Politics – New radio ads are running in districts of several Democratic members of Congress, as well as Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, targeting the lawmakers for their opposition to a White House-backed surveillance bill.
Maybe another group needs to target ads towards those who supported Bush's attempt to subvert oversight of illegal wiretapping and giving a free ride to those telecoms that helped. This crap about national security is just that...crap. It's another attempt by Bush to garner as much power for the executive branch of government to trump Congress and the courts.
Knowing what the government has done to the teleco's in the past 20 years or so it doesn't surprise me one bit they did what the government told them to.
Probably worried they'd be declared a monopoly again and be forced to sell their equipment for less then it costs them to maintain it.
So throw out principle and constitutional safeguards? "I was only following orders!" - sounds familiar?
The Constitution only protects from unreasonable search and seizure.
It could be debated that listening in on phone calls coming or going to terrorist countries is reasonable, especially when it's to protect the country from a foreign or domestic threat.
I'm more worried about all the cameras popping up all over the place then the government listening in on my international calls.
Newbie-
You may not understand the extent of Bush' domestic spying program.
The government set up splitters in teh switches of all the telecomms. They pick up every data bit being transmitted - phone calls, internet searches, emails, text messages, etc.
The Fourth Amendment prevents the government from casting a net and catching everyone. The net they cast is just too large.
Qwest refused to allow the government to do the same and the government hasn't forced the issue. Why? Because the Bush Administration knows that it's indefensible.
My one big question about this so-called security issue is...Don't these yahoos know that these 'rules' if implimented can be used aginst them!!!!
Removing any civil rights safeguard is a double edged sword...It just depends who is in power at the moment...
But a Constitutionally mandated safeguard...while, not in any way perfect, protects everybody....
Where is George Orwell when you need him?
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Hustler101
livia1954
alamala
blablabla
BJTJ
onlyonesecret
Will1313
harry02
whodey08
sleepingbeauty2
_kam0_
Freddsywer
thinkingserious
optimumself
jeepndave
jnbammer
peaquod
Beau7890
populist
Ryan
AlaKai
alexander1380
avpd85
complicious
flyonthewallzz
DaveWingnut
Helixbuilder
Tessylo
Shannonyork
Lifeoflava
lilianhellmann
GHOSTWHOWALKS
mickoleon
Grrr
wonkydonkey
crespi
Dan and Jennifer
Ciera Marie
Charlson
dadesider
GWHayduke
daducha
cosmogenium
panzerv
kibasilasa
kokoz
walden3
jomarjarmo
satansatan
TulasiS
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
16)
Vote
I can only assume that their constituents are intelligent enough to see the nonsense. And I make that assumption by the fact that they didn't elect CONS to office in the first place.