New Commercial Aired on Fox. Must See!

This commercial aired around February 24, 2008 and I have witnessed it more than once on the fox station. It is in regard to George Bush wanting to tap into peoples phones if they are suspected of terrorism. I found this quite alarming and I'm glad it didn't come to pass.

Sadly I'm a bit new and I don't know how to embed videos so heres the youtube link to the commercial: youtube.com...

reply to post by take0ver89

---

I've seen it as well.

Are you saying it's a lie? I hope not because it isn't. The facts are well documented.

Perhaps you're implying this has something to do with your personal privacy. That would only be true if you were in contact with foreign entities deemed to be of importance to the security of the U.S.

I'm just trying to figure out the point.

Becker

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Becker44]

I'd be interested to see if there are any embedded subliminals in that advert...it just seems too creepy!

I don't know what you mean. I know this is true. When i say it is alarming I mean that its alarming how Bush wants to invade our privacy. And when I said that I'm glad it didn't come to pass I meant that I'm GLAD the representatives were on VACATION

reply to post by take0ver89

---

OK Gotcha. I'm a little slow.

Soooooo. What's this invasion of your privacy you are concerned about. I don't see how this particular bill has any effect on your personal freedoms. Are you willing to let the intelligence community eavesdrop on suspected terrorists?

Becker

reply to post by Becker44

---

Maybe your a little confused about what the Terror Surveillance Bill actually is. It basically says that the government can tap into your emails and telephone if your suspected of being a terrorist. It would make sense if they were tapping into different networks in Afghanistan, but instead there doing it in the country. I don't know it just seems like an excuse to crackdown on the American public.

Just for the record, here is a link to a synopsis of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006.

Here is a link to the actual Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 in total.

As long as we are discussing this Act and the advertisement calling for the House of Representatives to renew the act, we might as well read what the Act actually says.

[edit on 2/28/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 2/28/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

reply to post by benevolent tyrant

---

Benevolent tyrant,

I appreciate your link and I am quite familiar with the bill (probably more than you think )

Were you going to offer an opinion to this discussion?

Becker

reply to post by take0ver89

---

I agree with your statement but fail to see the problem. One end of the communication must still be from outside of the United States.

One of the parties must be deemed a threat.

The bill does not allow the intelligence community to peruse your personal emails or listen to you chat to a friend on a cell phone.

So again, I'm confused.

Becker

Nixon's horrendous illegal warrantless wiretapping resulted in FISA, as I recall.

This bill is the perfect child of Nixon's crimes. UnConstitutional and premised upon the fascist fear of the People. Even more horrendous than Nixon when one considers that FISA was already in place and G.W. Bush just did whatever he pleased without regard for the rule of law. The Biblical category of "the man of lawlessness" applies to Bush, this attempt to circumvent the Constitution of the USA and all who shill for the same.

I think the point your missing is that a vast majority of law abiding Americans have families and friends who do not live in the US. So they are now legitimate targets.

With the spam emails originating from anywhere it is possible for an American to receive an email from a suspected source and then be monitored.

And finally the real point is
The act doesn't say 1 party HAS to be outside does it.

reply to post by Pellevoisin

---

Pellevoisin,

I think you may want to review FISA.




www.govtrack.us...

Nixon was a completely different situation. I have trouble linking our current terrorist surveilance programs to Nixon, but I'm sure you'll help me!

Becker

I don't know if it is the same commercial being shown on FOX but here in South florida, I've seen an ad which describes the House's failure to renew the phone tap laws as a threat to National security and a win for the terrorists. The commercial urges the view to contact our state's house rep.

reply to post by puzzled2

---

Nah Puzzled, it is quite clear many U.S. citizens have family and friends abroad. The details of executing a match to an expected or known terrorist or organization should be of little concern to nearly 100% of the U.S. population.

There are a myriad of hoops the I.C. must go through to begin a tap.

In my opinion it's far better than doing nothing. I guess we could all just "hope" no one or group is going to propagate terror on our country in the future.

Risky bet.

Becker

reply to post by Becker44

---

No. The Bush Doctrine on spying on citizens is a larger and more egregious version of Nixon's wiretapping.

The U.S. Judge Andrew Napolitano can better school you on why they are not only related but that the Bush actions as well as ideas are far worse than Nixon.

Perhaps it will be on YouTube later, but I understand Judge Napolitano was on the Fox Network's Studio B with Shep Smith this afternoon speaking on this matter. I don't watch Fox but I pay attention to what Andrew Napolitano has to say. The quote may show up on SkyNews later today or tomorrow. But again I'll bet someone will get it onto YouTube shortly.

So you guys who are for this bill don't particularly mind if you government invades my right to privacy?

A country can only call its self free and democratic if its universal and equal to all. If you think its ok to spy on me simply because I don't live in the US then your country is no better than the apparently evil country's of Iran, Russia, China or otherwise.

in section 2.a.2


Anyone who posts in this topic, could now be checked out by the US government because my view on Iran could be interpreted by the US government as being in support of there apparent terrorist activities in Iraq.

And yes though it may be unlikely they will do so there is no provision that prevents them from doing so, they don't even need any evidence as long as they say they think im connected to terrorists in whatever way anyone connected to me automatically becomes a suspect.

reply to post by Edn

---

Edn,

I'm not sure what country you are from but I would wager your government is involved in something similar to what we are discussing here.

All major governments are beholden to the safety of their citizens and borders. We are in a digital age. No more handing off Polaroids to a currier.

To me it's just a natural case of paranoia. Hey you probably wouldn't be on ATS if you weren't.

Becker

reply to post by Pellevoisin

---

I have great respect for the Judge and will watch for any developments. Thank you for the infomation.

As an aside: I notice you refer to him as "The U.S. Judge". Would that mean you are not from the United States?

Becker

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Becker44]

Im from the UK and your right they are and that annoys me just as much.

you would think its paranoia but considering that the UK government has been attempting to find ways to force people into ID cards i would say that its paranoia that's not unfounded.

the problem with such bills is they are vague, there's no real restriction in them, they appear to say that US citizens wont be watched but really they can spy on anyone they like as long as it appears they have good cause.

That may never happen, but what if such bills become permanent law and the government goes into the hands of someone who abuses those laws? Its not like that's never happened before.

we have gone from a society where you needed proof to lock someone up to a society where they can think you might be a terrorist and lock you up for 3 months (if they get the increase passed in the UK, its 27 days right now i think?).

I wish I could say this is a great country, one that respects people freedom, I wish I could say that they laws they keep passing are helping to fight crime and terrorism but the simple fact is they don't, the only people that these types of laws ever harm is the law abiding citizens.

I hate to say this also but im glad im white, im far less likely to be any sort of terrorist suspect.

From CNN.com Bush ups pressure on House to pass intelligence bill



It's more than just about terrorism.