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 ...
I think Franklin thought himself up a clever slogan, one which he would certainly reverse were he alive today.
Our homeland has been attacked and has been threatened with further attack. Those who would insist on some total right to privacy in their dealings with foreign enemies, real and potential, are guilty of one of two things:
1. Either they hope America's enemies are successful or
2. They are blind to the fact that they are trading security for a liberty that will only be temporary.
Again, where do you draw the line? What is NOT an acceptable limit on government surveillance? Anything at all?
Nobody has more respect for Franklin, Henry, Washington, Jefferson, etc. than I do. But let's get serious here. When these guys were in the prime of their lives, the automobile and the aeroplane were more than 100 years away from being invented, and wars were fought with rifles, cannons, and horses.
As smart as these men all were, I seriously doubt that any of them ever truly conceived of things like ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads capable of going thousands of miles per hour, and biological weapons capable of being transported in a suitcase that could infect and kill thousands or tens of thousands of people. The reality of the world is a lot different today than it was in 1776, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.
Freedom includes freedom from government control and freedom from anarchist(terrorist) control.
I choose not to engage in intellectual games with you. I will not draw that line, nor is it useful to draw that line today.
But if it helps, I'll say that I'd allow a president to shoot a suspect in the leg several times if it meant saving several thousand American lives. And if it helps, I'll tell you that I supported Lincoln's bold actions during the Civil War. I might have drawn a line with FDR's actions regarding Japanese Americans, though I'm not sure, I wasn't around then to feel the threat and fear that my parents felt about possibly losing their freedom FOREVER via Japanese or German totalitarianism.
The only control they are exercising is to ratchet up your fear level to the point that you are willing to toss your governmental structure overboard in an effort to minimize the already limited threat posed by a bunch of 14th century deluded Saladin wannabes.
They are less of a threat that any enemy of this country in the last century, yet you cower before them and plead with the State to do anything and everything to protect you. Being so pathetically weak has nothing to do with what made this country what it is.
I think you won't draw the line because you have no line. You talk like a fully-capitulated statist.
Oh, so you are so under a threat of losing privacy to the government.
Both are a potential hindrance to my freedom. Both are a concern to me. I weigh both -- apparently, you don't.
"Oh, you are SO under a threat of being under terrorist control..."
And there's the rub. You have your head in the sand. You think because you are safe today you'll be safe five or ten years from now. You somehow believe that if we had simply knocked out the Taliban after 9/11 and then just settled down to a life of tea and backgammon that we'd never be attacked again.
I can hear you in 1938: "Germans? What can they do to *us*?"
"Oh, so you are so under a threat of losing privacy to the government."
LOL!
Zook, I think lugsoul is a fully-capitulated anarchist.
"Zook, I think lugsoul is a fully-capitulated anarchist."
And, I think, a moral coward to boot. I'd hate to be a child or spouse of his, for I'd fear he'd call his lawyer before defending my life.
Lugsoul would probably ask a judge for a warrant before he would sneak in the back door of a snoozing hostage taker.
Lugsoul as CIC, if he had credible reports that 12 nukes were about to go off in 12 cities at the residence of 12 terrorists, he would probably waste valuable time getting a warrant.
Right, lugsoul?
Taking an opportunity to remind readers of the thread of their civic duty, which used to be widely taught. But since our schools teach 'government' instead of civics nowadays, there is a shameful number of American citizens who do not understand this most basic tenet of Americanism, thats all.
Do you think that the founders would change their position on absolute firearm rights if they saw what sort of weapons are made possible with modern technology?
It says a lot that you are avoiding the question. Why do you even post your opinions if you are unwilling to back them up?
I asked a simple question. How will we know when this "emergency" is over? With WWII we knew when Germany and Japan surrendered. With the Civil War, the North knew the war was over with the South surrendered.
In this war on terrorism, how will we know when the war is won and civil rights that were temporarily taken away can be returned?
If you can't answer this, then it doesn't make much sense to proclaim that citizens must make sacrifices during time of war.
So what you are saying is that like the Constitution is a living document.
I am always amazed when the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are criticized here on FR for considering the Constitution a living document for just the reasons you stated, but when a Republican considers it as such then it's just "reality".
It's not like we don't have a method of amending the constitution if parts of it become antiquated. If we go with the approach that the Constitution just changes with the times then it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.
The BD's were F'in up, I'm not giving the Gov. an excuse to knock down my door. I think we'll all know ahead of time when the Gov. or whoever will come a callin. Legislation is kind of like civil rights, they don't do you a hell of a lot of good if your DEAD!
And what can a person do if they know ahead of time? Do you think that one man and his family will be able to fight off the entire government.
Think back to the Elian saga down in Miami. The crowds outside the home said that they would block any agents from entering the home. When the agents did show up with guns, however, they parted like the Red Sea and let the agents right on in. They family that had pledged to defend Elian with their life handed him right over when a gun was put in their face.
The only way to keep your right to bear arms safe is to prevent any legislation from being passed that is hostile to that right. The Patriot Act is indeed hostile to the right to keep and bear arms so lot's of gun owing statists are going to be pretty confused once they're confiscated.
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.