Who thinks... - Page 12

Rupert Pupkin · #**221** 09-16-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is an article about the wiretapping lawsuit from Law.com, including the list of plantiffs, accusing the gov't of wiretapping them. Including Christopher Hitchens, conservative columnist and Iraq war supporter. Hitchens and the ACLU suing over the same issue. The Bush cabal can make for strange bedfellows, can't it?

Anyway, here's the article you challenged anyone to show you. Warning; it's a law journal, so it's dry.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1157629871242

The article said those people had contacts overseas. These people must have had communications with suspected terrorists overseas. That is the only thing that will lead to a wiretap. Show me one person whose phone was wiretaped that did not have contact with known or suspected terrorists overseas. Even Bush' biggest critics have not accused him of wiretaps on people that did not have contacts with suspected or known terrorists overseas.

Rupert Pupkin · #**222** 09-16-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But they don't do that until you check in for your flight-- I can hang out at the Fast Wok at La Guardia (or whatever the Chinese food spot there is) all day without having to take off my shoes. My point is, they don't search you until you check in for a flight. And unless I'm wrong, those flights are run by private companies. The discussion was about searches in public places, wasn't it?

That's not the case at any airports that I go to. At the airports that I go to such as Los Angeles Airport, you can't even get into the area where the restaurants are without going through the metal detector. The only place you can go without being searched is the ticket counter. You can't go any further than that without going throught the metal detector and being subject to search. I'm not even sure if you can go the gates without presenting a ticket any more. In the old days, if you had a friend that was landing, you could greet them at the gate. I'm not sure that you can even do this any more. I think you need a ticket to go to that area. I know that you have to go through the metal detectors to get to that part of the airport.

Danzig · #**223** 09-16-2006, 08:02 PM

from what i've seen, it had to do with people with contact with known or suspected terrorists or terror groups, and anyone who supports them-under the guise of a charity for example....it's not like anyone is randomly selecting phones to tap. they have a real and compelling reason for it.

all i know is the results are there--no attack in five years, several attacks still in the planning stage thwarted. don't want your phone tapped? don't hang out with bin laden and his ilk...or send them money.

Danzig · #**224** 09-16-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not the case at any airports that I go to. At the airports that I go to such as Los Angeles Airport, you can't even get into the area where the restaurants are without going through the metal detector. The only place you can go without being searched is the ticket counter. You can't go any further than that without going throught the metal detector and being subject to search. I'm not even sure if you can go the gates without presenting a ticket any more. In the old days, if you had a friend that was landing, you could greet them at the gate. I'm not sure that you can even do this any more. I think you need a ticket to go to that area. I know that you have to go through the metal detectors to get to that part of the airport.

you can't get to the gates at little rock unless you have a ticket. things have definitely changed.

SentToStud · #**225** 09-16-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not the case at any airports that I go to. At the airports that I go to such as Los Angeles Airport, you can't even get into the area where the restaurants are without going through the metal detector. The only place you can go without being searched is the ticket counter. You can't go any further than that without going throught the metal detector and being subject to search. I'm not even sure if you can go the gates without presenting a ticket any more. In the old days, if you had a friend that was landing, you could greet them at the gate. I'm not sure that you can even do this any more. I think you need a ticket to go to that area. I know that you have to go through the metal detectors to get to that part of the airport.

Probably depends on the airport.

I just flew into Fort Lauderdale from Providence and there are public areas where there is no checkpoint/security. You cannot get to a gate area without going through security and without having a boarding pass. I think the TSA people are doing a very good and important job.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #**226** 09-17-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The article said those people had contacts overseas. These people must have had communications with suspected terrorists overseas. That is the only thing that will lead to a wiretap. Show me one person whose phone was wiretaped that did not have contact with known or suspected terrorists overseas. Even Bush' biggest critics have not accused him of wiretaps on people that did not have contacts with suspected or known terrorists overseas.

If these people had contacts with known terrorists overseas, don't you think that it would be rather stupid and pointless to try to sue over it? I really don't think that people would go to that much trouble if it wasn't legitimate. John McCain and John Warner are getting fed up with the Bush administration. Something is going on in that White House that is not supposed to be for our country is torn in half. We need a strong leader to get the people back together again. I personally believe that John McCain could do this. I really like that guy.

Danzig · #**227** 09-17-2006, 02:40 PM

oh lord...there are frivolous lawsuits filed every day!! filing suit doesn't mean a thing!

kentuckyrosesinmay · #**228** 09-17-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig188

oh lord...there are frivolous lawsuits filed every day!! filing suit doesn't mean a thing!

I know that Danzig, but two over the same thing? Coincidence, I don't think so. Plus, there are other articles. Also, tort law can be legitimate for two different reasons...to make a statement or because the party thinks that they have a good shot to win some money. With that being said, lawyers for these things aren't cheap unless you get one that takes the case based on the percentage of the money earned from the lawsuit because he/she is a young starting out lawyer or the lawyer definitely thinks that they can win the case.

Rupert Pupkin · #**229** 09-17-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

If these people had contacts with known terrorists overseas, don't you think that it would be rather stupid and pointless to try to sue over it? I really don't think that people would go to that much trouble if it wasn't legitimate. John McCain and John Warner are getting fed up with the Bush administration. Something is going on in that White House that is not supposed to be for our country is torn in half. We need a strong leader to get the people back together again. I personally believe that John McCain could do this. I really like that guy.

The article said that the people suing were scholars and journalists. They were basically saying, "We're not terrorists. We are scholars and journalists. Why are you wiretapping our phones?"

All the governmnet knows is that their phone numbers were in the phone books of terrorists that were apprehended overseas. These people are not going to get a special pass just because theya re scholars and journalists. The government tapped thier phones, and fully investigated these people. I'm sure that once the government was satisfied that these people were not terrorirsts, they left them alone.

Why would the government want to tap someone's phone for no reason? They don't have time to be tapping people's phones for the hell of it. There are 300 million people in this country. the government barely has the manpower to tap the phones of suspected terrorists let alone other people.

By the way, the article even said that the people who were suing the goverment had overseas contacts.

Anyway, as I said before nobody has accused the governemnt of tapping the phones of anyone other than people who were talking to suspected terrorists. The issue is whether or not the goverment has the right to tap the phones of US citizens that have been communicating with known or suspected terrorists. The more specific question is whether the government has the rigth to do it without obtaining a warrant from a judge. That is the issue and that is what the debate has been about.