Range_This11 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 They still need warrants to search a house and can only wiretap calls overseas to a suspected member of Al Qaida. Suspected, not proven. That's enough to piss me off. "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Thats enough for me. What would someone be doing calling a suspected terrorist? My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Thats enough for me. What would someone be doing calling a suspected terrorist? They, could be related, friends...anything. You could cite any possible reason for calling somebody. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Or they could be planning to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Or they could be planning to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge. If we can't stop an obvious attack on a landmark like that, then I'm sorry, but our homeland security is terrible. It was terrible pre-9/11 too. We have enough intelligence on overseas terrorist networks and have for years. We don't need to wiretap private citizens. Our country's homeland security had one giant mess-up with the World Trade Centers that could have EASILY been prevented. That doesn't give them the right to wiretap private citizens regardless of who they're calling. "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I like that logic. We have terrible intel agencies so we shouldn't allow them to wiretap. 9/11 could have been prevented if Clinton hadn't gutted the FBI and CIA. I usually don't like to second guess but Louis Freeh really messed up the FBI. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Fine then, don't wiretap don't search homes. Leave many murders in cold cases and let the terrorist plan all they want while drug lords sneak drugs into the USA. see if you care. Also calm down, no need to shout. EDIT: I just noticed we went waaaaaaaaay off topic........ Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Fine then, don't wiretap don't search homes. Leave many murders in cold cases and let the terrorist plan all they want while drug lords sneak drugs into the USA. see if you care. Also calm down, no need to shout. Now you're venturing quite off-topic. Wiretapping has nothing to do with cold case murders or drug lords sneaking drugs in. Those two things will never be stopped and besides, terrorists will plot no matter if they're wiretapped or not. The point I've been trying to prove is if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Wiretapping, under any circumstances, is completely wrong. "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Wiretapping can help prevent terrorist attack, Searching people's home can help put a murder to rest, Survelliance can help catch Druglords. Sure it won't stop them from planning but we can stop them. Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 Wiretapping can help prevent terrorist attack, Searching people's home can help put a murder to rest, Survelliance can help catch Druglords. Sure it won't stop them from planning but we can stop them. What's wrong with how the country has traditionally done things the past few hundred years? It's not like we don't have detectives. The government just needs a leash to limit what they can and can't do. I want you to specifically answer this: where should we limit the power we give government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 What exactly is wrong with wiretapping? When has there been an abuse in recent times? My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenin64 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Maybe I've missed something, but couldn't the government just give themselves a warrant to search a house? That is who gives out the warrants, right? So then why would they need to pass acts that allow them to search without a warrant if they can just award themselves one? Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Lets keep on topic please~Lionheart_0 Wiretapping can help prevent terrorist attack, Searching people's home can help put a murder to rest, Survelliance can help catch Druglords. Sure it won't stop them from planning but we can stop them. What's wrong with how the country has traditionally done things the past few hundred years? It's not like we don't have detectives. The government just needs a leash to limit what they can and can't do. I want you to specifically answer this: where should we limit the power we give government? What is wrong with the solving of crimes the past couple of hundreds of years? I like to see you solve a case with nothing but a magnifing glass. Also to answer your question the limit should be when the protection of the people are in Danger, that's the limit. Also Lenin, the Government cannot give themselves a warrent, it has to be approved by the Court. Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 A judge needs to issue one. The government needs to build a case showing cause which often takes long. Even with warrantless wiretapping of overseas calls to terrorists someone(not sure who) from the DOJ(I think) needs to approve it. They still need the same amount of cause it's just faster I think. I think they also have to go back and get a retroactive warrant from a secret FISA court. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skill_Caster Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 You know, I've been thinking about the positive effects of this. I mean, think of the internet memes it could bring. "Don't safety bracelet me bro!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 What is wrong with the solving of crimes the past couple of hundreds of years? I like to see you solve a case with nothing but a magnifing glass. Also to answer your question the limit should be when the protection of the people are in Danger, that's the limit Our country remains at the top of the list for solving violent crimes, but tell me: Why do we need to change the ways we solve crime if it has been dropping SINCE 1993 "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Because our system is working \ Also if we do stop and stay the same they will figure out how to counter it. Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 What is wrong with the solving of crimes the past couple of hundreds of years? I like to see you solve a case with nothing but a magnifing glass. Also to answer your question the limit should be when the protection of the people are in Danger, that's the limit Our country remains at the top of the list for solving violent crimes, but tell me: Why do we need to change the ways we solve crime if it has been dropping SINCE 1993 Solving crime and preventing terrorism are two completely different things that can't be compared. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Solving crime and preventing terrorism are two completely different things that can't be compared. Oh I know, I wasn't referring to terrorism, but wizzkid brought up crime and the "war on drugs" (aka the war on personal freedom) so I was just referring to that. Hope that clears things up. "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superson Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Because our system is working \ Also if we do stop and stay the same they will figure out how to counter it. Don't fix what isn't broken. In Soviet Russia, glass eats OTers. Alansson Alansson, woo woo woo! Pink owns yes, just like you!GOOOOOOOOOO ALAN! WOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Well you heard Lionheart on Topic: These bracelets will hardly affect me at all. Can't beleive someone reported me, I'm the one getting Flamed >.< EDIT: If you wish to discuss the Government , click PM I been given a warning not to get this topic, Off Topic.... So I can't debate. Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 What is wrong with the solving of crimes the past couple of hundreds of years? I like to see you solve a case with nothing but a magnifing glass. Also to answer your question the limit should be when the protection of the people are in Danger, that's the limit. I'm not disputing whether or not the government should be fighting terrorists. The problem is the methods they're using are beginning to infringe on the individual rights of citizens guaranteed by the constitution. When the government starts eliminating rights is when I have an issue. As for me mentioning that things have been working for the past few hundred years. Because you mentioned we only had magnifying glass type technology, I'll restate what I said. In the 90's we had similar technology to what we have now. Obviously it is outdated, but still comparable. I think back to then, and ask myself, are we better off now than we were before? Was sacrificing these specific freedoms worth it? Will sacrificing more freedoms really be worth it? My answer is no. The technology we had back then is similar enough to what we have now that we don't suddenly need to take these measures. Also to answer your question the limit should be when the protection of the people are in Danger, that's the limit. I'm not sure I understand what you said. The government should be able to restrict our rights until we risk being put in danger from what? Can't beleive someone reported me, I'm the one getting Flamed You're not getting flamed. Debates get heated but I haven't seen any personal attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquariusman Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Great we can't quadruple quote ok to Limpbizkit Tazers where one of the first stunning technology invented some years ago (1988), don't you think that in those years they might have improved the stunning technology? The only way these "Safety Bracelets" can kill someone is if they were abused like maybe overriding the computer's reaction and identifing and innocent person as a "Victim" and shocking said Victim over and over, but I'm sure that they have something for this situation. So you're saying that because tazers and stunning technology have been around for so long that they cannot kill? I'm guessing that you did not hear about a fairly recent (6 months or so) incident involving a Polish man being tazered. Long story short, he died, and he was not tazered more than once. If the bracelets are meant to incapacitate the wearer, than they would need to be the equivalent of tazers in voltage. The only way we can make electricity safer is by reducing our contact with it, the voltages we use in everyday life, and how much of it we use. There is no way to raise or lower our bodies' restistence to electricity, meaning that the amount that is lethal, or incapacitating, remains the same. A tazer with the same effects in 20 years will almost definitely use the same voltage, the only changes that occur will be because we have come across a greater understanding of our bodies and their resistence to electricity. Another problem with these bracelets: What happens when someone requires their wrists to be bandaged? There is one way to avoid the bracelet. If they put it on your ankle, just use a paraplegic and damage their wrists so that they require bandages. If they put it on that person's ankle, and if my understanding of tazers is correct, then the person will not feel the effects of the bracelet. Or you could make a bomb that uses the bracelets output as a detonator. The bracelets just have too many flaws, both in practicality and regarding our rights. If they are implemented, they will make airports lose business and cost us money and comfort, without improving security. On the issue of surveillence. How can a government suspect someone of terrorism, yet not have enough evidence to justify a wire tap warrant? If there isn't enough evidence, put them on personal surveillence. This would be better than a wiretap, and in my opinion less intrusive on privacy. If that's more costly, then I guess America shouldn't have spent that $1 trillion on the War on Terror and other things, which has resulted in the death of more innocents and U.S. soldiers than 9/11 and any other acts of terrorism against the United States (Were there any others?). Not only that, but what has been accomplished? Sadam Hussein was tried and hung for war crimes. That is a worthy goal, but the results have been less than appealing. Saddam's dominance over Iran kept the conflicting forces from openly fighting. Now that he is gone, there is a power clash going on. There are more examples of America's good intentions with this war, with less than good results. I don't care if there is a threat of terrorism, there always is. Give evidence that I may be a terrorist, and I will accept any form of surveillence you want to put me under, for I am no terrorist, putting me under that surveillence will only waste your time and tax payers' money. On the topic of tax, America could use a tax hike. They are already Billions of dollars in debt to China, because of the war, yet tax rates are the same. There is a reason GWB Jr. has created this huge defeceipt (SP?), he won't raise taxes. Taxes are neccesary for a country to function properly within the expectations of it's citizens. If you want uniersal health care,expect to be paying for it with your taxes. Better education? More tax money gone. Better roads? Again, tax money. Anything you want the goverment to do, you will have to pay for. There's no such thing as regret. A regret means you are unhappy with the person you are now,and if you're unhappy with the person you are, you change yourself. Thatregret will no longer be a regret, because it will help to form the new,better you. So really, a regret isn't a regret. It's experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now