BURNING THE CONSTITUTION: SECRET COURT OKS SPYING ON AMERICANS

CAPITOLBLUE.COM ^ | 11-19-02 | REUTERS

[banjo joe]

Yeah, I see your point. My response at that time when discussing w/ friends was "you're funding terrorists everytime you fill your tank". Compare current admin w/ a potential hill'ry admin.

[verity]

Perhaps our disagreement is on the nature of the threat. It is obvious your focus is with the threat of subversion while my focus is with an immediate cataclysmic event.

Since we cannot convince one another as to whether or not Ben's quote is anachronistic, perhaps you can offer some scenario which addresses the terror threat while safeguarding 'liberties.'

[taxcontrol]

Granted, and true. But I needed something to put in my example. A diary seemed to be an easy choice because everyone would identify it as being personal.

[taxcontrol]

What does the average citizen have to fear from a wire tap or email monitoring? If they do nothing illegal, there is nothing there

The same arguement could be made for firearms. "If the average citizen does not commit crimes, then they should not fear registration". Of course, it never stops at registration.

At best, it is a slippery slope.

Also, have you EVER seen a government agency SHRINK? In truth, most agencies expand to meet the need, and when the need has been met and the threat removed or reduced, the agency then goes out and finds or expands their charter. This is to protect their budgets and the number of workers within their organizations. The organization becomes self serving.

Without some kinds of checks and balances, the organization that starts out investigating terrorists starts going after drug lords, then all smuggling, then all organized crime, then all crime. And when they run out of crimes to work on, they start creating crimes either by falsification of evidence or by going after 'hate' speach or something else.

I like the idea that LEO must FIRST obtain a warrent. Not because a denial of facts or truth but because such additional steps create an environment that acts against the abuses of Law Enforcement. It makes them take the extra effort to make a solid case. It also creates a gate that must pass the "smell test".

Granted the system is not perfect - nothing created by man or operated by man will ever be perfect. However, it does provide a limit to the powers of the police. Though I have never lived in a police state, I have seen it's effect on the people.

While stationed in West Germany with the Army, I had the opportuity to travel to East Berlin, which was their "showcase" city. The people there were very closed, quite noticiably oppressed. That is because the domestic intelligence agency could spy on anyone at any time. That is NOT what I wish for the US.

Also, do not forget that at some time in the future, Clinton's cronies (or someone of their ilk) will be back in power. We have already seen their unwillingness to obey law and further, the unwillingness of their friends to uphold the law. I do not want rules in place that create furtile ground for missuse.

[sam_paine]

It is obvious your focus is with the threat of subversion while my focus is with an immediate cataclysmic event.

Ok, I'll try to bring Ben back in later.

For each human, there is a continuum of exercised liberty (from freedom to slavery), and then there is death.

The question for Patrick Henry was submission to British "slavery" and oppression. He favoured full freedom and liberty, then death, then slavery and submission, in that order.

Whatever happened to "Better dead than Red?" Why aren't we willing to accept death over slavery of fear? If we went to the extreme and we reliquished all freedom and we all retired to the Federal Prisons, under military guard, would we be safe from terror? NO! The terrorists could nuke our prisons, or poison our food, etc. So what good is some half measure, again? Give up the right to property. Give up the right to not bear witness against yourself. Give up the right to criticise the government. And where will you be? Safer? No.

There is a fallacy propagated in the name "War on Terror." The terrorists are fighting the US government. The US government is fighting the terrorists. Well if the US Government is "Of and By the people," then the war should be returned from the people to the terrorists. Instead, we throw our concerns over the wall and expect "the government" to protect us.

I don't promote inaction. I'd just like to see less focus on handing over liberties to the government, and more focus on "Neighborhood Terrorist Watch." Let the Military chase ragheads in Yemen. Arm the people at home and distribute the power more through increased liberty. The terrorists on 9/11 could not be stopped by F-16's and Executive Orders...the only terrorists stopped effectively on 9/11 were those stopped by citizens armed with pots of hot water and a sense of duty to fellow citizens. Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry would've been very proud of them.

[eleni121]

Who believes in the tooth fairy? Those who believe that Sadam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden will just get tired of this US bashing and eventually sit around the campfire singin Kum-ba-ya.

A serious reality check is needed here.

[eleni121]

You can be proud all you want but in the real world if islamicists were to get into power your freedom to worship at the altar of libertarianism wouldn't be worth much.

[verity]

Once again, I thank you for your courteous reply. Nevertheless, I do not think we shall ever fully agree.

[snopercod]

How about reposting your post on the faxed warrant over here?

[Demidog]

Those who believe that Sadam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden will just get tired of this US bashing and eventually sit around the campfire singin Kum-ba-ya.

I think that anyone who believes that US policies abroad have no consequences (or should have no consequences) are those who are the "tooth fairy" types.

[Mike4Freedom]

You can be proud all you want but in the real world if islamicists were to get into power your freedom to worship at the altar of libertarianism wouldn't be worth much.

No one's freedom will be worth anything in a secular fascist state and that is where we are heading. We need to fear that much more.

The Islamic nuts have to win a war to get control. The government in power already has control. If they get the rule of law weakened enough, they have us. It will cost blood to un-do what is happening internally right now.

[sam_paine]

Well, we don't have to agree. I do like to try to understand other viewpoints, as it helps me to work out my own.

It's a shame that this forum makes a simple civil discourse notable!

I guess I'd just like to leave with an understanding of your angle.

If I understand you correctly, the anachronistic concepts of freedom from English oppression, espoused by Franklin and Henry etal, can not be realistically applied in the modern era and the war on terrorism, primarily because the level of potential destruction has escalated to the point that we can't afford to allow a battle to begin, much less challenge the terrorists to all out war.

And to prevent that battle, we must empower the government to use the collective wealth and resources of the people to seek and destroy these terrorists before they commit a crime, at the risk of diluting the classical freedoms established by the old fellers themselves.

Do I have you right? It may seem obvious to me, and you may indeed be correct. Though I don't want that to be the case, if it is true, then my ilk will be left behind for better or for worse like the Loyalists were in the First American Revolution.

If so, I feel like Thomas Paine wrote precursors to that Revolution, and I think Orwell and bin Laden are writing the precursors for the next.

[banjo joe]

You're correct. 1) Law enforcement at any level (state, fed) will go after the easiest targets. 2) They made an example of the Branch Davidians.

[eleni121]

Those who refuse to acknowledge that there are those run amuck who seek the destruction of the Judaeo Christian free market systems are living in a Polyannish world. In an ideal world everybody would make nice and get along. This world was never meant to be perfect although we strive as much as possible. In fact, utopians and idealists like some libertarians around here are the ones who need a wake up call the most.

[verity]

I think my principal objection is to those who quote historical absolutes e.g. "Give me liberty or give me death." This either/or posture is far too emotional and simplistic. Where is the line where one would prefer death to an intrusion on his/her civil liberties? In my humble opinion, a phone tap is not enough. Moreover, The classic argument of "slippery slope" is not personally compelling.

August 6 and 9 of 1945 persuaded a fanatical culture to reevaluate their options. The Cold War strategy of MAD, in retrospect, was pretty damned scary. September 11, 2001 may well be the precursor event to a whole new way of life.

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of that has been lost.

[Demidog]

None of that has been lost.

LOL.

[antaresequity]

The company included a note "Due to the US Patriot Act, we are not able to accept money orders or traveler's checks for payment, we can only accept personal checks or automatic transfers"

I want to to see this!...mask what is personal but for christs sakes post this! If you need a place to host an image of the document just freep mail me...an actual copy(image) would be way cool...I really want to see this!