House approves bush warrantless wiretapping law

well we sort of new this would happen but now it has heres a a link to an article about and what do you guys think

apnews.myway.com...

[edit on 29/9/06 by Xenesthad]

Even though it has passed through the House I beleive it has to go throught the Senate too and I just don't see that happening before the election nor do I see it passing when the Dems take control because it has to many holes in it, apparently to where Bush can use and twist it to his will and I just don't think the Democrats are going to go along with it,.... and that is a good thing if they don't.

"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.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

[Source is artical linked by OP]

I think I'm gonna be sick.

Is that seriously how American politics are done these days?
"Give up your rights or your aren't a good American".

Even the Bush supporters on these boards can't seriously say they want this thing to go through can they? What it means is that your government would have the right to listen in on your conversations at any time with or without reason.

This opens the door for all sorts of abuses since there's no wrong way to spy on you.
Hell, they could start wiretapping 1-900 numbers!

If I was living down south, I'd be uncontrollably outraged over this.
As is, I can only fear for my friends and the poor honest folk down there.


[edit on 29-9-2006 by BitRaiser]

I am glad this went through ok I feel safer from the terrorists than ever before I'm somewhat suprised at the reactions other members have posted. surely it's a good thing if we can listen in on Terrorists before they plan another dastardly scheme like 911.

As far as I'm concerned those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

You know how Hitler came to absolute power?

"Hey people, we're being attacked, we're being exploited, we are the most important people on the planet, give me all your rights for national security and I'll make sure noone can touch us"

Not that I'm comparing Bush with Hitler as a person, but the tactics of the US Goverment are extremely close to those that brought the rise of Nazi Germany.

I really can't beleive this. I am a Canadian that really has nothing to gain or lose from this, but I think it sets a very dangerous precident. Once a government gets a new power they never....ever give it back. You know, can you imagine telling yourself ten years ago how much was going to change in a decade? It's mind boggling.

Your rights continue to be erroded without a fight even being put up. We all know terrorisim is a danger but is it that dangerous compared to a government with to much power.

What is going on here? How is it that stories about whether or not known liars(The bush co - Rice) has lied(Again?), and what some president half way around the world says/feels gets more attention than the US' founding documents, and arguably the pinnicle document on human civility is getting trashed and watered down??

I wonder if anyone in the west has the strength to stand up? Even so, I suspect it would be a futile case.

[SIZE=6]HEIL BUSH!

Sham what terrorists would those be, do you mean the goverment ones or someone else. And do you really believe that real terrorists would use unsecure lines of communication. When are you going to start getting scared of what your goverments doing, when they haul you away because of something you said in the privacy of your own home. I cannot fathom why people are so ready to give up their hard fought freedoms for a pack of lies.

Originally posted by Shamanator
As far as I'm concerned those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

If I hear this line just one more time....

'Whats wrong".... is in the eye of the beholder... And that is the inherent problem with your ridiculous and ignorant statement.

And what happens when something you are doing today is legal and then tomorrow it is not...but, you dont hear of the change and continute doing the same thing you have always done that; up until yesterday was legal. Now you are arrested.. thrown into detainment without any legal representation and then no trial.. you just sit and sit .. and oh yeah get "tortured". Then how much would you stand behind this pathetic comment?

When we hand govt. unchecked power.. you get unchecked abuse of that power.... every stinking time... dont believe me? just take a stroll through ANY history of ANY govt... Including ours.

Here is an executive summary of the House Rule in question. I think anyone commenting on the bill who hasn't read it for themselves should do so. Please dont let all the alphabet news channel babes tell you what it means, and especially don't let them call it the domestic spying bill. It's the Electronic Surveillence Modernization Act.

Im not a fan of big governement, and I have fears of the government becoming too invasive and restrictive, however I see this bill as a useful tool to deal with the problems we face TODAY.

When they start to try to round up all the guns, or restrict my travel, or limit my ability to assemble, then I'll join in with everyone squaking about this bill.

I want someone in the government listening to phone calls, coming into, or going out of this country, with a terrorism watch list suspect on one end of line.

I'd rather have someone listening in on my phone calls to my bookie (just kidding NSA and FBI), than have one innocent citizen blown-up in a restaurant, at the mall, on their way to work, on a vacation flight, etc., etc., etc.



[edit on 9/29/2006 by darkbluesky]

Well, apparently my link won't work, but if you want to read the bill, its HR5825.

here is a link that has some info on HR5825

gop.gov

and here is a PDF of the bill as well:

fas.org.pdf

its going to take me some time to read it through but I wanted to get the info up here before I call it a day.

The Supreme Court practicallly ordered the Congress to do this, since they found that President couldn't do it on his own. I applaud the Congress for hammering out a legal framework to deal with such enemy non-American combatants.

I am in complete awe - and a little shocked too. Maybe that is what Bush Co. meant by that phrase 5 years ago?

How anyone can ever think this is a good law? Is it needed? Is it helpfull? Probably for the overall goals of the Government(and indeed any government not just America's, but it is happening to America's right now so..) but th problem is these tools would have always been useful! The problem was that America also recgonized them as being immoral, unethical and taking away that which made America most proud - her Freedom.

During the cold war Slave camps, wire tapping and torture would have been a welcome tool - but back then America would have realized that one can not defend liberty by giving it up. One can not promote freedom, while curtailing rights, and you better beleive when the government(Once again any government - in any part of the world) uses vague terms when detailing "who" they are going after they invaribly increase their circle to include everyone who "may" be an enemy of the State; which is by their definition anybody.

The truly sad thing is how easy it was for a group of wingnuts to use fear to win, control and then mind wash to equate standing up for the founding prinicples of the nation as being unpatriotic is amazing.

This mess is going to be mighty hard to undo - and it will be undone. For the good of humanity this will not stand long. Either people will finally wake up and take back their government. Their government will abuse these new powers(As all governments eventually will) and then the people will try to take back their government(Opps, now that you are an enemey combatant - bye bye) which will probably(I hope, but American lazinss seems to know no bounds) cause the population to rebel - or the US government will use these powers against enough Soverign nations that the world will have no chioce but to react in the only way free people can against these kinds of governments. The problem IMO, is that while Germany no doubt had a better relative military compared to the US, the US has Nukes, and I am not sure anyone beleives that Bush(Or the figure head that comes after him) is smart enough not to use them. If he does, or anyone even thinks he might(just cause for a pre-emptive strike right?) then the entire world will pay for the select few who took armchair quaterbacking to new hights when they allowed this "Us Vs them", the "with us or against us" crap.

As Gowan was said... "Man, you are a strange animal!"

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I am in complete awe - and a little shocked too. Maybe that is what Bush Co. meant by that phrase 5 years ago?

How anyone can ever think this is a good law? Is it needed? Is it helpfull?

Someone who lives in a country, state, and city, where their fellow citizens were murdered by political/religious extremists thinks this is a needed law. Indeed, I think its value has been proven in that not one single American citizen in the US, or any visitor to this country has been killed by a terrorist attack in over six years.

The current administration is walking a tite rope between restricting its citizens expectation to a right to a certain degree of privacy and providing security against attack. I have no doubt that most detractors of this bill would be the first to call for the impeachment of this President, or any president who failed to prevent a follow up attack to 9/11/06.

Thats how I can belive this is a needed and helpful law.

Someone who lives in a country, state, and city, where their fellow citizens were murdered by political/religious extremists thinks this is a needed law. Indeed, I think its value has been proven in that not one single American citizen in the US, or any visitor to this country has been killed by a terrorist attack in over six years.

- Thank you for responding, and without any sarcasm or attitude. I mean no offense, but I truly don't understand the mindset. Please help me with this. We can agree that many Americans died horrily that day. It was truly a tragic state - but the aqquiring of info wasn't what resulted in that terror - it was not acting on the information they had. I simply can't see the reason to give up ones freedoms and allow what could be the narrow edge of the wedge between the citizen of the U.S.A and their protected rights, for more of something they either seem incapable of understanding or acting upon it anyway. I can understand the fear that being that close to a tragic event can cause, and shame on those that use it to exploit rational human behaviour. However, even accepting that, that is one city, in one state - this law will impede peoples rights in all cities, in all states, in all the world.

Additionally, the arguement that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US is flawed. What was it Cheney said about the absence of evidence? One question though, I keep hearing people use this state but is it true? What about the Antrax cases while they were pushing through the PA1? Wasn't that considered terrorism? What about the American journilist/aid workers/etc that were beheaded earlier? Do their deaths don't count?(I am fairly sure they were Americans in there) - so this statement then is catgorically false isn't it?

One may make the claim that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil, and that I beleive would be true. However that could be attributed to many reasons. All governments have to walk that tight rope, because all governments want more power and all people are capable of rallying and taking out the government should they go further than the citizenry has been accustomed to accepting. The insidiousness, IMO, of this is that by using fear to manufacture an artifical point where the public is willing to accept the lose of rights/freedoms.

Let me ask you this - seriously, are you least likely to be harmed or killed by:
a) Terrorist attack
b) Mugging by fellow citizen.
c) Car accident with fellow citizen.
d) Smoking/Drinking/Social habits.
e) hit by lightening.

So come on. I know it has got to be hard. No one should have had to go through what happened that day, but by pointing it into perspective we can see that the associated fear of a terrorsist attack has been great embelished - whether intentionally or accidently anyones guess, but regardless of which the reality is you are more likely to die at the hands of your fellow American than you are any terrorist.

Once again, I mean no disrespect I merely don't understand the "whys" of these feelings.

This is the definition of a "no brainer".

Who could be against tracking phone calls from suspected Al-Queda members?

My guess is the same people who want to give terrorists Geneva Convention rights, and apply our Constitution to them as well.

If the Supreme Court and the Democrats put their heads together, I'm sure an Al-Queda Bill of Rights would soon follow.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by RRconservative]

Happy to discuss this issue with you...

- Thank you for responding, and without any sarcasm or attitude. I mean no offense, but I truly don't understand the mindset. Please help me with this. We can agree that many Americans died horrily that day. It was truly a tragic state - but the aqquiring of info wasn't what resulted in that terror - it was not acting on the information they had.

True, the aquisition of intelligence wasn't the short coming. Most significant among a myriad of shortcomings was the decison of the previous administration to build a wall between internal US law enforcment agencies and Federal inteligence agencies tasked with monitoring and aprehending foriegn terror suspects. They were not allowed to share information or cooperate in any meaningful way. This mindset which was inspired by the sincere desire to protect American citizens legal rights resulted in 3,000 deaths in two hrs on 9/11/06.

Additionally, the arguement that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US is flawed. What was it Cheney said about the absence of evidence? One question though, I keep hearing people use this state but is it true? What about the Antrax cases while they were pushing through the PA1? Wasn't that considered terrorism? What about the American journilist/aid workers/etc that were beheaded earlier? Do their deaths don't count?(I am fairly sure they were Americans in there) - so this statement then is catgorically false isn't it?

It is not, If you re-read you'll see I said not one death of a US citizen in the US or a visitor to this country.

Let me ask you this - seriously, are you least likely to be harmed or killed by:
a) Terrorist attack
b) Mugging by fellow citizen.
c) Car accident with fellow citizen.
d) Smoking/Drinking/Social habits.
e) hit by lightening.

Its not about me...Its about my fellow citizens, their husbands, wives, childeren, mothers, fathers.....