Quote:
Originally Posted by MRMAGQQ";p="
You're just trying to revive the same old lame looney-left argument that has been pretty much discredited numerous times in the past, on this board.
|
Again, I'm no loon. I just value my rights and and wary of unchecked government power, as any patriotic American should be. I'm not shouting from the rooftops or wearing tinfoil or worried about cameras in my shower. You just look silly slinging the term around.
Quote:
|
If you read the Fourth Amendment, you'll find it mentions something about "unreasonable" search and seizure without a warrant. I'm not worrying about the government reading any of my normal, everyday emails, because I don't correspond with any known terrorists. Now, if I were to get hold of Osama bin Laden's email address, and send him a little "Hi, how're ya doin'" note, you can bet your rear end that there would be all kinds of bells and alarms going off, and the feds would be knocking at my door. I take huge comfort in knowing that the "gatekeepers" are doing their job. I feel kind of silly arguing against a non-argument.
|
If you read the sources provided on the site I linked to, there are plenty of people with concerns of being wiretapped that have no terrorist connections at all. They are journalists, scholars, activists, or the like. Everyday citizens have had their records turned over by telecoms. Simply making an international call is enough reason for the NSA to listen in.
If someone has terrorist connections, then by all means listen in to their talk, but do so after obtaining a warrant. No one quite seems to be able to tell me why it is so hard to obtain a warrant? They can be done in secret through the FISC, and even after surveillance has begun. Why is that not enough?