Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Video Let's go back to 2008 and see what candidate Barack Obama promises about illegal wiretapping, shall we?   (content.bitsontherun.com ) divider line
    More: Video, wiretaps  
•       •       •

1956 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 1:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-11 04:29:02 PM  
How do FARK moderates feel about this?
 
2013-06-11 04:29:30 PM  

FarkedOver: max_pooper: You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know what a wiretap is.

I'm sorry "data mining".  There, that makes everything better now.  How could I have been so shortsighted as to disagree with the government collecting data on citizens.


Oh my god, the goverment has records of every single citizen and resident's payroll information too. We must stop this intrusive government from collecting data on citizens!!!!

Don't even get me started with the government keeping records of the property citizens own and the birth records all children born.


\Yeah, you sound almost that stupid.
 
2013-06-11 04:30:21 PM  

FarkedOver: max_pooper: There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

The fact that he is using bullshiat laws to justify these bullshiat wiretaps is stupid.  You're a partisan stooge for sticking up for it just because Obama is doing it.

In short:

[t3.gstatic.com image 249x202]


I am against this gathering of information. I think Obama and his administration should not do it.  I think it should be illegal to do without a warrant. Unless the administration gives us many, many specific circumstances in which these records were used to thwart many, massive terror attacks, I want the administration to stop doing it immediately.

Nonetheless, what was done was not illegal, has not been found to be unconstitutional, and is most likely, under current jurisprudence, not going to be found unconstitutional if challenged.  If this is a problem, then contact your legislators and tell them to change the laws.  And contact the White House, if you want, and tell them to support a change in the laws.  But saying Obama should be in jail or impeached for taking actions that are perfectly legal is not going to help the debate over these practices, it will just make it more likely that the practices will be allowed to continue.
 
2013-06-11 04:31:40 PM  

max_pooper: Oh my god, the goverment has records of every single citizen and resident's payroll information too. We must stop this intrusive government from collecting data on citizens!!!!

Don't even get me started with the government keeping records of the property citizens own and the birth records all children born.


\Yeah, you sound almost that stupid.


I think there is a slight difference between the census, birth records and the like, compared to a dragnet that has the sole purpose of prosecuting people.
 
2013-06-11 04:35:51 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.
 
2013-06-11 04:36:29 PM  

RyogaM: Nonetheless, what was done was not illegal, has not been found to be unconstitutional, and is most likely, under current jurisprudence, not going to be found unconstitutional if challenged. If this is a problem, then contact your legislators and tell them to change the laws. And contact the White House, if you want, and tell them to support a change in the laws. But saying Obama should be in jail or impeached for taking actions that are perfectly legal is not going to help the debate over these practices, it will just make it more likely that the practices will be allowed to continue.


I don't think that this is just an Obama problem, don't get me wrong.  This is a both side of the aisle problem.  I can contact my congressman until I am blue in the face, but considering I am not a lobbyist and I have nothing to offer him I, frankly, don't count.
 
2013-06-11 04:53:44 PM  

badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.


When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.
 
2013-06-11 04:57:14 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


Tepid.
 
2013-06-11 04:59:08 PM  
How do FARK moderators feel about this?
 
2013-06-11 05:20:08 PM  

neversubmit: vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't

From 2008

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Intercept operators allege the NSA is listening to citizens' phone calls. "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.


O'rly?

(post Boston bombing)

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
 
2013-06-11 05:41:46 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


My heart is full of neutrality.
 
2013-06-11 05:58:18 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


Really couldn't care less. Privacy isn't being violated here. A person does not own their phone records...a company does. If you don't want a company to have a record of your phone calls, stop using a phone. Not to mention, this has been going on for quite a long time now. To rehash this again just seems political. Conservatives got their way last time. So, let the conservatives have their spying.
 
2013-06-11 05:59:39 PM  

theknuckler_33: badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.

When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.


LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.  Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.
 
2013-06-11 06:06:16 PM  

Doc Lee: mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?

Really couldn't care less. Privacy isn't being violated here. A person does not own their phone records...a company does. If you don't want a company to have a record of your phone calls, stop using a phone. Not to mention, this has been going on for quite a long time now. To rehash this again just seems political. Conservatives got their way last time. So, let the conservatives have their spying.


Moderate indeed.  You might as well be the poster boy for fascism.
 
2013-06-11 06:24:57 PM  

SunsetLament: LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.


Man, so why are deportations up under this administration?
 
2013-06-11 06:27:05 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

Man, so why are deportations up under this administration?


Inflation?

BTW, is this where you think I'm going to defend Bush as being good for the country regarding illegal immigration?
 
2013-06-11 06:40:46 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.

When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.


You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-06-11 06:47:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.


Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?


and ... Link.
 
2013-06-11 06:57:55 PM  

MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


Nothing about the Patriot Act is illegal based on the Constitution. The 4th Amendment has one very important word that many of you seem to forget, "unreasonable". It's not for you to determine what constitutes an unreasonable search.
 
2013-06-11 06:58:41 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.


It's almost like the feds have decided they have to prioritize things. That is, unless, you support big government and big spending to cover the funding deficiencies in obtaining the resources needed to nit-pick every single one of the 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants in this country and 8 billion pot heads.
 
2013-06-11 07:10:38 PM  
I didn't read the thread. Was it full of libs defending Obama doing things they would have freaked out about under bush and cons attacking Obama for things they would have defended under Bush?

/lol libertarian
//succcckkkkeeerrrrsss
 
2013-06-11 07:12:14 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.

It's almost like the feds have decided they have to prioritize things. That is, unless, you support big government and big spending to cover the funding deficiencies in obtaining the resources needed to nit-pick every single one of the 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants in this country and 8 billion pot heads.


Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?
 
2013-06-11 07:15:20 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.


Did you even look at the results of your LMGTFY link?  One example of ICE not coming to get illegals in custody. One example. It is exactly as I suspected. And the other thing is also as I expected. I reduced focus on marijuana prosecutions is not "refusing to enforce federal drug laws". If you can't speak about things in an intellectually honest manner, I don't have time for you. There are plenty of things to not like about Obama, but your little rant was nothing but derp. All presidents have the AG give direction about how to enforce federal laws of all kinds. Every administration does it. It's the normal business of any administration.
 
2013-06-11 07:18:49 PM  

SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.


Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.

SunsetLament: But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?


So you love big government, big spending and bankrupting the country. Gotcha.
 
2013-06-11 07:21:36 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.


Let's not forget it was a single instance and the source was Sheriff Joe.
 
2013-06-11 07:48:03 PM  

Hobodeluxe: this isn't even newsworthy. who didn't think they had this capability? Hell I want them to have this capability. I need them on that wall.

[www.hvorfor-cbs.dk image 210x166]

Congress is okay with it. (except a few scoring political points)
SCOTUS is okay with it
The FISA judges are okay with it
It's saved lives.

The only people who seem to be pushing this is the media and only because it was used on them to track down a mole.

Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Progressives and all of our allies.
 
2013-06-11 07:48:08 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


Amendment IVThe 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.
 
2013-06-11 07:51:33 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 2. President sworn in to uphold law.


His oath is to the Constitution, not "the law".
 
2013-06-11 07:55:08 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

Nothing about the Patriot Act is illegal based on the Constitution. The 4th Amendment has one very important word that many of you seem to forget, "unreasonable". It's not for you to determine what constitutes an unreasonable search.


The Supreme Court has ruled many times about the definition of that.  Basically, there must be an immediate threat to be able to dispense with the warrant.  "Somewhere in the world a terrorist might be thinking about doing something bad" does not meet this definition.
 
2013-06-11 07:59:48 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

 
2013-06-11 08:12:00 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.

SunsetLament: But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?

So you love big government, big spending and bankrupting the country. Gotcha.


Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.
 
2013-06-11 08:18:49 PM  

SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.


So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?
 
2013-06-11 08:41:20 PM  

InfrasonicTom: Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...


I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I do have to cut the guy some slack. It's really easy to be an ideologue before you're elected and "in the know." But once you're elected and you start learning what's really going on out there, well...I can't fault him for backtracking on some things.
 
2013-06-11 09:03:34 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.

So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?


I didn't realize that there was a political ideology attached to "enforcing federal law" ... not to mention your assertion of a anti-jingoism stance.
 
2013-06-11 09:05:12 PM  

SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.

So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?

I didn't realize that there was a political ideology attached to "enforcing federal law" ... not to mention your assertion of a anti-jingoism stance.


I was unaware that conservatives were so concerned ab
 
2013-06-11 09:07:00 PM  
Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare
 
2013-06-11 09:17:21 PM  

TerminalEchoes: InfrasonicTom: Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I do have to cut the guy some slack. It's really easy to be an ideologue before you're elected and "in the know." But once you're elected and you start learning what's really going on out there, well...I can't fault him for backtracking on some things.


I'm fine with that to certain extent, but it loses something since the guy was a senator.  Should have known at least a little of what was going on.
 
2013-06-11 09:38:30 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


you mean besides the fact that it is collecting massive amounts of data on u.s. citizens which it is not authorized to do (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email)?
and besides the the fact that it is doing so in direct conflict with the plain language 4th amendment requirement for probable cause?
and besides the fact the NSA is a military branch that seems to play some vital role in enforcing federal laws against civilians in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email - and the PCA only allows military law enforcement when specifically authorized by comngress)?
besides that, nothing is illegal, so feel free to go back to being an obama supporter.
 
2013-06-11 09:55:31 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare


... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.
 
2013-06-11 09:57:13 PM  

relcec: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

you mean besides the fact that it is collecting massive amounts of data on u.s. citizens which it is not authorized to do (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email)?
and besides the the fact that it is doing so in direct conflict with the plain language 4th amendment requirement for probable cause?
and besides the fact the NSA is a military branch that seems to play some vital role in enforcing federal laws against civilians in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email - and the PCA only allows military law enforcement when specifically authorized by comngress)?
besides that, nothing is illegal, so feel free to go back to being an obama supporter.


Ding.  Ding.  Ding.  Anybody who thinks that what has been alleged this week is authorized by the Patriot Act obviously hasn't read it - and that includes these FISA judges.
 
2013-06-11 10:11:17 PM  

SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare

... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.


I'm so sorry that the government isn't accomodating your desire for an exodus of 11 million people to the extent you seem to desire. I'm sorry that using the same schtick and talking points that have been thrown at liberals for years are coming back to bite you in the ass.
 
2013-06-11 10:57:22 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare

... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.

I'm so sorry that the government isn't accomodating your desire for an exodus of 11 million people to the extent you seem to desire. I'm sorry that using the same schtick and talking points that have been thrown at liberals for years are coming back to bite you in the ass.


So, in other words ... you've got 'nothing.  Don't feel bad; that's liberal ideology in a nutshell.
 
2013-06-11 11:18:01 PM  
let me see if I am following you on this?
Since Obama knows that congress will not repeal the patriot act if they know that's what he wants. He is acting like he is using it so they will pull it out from underneath him? Thereby completing what he wanted in the first place? Brilliant!!
 
2013-06-12 12:10:36 AM  
The only good that will come out of this is the easily citable hypocracy of all the leftists defending this shiat.
 
2013-06-12 12:59:52 AM  
I'm honestly shocked at the people who claim to be anti PATRIOT ACT but just shrug all this off and say "Well Bush did it too and everything's legal now so why all the fuss?"

Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how hard it is to make the American people give a damn about something? There's such a small sliver of time before the public shrugs and goes back to the next "scandal" of the day. Why give Obama a pass? Especially if you consider yourself a liberal, what better time is there to fight this than now? Or do you think it'll be easier to fight against the PATRIOT Act after another 4 years of living with it, possibly with the Republicans in control of the White House and Congress?

Have you just given up and accepted a permanent state of war as the norm? Are you that cynical?

And I bet some of you claim to be anti spending on the military industrial complex. Why? If you really think we shouldn't be engaged in perpetual war, why not take a chance to make a difference and make the Democrats do what we want them to do? Is it because you'd rather just biatch and feel self righteous than actually try to change the status quo?
 
m00
2013-06-12 01:12:32 AM  

Edsel: This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.


No, of course not. A government that has the power to make any conceivable act legal for itself will never be in violation of the laws which are written to give it these powers. This is exactly why we have a constitution. I mean, it's pretty clear the program violates the 4th amendment and is therefor unconstitutional. What's not clear is whether the Supreme Court still works for the People, because the other two branches absolutely do not.
 
2013-06-12 01:30:30 AM  
Seriously if you're playing the "It's all perfectly legal" card right now, you're on the same side as Lindsey Graham. LINDSEY EFFING GRAHAM! Lindsey Graham the man who's been empirically proven to be the dumbest man in the Senate. Lindsey Graham that's always wrong about everything.

Lindsey Graham and you see totally eye to eye on this. Think about that.
 
2013-06-12 08:13:12 AM  
ITT:  It's okay because my guy is in charge.

ITT 8 years ago:  Bush is literally Hitler and Stalin's love child for doing this.
 
2013-06-12 08:34:19 AM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


It was my understanding that they are recording every call and key words alert the system to bring the call to the attention of a monitor
 
2013-06-12 09:24:03 AM  

m00: Edsel: This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.

No, of course not. A government that has the power to make any conceivable act legal for itself will never be in violation of the laws which are written to give it these powers. This is exactly why we have a constitution. I mean, it's pretty clear the program violates the 4th amendment and is therefor unconstitutional. What's not clear is whether the Supreme Court still works for the People, because the other two branches absolutely do not.


The current Supreme Court does not.
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report