I remember one other leader that had these ideas....
Prescott Bush helped that man.
Prescott Bush helped that man.
Imagine you're talking to your girlfriend on the phone, about something very private, even intimate. And at the same moment some government bastard can be listening to you and jerking off. Pleasant perspective, isn't it?[KS]RECON wrote:
Let them wiretaps, read e-mails and everything else necessary to keep us, the American people safe ... The government is doing it for all of us, to protect us and yes they do not violate our rights of privacy, because they do not know who is Mr.X or Mrs. Z but just making sure that Mr.X is not a treat to the country or anybody else. I support them.
Why against if you have nothing to hide? or may be you do, hmmm ...
Dude, do you really live in the USA, the country where no one can be named a criminal/terrorist until proven to be one? Or maybe my information is wrong and you have the same situation as in USSR in 1937?Colfax wrote:
They wouldn't be in gitmo if they were not caught in the act of terrorism.
I haven't seen such an ignorant statement in ages.
If it helps save lives I hope he enjoys it so much he breaks his wrist.Imagine you're talking to your girlfriend on the phone, about something very private, even intimate. And at the same moment some government bastard can be listening to you and jerking off. Pleasant perspective, isn't it?
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-18 11:32:37)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It would seem as though you are entirely wrong based on the following evidence:Colfax wrote:
Also about gitmo. If they aren't U.S. citizens they have not rights under our constitution. They answer to no laws so why should our laws apply to them. They are terrorists they have no rights.
The United States ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In its reservations to the convention, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment only insofar as prohibited by the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
The United States is also committed to the United Nations, which maintains the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
edit: weird URL formatting errors
Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (2006-08-18 11:55:19)
I'm surprised the ACLU is fighting for something that isn't bullshit. Kudo's to them.Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:
The ACLU got a little victory today.
Under the guise of "the war on terror", the Bush administration has been conducting wiretaps (phonetaps) and reading private emails without a court order. In the past, govn't had to have cause, and they had to obtain a warrant.
Well, today the ACLU's challenge that this was a violation of the Constitution and rights of privacy was upheld by a federal court judge.
Court rules secret wiretaps violate rights
What do you think? Should the govn't have to get a court order before tapping anyone's phone and email?
Honestly though, our constituition doesn't mean a damn thing. And it hasn't since Abe Lincoln (the first Republican) wiped his ass with it.
Except thats not how the system works. The system listens for key words and phrases. They don't listen into you directly.Wasder wrote:
Imagine you're talking to your girlfriend on the phone, about something very private, even intimate. And at the same moment some government bastard can be listening to you and jerking off. Pleasant perspective, isn't it?
Also u wouldn't even be flagged for being listened to unless you g/f was from lets say Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or some other country known for having terrorists residing in them.
Lastly you wouldn't be listened in on unless you were saying, "ooo baby your making me so hot......wire transfer me 1 million dollars....take off your cloths for me and touch urself......suicide bomb DC.......oh yeah baby......mmmmmmm.......slop slop...(spanking noise)"
If your having that kind of conversation then you should be getting your phone tapped.
People just picture the movies when they think of the wire tapping but it just isn't possible to work like that. They aren't listening in on millions upon millions of hours of phone calls here. That's just propostorous. This isn't Hollywood folks. You just cant feasibly do that.
Last edited by Colfax (2006-08-18 12:22:39)
You've missed the point here.spacebandit72 wrote:
I think it's funny how none of this wire tap is mentioned until Bush came into office.
As many have said, this has been done since wire tap was created by every administration.
The whole problem is the Democrats trying to find anything they can to make Bush and Republicans look bad so they can take the next election.
Yes, wiretaps have existed. And been used by the government.
But the govn't had to get authorization from a court to wiretap.
President Bush changed that. He authorized the full surveillance of US citizens WITHOUT a warrant.
As for Democrats vs Republicans, I can guarantee that if a Democrat President had done this, it would be challenged as well.
this should cover it folks:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OW … c0MjFjNzQ=
Written by Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OW … c0MjFjNzQ=
Written by Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
I was looking for YOUR opinions here. And a little bipartisan discussion, not info from The National Review (a definatively right-wing magazine.) I'm no expert, like Bryan Cunningham, but I see a couple problems with his article:
The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program...
It is certainly debatable that the USA is in "wartime." War is declared by Congressional Declaration, usually after the President addresses the body. Has that occured?
Secondly, foreign-intelligence-collection is the crux of the problem. The Bush administration has authorized DOMESTIC wiretapping and spying, without first obtaining a warrant, that's why this is being challenged.
Cunningham goes on to call the judge amateurish, and accuses her of not doing enough research. He thinks the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will overturn. His tone may seem quite shocking, but it's actually not. It's par for the course when you disagree with a judicial decision to ridicule it, and puff out your chest like a peacock and declare "we will win at the next level." To win an appeal, you have to overturn the previous judge's decision, and that starts by tearing down the judge and their logic.
If Cunningham is so confident that the program will be upheld, he should be pleased that the judge in this case didn't do enough research. A quick decision, even if it knocks down the law, is a good thing. He's whining that the court didn't gather enough evidence or hold substantive hearings. But if what AAFCptKabbom says on page one is true, that there was some "judge shopping" going on here...if this court was picked because there was a good chance it would knock down the program...why would Cunningham want the issue tied up at this level, with long hearings etc? The quicker this challenge gets to the Supreme Court, for its final decision, the better for all.
Cunningham says the impact of the decision is that the Terrorist Surveillance Program "will be shut down and our enemies will know it." That's not exactly true, because the judge, and both sides in court, agreed to allow the program to continue until the government's case for a stay pending appeal is heard.
There is a lot of rhetoric flying around (and fearmongering) which says that the USA has no way to track terrorist threats anymore. That's not true. It's not like this decision has declared the NSA or FBI or CIA to be illegal, and forced to disband. Those organizations continue. And wiretaps can still be obtained, with a court order. And there is always the alternative of amending the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Cunningham ridicules the judge for discussing a 1765 case, but that's how big this issue is. Reading people's email and tapping their phones without a warrant goes all the way back to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program...
It is certainly debatable that the USA is in "wartime." War is declared by Congressional Declaration, usually after the President addresses the body. Has that occured?
Secondly, foreign-intelligence-collection is the crux of the problem. The Bush administration has authorized DOMESTIC wiretapping and spying, without first obtaining a warrant, that's why this is being challenged.
Cunningham goes on to call the judge amateurish, and accuses her of not doing enough research. He thinks the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will overturn. His tone may seem quite shocking, but it's actually not. It's par for the course when you disagree with a judicial decision to ridicule it, and puff out your chest like a peacock and declare "we will win at the next level." To win an appeal, you have to overturn the previous judge's decision, and that starts by tearing down the judge and their logic.
If Cunningham is so confident that the program will be upheld, he should be pleased that the judge in this case didn't do enough research. A quick decision, even if it knocks down the law, is a good thing. He's whining that the court didn't gather enough evidence or hold substantive hearings. But if what AAFCptKabbom says on page one is true, that there was some "judge shopping" going on here...if this court was picked because there was a good chance it would knock down the program...why would Cunningham want the issue tied up at this level, with long hearings etc? The quicker this challenge gets to the Supreme Court, for its final decision, the better for all.
Cunningham says the impact of the decision is that the Terrorist Surveillance Program "will be shut down and our enemies will know it." That's not exactly true, because the judge, and both sides in court, agreed to allow the program to continue until the government's case for a stay pending appeal is heard.
There is a lot of rhetoric flying around (and fearmongering) which says that the USA has no way to track terrorist threats anymore. That's not true. It's not like this decision has declared the NSA or FBI or CIA to be illegal, and forced to disband. Those organizations continue. And wiretaps can still be obtained, with a court order. And there is always the alternative of amending the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Cunningham ridicules the judge for discussing a 1765 case, but that's how big this issue is. Reading people's email and tapping their phones without a warrant goes all the way back to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I am proud to say that it was my city's (metro area) supreme court that made the ruling.
Best quote ever.. I hate how we call this a democracy run by the people. Its a fucking monarchy run by the rich, and they can only do it because the 'masses' are too fucking dull to realize it.alpinestar wrote:
...We do not have a King we have a President.
Don't believe me? step out of your shell for a second and think about the electoral college. heres a cool little quote from wikipidia...
"The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so."
It was created in order to help the masses make the best desicion. Kinda odd huh? your vote really isnt worth shit.
And we have one president who can veto anything, one man supporting his own personal morals, not what's best for the country or the world.
and on the topic of wire taps, not only does it impead on my personal rights as an american citizen, it just gives the government that much more leeway (spelling?). WE as CITIZENS need to set the limit, we need to govern our government just as much as they need to govern us.
otherwise they run rampent and do whatever the fuck they want..
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2006-08-18 21:55:31)
Actually, all but two states have laws requring electors to vote for the candidate that won their district.
The trick is in jerrymandering the districts that your supporters win a majority of the districts.
The trick is in jerrymandering the districts that your supporters win a majority of the districts.
I think if this was truly necessary they should have gotten the court order in the first place. Now I am never one for big government so obviously I fail to see the true need for a mass wiretap in the first place. Please don't feed me the terrorism bull either. What the government of the US is doing and has been doing since long before September 11th, 2001, is slowly eroding many of the "Freedoms" we as Americans take such pride in flaunting to the rest of the world. Lets use the WTC attack as an example. Since that time, although not as frequently now as then, all the government has to do is say "War on Terror" and you have people up and ready to give away their freedoms and rights in the blink of an eye. This then allows the government that much more power into controlling peoples daily lives, what they can and cant see (FCC) and several other things. The fact that this was even done in the first place is a slap in the face to each and every American. And before you start in no its not just the Republicans or the Democrats, it is both.
Edit for spelling
Edit for spelling
Last edited by Deaths_Sandman (2006-08-18 22:30:20)
Not monarchy, oligarchy.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Best quote ever.. I hate how we call this a democracy run by the people. Its a fucking monarchy run by the rich, and they can only do it because the 'masses' are too fucking dull to realize it.alpinestar wrote:
...We do not have a King we have a President.
An elite minority picks who it thinks the next president should be and then it gets you to vote for them.
Yeah, step back for a sec, and look at why you would have to give up three years to save thousands of your countrymen...AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well its not terrorism per se, it could be, but the majority that are in are enemy combatants from Iraq/Afghanistan and other places.CameronPoe wrote:
Oh yeah - that right: everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist. Did that also apply before they released those three British Gitmo 'terrorists' and several others that were also released?Colfax wrote:
They wouldn't be in gitmo if they were not caught in the act of terrorism.
Of course everyone in Gitmo isn't a terrorist, but they are certainly suspected of it, with good reason most of the time, mistakes are made. But hey I wouldn't mind being detained for however long it would take to ensure the safety of my country. I would rather spend 3 years in jail than see thousands of my fellow countrymen DIE.
.. It says something about the image of america throughout the world doesnt it.
...maybe we should be fixing that, not killing people.. i mean "terrorists".. in iraq...
Here, look at it this way. Say your eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich right? And you're doing okay with it, its workin' pretty good for you, i mean its food isnt it? Then some bully comes out of nowhere and says "hell no that pb and j sucks and i dont like it, lemme fix it for you".. and he gives you a taco. Totally different concept and you're probably not in the mood for a taco.
same thing, WE think that OUR government (the taco) is better so we go in and replace the pb and j because its not as good.
heres another example
say some other country feels that the 'democracy' we have here in america sucks and they dont like it. So then they come in and replace it with something else that they think is better. Would you sit there and let them do it? no you would be fucking pissed that some bully was coming in and changing everything so you'd fight back. It's the same concept as the iraqis fighting back, fighting us, an oppressor. I mean it doesnt get much simpler then that. That is how the world runs, everything runs. You fight back.
I mean from a very very small scale, an infection is inside your body right? Does your body sit back and take it, no.. it fights back. Change is a painful process and has to be done gradually, it cant by forced. I mean, everything will fall apart when we leave and then it'll really be in chaos.
Am i saying that the dictatorship that was in place before was good? no i'm not, saddam wasnt too hot in my book and i do believe that it was a good thing to take him out. Do i approve of the way we did it.. no.
its just incredibly arrogant to come into a country and completly change everything for the 'better', aka what america wants, not what the iraqis want.. on the basis that there are WMDs hidden somewhere.
tried to dumb it down a little bit to try to crack they concrete layer of ignorace many of you possess...
Your right, liberty is a good thing!!Bertster7 wrote:
Britain doesn't haver tougher anti-terrorist laws than the US, don't worry. We aren't allowed to hold people without trial, like in Guantanamo. In fact there was just a hearing before one of the top judges, concerning the attempted plane bombing suspects, the police wanted more time to interview/interrogate them before they had to charge them and they've got another month or something.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea, but it wont be hard to obtain that court order!
All the authorities need is probable cause, and thats not too hard for the police to figure out. I doubt it will be tough when Abu Mustafa is contacting a known terrorist in Pakistan, from his cell phone in Dearborn, Mich. Pretty sure the cops can get a court order to check his phone and tap that shit!
I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this ruling! If Britain has tougher terrorist laws than we do, than were in trouble, and not getting it!! Give the authorities what they need to catch these assholes!!!
I think it's a very good thing that the US government needs a court order to look at emails and conduct phone taps. It shouldn't be hard to get and shouldn't interfere with tracking down real terror suspects, but civil liberties are a great thing - Liberty being a concept very in line with American thinking and I certainly think that it's good that peoples privacy is not going to be invaded without court orders.
It won't be hard for the government to get it's court orders when they are needed, nor should it be. But it is good that they do need to.
But I will say this, people carrying liquids on planes arent the problem, its Islamic people carrying liquids on planes that are the problem!
We need to start profiling people plane and simple, because I know what a terrorist looks like, and its not the heavy set Swedish lady holding baby formula!!! Its the Arab dude in a suit standing quietly by the door waiting to board the plane!!!!!! I may sound harsh, but its the REALITY of the situation, Arabs/Islamic fundamentalists are the ones blowing shit up, and hijacking planes, or plotting to do so!!! Until its some pasty Frenchman blowing up a plane, we need to stick to the race of people who do this kind of activity!!
1) Whoa, you went a little to intl. there, you wouldn't sacrifice three years for your country??CommieChipmunk wrote:
1) Yeah, step back for a sec, and look at why you would have to give up three years to save thousands of your countrymen...
2) It says something about the image of america throughout the world doesnt it. maybe we should be fixing that, not killing people.. i mean "terrorists".. in iraq...
3) its just incredibly arrogant to come into a country and completly change everything for the 'better', aka what america wants, not what the iraqis want.. on the basis that there are WMDs hidden somewhere.
2) .......The usual leftist blah blah America's image, I agree it isn't that great, what should we do? Any ideas instead of "not killing people".......
3) Yeah yeah, arrogant, yeah, I understand your point, its not really what should be done I agree, time to get the Iraqis on their feet, and get out!
BTW, I like tacos AND PB&J
Exactly, the fundamental difference is Americans are willing to STAND UP and fight for something!
Europeans arent willing to do anything! Look at Spain, they got blown up, and THEY TOTALLY PUSSED out!! Al-Qaeda fucking blew up a train carrying hundreds of people, and they wont fight the war on terror anymore!!! They arent guaranteed not to be attacked again. . . Why would they just puss out, I dont get it!!
If your a Spaniard and you had family that died on that train, wouldnt you be a tad pissed your government decided to capitulate to terrorists?? I know I would be irate!!
But most Europeans FLAT OUT dont care about terrorism, because it hasnt hit them yet! Plain and simple if it doesnt effect them, THEY DONT CARE!! So my reply, is if you dont give a shit about terrorists, why do you give a shit if Americans kill them! Because we were the one who DID GET HIT, and are trying to defend our country from further attacks! With Iraq, a brutal dictator and his sons(one could argue that they would have been worse than Saddam!) were removed! Yes, everything hasnt been peachy keen, but at least we are making an effort to change the current climate in that region of the world. I would rather make an effort, and be wrong, then just criticize people, and have no plan at all!!
No European will place any blame on the UN!! The UN were the ones who snubbed the Palestinians on their own state!! Because the Jews were so persecuted they bypassed the Arab population, and called the place Israel. One could argue that all this fundamentalist crap would have ceased to be this strong, if the Palestinians were issued their own homeland. America is not the sole reason all this shit is going on in the world!
Keep in mind when terrorists say the west must be destroyed, they mean ALL western thought and democracies!! Which MEANS EUROPE TOO!!! So I say either join the team, or stop drilling more holes in the boat, cause were the ones bailing out the water!!
Europeans arent willing to do anything! Look at Spain, they got blown up, and THEY TOTALLY PUSSED out!! Al-Qaeda fucking blew up a train carrying hundreds of people, and they wont fight the war on terror anymore!!! They arent guaranteed not to be attacked again. . . Why would they just puss out, I dont get it!!
If your a Spaniard and you had family that died on that train, wouldnt you be a tad pissed your government decided to capitulate to terrorists?? I know I would be irate!!
But most Europeans FLAT OUT dont care about terrorism, because it hasnt hit them yet! Plain and simple if it doesnt effect them, THEY DONT CARE!! So my reply, is if you dont give a shit about terrorists, why do you give a shit if Americans kill them! Because we were the one who DID GET HIT, and are trying to defend our country from further attacks! With Iraq, a brutal dictator and his sons(one could argue that they would have been worse than Saddam!) were removed! Yes, everything hasnt been peachy keen, but at least we are making an effort to change the current climate in that region of the world. I would rather make an effort, and be wrong, then just criticize people, and have no plan at all!!
No European will place any blame on the UN!! The UN were the ones who snubbed the Palestinians on their own state!! Because the Jews were so persecuted they bypassed the Arab population, and called the place Israel. One could argue that all this fundamentalist crap would have ceased to be this strong, if the Palestinians were issued their own homeland. America is not the sole reason all this shit is going on in the world!
Keep in mind when terrorists say the west must be destroyed, they mean ALL western thought and democracies!! Which MEANS EUROPE TOO!!! So I say either join the team, or stop drilling more holes in the boat, cause were the ones bailing out the water!!
screw wiretaps.
if someone is going to bomb me, then they will.
any questions?
if someone is going to bomb me, then they will.
any questions?
But don't you think any potential terrorists will be a tad more careful about electronic security? Encryption, maybe? We certainly aren't.[KS]RECON wrote:
you make point ... but is also sick to allow a fully armed teen near schools, right? The Government will find other more civilized ways to keep us safe, so no body cavity search will be necessary (example: e-mail quick check, no harm)The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Personally I am against it because I like the Constitution. I agree with keeping the American people safe but I don't agree with taking a shit on the Bill of Rights to do so. KS RECON if you support "everything else necessary to keep us safe" would you agree to body cavity searches every day before you'd be allowed to enter your school or workplace? You might have a bomb up there. Or worse, some nail clippers or box cutters.[KS]RECON wrote:
Let them wiretaps, read e-mails and everything else necessary to keep us, the American people safe ... The government is doing it for all of us to protect us and yes they do not violate our rights of privacy, because they do not know who is Mr.X or Mrs. Z but just making sure that Mr.X is not a treat to the country or anybody else. I support them.
Why against if you have nothing to hide? or may be you do, hmmm ...
Do more research. One of the most worrying things is the emergence of 'home-grown' terrorists - people who ARE fundementalists, but you wouldn't think so by appearance.Arabs/Islamic fundamentalists are the ones blowing shit up, and hijacking planes, or plotting to do so!!! Until its some pasty Frenchman blowing up a plane, we need to stick to the race of people who do this kind of activity!!
The answer is simple. The people thought that by fighting the war on terror they had failed to keep security on their own ground. Therefore, with all eyes focussed on the Middle East, the terrorists slipped under the radar and... Also, there was the little thing about the terrorists targeting those FIGHTING the war on terror.Europeans arent willing to do anything! Look at Spain, they got blown up, and THEY TOTALLY PUSSED out!! Al-Qaeda fucking blew up a train carrying hundreds of people, and they wont fight the war on terror anymore!!! They arent guaranteed not to be attacked again. . . Why would they just puss out, I dont get it!!
And clearly you know almost nothing about the events surrounding Madrid.
Before the attacks, the incumbent president was almost assured victory. He was for the War on Terror. AFTER the attacks, there was election just a FEW DAYS afterwards. The incumbent was defeated by the anti-war canidate - BECAUSE of the war on terror!
I would be more pissed that my governement didn't keep them out. And as I've said, the government didnt capitulate - unless you mean 'capitulate' as meaning thrown out.If your a Spaniard and you had family that died on that train, wouldnt you be a tad pissed your government decided to capitulate to terrorists?? I know I would be irate!!
You seem very eager to try and apply 1940's/1950's events to today - especially related to Israel, America and WWII.No European will place any blame on the UN!! The UN were the ones who snubbed the Palestinians on their own state!! Because the Jews were so persecuted they bypassed the Arab population, and called the place Israel. One could argue that all this fundamentalist crap would have ceased to be this strong, if the Palestinians were issued their own homeland. America is not the sole reason all this shit is going on in the world!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
psychotoxic187 wrote:
They have been wiretapping long before Bush, and will continue to long after he's gone.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-19 01:15:06)
Oh... we're talking about wiretaps, right?
Makes no difference to me. I don't live in the US. But if I was, I would be a little suspect. Terrorists aren't dumb, you know. They try to make sure they CAN'T be detected via surveillance techniques.
Makes no difference to me. I don't live in the US. But if I was, I would be a little suspect. Terrorists aren't dumb, you know. They try to make sure they CAN'T be detected via surveillance techniques.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
"The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper" -George W. Bush
Spy vs. Spy.Spark wrote:
Oh... we're talking about wiretaps, right?
Makes no difference to me. I don't live in the US. But if I was, I would be a little suspect. Terrorists aren't dumb, you know. They try to make sure they CAN'T be detected via surveillance techniques.
Most of you act as if the Government listens to EVERY phone call, and that's not the case. If you are caught contacting a KNOWN terrorist whom is on our watch list, you will now be watched. Even if they hear you say, "I'm going to blow up this building", it is against the law for them to react upon it, as they heard it illegally, and they will get prosecuted to the fullest extent. So, moral is, don't talk to known terrorists, and you'll be fine.