Which procedures require us to give up freedoms?
The Constitution is not a libertarian document.
Posted on 12/29/2005 9:01:59 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Which procedures require us to give up freedoms?
The Constitution is not a libertarian document.
"in other words if you told us anything you'd have to kill us. ;)"
Nah. The NSA isn't into wet work. If I told you anything, I might be subject to being arrested and prosecuted. I'd rather not.
naa we don't want you arrested either.. just like to make educated guess's is all
RATs are no longer restrained by what's legal. That's like wanting to be nice to terrorists so hostages will be well treated.
Warrants are required by the Constitution.
The Constitution is a better tool for defending rights than illegal wiretaps.
And no, this isn't comment on the legality or illegality of any particular wiretaps. Only wiretaps in general.
The problem is that you only 'know' what conversations are being monitored without a warrant because someone tells you what is being monitored without a warrant.
Unreasonable searches are not allowed by the Constitution. Reasonable searches are allowed by the Constitution. There are times when it is reasonable to search without a warrant.
It is reasonable for a CIC to tap Al Qaeda conversations into this country during a time of war when a NSA court becomes politicized and the potential for our defense against a WMD attack is at high risk.
It is then up to a CIC to notify post fact, when national security is nolonger affected, that the search was made.
If the CIC does not notify post-fact, the CIC is wrong.
The fact is that you don't have guarantees that a CIC is not going to do something wrong. That is the nature of doing something wrong. There are no guarantees. The Constitution is not a Utopian document. There is no such thing.
That is why a CIC such as Hillary would do something wrong regardless of what the Constitution empowers her to do.
That is how it is up to the electorate to keep this republic free. Don't elect a Hillary.
I'm guessing you probably believe those who claim that only conversations with suspected terrorists are being monitored. You probably believe it because you trust the people telling you that. Would you believe it if Hillary were telling you that?
Your guess is wrong. Your guess is annoying. don't make such uneducated guesses next time, okay.
The procedures of the Constituion are not libertarian. By their nature, forced procedures aren't libertarian.
I see you signed your post with your picture. Here it is again.
What a dope.
It is sad that you care so little for our Constitution that you will defend the program while believing this, because this is a clear violation of Constitutional and statutory law.
Oh - BTW - you got any shred of proof for your assertion that the FISA court is 'politicized'?
If you really believe that the United States today is comparable in any way with Hitler's Germany, then with all due respect, I think you're at the wrong site.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarian principles.
I didn't sign my post at all. What I did was post a picture that explains your posting technique. The person in the picture is the STRAW MAN from the Wizard of OZ. Your continued debate against a point no poster had made is the precise definition of the straw man argument. Hence, the picture.
What a dope.
Name calling is stock in trade for those who cannot express themselves sufficiently or have nothing worthwhile left to say. Thank you for illustrating that.
The fourth amendment covers the areas you asked for. Whether you think so or not.
The 4th Amendment is not meant to be a suicide pact
and the judiciary is not Constitutionally invested with the power to determine the viable national security implications with regards to "unreasonable search and seizure".
Of course they are.
"Oh, I hardly think Bush cares one iota about my phone calls asking Mr. M to pick up a gallon of milk or the kids asking me to pick the up after practice."
Why don't you just attach a web cam to your forehead and place your life on the internet...afterall, it is so meaningless and uninteresting that no one could possibly care.
People want to turn this country into a padded room because it is so much more convenient to make everyone else change than for them to take responsibility for their own safety. Losers.
How many times were you under surveillance so far today?
Back atcha buddy !
Did you know you were being watched ?
If you were being watched just what the heck do you think you could do about it ?
And what subversive act against the United States were you doing to get yourself watched to begin with.
Do you actually think they are watching what kind of food you eat of if your favorite movie is debbie swollows dallas ?
I don;t really care if they watch me i live an everyday dull boring life so if they wanna watch me change the litter box or watch my bills mount up as i can't pay them on time oh well they would be better off playing a sims game and it would prolly be more exiting !
We aren't buddies
Did you know you were being watched ?
Yes I did.
If you were being watched just what the heck do you think you could do about it ?
I am presently powerless against it on an immediate basis.
And what subversive act against the United States were you doing to get yourself watched to begin with.
None. Actually, I was just driving to work and entering the building and walking on the street.
Do you actually think they are watching what kind of food you eat of if your favorite movie is debbie swollows dallas ?
I never made such comments so it's not possible to determine where you got such an idea and decided to refute it. It's called a STRAW MAN
argument.
I don;t really care if they watch me i live an everyday dull boring life so if they wanna watch me change the litter box or watch my bills mount up as i can't pay them on time oh well they would be better off playing a sims game and it would prolly be more exiting !
That's very interesting,,I guess. But the point it, you don't get to broker my rights just because you do not value your own.
Me:Your guess is wrong. Your guess is annoying. don't make such uneducated guesses next time, okay.
Gee, let's see. A person can believe something is true; A person can believe something is false; or a person can believe that they don't have enough information to determine if something is true or false.
That is the "default" position.
It is sad that you care so little for our Constitution that you will defend the program while believing this, because this is a clear violation of Constitutional and statutory law.
It is sad that you are so carelessly wrong about my feelings for the Constitution and the Constitution itself.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarian principles.
No, you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.