« A matter of (dis)trust | Main | One-sided outrage »

January 27, 2006

Surveillance is worth it

In regard to government surveillance, Steven White (1/23, As I See It) raises concern over attorney-client privileged communications. I suggest he worry more about using the telephone, whether land line or cell phone, for privileged conversations (any competent hacker can listen in) than the government monitoring conversations for “key words” centering on potential terrorist affiliations.

Until there is some hard evidence that the government is actually using overheard information for anything other than catching terrorists, I would prefer continuing the efforts to keep us safe from attack.

Steve Bailey



The Pledge Revised

...one nation under Surveillance...
...with no Liberty or Justice at all...

the bushey version


You know where my opinions stand. I have a lot of trouble with the lack of morals and values being demonstrated by those that ran for office as the keepers of morals and values.

As far as if the wiretaps are legal, they should be made illegal. The only thing I can say is, "AMEN."

Ray Seay

I have said all along that I am against all wiretaps without a warrant. If it is legal, it should be made illegal.

On what Pres. Bush said about warrants, over 5,000 have been approved. His second statement may mean he no longer thinks warrants are necessary.

It seems clear some wiretaps are done without warrants. If as he claims, the constitution or the resolution of congress after 911 gives him that authority, no law was broken. There are lawyers who support both sides of this. The real question is whether the president has authority outside the FISA to do warrantless wiretaps.Until this is decided in court, he is only alleged to have broken the law, not proven guilty.

However if they are legal, they should be made illegal.


Bush makes two directly contradictory statements. But it doesn't count. Just ask the Republicans in the bunch. And it won't count for all the "right" reasons. Like "Clinton did it." Or, we haven't had a major attack lately. Or, he "has to" in order to protect us. Or, he denied that he was doing it to keep the bad guys from finding out. Or, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Or, even if he was lieing through his teeth, a good "Christian" behavior, it isn't a felony so it doesn't count.

Jim Dent

Sorry, only 1 conclusion. Must proof read......

Jim Dent

On April 20th 04 Bush say's he is using the courts for wiretapping. He now say's he isn't. I can draw only 2 conclusions from this. Bush was left out of the loop (V.P. in charge?), and honestly didn't know what was going on (clueless), or, he intentionally lied to the American public. I personally don't like either choice.......


Compare these two quotes:

“On May 22, I stated in very specific terms and I state again to every one of you listening tonight these facts — I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics. That was and that is the simple truth.” —Richard M. Nixon, August 15, 1973


“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” —George W. Bush, April 20, 2004


M. L. Stein

Well Steve, ignorance is bliss. You won't have to worry about that evidence unless the Bush spies actually start adhering to the law. Get it. Without a warrant their isn't any evidence unless you want to listen to the whistleblowers.

People who don't understand or only get their information from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, don't understand that Bush has the power to spy on anyone he wants. But to spy on American citizens he has to present probable cause IN WRITING. That way there is a record... evidence. He's not doing that.

In other words, Bush can spy on all the terrorists he wants to, but I don't want to be spied on. I'm not a terrorist. Are you a terrorist, Steve?

They could be spying on you right now and you'd have no recourse. With all the unethical practices, with all of the incompetence and lies of this administration, are you willing to unconditionally trust these people to only do what is morally, ethically and legally right? I'm not.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright