Posted by Tina
We aren’t supposed to name them, although most of us know who they are. We aren’t supposed to call what we’re engaged in a war either, but apparently they have become (continue to be) a big enough threat to us that the President is demanding new tools to…errr…stop…ummm…them.
The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services — such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype — to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday. – FOX News
And that’s not all…they want to watch all financial transactions now too!
The Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering. Officials say the information would help them spot the sort of transfers that helped finance the al-Qaeda hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. – Washington Post
Wow! Remember the legal backlash when President Bush (see illustration left) used wiretaps to monitor calls made to parties outside the US from parties within the US who were suspected of terror (sorry) ties? The non-stop hoopla was horrendous invoking calls for impeachment. War protesters joined in the outrage with some left leaning city councils making declarations of impeachment from their town halls. Democrats from San Fran to Maine jumped at the chance to make political hay, instead of supporting the President in his efforts to protect American from…well…you know who.
Will the anti-war left have a hissy over this broad expansion of authority? How about you, do you believe the President needs this authority to keep Americans safe?
Obama’s extensions of Bush’s “Big Brother” policies have been a disgrace. He was elected, in large part, to put a stop to these constitutional breaches. Many of his voters even hoped that his administration would file charges against the previous one. “Hope and change,” my ass, at least on this issue.
I only wish the Tea Party were protesting against this threat to our constitution, instead of protesting non-existent tax increases.
Chris you’re right and it’s a shame that our Constitution keeps getting hammered so much by dangerous directions under the guise of security .
I would like the Tea Party to step beyond the economic interests and speak against this “Big Brother” stuff, but they see it as a slippery slope and are trying to keep it just on economics for the sake of unity, so I don’t know…we’ll see.
Thank you for standing up our 1st Amendment. It needs all the help it can get.
The anti-war left HATED it when Bush allowed for wiretapping of people calling terrorist camps in Pakistan. Now Obama wants to be able to read all of our Facebook posts and the crickets will be chirping louder than MoveOn or Michael Moore.
My personal opinion is this: If I make a call to a country on a suspected list, perhaps it should be monitored. But if I’m calling my folks in Nevada, within our own country, no way. Keep government off our phone lines and the heck out of our internet privacy. And when it comes down to it, I trust our government a lot less under the current administration than this one. At least Bush just wanted to go after terrorists. With Obama, everyone with a gun rack in their pickup is a terrorist.
Now, with that said, if someone is researching how to build a bomb and kill people, and they meet a reasonable profile of someone who might use that information to kill Americans, then yes, they should be stopped however possible.
Hate to say I told ya so . . .
How is that hope & change workin’ out?
Actually protests are somewhat moot anyway. The government has been monitoring calls electronically for certain key words as a matter of national security for some time. Recording specific calls for this purpose makes good sense. The problem as I see it comes down to trust…or distrust. Americans no longer seem able to trust that leaders will behave ethically and in the best interests of America. We seem to have great fears about abuses of power.
Does anyone have an example where this has happened as a result of these laws?
Chris: “…instead of protesting non-existent tax increases.”
What non-existant tax increases?
You are right Quentin…you nailed this one, no doubt about it and we support you on this.