a judge. The intent of this part of the constitution was to maintain the checks/balances required to sustain a healthy democracy. In this case, the president would need the judicial branch to OK this procedure.


Also - Define "Nothing Wrong". Yes, in most cases we really should have nothing to fear if we are doing nothing wrong. And I don't think the intent of requiring a warrant to eavesdrop was to find people who were cheating on tax returns, or something like that.

But we are a society of "Free Thinkers", whose government is based on the premise that it is our duty as citizens to speak out (peacefully) against our own government if it is taking action that we as a people don't agree with. To do that, people need to feel safe to speak their opinions/objections without fear of government intimidation or interference. People need to feel safe taking action to do whatever they feel they need to communicate (Peacefully) their concerns. If the government has the freedom to, without a warrant, listen in on those types of important, democratic conversations, it greatly weakens the role of the people in our democracy.

1- would you want someone listening to your conversion with a loved one that you just so happen to be having phone sex with?just an example :)
2-if the govn't wants to invade our privacy and know our secrets then when are we getting a free ticket to listen to govn't calls. say we have the option to listen to bushes most private conversations,can't imagine that be ver entertaining.
3-i can't help but to think this is just a backdoor for the authority's to have an advantage on the "war on drugs"
aka the war on the average joe trying to make money for his family when the govn't is so messed up that they worry more about people in another country than their own

You're the reason why governments turn fascist and get away with it. You see nothing wrong with the government spying on it's people, taking away their rights, and brainwashing them with propaganda.

People that say "if we aren't doing anything wrong than we have nothing to fear" seem to be completely comfortable with the idea of the government telling us what the definition of wrong is. It is defined when we vote, when we elect local officials, and when we act as a populace. When the government can collect what bits of information that they want to from us, they can label that information as they see fit. The danger is the label the government can give you and act upon as they see fit.

I agree with this post about government eavesdropping. i think that the govenernment should be able to montor call in such but to a certian limit like you said. i think it would be to the common good of all people to allow this to happen. and like you said if we arent doing anything wrong we shouldnt worry bout it at all!

I agree with your post on Government Eavesdropping, it should be available - but only if they have probable cause. For example, when the police need a search warrent for your car; there must be probable cause before the government goes snooping through our private emails, listening to our telephone conversations, or tracking our locations via cell phone GPS.

I disagree with your post about government eavesdropping. We shouldn’t have to be listened to when we are talking on the phone or sending an email. Its our own business what we do and the government has no right to listen to what we have to say if we don’t want it heard by them. It’s complete garbage. If this keeps going on we might as well throw out the rest of our rights too. Its sad..