Librarians turned snitch?

[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.

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Ever hear of Aldrich Ames? CIA guy giving secrets to the Russians. US citizen. Not one warrant issued in the entire investigation, including searches of his home.

I am certainly not defending Ames. In defense of their practices, legal council (this happened under Clinton) said that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrentless searches" in areas of national security.

What exactly does "inherent authority" mean? It can only mean that the authority comes from the Constitution.

when you enter into such positions, then you enter into agreements with the government that if they suspect enough, they will look into it deeper, that was all Mr. Ames doing, as he authorized said searches as a condition of 1) Employment, and 2) the clearance that he held.

Apples and Oranges argument.

And just for fun, here's a nice link to a story which goes into a radio address by Clinton that authoized warrntless searches in crime ridden housing projects. No foreign intelligence application here -

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

are we talking the common area's of the housing projects, (too lazy at the moment to read the article) but even so, the key words "crime ridden" are much different than any random citizen who just happened to have met a suspected terrorist once in his life...

By the way, I do not believe that either OSHA or the EPA requires any sort of warrant to inspect private property. Also, if you own a gun shop, you can be inspected by law enforcement at any time with no warrant issued.

more apples and oranges....

When business owners start those businesses they are well aware of the possible inspections. don't want to be inspected, don't start the business.

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.

But if YOU don't know they are a terrorist, or have terrorist ties, or that a friend of yours doesn't have terrorist ties, by this logic, they can justify tapping every single americans phone without a warrant. And that is just not right. I am glad that you support a Orwelian society, but I sir do not...

And my last comment, exactly how many degree's of seperation would you support, 1, 2, 6, 12? Where does it end? When we all have camera's in our houses monitoring us every minute?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Name

I am glad that you support a Orwelian society, but I sir do not...

When we all have camera's in our houses monitoring us every minute?

Orwellian?!?! I support an Orwellian society?!?! I am insulted at the very thought and implication of that. How dare you! Oh, wait.....I guess I won't take it personally.

Seriously, though, I am not for government intrusion. I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom. Talk about apples and oranges.

I can buy the EPA and OSHA being apples and oranges. I was merely trying to set up an example of government intrusion that no one really gets too concerned about. I personally am happy there are health inspectors. The gun store example, however, i do not believe is apples and oranges. if you would like more of an explanation as to why, I'll go into it.

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Orwellian?!?! I support an Orwellian society?!?! I am insulted at the very thought and implication of that. How dare you! Oh, wait.....I guess I won't take it personally.

Hee hee, a bit of an over-exaggeration, but still, going unabated, chip away enough privacy items, and we are there... its only a matter of time, and such is my aversion to ANY chipping away of privacy issues.

Seriously, though, I am not for government intrusion. I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom. Talk about apples and oranges.

is there documented proof that ALL the monitored phone calls were international? I would be surprised to hear yes, as the targets are probably documented on papers that have lots of red ink stamped on the top and bottom with the words top and secret(and maybe a few other words)

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom.

I just can't take as much for granted as you can. Our record in judging who is and who is not a terrorist ain't all that impressive. If they're known, get a warrant and do it the right way.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

I just can't take as much for granted as you can. Our record in judging who is and who is not a terrorist ain't all that impressive. If they're known, get a warrant and do it the right way.

bah, its really quite simple.......

"does he have a pulse?"

"yes"

"alright, he might be a terrorist, better put surveillance on his phone calls"