You choose: Civil liberties or safety? by James P. Pinkerton

Newsday ^ | December 29, 2005 | James P. Pinkerton

[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?

[FreeReign]

If you, Lugsoul were CIC and if you had credible reports that 12 nukes were about to go off in 12 cities at the residence of 12 terrorists, would waste valuable time getting a warrant or would you act immediately against the terrorists?

I already answered your question directly. RIF

Maybe. WIF!

Is you answer to the above yes, or no?

[lugsoul]

The enemy gains no advantage from my steadfast advocacy of limited Constitutional government. What's next - ya gonna call Bob Barr a jihadist sympathiser?

[lugsoul]

Post 202.

[FreeReign]

Post 202.

So then we are both in agreement that a warrant is not always needed.

[zook]

"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?"

Now that's a really interesting question, one that I'll gladly take a stab at. My hunch is that they would probably derive something like what we have now (with several urban exceptions): that is, they'd maintain the right of citizens to own firearms, but accept some reasonable restrictions on citizen ownership of far more deadly weapons, e.g., large capacity machine guns, bombs, etc.

[zook]

What have I made up? The fantasy that you might have some wisdom? I gave up on that a couple of postings ago. But based on your words here, it's clear we could never count on you and the likes of you to defend this country, at least not until it was too late.

[Beckwith]

With WWII we knew when Germany and Japan surrendered.

If it were 1942 or 1943 how would you answer your own question? How would you have known about the bomb?

With the Civil War, the North knew the war was over with the South surrendered.

If it were 1863 or 1864 how would you answer your own question?

So, to answer your silly question and to quote the great sage Yogi Berra, "it's over when it's over."

Now, let me ask you a question? Name one civil right that has been taken away from you, personally, just one and back it up.

[JeffAtlanta]

f it were 1942 or 1943 how would you answer your own question? How would you have known about the bomb?

Uh, I would know because we were at war with two countries - of course everyone knew it would be over when they surrendered.

Of course no one knew exactly when the war would be over, but they knew the criteria for it being over (i.e. the enemy surrendering).

During WWII we knew that our sacrifices would be over once the governments of Germany and Japan surrendered or if we reached an agreements to end hostilities. I ask, by what criteria will we know the war on "terrorism" is over? Remember, in WWII we weren't at war against nazism or imperalism but against countries with governments.

[frogjerk]

The enemy gains no advantage from my steadfast advocacy of limited Constitutional government. What's next - ya gonna call Bob Barr a jihadist sympathiser?

Please describe in detail the specific abuses that have been a result of this so-called "illegal wiretapping" without doning your tinfoil hat.