Okay, my husband works for a company that just started doing business

[Ilsa]

with a company in Saudi Arabia. I don't want to get too specific. He's on the phone with someone there all of the time, and someone from his office will have to make those trips.

I wonder how long it will be before he is (or we are) under surveillance? I wonder if he is already?

[...of J.Temperance]

1. My Dad own's his own Bio-Chemical firm and Dad frequently

Does business with Saudi Arabia, amongst other countries. Dad also travels to Saudi Arabia...it's okay we're not under surveillance, so please don't worry that you're going to be under surveillance.

:)

[Longhorn]

3. Just curious -- how do you know? n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

4. I just do

And it's a legitimate business. I don't think that Ilsa has anything to worry about.

Soft spot for those Longhorns...even though I'm an LSU fan.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[Longhorn]

7. I was just wondering how we would know unless someone "in the know"

could tell us.

I was pulling for LSU, too. Thanks! :hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

9. Ahem...can't answer that...but as for LSU

We're going to beat Miami on Friday! :hi:

[NNN0LHI]

10. No one who is under surveillance knows they are under surveillance

That is the whole idea of putting someone under surveillance. If they knew they were being surveiled they would never say anything that would incriminate themselves.

Don

[...of J.Temperance]

12. Well I'm trying to put Ilsa's mind at ease

If you're not acting in a suspicious way or associating with any subversive type people or organizations and if you're not doing any criminal type business already...then nobody should be afraid of being put under surveillance.

There are hundreds of millions of citizens and only a small percentage of them, perhaps under 10% will qualify for being put under surveillance.

[NNN0LHI]

15. ...then nobody should be afraid of being put under surveillance... WTF?

Have you lost touch with reality? Don't give me that fucking "then nobody should be afraid of being put under surveillance" shit! If it appears I am pissed off here it is because I am. Turn off the Fox news and read the 4th Amendment once and then check back with me. Toodle loo.

Don

[Lochloosa]

16. Nice Rant....Second N/T

[...of J.Temperance]

17. I don't watch Faux

I'm just trying to think about this in a logical way is all.

On Edit: To add, organizations such as the Mafia have been under surveillance for a long time. So what I was actually saying is...if you're not already doing criminal business or if you're not associating with subversive organizations...if you're just Joe Smith or Jane Smith conducting legitimate business, then why would the government have any interest in putting you under surveillance?

[bananas]

18. The flaw in your logic

is that you are a good honest person,
so you can't think of a logical reason for anyone to do that.
Crooks and criminals don't think like you do,
they have their own logic.
Kerry was a prosecutor, he had to learn how crooks and criminals think, and he said this is the biggest bunch of crooks and criminals he's ever seen.
So to understand why they would do it,
ask yourself: "why do crooks and criminals spy on people, why do they 'case a joint' before robbing it?"

And do some reading on WHY the 4th amendment is there.

[Ilsa]

21. Thanks, but,

"...if you're just Joe Smith or Jane Smith conducting legitimate business, then why would the government have any interest in putting you under surveillance?"

To see if there is something there worth studying and tracking longer?

BTW, thanks for trying to help put my mind at ease. :pals: I don't think it is, though.

[Lex]

19. That's the "Old America" you're talking about.

In the "New America" the surveillance rules are not the same.

[Longhorn]

2. My former son-in-law is from Lebanon

and just got his citizenship this year. He also does business overseas, including the Middle East. When this Snoopgate thing came out, I asked him if he thought he has been wiretapped and he said he has no doubt of it (though no proof either.)

I think the point is that we used to be secure in feeling that we had privacy because of the protections of the Constitution and now none of us can think that any more.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. As long as there hasn't been another 9/11 it's okay that the citizens have

to walk around with National Security Agency butt probe monitors all the time.

That's the basic gist of the argument...

[madokie]

6. It's like we've been raped, violated

and I for one wants revenge. Its like bush* gives me the heebegeebees

[...of J.Temperance]

8. How's it going? n/t

[madokie]

11. loving life and lifes loving me, how 'bout you

[...of J.Temperance]

14. I'm kinda tired after yesterday

I was supposed to go over to some more relatives today, but I feel as if I want a little nap. I'll go over to them tomorrow.

Check your PMs, I've answered 'em :)

[LARED]

13. An interesting blog

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

[bridgit]

20. reasonable to conclude, i posted a thread in GD last week wondering...

if the bush admin were just as likely to tap all manner of wi-fi stuff, the least of which being business (you know they're so 'free market' and all) just to gain a global/capitol advantage; but as is the way of GD, everyone was utterly and completely myopic about the tapping itself, without wondering what was being listening to or why :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5689130&mesg_id=5689130 and no that's not the link, but there is mention in there as to securing the switches that transit international communiques so tell him, with the remnants of the old guard nixon admin, i have to assume his being listening to at the least