New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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

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

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

It's all speculation. And frankly, it doesn't matter one damned bit if someone gets charged with disturbing the peace or public endangerment or whether or not people run from a fire they can't see in a dark room. So, if my response to his fantasies are fantasy as well, then that means that he wasn't going anywhere from the start.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

His statements are based in fact and reality. There is a pretty clear difference. You have a misconceived notion of what would happen in these cases, whereas he doesn't.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Since you can't rebutt my main argument which are the last two sentences of my last post, there's no reason to continue. So I'll bring it full circle.

There has always been limits to constitutional rights.

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

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.

Go ahead and try it and see how level headed people are in a dark, crowded closed room. Statements based on fantasy do not a point make.

If "fantastic statements" are pointless then what the hell have you been doing?

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

They are going to haul ass out the door so they don't die in a fire.

Much to Murphie's disappointment.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen that damn taru?

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Not to mention (except for the fact that I did mention it above) just because the fire isn't in the theatre that those people are in doesn't mean the building isn't on fire. People aren't going to wait around and see. They are going to haul ass out the door so they don't die in a fire.

[Mhurron]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Okay. You've proven to me that the Supreme Court can make a decision. It doesn't mean it was the right one.

Since you can't seem to wrap your head around it I'll say it plainly again just this once.

There has always been limits to constitutional rights.

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

My statement relied on the fact that people would think to look around before they started trampling each other.

Go ahead and try it and see how level headed people are in a dark, crowded closed room. Statements based on fantasy do not a point make.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Actually, you would be arrested and charged for public endangerment, and for any injury or death that resulted because of it. There's a reason I said that.

If the chaos occurred. My statement relied on the fact that people would think to look around before they started trampling each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Okay. You've proven to me that the Supreme Court can make a decision. It doesn't mean it was the right one.

To get you have to give, to be safe *someone* has to be watching. Because not everyone follows the rules, and because of that *we* have to give up something.

Once again, that's what probable cause is for. This is simply another excuse to let the administration monitor whoever they want.

Seeing as you didn't really get that comment, it's a statement about how you have to have your shoes check for bombs because someone was caught trying to sneak a bomb, in his shoe, onto an airplane. Because some people want to kill us, we have to be slightly inconvienced. But the other option is to ignore it so that when it does happen, hundreds of people die.

Then that's not quite freedom of speech. He would be physically inciting people to panic. The debate would be on freedom of expression. And seeing as the motive of the action would simply be to cause chaos, as opposed to expressing a feasible point, he would be charged with a crime.

What you are all saying is that just because there are cases in which the advocation of rights are debateable, 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.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

You know, I should stuff plastic explosives up my ass and get on a plane, just to totally kill the airline industry in the US.