digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Cheney Calls Tapping of Bank Records Essential

washingtonpost.com — "A secret program that allowed U.S. officials to examine hundreds of thousands of private banking records from around the world in search of terrorist ties has been "absolutely essential" to protecting the country from further attacks, Vice President Cheney said yesterday."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hrana, on 10/12/2007, -11/+78So lets see... they said they were tapping only international calls but nothing else. Then we found out they were keeping logs of who was calling who within the United States without any judicial over site but nothing else. Then we find out that my bank records are open for their viewing pleasure but nothing else. So what's next? The New Scientist recently reported the Pentagon is considering harvesting information from social networking sites to build more complete profiles on people. The LAPD recently began testing and deploying unmanned aircraft to patrol the skies above South California.

    I'd like to know when we are going to either have bar codes stamped on our forearms or RFID chips embedded beneath our skin. Will those also be essential for security?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+74Someone should tap Cheney's bank records and see how much tax revenue he has embezzled in offshore accounts and other money laundering schemes over the years. What a sonofabitch.

      America, what's the matter with you? Have you all lost your balls?
    • thoughtcancer, on 10/12/2007, -16/+59As long as Americans can still have their fast food, shopping malls, reality TV, Jesus, and celebrity worshhip, Cheney can do whatever the ***** he wants and no one will care.

      Bread and Circuses, anyone?
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11The bank records were obtained using a subpoena. Meaning there was judicial oversight and members of Congress knew about the program. This is not the same as the obviously unconstitutional NSA wiretapping case. While I agree with your concern over increased surveillance, there is a legitimate debate over the legallity.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -34/+10"As long as Americans can still have their fast food, shopping malls, reality TV, Jesus, and celebrity worshhip, Cheney can do whatever the ***** he wants and no one will care."

      The only "fast food" I eat is Subway, I don't go to the mall, I don't watch reality TV, I don't believe in Jesus, and I don't give two-***** about any celebrities. So take your stereotypes and anti-Americanism somewhere else.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -45/+9@hrana

      Nice job of fearmongering and FUD spreading, you ***** idiot.

      What makes you think YOUR bank records are open? That is, unless you've been wiring $10,000 amounts internationally.

      The SWIFT monitoring program WAS a vital tool to fight terrorism. That is, until some treasonous subjects decided to unravel details of (yet another) classified, top-secret program in the middle of a ***** war.

      And what have you against LA's drone? I suppose you have a problem with police helicopters and other legal law enforcement tools as well.

      @tuna1

      What the ***** is this 'obviously unconstitutional' nonsense regarding NSA programs? There has been no finding that ANY of these programs were illegal. Period. More FUD.



    • dharm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@pabster
      your whole comment was FUD... time to grow up (or grow down)
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8if you insult the president you get dugg up if you at least semi agree with him or support what hes doing you get dugg down how democratic is that i mean the only people this will effect are the people the goverment thinks are doing something wrong how many of you have got put in jail or worse about this policy none as far as i know its not hurting you unless its doing something wrong unlike taxation from a certain other political party
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"Someone should tap Cheney's bank records and see how much tax revenue he has embezzled in offshore accounts and other money laundering schemes over the years. What a sonofabitch."
      Money Laundering....hmmmm... wait a sec...
      I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.
      -Peter Gibbons
      Also.
      @Atomic1fire
      use some punctuation. Cant understand a word of what u said
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17"America, what's the matter with you? Have you all lost your balls?"

      Do you also blame common German people for letting Hitler happen, *****?

      We, sadly, don't quite have the societal brownian motion up to enough of a boil for someone to actually take Bush and his croneys out yet. Doesn't mean we all just bow down before their "radiant majesty."

      What country are you from? It would be very interesting to have a look at your government's no-doubt spotless, perfect leaders.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22I blame the native Germans for not standing up to their government - they got sucked-in by a leader with charisma (ok, Bush doesn't have that), and started a downward spiral that led to their eventual defeat and collapse...

      So who the hell else is going to do something about it?

      So yes common Americans citizens, we, the rest of the world blame YOU for not doing anything about YOUR government. If you aren't going to do it, who the hell is? Your government sure won't listen to anyone outside your borders, so, regretfully, you're the best of what's left...
    • BlackAle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@Atomic1fire hey, more than Americans use digg you know! this is what annoys me about some Americans, they think they live in their own little universe.
    • brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4I love how we bash America all we want, but get all defensive when anyone else does it.

      Bush won't listen to anyone who won't pay him to listen to him. The only way we'll get him to stop is to pay him more than he's getting paid by everyone else. So feel free to give money to Bush, maybe then he'll listen to you.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@Atomic1fire,

      > if you insult the president you get dugg up if you at least semi agree with him or support what hes doing you get dugg down how democratic is that

      Very democratic.

      Let me explain something, because it seems to be a misconception many people have.

      DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN GETTING YOUR OWN WAY ALL THE TIME AND IT DOESN'T MEAN A 50-50 SPLIT BETWEEN TWO SIDES.

      If your comments are being dugg down, that doesn't mean there's a lack of democracy, it means the majority of people disagree with you.
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3And no matter how many of these terrorist we catch and kill using these tools, the left always play the role of the drama queen and think the feds are wasting their time on them. We have caught terrorist in Maimi and in Chicago ready to launch plots against the US, Canadians also rounded up some of these scum in Toronto, and Time has a story about terrorists who were foiled in their attempt to bomb the NYC subway system.

      Does it matter that the feds used methods like this to stop the bad guys?


      NO!

      Instead we get wack job leftist who call bush Hitler and act like the brownshirts are outside the door.

      Maybe we should ask of the left what their plan is for catching these people?

      Instead of modding this comment down, lets heare your plan.
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6"if you insult the president you get dugg up. If you at least semi agree with him or support what he's doing you get dugg down. How democratic is that"

      Welcome to the world of Digg. Now dont do it too much or you may disappear.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2...
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The bank records were obtained using a subpoena. Meaning there was judicial oversight and members of Congress knew about the program. This is not the same as the obviously unconstitutional NSA wiretapping case. While I agree with your concern over increased surveillance, there is a legitimate debate over the legallity.


      Not exactly tuna and yes thats what they wanted you to believe when they used that word; subpoena. But it isnt a judical supoena. It is an executive one or a "national security letter" it isnt the same thing as oversight judical or otherwise, and select memebers of congress were only told after the times made it clear it was going to run the story.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"if you insult the president you get dugg up. If you at least semi agree with him or support what he's doing you get dugg down. How democratic is that"

      yeah and if you agree with the president you keep your job, you dont agree you will be swift boated out of office or at the very least totally ignored. How democratic is that??
    • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+201984 is not in the past, it's your future!
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I have been reading all of the dugg down comments... and they're all conservative-minded. Someone said this was "very democratic"... that's "very unlikely" when it's pretty much unipartisan...

      Just because you don't agree with their ideas, DON'T MOD THEM DOWN. If they use foul language, insult other people or force their ideas upon you, then fine. But if someone is just trying to prove a point or get a discussion going, let the comment be. They might be wrong in your eyes, but not someone else's.

      This is the epitome of CENSORSHIP, (!) which I know all you are completely against. So please, be a little open-minded.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@tidu

      I am a small-government, non-intervensionist Republican. Been one all my voting life. I don't get modded down except by the neocon warmongers on this forum, and I make plenty of comments that go against the usual Democrat big-government template.

      This war, and the surveillance state, are a failure and an evil that no real conservative likes.
    • dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3

      That'll be the day the Islamic facists come to _your_ door and make you bow down to allah 5 times a day..or, cut off your head. If you can, find a clue
    • spydabyte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I just see a McCarthy maneuver in our near future.

      Can you say Red Scare 2?
    • EvilPenguins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@williamdyer: I agree completely. I’m actually a liberal but I have modded up plenty of conservatives like you (and modded down liberals). It’s only the war crazed ones that say any one who does not agree with them is a terrorist that get modded down.
    • Rayonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ spydabyte :

      Declassified KGB documents show that the Red Scare was generally correct. The American Communist Party *was* a front for the Soviets. They did indeed have spies in U.S. nuclear programs. Julius and Ethel Rosenburg were actually guilty. The State Department was infiltrated (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Duggan).

      Surely the blacklists went too far, but that fact doesn't mean that despotic communist governments *weren't* waging an information war.
    • inadapte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sadly, I think that thoughtcancer's got it right. An interesting read along the lines of his/her post is "Greetings from Idiot America" in the 11/05 issue of Esquire mag. Makes me wanna immigrate to...well...Anywhere Else.
    • AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, let me add my 2 cents...being originally a citizen of a 3rd world country, this is how things go over there...
      1. The country is in the hands of the police, which is controlled by the government which protects the regime.
      2. The police can obtain *any* information about you by going to an authority which is part of the 'police system' and requesting a permission (they typically get it within a couple of days) and of course you as a citizen (being part of the 'herd' in the eyes of the governing regime) don't know anything about this surveillance or investigation going on about you behind your back.
      3. You can be thrown in jail very easily by the police 'finding' you a crime just because you're a 'problematic' kind of guy in the eyes of the regime.
      4. Freedom of speech, now that's a biggggggggg joke back there, you have the right to say whatever you want as long as you don't say the 'wrong' against the president, other than that you can say what you want of course in the non-national newspaper (the media back home is owned by the government so it's a 'no no' too). Even though you can comment, blame and accuse the regime of the wrong they will still do whatever they want no matter what.
      5. Oh and the majority in the parliament is from the governing party so they can pass all the laws they want (or rather that the president wants).
      6. The government knows that the citizens love soccer, so of course there's soccer day and night on the TV so people don't think about the political system and the issues going on in the country...

      Now do any of the above 6 points sound familiar?
  • gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I just hope all you know, this came from the book of revalation in the bible (danger danger a religious quote!!!). As for the mark of the beast, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with following financial transactions to find terrorist/terror links.
    • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23Dick Cheney isn't the Devil....



      ....He's much, much worse.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4So what does this article have to do with the mark of the beast? absolutly nothing, and people digg this comment while they bury the fact that subpoenas were issued for all of these.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6To the numb-skulls asking what the mark of the beast has to do with surveillance: To put all commerce under surveillance is evil. Satanic. Beyond criminal and unconstitutional. Privacy in commerce is a natural right, and those who pervert this right are literally in league with Satan.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Gonna love Digg v3! More political debates!
  • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29as somebody said before: "one nation under surveillance"
  • Kirium, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Something is going to need to be done about the "land of the free" line in you National Anthem...
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6What paradise do you live in?
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Home of the what now?
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Or "One Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
      Atheist FTW
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Foolfromhell (Fitting, isn't it). I know that I'm only lowering myself by arguing with you, and I know that this is off-topic to the article, but I feel that your comment needs a reply. Atheism does NOT mean that you have to bar yourself from ever hearing about 'God' Atheism does not mean that you need to religiously ignore anything that has anything to do with religion. The point of atheism is a LACK of religion, following that rule: What God are you offending by saying 'under God'? The only reason you wouldn't want to say that would be a religious reason, and atheism is NON-RELIGION. This contradicts.
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"Something is going to need to be done about the "land of the free" line in you National Anthem.."

      And we are not? Look at all of the nations that have gone under rather than fight the terrorist, are you saying that we should just give in to them because the fight is just too hard?

      Sorry, but the cut and run plan is too Frence for Americans to choose.
    • boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@ elnerdo

      because of bible thumping assholes like you, non-christians in this country are forced to participate in religious and faith affirming rituals that have no place in the public square. as atheists we're not worried about 'offending' any god when saying the pledge of allegiance. on the contrary, being forced to say it offends our sensibilities. my question is, how does it offend you to pray to your god at home and not force other people to do it with you?

      ugh and at igeterix- that's the worst thing i've ever heard. which countries have 'gone under' from not following george bush to war?
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4guess what elnerdo? My old school FORCED me to say the pledge. WITH the "one nation under god". This was in a public school even. What say you?
      Also, "ugh and at igeterix- that's the worst thing i've ever heard. which countries have 'gone under' from not following george bush to war." Exactly. no one has "gone under" from not following him to war. But Tony Blair lost a lot of support from his following of Bush to war. Just saying. Not against you boxomojo
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"ugh and at igeterix- that's the worst thing i've ever heard. which countries have 'gone under' from not following george bush to war?"

      Look at a good deal of Europe that is now being terrorized by radical islamic groups, from the riots in France to the riots over the Danish cartoon, too many in Europe still do not see the real dangers that they face. Canada was one of those nations until they tossed out the liberals and got a PM with some stones.



      "because of bible thumping assholes like you, non-christians in this country are forced to participate in religious and faith affirming rituals that have no place in the public square"

      Like nativity scenes and the words "In God We Trust"? the horrors!

      We must get this Jesus freak out of sight.....So the Musulm can have a place for his prayer mat.
    • boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ igeterix again

      the riots in france had to do with socio-economic situations and NOTHING to do with radical islam. and people attackiing the danish embassy in lebanon does not at all equal the country of denmark "going under." find out what you're saying before you write about it.

      and don't twist what i said about religion. i simply said, be religious at home, and leave me out of it. is that so hard?
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Guess what iGeterix? All Muslims are not bad.
      You dont see people angry at North Koreans. The ones with Nukes.
      You dont see people angry at the Russian Terrorists. Also the ones with Nukes
      You do see people angry at the Muslims. The only ones in the world who WANT nukes, but dont have them.
      Theres predujuce for you. its OK to be angry at some people more than others. Even if they all do the same crime.
      If a muslim blows up a government building, there will be more outcry than if anyone else blows the same building up. Its predijuce (sp?)
      You are the kind of Person that the Republican Propaganda gets to. You are gullible. And will follow anything the government says. Theres NO WAY there can be wrong. right?
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3didnt have time to edit message to include this.
      I dont have a problem with hearing about god. In fact, I like hearing other people talk about god. I just dont like being forced to say something against MY principles. I have vowed never to try to convert someone who does not want to be converted. My beliefs are my OWN and I will not change it.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Time to adopt the Horst Wessel song as the national anthem!

      "Flag high, ranks closed,
      The GOP marches with silent solid steps.
      Patriots smeared by the liberal front and reaction
      march in spirit with us in our ranks."

      Heil!
    • shikitho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@elnerdo

      I agree. Athiests need to be more open minded about other religions. Just because you aren't religious doesn't mean that everyone else can't be. But I disagree about the "which god are you insulting" thing. Not all religions are about gods. Buddhism for example. Not everyone believes in a god even though they are religious.
    • xchbla423, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ElnerdoWeak atheism is a lack of religion. Strong atheism is the belief in no god(s).
      foolfromhell: How did they FORCE you?
      shikitho: Atheists usually are open-minded. They do NOT however like having other people shoving religions down their throat. Same with other religions. And as Buddhism does not believe in the existence of a god it is a philosophy, not a religion.
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Guess what iGeterix? All Muslims are not bad."
      Gee thanks, Gandhi. I just had no idea. But guess what, they seem to be the ones wanting to kill us more than anyone else, and those who aren't radical fruits are way too silent.

      "You don't see people angry at North Koreans. The ones with Nukes."
      Not the same. N. Korea is a nation-state where the government is well know to be the loony toons while the people are starving and being held captive.

      "You don't see people angry at the Russian Terrorists. Also the ones with Nukes"
      People do not trust Russia. Maybe its a holdover from the USSR?
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"foolfromhell: How did they FORCE you?
      They gave me detention if I didnt say it.
      We need to have this stickied so this debate can continue
  • p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Let me take a wild guess here: I'll Mr. Cheney's bank records aren't tapped. But OURS are?

    Someone needs to retire back to Wyoming...
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Mr. Cheney does not have a history of preaching Jihad against the United States either. Also, who said your bank records were being surveyed?
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20He *doesn't*? My Cheney has done VASTLY more damage to my freedom, privacy and well-being than all the members of the Taliban rolled into one.

      If that's not Jihad, it'll do until one comes along...
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The comments by Cheney, Snow and other senior Bush administration officials were made the day after news organizations exposed the surveillance effort, in which the Treasury Department has subpoenaed data from an international banking cooperative that serves as a messaging service for overseas monetary transfers."

      They subpoened the data....how is this illegal? And how much good can come from this?
    • roystgnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Someone needs to retire back to Wyoming..."

      Don't you mean "back to Texas"? Cheney was a Texan until he realized that he had to find a loophole in the 12th Amendment.
  • eschompthis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Dick Cheney can suck my Dick Cheney. Hes a Robot he needs to die already, I sound mean but the dude is ***** crazy.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23He's not crazy, he's a cold, calculating gangster. He's the real Al Soprano, and on a scale the mafia could only dream of. BILLIONS.
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9another reason for digg to grow more anti american
    • boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7people who don't like being spied on are more american than you, *****
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I think this current administration is antiamerican even though it claims otherwise.
    • infonography, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5No, we are merely anti ***** [Atomic1fire & tuna1] Run back to 'news'max you turdblossom wannabes
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The people posting pro-Bush comments here are definitely NOT the same species of conservative that reads Newsmax. Newsmax is very sceptical of teh government, and editorially opposes surveillance programs and other jack-booted thug tactics.
  • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19I'm pissed off, rather than writing a funny comment so I will get diggs in here I'd just like to say that this is ***** *****.
  • Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Dick Cheney is full of bull *****.
    • chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17actually, rumor has it he's full of marshmallows.
    • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11That's true, but don't eat the marshmallows, they're laced with arsenic.
  • toadster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14But we must be protected from the terrorists!
    • cogen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9additionally, think of the children!
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10But what about the child terrorists?
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Well, if you think stopping these people is a big joke, then just say so. Instead of most of you on the left calling the VP all types of curse words, just to get Diggs, maybe you can give a beter plan for tracking these guys down.
  • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Tap a bank record? Maybe "Cheney Calls Bank Record Survelience Essential", nice job feeding off the wake of the NSA wiretaps. As for the bank records, you can't buy fertilizer or rent a truck without money!
  • dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Tracking financial records has been a key aspect of law enforcement for almost a century. This program, unlike wiretapping, was evidently very narrowly focused and had pretty tight privacy controls. Records were properly subpeoned, and congress was informed as per the law. If the wiretapping program had been run like this, there would not be an issue with it. Everyone knows that financial transactions in the US and internationally are and have been closely tracked for years - for tax evasion and money laundering reasons, if nothing else. Why do you think that > $10k transactions at banks require extra paperwork. I'm as much of a civil libertarian as anyone, but taking away the ability to track the financial trails of terrorists will destroy our law enforcement efforts. Are people on Digg concerned about the privacy of their international wire transfers and numbered swiss accounts? How many of us even have these things, ever? Its not like making a phone call...

    I realize its funny to just ritually intone "Cheney sucks" or mutter about Bush being dumb. I'm not denying these things may be true. However, its dangerous to issue blanket condemnations of all law enforcement programs.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Well heres the general consensus around digg. AHH AHH the government is doing somthing its been doing for years but its only important now, that "the devil himself" aka GW, is president and I dont like him! Who cares about the nations security, terrorist are a made-up figment of the imagination - nobody wants to kill other people in the name of islam! That would about sum up what I think is the general belief of digg users.
    • tessil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The federal government already looks at private banking records. They've done this for years behind closed doors. Law or no law. If they can get an actual law on the books it will be easier to use banking records in court, but regardless they can already see that information today. His end-goal is to get better international laws in place. The US law is a non-issue for this or any future administration.
  • Mneitzel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hey they can look at min, if I can see Cheney's and Bush's account. And maybe the phone records, As a tax payer, I think its my right.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5They do not look at each and everybodys account summarys and they dont sit there and listen in on phonecalls either. The NSA does not care wtf you are doing unless its terror related, if you think otherwise then name one case of sombody being criminaly indicted from phone records obtained in the name of terror.
    • matthiasgoodman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You actually can see their tax records. There are probably free places to get them but the first one on google was for this paid CD-ROM version:

      http://www.paperlessarchives.com/gwb.html
    • psylence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7mirunit: Nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?

      Ugh...
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@psylence

      Even if you have somthing to hide, as long as it does not pertain to terrorism then they can't touch you, and if they do lets see how it holds up in court.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@mirunit.
      America fanboy huh?
      "Even if you have somthing to hide, as long as it does not pertain to terrorism then they can't touch you, and if they do lets see how it holds up in court."
      What if they used "Terrorism" to spy on you without a warrant for something else? Like smuggling?
  • radiohead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6For more background on the shenanigans of Cheney regarding the war on terror, check out the Frontline show this past week, "The Dark Side". It's available for viewing online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
    • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5It's probably liberal propaganda, but I shall take a look.
  • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." ~Thomas Jefferson
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Thomas Jefferson wasn't fighting a War on Terror. In case you sheeple have forgotten we ARE winning in this Crusade. If it wasn't for people like Dick Cheney and his kind we wouldn't be where we are right now.
      If you libtards were in charge, youse guys would welcome these Terrorists into your homes and say, yes mr.terrorist, blow me up, terrorist style.
      It's people like Dick Cheney who protect you libtards from yourself by going after the people who want to kill you. It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to get as much information as we can so Dick Cheney can determine just who is funding the terrorist.
      Besides, if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide.
    • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@JohnCrichton

      It always makes me smile when people say that to me. First of all, you assume I'm a "liberal" because I used an intelligent quote (maybe that says something right there?)

      Without writing a book, here is my argument. You give the government more power, and they'll take it and they'll abuse it. I have 4000 years of human history to back up my claims. Go ahead, remove the checks and balances from our Democracy, and soon you will find yourself in a dictatorship.

      Mark my words.
  • Mneitzel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Heck, now the White House knows that I can't type or use spell check

  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

    Benjamin Franklin
    • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Amen, brotha'.
    • Lynx34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I was just about to say that... except with the Civ IV re-wording, or maybe it was just differently transcribed, who knows. But in any case, yeah.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1some things are timeless
  • 9tailfox, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8What is this America Land of the Free thing you speak of? There was once the USSR now here comes the USSA.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Like I said in the last article about this case, you people need to read it.

      This is not the same as the unconstitutional NSA wiretapping case, there was judicially issue subpoenas for American records and foreign banks were just asked for records, and members of Congress were briefed on the program.

      As with every post on this subject I have to say, I don't support Bush, I didn't vote for Bush either time, I am not a Republican, I am not a conservative, and overall I don't support this administration.
    • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I still don't trust them; they can't seem to do anything else right, but, of course, this is different!
    • ductormalef, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Why don't you tell me exactly how my freedoms were restricted by this?
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@ductormalef: "Why don't you tell me exactly how my freedoms were restricted by this?"

      When you grow up, move out of your parents' house and get a job, you'll be old enough to not even have to ask this question.
    • jo42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's now Amerika.
  • dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Apparently everything from the current administration is "absolutely essential" to protecting the country from further attacks.
    • gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Surely you do not want Mr. bin Laden back?

      /semiobscuregeorgeorwellreference
    • theoneliner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Bin Laden left? I thought he was still renting a studio in Hollywood to produce his little videos damning all of us to hell.

      Maybe you mean Saddam, which is so totally american. Hell, both have darker skin.

      Might as well go after Webster cuz Gary Coleman slapped that lady.
  • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Next: Secretely conducted cavity searches for all citizens. It's absolutely essential!
  • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, it's either "National Security" or "Social Programs", take your pick. Of course you could just move to the free state (http://www.freestateproject.org).
  • Schug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4It's weird reading this after seeing this : http://www.digg.com/science/9_11_Video_shows_never_before_seen_footage
  • boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm not in favor of surveillance and snooping in general, but check out page 2 of The Article. It was done with subpoenas, and very specifically to certain people "whose possible terrorist connections [the US] could prove". As The Article quotes an anonymous bank official, "it was done right".
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5As if the left-wing extremist liberal conspiracy-theory-toting idiots here on Digg would ever accept anything the Bush administration does as "done right".

      Hell they could have their favorite ACLU monitoring it day and night and they'd still have something to bitch about.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I don't agree with your liberal conspiracy theory comment, but I do agree that this place has become a haven for unreasonable people who can't handle other points of view or adequate debates.

      @boredzo
      That's what I've been saying. While I don't support Bush, since it's a Bush administration program, they are stuck on the Bush part and won't let go.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"As if the left-wing extremist liberal conspiracy-theory-toting idiots here on Digg would ever accept anything the Bush administration does as "done right"."

      I suppose it depends on how you define 'done right'.

      I challenge every Bush supporter I know to come up with emprical evidence to show that Bush has done well as a president, and, thus far, they can't.
  • ryandbrimhall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I love how most of the comments about Cheney just make personal insults to the presendent and always have to mention that he is wealthy.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It highlights the fact that they're mostly out of touch with the average American and especially the average citizen of the world. Their rich, spoiled oil men that have a sense of entitlement unmatched in any past presidency.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"It highlights the fact that they're mostly out of touch with the average American and especially the average citizen of the world."

      They aren't representing the citizens of the world.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Part of the reason they're failing in Iraq is that they only vaugely understand Islamic, Arab, and Persian culture.

      They don't represent the citizen of the world, that's true, but if they want to solve all the problems they've created they need to understand people that most people aren't WASPy, pudgy neo-cons with SUV's and McMansions.
  • fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Is Digg v3 going to have a way of automatically filtering out the "left-wing political propaganda" articles from the front page?
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Not likely. If anything, we'll see even more of this nonsense.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Truth hurts doesn't it...
    • redsrule2500, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Agreed, it's getting really old. It's all of the Euro/Canadian users, who have nothing better to do but make themselves feel better with their non-superpower country by bashing other countries presidents...or the 40% of US citizens who actually believe them.
  • lexluthor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Guys - it is 1984 ass based on national security. What happened to privacy in america. Are you all scared ?
  • oneaway, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Cheney also thinks 9/11 was a good idea.
    • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's b/c his company made it rich on no-bid construction jobs, paid by US tax payer dollars. 9/11 and Iraq were/are a gold mine for him and others.
    • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3...Tell me how this guy is getting diggs?? PLEASE!? someone point out the intelligence in that IGNORANT statement...
  • espek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I am honestly afraid to post anything negative about the current administration for fear of being put on a list somewhere. How's that for living in the ***** of liberty and freedom.

    • oneaway, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4If it makes you feel any better, George Bush doesn't know how to use a computer.
    • fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3About the worst you have to fear is people yawning at you for being a bore, bringing political discussions to Digg where we want to talk about interesting things. Quit being afraid of your shadow.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"I am honestly afraid to post anything negative about the current administration for fear of being put on a list somewhere."

      I'm not... that way, at least we'll know when they're coming after us and give us a reason to start the revo...8qf9pep#Q*Fq#*Q#

      EOT
  • redsrule2500, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Unlike most things, tapping of bank records is something I'm NOT concerned about. I don't have any illegal streams of money, unlike most of you?!?
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Its not whether or not we are actually committing crimes or sending money to terroristas. Its the idea of privacy. Have you heard of it? Maybe you don't care but most people would prefer not having their ***** ***** eyed over by some douche bag in a government office.

      Hey ***** pick up a book called "The Whiskey Rebellion" and find out what Americans where like before you ***** moved to town. You Ann Coulter types really break my balls. You think I'm a pussy liberal I'd ***** pick up a rifle and fight for my country any day it was a just fight.
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1What is some going to look me up?
    • fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1If you blow up Americans, I don't give a crap about your privacy. I want you dead. If we have to tap some phone lines and investigate some bank records, so ***** what? No problemo. A bullet in the brain is good for you too. I really don't give a ***** about privacy when we got ***** running around blowing up cars, airplanes, ruining people's lives, destroying lives. What the ***** do we need privacy for when we're dead anyway if we don't do something to stop them?

      Worry about restoring the privacy stuff later. Yeah it's important but please, after these ***** jihadists are dead already first, eh?
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@fooplex

      I disagree with you. I value my freedoms - every one of them. I don't believe in giving up my liberties for security. I wish you people would read the article. But this program was using all three branches of government.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Unlike most things, tapping of bank records is something I'm NOT concerned about. I don't have any illegal streams of money, unlike most of you?!?

      yeah let the president do anything he wants as long as it doesnt effect me... sorta sounds like if you havent done anything wrong why worry huh?? the same thing Hitler said in german.. such a tired old arguement.. No i dont have large sums of money in the bank but that isnt the point now is it. Freedom is.

    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"(Edited Out Random Curse Words)....You think I'm a pussy liberal I'd ***** pick up a rifle and fight for my country any day it was a just fight."

      That will be a long wait, because leftist never see a fight for the US to be just.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Give me liberty or give me death."

      It's back to 4th grade history class for you, fooplex....
    • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 "If you blow up Americans, I don't give a crap about your privacy. I want you dead. If we have to tap some phone lines and investigate some bank records, so ***** what? No problemo. A bullet in the brain is good for you too. I really don't give a ***** about privacy when we got ***** running around blowing up cars, airplanes, ruining people's lives, destroying lives. What the ***** do we need privacy for when we're dead anyway if we don't do something to stop them?

      Worry about restoring the privacy stuff later. Yeah it's important but please, after these ***** jihadists are dead already first, eh?"

      Yeah, lets throw away our right civil liberties and values to make it easier and so you can have false sense of security. That sounds a little too much like winning the battle but loosing the war. Terrorism and jihadists aren't going away, and the war on terrorism is likely to be perpetual. We're suppose to be protecting those values not shedding them. History has taught us that once you give up a right to the government it's next to impossible to get it back. I don't know if you've noticed but the government has asserted that even if these programs are illegal, it's immune for punishment and review. Now how do you intend to take back privacy from a government that claims it is above the law when it comes such matters? If you say over through it, that's sedition.
  • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Why hasn't anyone here besides the few non-partisian individuals acknoledged the legal steps taken for this program? And why does everyone have to unleash into personal attacks? Why can't we have a legitimate debate?
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'm not partisan, I don't align with any political party in the United States. Personal attacks? Oh I dunno getting called a pussy liberal or a libtard on every comment page in digg that is even remotely political. I guess the idiots just get to me after a while and after a while I mean about fifteen seconds. They seem to do it to anyone that questions anything,
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I agree, I love getting called a whining liberal and an ***** Republican in the same topic.
  • Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4How would they spin it so that US troops would fight against a US citizen?

    Your not going to be pointing your rifle at your Mom, Dad, and sisters who support keeping their 4th amendment and privacy. It's going overboard. I feel half afraid to post this, shows how much freedom of speech we have. I'll probably be labeled a terrorist and put on their watch list.

    Where are the UN blue helmets when the guberment needs them?
  • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I wish I knew. These articles are worded on Digg for a reason, to drum up anti-Bush diatribes and to digg them up as much as possible.
  • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Dick Cheney isn't the Devil....

    ....He's much, much worse."

    This comment got a +5

    Me asking what the plan form the left is to stop terrorism goes right down. -1


    Which side is discussing this seriously again?
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"iGeterix" now?

      I guess Geterix was banned for being an RIAA/MPAA shill. You must be his long lost cousin.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The ones who actually read the article and the NYTimes article.
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0"I guess Geterix was banned for being an RIAA/MPAA shill. You must be his long lost cousin."

      Oh please, kid. I pointed out to a bunch of software pirates how stupid their positions were, and they went and cried to apparently an actual paid Digg moderator, who instead of telling these clowns that Digg dosent do political censorship of comments, crapped his pants, and pull my account. Oh well, big deal. Support private property, be called a MPAA "shill". Whatever.

      That mod does need to be fired.
    • johnny23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'll bite,

      How about the USA stops invading little countries, killing their citizens, all based on the hunger for oil?
    • iGeterix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"How about the USA stops invading little countries, killing their citizens, all based on the hunger for oil?"

      This is why it is pointless to even talk about this with a leftist. I cannot believe that they go into the world with this as an actual legitimate point in a debate and then expect to be taken seriously.
  • wshwe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Absolute power corrupts absolutely Kings Bush/Cheney! Will the new digg have a way to filter out right-wing propaganda?
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4To all the neo con loving nuts that want to make this a partisan affair.
    NOONE CARES THAT BUSH IS BREAKING THE LAW, no really honestly, we dont care.
    We do want a safe country. If bush needs more powers to get ossama, lets give it to him.
    But we do it the American way, with proper oversight, People arent so concerned with what bush is doing because you are right it doesnt effect me and if it gets the bad guys great, what bothers everyone is the complete disreguard for the american method of checks and ballance.
    So know i dont care if they look at terrorist bank records, i dont care if they listen to terrorist phone calls, I dont care if they grab all terrorist internet records, I DO CARE THEY DO IT WITH ZERO OVERSIGHT.
    And what about the innocent german they tortured, OOPS my bad we move on?
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I agree with you on that, but proper interpretation of the constitution is needed as well - that can't be stressed enough. But this program was done with oversight from the other two branches of governement. With the news we have on this program now, I'm still on the fence over whether the 4th ammendment was violated. I don't agree that its the neocons that are turning this debate partisian, its the wingnut far-leftists who won't acknowledge this fact either because they didn't read the article or because they refuse to accept that fact since its a Bush program.
    • theoneliner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If GW spent half the ***** time he spends on bashing gays and ***** the American public about his "war on terror" and trying to justify ***** like this article

      OSAMA WOULD BE CAPTURED BY NOW!!!!!

      Stop thinking this ***** is about protecting YOU from the bad guy.

      Jesus Christ. The US army found one of the most evil dicks in a damn hole. They could find a god damn Saudi carrying a dialysis machine if we had a leader that actually worried about getting the dude that murdered our citizens!

      What does it take for some guys to get that?
  • FIGJAM, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Looking at SWIFT bank records might prevent another attack like 9/11. So....let's see...what's more important....my privacy or my life? Hmmmm....my privacy or my life....gosh...that's a tough choice. Think about it. The terrorists want to KILL us. Sacrificing a tiny bit of privacy for my LIFE seems to be a decent trade off.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1We aren't sacrificing anything. There were members of the legislative branch and the judicial branch in between this executive program. A judge had to issue these subpoenas (which very few people here acknoledge) and the members of Congress were briefed on the program.

      I've been trying to avoid lashing out but, READ THE ***** ARTICLE!
    • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2They want to kill you? What did you do to piss them off that badly?
    • SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As they say in New Hampshire, "give me liberty or give me death".

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.

      "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

      You have fallen for their *****. They have you scared. Worried that you could be killed at any minute. Convinced that you should let them do whatever they say will protect America from the "evil doers". Could you be killed at any second? Of course. Not just by terrorism either. You could get hit by a bus. Shot randomly by a crazy guy. Eaten by a bear on your next camping trip. The engine could fall off a jet and land on your house. There is ALWAYS a chance that you could die horribly at any minute, and there is nothing you or the government or anyone can do to change this. Get over it and stop acting like a coward, ready and willing to hand over your inalienable rights for the hope of a false promise of security.
  • bobinator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Nobody got spied on by the feds when Clinton got head. Lol sorry, I was trying to find a rhyme..
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml
      http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

      Do your research, please.
    • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Great so we have effectively confirmed that the government has been spying on its citizens. Where does that bring us tuna1? Again no political affiliation here, its whether or not its occurring that saddens me.

      For someone who has an avatar of a man with a mowhawk you seem to be fairly conservative.
    • dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"Do your research, please."

      Please choose some "research" sources without ads featuring Ann Coulter and an article written by the author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"...
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@dirtyfratboy

      Clinton already admitted to allowing surveillance, he claimed it was his authority. I wasn't arguing the legallity of what he did, but his comment was that Clinton never surveilled. So the political view of the site or author had no bearing on the point I was trying to make.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The avatar is Robert Deniro from "Taxi Driver". I am not conservative. I am making the point that Bush wasn't the only one to surveille. I think that demonstrates more non-partisianship. I am a registered independent who speaks with reason.

      I've never denied that it's never been happening. I don't mind surveilling as long as it's constitutional and law abiding - meaning with judicial authority and a bi-partisian congressional approval. Plain and simple. Is that conservative? I don't let my cynicism for Bush get in the way of facts and reason. Is that conservative?

      If you'd look through my other comments, I have been quite critical of everyone, conservatives in paticular.
    • vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Grow? They've been there for a long time..
    • vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2dirtyfratboy...you are an ***** dude. You've been using digg as your personal politics splash page forever. While you are putting on your anti-american mask, are you also enjoying the dictatorial, one-sided "reporting" you've been pushing on the millions of digg readers? It feels good to control people's minds doesn't it while you criticize Bush for keeping your ass safe to do so. The irony doesn't get thicker than that!
    • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3research tuna? Oh please....Do you even know how use Google?
      Clinton did physical searches when it was legal back then before the law was amended.
      [Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."]

      http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
      http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200512210012
    • dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ vvaduva

      "dirtyfratboy...you are an ***** dude. You've been using digg as your personal politics splash page forever. While you are putting on your anti-american mask, are you also enjoying the dictatorial, one-sided "reporting" you've been pushing on the millions of digg readers? It feels good to control people's minds doesn't it while you criticize Bush for keeping your ass safe to do so. The irony doesn't get thicker than that!"

      Digg as my political splash page? If people submit stories and others digg that story, then that's Digg at work. Try somewhere else if you don't like it.
      I'm Anti-American? Tell that to all the other Digg users that dugg this story.
      I'm a dictator now? I never asked anyone to digg my stories, nor have I forced myself upon other users. Blame the users that dugg my stories...
      I control the minds of users? Digg reflects the masses' interests. Again, no one forces users to view certain webpages. That's the job of editors and there are no editors at Digg.
      Finally, I would like to thank Bush for keeping my "ass," along with your "ass," and all the other "asses" of the American people safe. Thank you.
    • Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes but Clinton had warrants from the FISA court. That's the difference. There's an audit trail.
    • vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"That's the job of editors and there are no editors at Digg."

      Oh..yeah dude, hang on a sec while I laugh myself silly...
    • dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1haha that's the only rebuke you can muster... asshat
  • mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5dirtyfratboy, at least he didn't get it from:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I actually read Drudge. I don't like Matt Druge's point of views, but some of the articles there are articles I wouldn't be able to find any where else. Plus its better than reading blogs.
  • goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4First planes can destroy 30 walls of steel reinforced concrete, then the constitution doesnt exist. America is *****. So much for being patriotic for a country who clearly doesnt give a ***** about how we started.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Great, another ***** conspiracy theorist.
  • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Digg has become nothing more than a moonbat echo chamber. This site will be absolutely frigging useless once the new categories are opened up. Nothing but political flames and moonbat conspiracy theories.

    Way to kill a great concept, people.
    • vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I couldn't agree more...whether you are a lib or a conservative, this is not the place to deal with this, but the digg people are not helping it either. Over and over again they push liberal nonsense on people as if we are all interested in hearing it. We are not. Stick with the freaking technical topics like /. has been doing, otherwise you'll all fizzle away into .com oblivion....
    • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why stop at moonbat? There are a lot more you could've used.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pejorative_political_terms
  • cklol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/06/23/PH2006062301846.jpg
    Arrrrgh!
  • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I seriously feel like this is like beating a dead horse. If this topic is the only thing political that gets posted... the new Policts section is gonna pretty dry.

    -Mike
  • Mpwns, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1god bless "the people's republic of the united states of America".

    /flame on
  • jasonwc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ tuna1

    Nothing in the article states that the information was obtained after receiving a warrant. This was a SECRET program which only the highest levels of the executive branch knew about. There was no oversight by Congress or the Judiciary. This seems very much like the NSA spying scandal. Both programs were hidden from public view, and from our representatives in Congress. Information about both programs were tightly controlled by a small group of people in the Executive branch who have refused any open inquiry. I'm sorry but I refuse to take the NSA's or Cheney's word. We were lied to in the past and we are probably being lied to now. The survaillance programs are likely far more widespread and illegal than we know.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Read the original NYTimes article. They stated that a broad warrant was obtained for this information and that congressman/women were briefed on the program. To me it doesn't seem a lot like the NSA scandal. The NSA scandal I thought, was clearly illegal and unconsitutional. Sorry if I said 'warrant', I'm kinda fried. Subpoenas must be issued by a judge or an equal authority of the judicial branch. I'm not taking Cheney's or the NSA's word. I'm taking the word of the NYTimes who have a legitimate source to this program

      Thanks for engaging in a legitimate debate without throwing any personal attacks my way.
    • jasonwc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The so called "broad warrants" this administration speaks of are not proper warrants under the 4th amendment. The founders wrote the fourth amendment with the British writs of assistance in mind. These "warrants" gave British troops the right to search any home or business they desired and to seize anything illegal. The Fourth amendment was written in order to demand probable cause on a case by case basis. The survaillance program in question was widespread and was not based on any specific information about individual criminal or terrorist activity. Thus, thousands of Americans were spied on without any specific evidence or cause that a crime had been commited. The program is a violation of the Bill of Rights and the most basic legal principle of personal privacy.
  • inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2But if you're not a terrorist, you have no reason to hide your bank records.

    (Yes, conservative apologists, I'm being ironic. Don't worry if you don't get it. Just click the little red icon over there and move on.)
  • mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1[Stormrider] I should bomb something
    [Stormrider] ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
    [Stormrider] Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
    [Elzie_Ann] I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
    *** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
    [FBI] We saw it anyway.
    *** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )
  • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I agree with JohnCrichton!!!

    There is nothing wrong with them going through your bank records, or even your phone conversations for that matter! If you don't have anything to hide (like terrorist plots, illegal *aliens*, or some other criminal activities), and they aren't passing them around saying "Oh, look, this guy bought Viagra, what a loser," then there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with this. The New York Times are to blame for this treasonous act against the War on Terror, and they did it just to piss off the liberals so they could SELL MORE PAPERS! They are willing to sacrifice national security for the sake of a few mil.

    But, what do I know? I'm just an American that thinks instead of aligning himself with either side of the political game. But, since i dont wear the suit and blue tie of the Liberal Democrat party, I will inevitably be Dugg down and buried.

    Go ahead, bury the truth, your nuclear funeral.
  • mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"I agree with JohnCrichton!!!"

    Then you fail. It's as simple as that.

    "There is nothing wrong with them going through your bank records, or even your phone conversations for that matter!"

    On the contrary, idiot: there is EVERYTHING wrong with them going through any of my private records. It's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, and I'll be damned if assholes like you think that it's okay and let the government do it.

    "If you don't have anything to hide (like terrorist plots, illegal *aliens*, or some other criminal activities), and they aren't passing them around saying "Oh, look, this guy bought Viagra, what a loser," then there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with this."

    Again, there is everything wrong with what the government is doing. If they want any information on anybody at all, they just have to accuse them of being a suspected terrorist, and then they can have their information. They can do any damned thing that they want, as long as the administration says that it's for our safety.

    "The New York Times are to blame for this treasonous act against the War on Terror,"

    So now we're treasonous and unpatriotic? Let me tell you something, ass: the current administration is more treasonous to what America stood for than any other person or group in the world, and they are more unpatriotic, as well. If you don't believe that, then you're a damned fool, and there isn't anything else to it.

    "and they did it just to piss off the liberals so they could SELL MORE PAPERS!"

    Ann Coulter would never do that.

    "They are willing to sacrifice national security for the sake of a few mil."

    Disagreeing with the government does not make you a terrorist who wants to destroy America, no matter what that ape in the White House may have told you. Furthermore, the government has sacrificed personal, inalienable freedoms for the sake of their own power.

    "But, what do I know?"

    Nothing, obviously.

    "I'm just an American that thinks instead of aligning himself with either side of the political game."

    That's utter *****, and you must know that. You're an insane conservative (not all conservatives are insane, if anybody else was offended by that) who believes everything that the government tells him and is willing to trade liberty and freedom for a false sense of security.

    "But, since i dont wear the suit and blue tie of the Liberal Democrat party, I will inevitably be Dugg down and buried."

    You will be dugg down, but not because you're not a liberal: it'll be because you're an ignorant moron who is willing to give away your constitutional rights to the government who gave them to you. When the government gave these rights, they were not meant to be taken, nor given back.

    "Go ahead, bury the truth, your nuclear funeral."

    Ironically, the people (or should I say entire religion?) that the administration is accusing of terrorism are the only ones who don't have nukes, as an above poster stated. Stop being an idiot, please.
    • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Hey, I would love you to tell me what you think terrorists would do if even one of their guys got nabbed on suspicion of terrorist activities, you ignorant jerkoff (yes you're ignorant...and i could prove it if there wasn't a word limit and if i had the time and mindset to be your teacher, but you could go on and on calling our President Hitler and a terrorist 'cause you're safe at home behind your monitor, you prick. Gimme your xfire name or AIM sn so i can put you in your place). I'll tell you right now, I don't trust any politician, liberal or conservative, without doing some hardcore research into what they are saying. I DO know alot, and i know the truth, and that is this: this ESSENTIAL method of fighting terrorists was working like a charm, until the NY Times came and screwed it up, because it's hip and groovy to hate the president today. We were watching KNOWN TERRORISTS' dealings and freezing their assets so we could find them and put them away so they couldn't come here and pull another 9/11, and anyone who thinks that this Administration is doing this just "for the sake of their own power," tell me, you swine, what they are getting out of this. Really, the only bad thing about their method was the fact that it was not secret enough to elude the noses of those idiots at the Times.

      And while class is in session, I'll go ahead and talk on the phone tapping issue. They did NOT (repeat, DID NOT) just go and listen in on EVERYONES' conversations. There aren't enough people to do that, and you know that but choose to ignore it so you can fit in with all the little liberals.
      Not to mention, CONGRESS WAS BRIEFED on this method of fighting terrorism, just look it up, it's true. If your vote-hungry liberals in congress think it's a good idea, then it MUST be okey-dokey. But they don't say it, not directly, because it might cost them some precious votes.

      You think your little insignificant rant up there was supposed to shut me up? You think you just chewed me up and swallowed me? Well, I just climbed back up your lie-ridden throat to tell you this: you are a part of that which is the bane of the American Dream, for there would be no life, there would be no liberty, and definately no happiness were it not for our President and his respectable Vice President staying the course, despite ye of little intelligence.

      Ready to be dugg down again...
  • burgerboy06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The people who have problems with this are criminals. They just have not been caught, yet.
  • mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Anybody who wants to uphold their constitutional rights is a criminal?

    Well... a fundie /is/ in office, so I suppose so.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.