Posted on 09/16/2001 12:17:04 PM PDT by meta
Freedom builds strength: it has made America the greatest power on Earth.
Trading freedom for a promise of security, though, has too often hobbled and disarmed us.
How can restoration of traditional liberties strengthen us in time of war?
Put things into perspective. Right now the FBI can be tapped into bin Laden's personal computer taking down everything he does, UNTIL he establishes communications with his cells in the U.S. at which time the law requires the FBI to stop monitoring him.
Are you suggesting that probable cause does not exist to get a search warrant for his communications? There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that would prevent authorities from pursuing him now that they have evidence leading to a real crime. I think you are suggesting otherwise, that you feel the 4th Amendment is an obstacle to justice and should be ignored or revoked. This is incorrect. The 4th can and does allow for legitimate investigations.
Following the tragic Oklahoma City bombing, the "Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995" was passed, giving investigators wide powers that most definitely allow for wiretaps. From thereof:
"5) Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the peace initiative in the Middle East, and the fall of communism throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, international terrorism has become a more complex problem, with new alliances emerging among terrorist organizations."
(9) International terrorists, violating the sovereignty of foreign countries, attack dissidents and former colleagues living in foreign countries, including the United States.
(10) International terrorists, both inside and outside the United States, carefully plan attacks and carry them out in foreign countries against innocent victims.
b) The purposes of this Act are to provide--
(1) Federal law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the United States to address, pursuant to the rule of law, acts of international terrorism occurring within the United States, or directed against the United States or its nationals anywhere in the world;
(2) the Federal Government the fullest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution, of the United States, to prevent persons and organizations within the jurisdiction of the United States from providing funds, directly or indirectly, to organizations, including subordinate or affiliated persons, designated by the President as engaging in terrorism, unless authorized under this Act ;
(3) procedures which, consistent with principles of fundamental fairness, will allow the government to deport resident and non-resident alien terrorists promptly without compromising intelligence sources and methods;
(4) provide Federal law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the United States to combat the threat of nuclear contamination and proliferation which may result from illegal possession and use of radioactive materials;" .
Law enforcement already has the powers you suggest it needs. With all due respect, your statement was incorrect.
But there is no way to identify the person on this end without breaking the law by tapping in. So you can't get a search warrant because you have no clue as to who to get it on.
Some wartime restrictions are surely necessary, and some are surely foolish.
WWII brought (temporary) price controls.
Economists regard this restriction as an act of national sabotage.
Popular, though, and we won anyway.
Liberty lovers fighting surveillance too often are fighting
both a rising tide of technology and a natural right.
That turns out not to be the case -- see the Don't Let Your Guard Down section of yesterday's Nealz Nuze.
Stop bombing Iraq, apologize big-time, send emergency medical supplies and make *******brown and root rebuild the infrastructure at starvation wages.
But unless and until we stop going around the world killing people for reasons which may be from the heart (blood-lust, genocide) or are perhaps profit-driven (military-industrial-congressional complex enriching itself), we should not be surprised when we reap the whirlwind.
There exists no natural right to snoop. Quite the opposite in fact. The Bill of Rights enumerates natural rights, it does not grant them. And found within this list of natural rights is the 4th Amendment, which to even the most obtuse reader, clearly forbids unrestricted snooping.
This is no longer September 10th, 2001.
I was unaware the Constitution had an expiration date like an old carton of milk. Unalienable rights do not change over time. Usually I hear the opposite from liberals when, for example, they tell us that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed or relevant because we live in different times than the Founders. They tell us that we have a 'Living Constitution' whose meaning changes relative to the times we live in.
I understand the events of last week have shaken everyone up, but I expect more from Conservatives, even in times of crisis.
Since it's for national security, who could object?
Because we didn't start using national ID cards.
Because we didn't start using national ID cards.
While I admit that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it, I don't think massive biometric surveillance is wise. I've been to England, and seen this firsthand, and I don't care for their love of Big Brother.
Besides, they have millions of cameras attached to biometric systems, and they still have terrorism. If we're not careful, we'll end up like some perverse version of "1984", and we'll have gotten nothing in return.
Another thing, you spoke of "our freedom" to use them. Government will be operating biometrics in public places, not individuals. Freedom and rights belong to citizens, not governments. Governments have powers and authority, not freedom or rights. This is a very important distinction. Government and all its powers and authority are granted by the consent of the governed. If government had 'rights', that cannot be deprived by the governed, the consent of the governed would not be needed, and by definition we would no longer be a free country.
That said, if individuals or businesses wish to use biometrics on their own property, that is their right. And it is our right to disassociate and not patronize those that use them.
Yes, that would be me. I'm not accepting a national ID card. If I'm issued one, I'll burn it on the spot, right in front of the issuer. I shit you not.
...and are now running around screaming how could we have let so many illegals run around free for so long. Because we didn't start using national ID cards.
Please enlighten me, how exactly will national ID cards have prevented any of this?
That would be impossible...light cannot penetrate that far.
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.