Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

You choose: Civil liberties or safety? by James P. Pinkerton
Newsday ^ | December 29, 2005 | James P. Pinkerton

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: homelandsecurity; patriotleak; pinkerton; spying
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-229 next last
To: FreeReign
Okay, then - you don't have enough information to know who is being monitored without a warrant, but you nevertheless think it is acceptable.

That says enough, all by itself, about your feelings for the Constitution.

121 posted on 12/29/2005 1:06:45 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: smith288
You could read a bit more on history prior to the 8 yrs of Clinton to know that there are many examples of the executive branch allowing for the monitoring of communications.

Indeed, the communications mining has never stopped.

We must consider though, do two wrongs make a right?

122 posted on 12/29/2005 1:10:48 PM PST by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jpl
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.

Any way? With all due respect, in some regards this is a fascist country. That is to say, if you understand what fascism actually is, namely a system where private property is allowed but government controlled, it would be hard to successfully argue otherwise. The current "regulation society" we live in is proof positive.

The current rash of "no smoking on private property" laws are only one such example. There are many more.

123 posted on 12/29/2005 1:11:45 PM PST by Protagoras (If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, FR would be the training facility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Son, you may try, but you will never "out libertarian" me. I forgot more about such things than you may ever discover.


124 posted on 12/29/2005 1:13:04 PM PST by Protagoras (If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, FR would be the training facility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

I don't think that the PATRIOT Act authorizes firearms search and seizure. But never think in terms of the current president when you consider. Think in terms of President Hillary! ...


125 posted on 12/29/2005 1:17:43 PM PST by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Okay, then - you don't have enough information to know who is being monitored without a warrant, but you nevertheless think it is acceptable. That says enough, all by itself, about your feelings for the Constitution.

Using your logic, at any given moment we have no idea what a president is doing, so we should not elect presidents.

Your feelings about the Constitution.

126 posted on 12/29/2005 1:20:16 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Son, you may try, but you will never "out libertarian" me. I forgot more about such things than you may ever discover

Your argument as always is short on substance and long on Ad Hominam attack.

And you tell me not to call you a dope.

127 posted on 12/29/2005 1:23:20 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

Well, if I were a militant muslim calling Osama, I imagine the government might have an interest in what is said. I personally hope they are tracking the conversation of Sami Al Arian (sorry, my spelling uncertain), the professor in Florida that O'Reilly has featured!


128 posted on 12/29/2005 1:24:06 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Ad Hominam attack.

What ad hominem attack?

And you tell me not to call you a dope.

I never told you that. In fact, I thanked you.

129 posted on 12/29/2005 1:27:56 PM PST by Protagoras (If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, FR would be the training facility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Nope. I'm not being purposely obtuse about my own beliefs. The President should comply with statutory law, which means that American citizens may not be wiretapped without a warrant unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' The law doesn't say anything about those about whom there is suspicion, or those who may simply be talking to enemies or to phone numbers that were once used by enemies. It says US persons can only be wiretapped with a warrant, unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' Period.

And how will we know if only such persons are being wiretapped? By the due process afforded under the law.

130 posted on 12/29/2005 1:28:03 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
First, I can assure you that they got warrants to tap al-Arian.

Second, they couldn't convict the guy with wiretaps. So either he isn't what you think he is, or wiretaps aren't as effective as many think they are.

131 posted on 12/29/2005 1:29:16 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin

Subject: Lexus Owner's Story

Just got my new Lexus RX400h a few days ago. I returned to the dealer

the next day complaining that I couldn't figure out how the radio worked.
The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. "Watch this,"
he said, "Nelson!" The radio replied, "Ricky or Willie?" "Willie!," he
continued...and "On The Road Again" came from the speakers. I drove away
happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say "Beethoven," I'd get
beautiful classical music, and if I said "Beatles," I'd get one of their
awesome songs.
One day a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car, but I
swerved in time to avoid them. "Assholes!!," I yelled. Suddenly the French
National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Michael Moore, backed
up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums, Bill Clinton on sax and
Hillary on the tambourine.

I love this car!


132 posted on 12/29/2005 1:31:36 PM PST by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Wow, I can hardly wade through the hyperbole on this thread. The Constitution is not a suicide pact! The #1 civil liberty is the right to life. If you cannot grasp that concept i'm sorry but you're an idiot. Security does not equal facism or any other evil no matter how loud you scream it does.

I never thought I'd see the Bush=Hitler mentality on FR but I guess you "Libertarians" proved me wrong! Back away from the mary jane.
133 posted on 12/29/2005 1:39:49 PM PST by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
The procedures of the Constituion are not libertarian. By their nature, forced procedures aren't libertarian.

As is all too common, you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

134 posted on 12/29/2005 1:43:46 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (I am a leaf on the wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #135 Removed by Moderator

To: hedgetrimmer

How come your simple message is so hard for folks to understand? Perhaps it's due to the public fool system doing such an excellent job of minimizing the truths in the Constitution and our lack of knowledge about this alleged legal system that provides excellent cover for the legions of shysters, crooks and traitors within gov't at all levels?


136 posted on 12/29/2005 1:53:11 PM PST by american spirit (Can you handle the truth? - www.rbnlive.com ( 4-6 CST M-F)) / click "listen live")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

No "due process" during wartime regarding the interception of messages from foreign enemies. That's where I stand. The President is commander in chief and is responsible for protecting this nation from foreign attack. Given that responsibility, he also has the inherent authority to act.

I can never support the idea of war decisions being in the hands of a panel of judges. And I'd say the same thing if Hillary Clinton were president during time of war.


137 posted on 12/29/2005 1:58:23 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: zook
The 'interception of messages from foreign enemies' is an easy call.

What say you to 'the interception of a telephone call from a US citizen to a relative in Egypt at a number that was used on three occasions to call a telephone number associated with a known Al Qaeda sympathiser in Egypt, who had not committed any terrorist acts himself but made statements in support of those who did, which number belonged to a neighborhood cafe'?

I'll go 8 to 1 that we are listening to many, many more of the latter than the former.

138 posted on 12/29/2005 2:24:40 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Nope. I'm not being purposely obtuse about my own beliefs. The President should comply with statutory law, which means that American citizens may not be wiretapped without a warrant unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' The law doesn't say anything about those about whom there is suspicion, or those who may simply be talking to enemies or to phone numbers that were once used by enemies. It says US persons can only be wiretapped with a warrant, unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' Period.

The president should comply with the Constitution.

The ultimate measure of governmental searches and constitutionality is reasonableness.

I believe that it is reasonable to monitor known correspondence between people in this country and known terrorist organizations abroad.

I also believe that the Constitution gives the executive branch to the power to wage war minus a warrant. The Constitution doesn't give that power to a panel of judges.

And how will we know if only such persons are being wiretapped? By the due process afforded under the law.

A guarantee against government? As I said before, there are no guarantees. Heck, how will we know if the president we elect is not a crook? How will we know the president we elect isn't doing things behind our back. Let's just call off Constitutionally mandated elections.

139 posted on 12/29/2005 2:26:20 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

Your correct. The PA is, unlike the constitution, a living set of laws that Congress has the ability to change as needed. I'm a gun owner and have nothing to fear but, fear itself. There's always been a crowd out there who fear the Gov. will come and take their weapons. Makes you wonder what they have to hide.


140 posted on 12/29/2005 2:30:16 PM PST by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-229 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson