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 ...
As good a starting point as any.
Only if the lie is perpetuated.
There isn't evidence of mass surveillance. There is evidence of compiling large amounts of data about patterns of international calls, but in those cases they didn't listen in on the conversation or even know who the call was made to, so it isn't surveillance.
The "domestic eavesdropping" is only on either foreigners or on people acting as agents of a foreign power. It has not been widespread. It has been targeted appropriately and done within the law.
This is definitely not an example of us trading our civil liberties for security. We haven't sacrificed our civil liberties. The media and politicians have sacrificed their integrity to make it sound as if we have.
The real answer though is that we quit following all of these people who are communicating with AlQueda and round them up instead. Our system gives them to much freedom. It requires that they do something illegal before we can round them up. Consorting with the enemy is illegal enough for me.
Only the ones who are presently confused and would sheepishly forfeit their liberties for some silly promise of security offered by notorious liars.
You think there might be a minor difference between puting up cameras (drag net) and monitoring the international phone calls of people with known terrorist ties?
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
But only for a finite period of time. That's the problem I see: government seems to be using this as an opportunity to lock in greater surveillance powers permanently.
The so called American Government think's once elected they no longer answer to us!!
If some civil liberties are gone, they are gone....at least with safety, there is a good chance, that nothing may happen.
They can't, because they don't, because it just ain't happenin'...
PING for Later (because I don't want to miss a single word from Jim Pinkerton, who I think is one of our underexposed, great conservative treasures!)(no...I am not him!)
Without security, there are no "civil liberties". And historically, societies have opted for security every time.
No, a lot patriot guards are going to be dead.
I don't really care how much info the government collects on me, as long as the collection process doesn't interfere with my daily life, and they don't abuse the info after they've got it. Abuse it, and THEN it's time to go ballistic (literally). I think gun registries are and should be illegal, but to the extent info about guns is acquired during the course of info-gathering that has a legitimate purpose, I don't think that's necessarily a big problem. I WANT the government to know if some al-Qaeda operative has a stash of high powered firearms, and I WANT the government to show up at his door and take them (and him).
We like to think that we have made progress in the four centuries since, especially here in the United States. But we're up against a basic reality: As populations grow denser, and as technology improves, there's a natural need for more regulation to keep people's elbows, and machines, from banging into each other.
That's the reason why, for example, Wyoming is a more libertarian place than New York City. Out in the West, where miles might separate people, you can pretty much do what you want. But, if millions are going to live in close proximity to one another, then lots of red tape is going to thread itself around each resident, governing not only the obvious concerns, such as weapons and pollution, but matters such as noise abatement and cigarette smoking.
I have long believed that the U.S. Constitution is a unique document that could only have been written in a certain place (North America) and time (the post-Reformation colonial era), for it required a unique combination of two factors that didn't exist any other time and place in history and has become more difficult to find with each passing day. These are: 1) a social order based on Western culture and influenced heavily by a northern European, Anglo-Saxon civic/economic system; and 2) a sparsely-populated geographic region with a large frontier.
Agreed. What is the number of cases where US citizens have been involved. I have seen so many numbers, but the moonbats think its tens of thousands.
It's not an either/or question, where you pick all security and no civil liberties, or all civil liberties and no security. A reasonable balance needs to be maintained. Dead people have little use for civil liberties.
What I'm saying is that monitoring communications will expand to everyone, everyhwere, just as Britain's traffic cameras have.
I own firearms.
I highly value my second ammendment right and support fighting to protect them.
I've read HR 3199 and I find no justification for the GOA's claims that it could be used to build a firearms database.
The ability of the government to collect sales records is very limited.
However, please feel free to show me that I'm wrong, but point me to the law or the bill, not to some site where someone makes broad accusations, because so far I've found that a lot of people seem to think it more important to fight the Patriot Act than to be honest.
""""The tinfoilers here (and there are obviously tons...) can never answer directly when I post a simple "Do you personally know anyone who's rights have been violated by things like the Patriot Act?".
They can't, because they don't, because it just ain't happenin'..."""
I doupt if anyone has, they would be at liberty to tell you about it.
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.