Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (33615)	1/18/2007 2:55:26 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541805

>>It's slippery and manipulative to use headlines and terms such as "US spying" and "domestic spying" to describe a Terrorist Surveillance Program.<< mjfdl - When the surveillance is going on within the US, it seems perfectly accurate to me. Besides, if there is no oversight, how can anyone be sure that every surveillance target is an actual terrorist? - Allen

To: mistermj who wrote (33615)	1/18/2007 9:13:19 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541805

Terrorists are people to. If you spy on them it's spying. I guess we could call it "good spying", if we were sure they were actually terrorists, but the problem is the government makes mistakes. These are the guys that run the department of education and the DMV- it's not like mistakes are unknown.

To: mistermj who wrote (33615)	1/18/2007 9:22:42 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541805

Ah, so you prefer to debate language issues rather than the fact the administration ignored the constitutional balance of powers. And has tried to do that over. And over. And over. Hopefully, three things are happening. First, they will not be able to expand those powers. Second, the one's they have grabbed will be taken back. And, third, we are going to get books which detail just how seriously our liberties were effected. And for no reason. The Bush administration has never tried to make the case that they could have accomplished all they wanted/needed within the confines of existing law and constitutional balance of powers.