Librarians turned snitch?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Prudence, I am not sorry to say that yes, if you are in phone contact with known terrorists, I am fully in support of you being monitored.

What an astoundingly insulting thing for you to say. Did I ever state that I was in phone contact -- or any kind of contact -- with "known terrorists"? The fact that you would jump to such an assumption implies a very low regard for my integrity.

I stated that someone who used to be a coworker is in federal detention. I did not at any point indicate that I had any contact with this individual since his detention. I interacted with him when he was a coworker because it was part of my job and I had no reason to suspect him of anything. In fact, he has not been charged with any terrorist activities so I don't think he qualifies as a "known terrorist." And if he was now a "known terrorist," you honestly think I would remain in phone contact him?

The question I asked was if I should be monitored because someone with whom I have spoken on a professional basis in the past is now detained. You responded with an implication that I would intentionally remain in contact with "known terrorists".

Nice smear campaign.

[Alex]

Wow, you're amazingly easy to insult.

Actually, that wasn't the question you asked. You gave absolutely no indication in your first post what your current contact is with the person, you didn't say that all interaction had been purely professional and that all interaction had stopped. On that basis I'd have answered much the same as scaeagles, if you're in contact with someone the government thinks is a terrorist I would expect you to be investigated (though I would also expect a warrant where required). Noticed the big "if" in his answer, it was properly conditional considering you gave no useful information for making a determination.

Under the conditions that you decided to share in your second post, then no, investigation seems to me unreasonable unless something came up in other investigations.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Prudence

What an astoundingly insulting thing for you to say. Did I ever state that I was in phone contact -- or any kind of contact -- with "known terrorists"?

The question I asked was if I should be monitored because someone with whom I have spoken on a professional basis in the past is now detained. You responded with an implication that I would intentionally remain in contact with "known terrorists".

My suggestion - learn how to read. I said that yes, IF you are in contact with known terrorists, you should be under surveillance.

Alex said it better than I could.

Do you seriously think I was suggesting that you were in contact with known terrorists?

[Gemini Cricket]

"It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the Constitution," said Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire who has served on a number of government intelligence advisory boards. He calls the administration's surveillance program "a matter of grave concern."

and

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections."

Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws," Mr. Barr says.

Source: Today's Wall Street Journal

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My suggestion - learn how to read. I said that yes, IF you are in contact with known terrorists, you should be under surveillance.

Alex said it better than I could.

Do you seriously think I was suggesting that you were in contact with known terrorists?

I think the implication was fairly clear from your post.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Prudence

I think the implication was fairly clear from your post.

Yep - I guess it was. That's fits in with most of my postings around here. Accusing people who disagree with me politically of having ties to terrorists.