Right to Privacy Destined for Endangered List

American Conservative Union ^ | October 4, 2006 | Bob Barr

[Obie Wan]

You must have something to hide "MO FO",I don't and I'm not worried about losing any of my rights,but if the Democraps win back Congress you'll probably be a happy little boy cause I'm sure they'll do away with all of them !!!

[philman_36]

Would it be too much to ask the author of this piece to provide the name, bill number or other identifying information so that the reader might be able to verify the conclusions of the article?
You've got to be kidding. Expressly stating such things is counteruntuitive for today's press. Informing Americans is the last thing on their minds. Thus the premise that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're expected to know it with or without any help from the press.
I'm so glad Owl Bore invented the Internet...a few keywords and you get...

Wiretap bill sets up election-year issue
The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.
Snip...The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.
Then you go to Thomas...and look up bills sponsored by Rep. Wilson's (Browse Bills by Sponsor) and after scrolling down a bit to 22 and you get...this page which leads to this...
H.R.5825 Title: To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
9/28/2006 10:18pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 191 (Roll No. 502). (text: CR H7853-7857)

[philman_36]

Shoot! counteruntuitive = counterintuitive

[middie]

Huh? Has it now become a commentator's responsibility to write proposed legislation? If so, I decline.

[middie]

Supercat, you are indeed an astute commentator.

[George W. Bush]

One of the Patriot Act provisions is that your phone provider and your ISP will go to prison if they let you know that you're under surveillance. That's one reason you haven't heard about it. The end of banking privacy is much the same: your bank's employees must surrender all info without letting you know. And it is not clear who the information is given to or the uses to which they will put it.

It paves the way for a total surveillance society, historically the goal of ruling classes that have bad intentions toward liberty.

[Obie Wan]

Well George you and at bay can wring your hands about the situation if you want.As I said I'm not worried about it and I'm glad these programs have helped to zero in on terrorism here and abroad,however if I'm wrong you and your buddy can give me a big I told you so ok ???

[George W. Bush]

As I said I'm not worried about it and I'm glad these programs have helped to zero in on terrorism here and abroad,...

Actually, you have no idea whether they have actually helped zero in on domestic terrorism at all. That's the nature of the programs. As far as terrorism abroad, that is a separate subject from this thread which is about American liberty.

...however if I'm wrong you and your buddy can give me a big I told you so ok ???

So the rights American's have fought and died for, the great issues of our legislatures and courts, the best safeguards our Founders could devise for liberty, all come down to a contest of I-told-you-so's?

No thanks. But then, the Founders already told me what to expect. They were always cynical about the prospects of liberty's survival.

[PghBaldy]

One reason why we need so-called "warrentless wiretaps" is we often don't know who or what we are looking for. In order to connect the dots especially. Dems are either stupid or purposefully obtuse (my new favorite word). If we were able to wiretap the 9/11 hijackers, seemingly harmless things done and said by one or two people would have been obviously provocative when 19 were involved... Then there's the date- 9/11 - they talked about a cake with a stick. They also mentioned weddings. ALL things that would only have appeared odd & possibly important if we had listened/watched them beforehand. Part of the reason for the wiretaps is to IDENTIFY and FIND terrorists. We often don't know who they are until they do something, or they are caught.

Awfully hard to get a warrant when you don't know who you need it for. (Not sure if I made sense, but that's how I figure this)

[PghBaldy]

Good points. I too am somewhat concerned about warrentless wiretaps if a diabolical President (like a Clinton or a Dem) were in office. I have seen no evidence that Bush uses these supposed egregious powers to punish or harm innocents for malevolent purposes.

[PghBaldy]

One thing- often info is sent overseas, supposedly, foreigners now view XRays, cheaper & because of timezones, good for ERs. Also, I saw a news report years ago that some airlines outsourced reservations to prisons... I'm not kidding. I understand the need for the Patriot Act, I'm also disturbed by the ever-circling levels of snooping.

[at bay]

You must have something to hide

What a fool.

[Fishrrman]

OK, I'll ask the unaskable:
Who here would OPPOSE an amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing citizens a "right to privacy"?

- John

[George W. Bush]

Depends on which right to privacy you're talking about.

Some of the genuine privacy concerns people have could easily be addressed through Congress and the states. And certainly by the courts.

I think a formal amendment would be hard to pass just like always and I'm not sure if the GOP has enough trust from the base right now.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It hasn't slipped my notice that people who are so willing to put an end to these programs offer NO alternative solutions on how to deal with terrorism.On Sept 11,2001 the USA had possibly the strongest Army,Navy and Air Force in the world but 20 guy's with box cutters managed to destroy the twin towers,damage the Pentagon and kill thousands of Americans.

One alternative solution is to actually go after people you suspect may have something to do with terrorism. As far as 9-11 goes, the simple solution would be to allow everyone to carry guns and other weapons on board planes. It was the ban on such weapons pre-911, in part, that allowed those subhumans to take the planes armed merely with boxcutters.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

So the premise of this is that the President is evil...

Please point me to the part of the column that said the president is evil.

and destroying the Constitution?

Not so much destroying it as ignoring it, with the complicity of Congress--witness Campaign Finance Reform, for example, which violated the First Amendment, but was signed into law anyhow.

And I'm being pinged to this...why?

I ping FReepers that I met in person, but I'll go ahead and remove you from my ping list.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Would this be an absolute right that would not even be subject to the terms of the 4th Amendment?

[Still Thinking]

I generally agree with you that law-and-order "conservatives" are a little hypocritical on this issue, but I think you have Roe wrong. Despite the fact that liberals have framed it in a privacy context, that's a smoke screen. The real problem is that someone gets killed. Privacy cannot be stretched to cover murder.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I mean, conservatives have to get this straight. On one hand, we talk about minimal government involvement in our lives, but then when something like Shivo comes along we plead for the SCOTUS to send in the Army. We talk about intrusive government when it comes to property rights, but then we raise holy hell when somone opens a nudie bar.

This mirrors my sentiments exactly. If we're serious about small government, than we need to be serious about small government! No more nanny state laws!

One comment I will make on Roe is that there are those who are pro-life, and those who are anti-Roe. The two groups overlap quite a bit, but are not one and the same. I personally favor both overturning Roe v. Wade and legal abortion (on a state level). Most liberals are pro-choice and pro-Roe, most conservatives are pro-life and anti-Roe, and I'm assuming nobody is pro-life and pro-Roe, but there are those of us who favor both small government and privacy rights (not legislating on abortion) and a respect for federalism and state's rights (overturning Roe).

I know that I'm going to regret posting that since I'll be flamed by people who don't realize that my position is essentially the same as theirs (leave it to the states), but that's how it goes sometimes.