Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY SIR.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/16/D8EHFJI82.html

Looks like the teraists are going to be running free in the streets. They now have a free pass to do whatever they please. Im scared, save me BUSH. SAVE ME GOVERNMENT!!!! AHHHH WHAT WILL WE DO WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT US AHHHHH

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]

Serious question. Why was it nessecary to skip the court order for wire taps, which are aquireable and legal? Is it unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only international calls are involved, and a federal judge oversees the process. As usual, the whole story is manipulated to sound unreasonable.

Do a Google News search on wiretaps and you can read a bunch of articles about how easy it is to avoid a wiretap. I guess its better to let the terrorists slip by, and then we can send them to prison for 500 concurrent life terms when they kill 500 people.

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]

Serious question. Why was it nessecary to skip the court order for wire taps, which are aquireable and legal? Is it unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]



Do a Google News search on wiretaps and you can read a bunch of articles about how easy it is to avoid a wiretap. I guess its better to let the terrorists slip by, and then we can send them to prison for 500 concurrent life terms when they kill 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am right in the middle of finals, if you could link an article or two i would appreciate it, otherwise i'll have to wait untill next week to get into it.

[ QUOTE ]
Only international calls are involved, and a federal judge oversees the process. As usual, the whole story is manipulated to sound unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok- what is the difference between having a federal judge oversee it and having to apply for a warrent. If there is no difference why the nessecity for a directive? If there is a difference, what is it, and could it have been achieved without circumventing the law (if the law was actually circumvented)?

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Serious question. Why was it nessecary to skip the court order for wire taps, which are aquireable and legal? Is it unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only international calls are involved, and a federal judge oversees the process. As usual, the whole story is manipulated to sound unreasonable.

Do a Google News search on wiretaps and you can read a bunch of articles about how easy it is to avoid a wiretap. I guess its better to let the terrorists slip by, and then we can send them to prison for 500 concurrent life terms when they kill 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question stands, why was it necessary to change the system if it is still so easy to "avoid" and is still so "controlled" ? If personal rights are still being as respected as they were (a qustionable statement at best) why was there any need for change at all? Unless of course the government was being hemmed in by ridiculou sprivacy rights?

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]

Only international calls are involved, and a federal judge oversees the process. As usual, the whole story is manipulated to sound unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

A federal judge oversees the process??? Where do you get this?

[ QUOTE ]
Do a Google News search on wiretaps and you can read a bunch of articles about how easy it is to avoid a wiretap. I guess its better to let the terrorists slip by, and then we can send them to prison for 500 concurrent life terms when they kill 500 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those (like yourself) that would sacrifice liberty for campaign finance reform?

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those (like yourself) that would sacrifice liberty for campaign finance reform?

[/ QUOTE ]

The support of the squelching of free speech around here is sad. We complain about a lot of things around here, but I never thought so many would be against the fundamental principle of political free speech in America. No one against political free speech has any standing to complain about any other supposed civil rights issue.

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those (like yourself) that would sacrifice liberty for campaign finance reform?

[/ QUOTE ]The mark of a true libertarian is someone who makes outrages analogies that have no relevance to the actual topic. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those (like yourself) that would sacrifice liberty for campaign finance reform?

[/ QUOTE ]The mark of a true libertarian is someone who makes outrages analogies that have no relevance to the actual topic. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
PVN eats libertarians for breakfast...

Re: Bush Wiretaps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who would sacrifice libery for security will lose both, and deserve neither. Your posts in this thread are a disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those (like yourself) that would sacrifice liberty for campaign finance reform?

[/ QUOTE ]

??????

You need to distinguish between posts stating what the law is and posts advocating a normative position.