Reasonable post. Thanks. I'll just add that terrorists use the internet. They use banks. They drive cars. They rent hotel rooms. They have credit cards. They go to school. Where do we draw the line on taking away the rights of the majority to defend against a tiny minority? I'd rather see a dialog on the root causes of terrorism, not on stripping away people's rights to force the terrorists deeper underground.
I'll answer this question with a question; Where do we draw the line on terrorists being able to plot deaths by whatever means they can, knowing they won't get caught & protect a minority of citizens that actually get listened to (privacy invaded) wrongly? What happens if the dialog is something you won't like the results of & we couldn't meet their demands?
We set laws in place to protect people, and we give cops the authorities to investigate things to catch criminals. Criminals and bad people have been sneaking around authorities to get away with crimes for hundreds of years, and no doubt during that time we could have given more rights to cops, to empower them to catch more people, but we did not. We did not because we have always found a balance between authority's power to stop/catch criminals, and the people's rights granted via the Constitution. So often people say "times have changed!". What has changed? People want to destroy us? Oh wow, there's a new idea. The only way we are going to be safe is if we completely lock down every inch of the borders, have big brother watching every step of our private lives, and have no freedom to privacy. Aside from that, and even then, people will find ways to subvert authority and get away with crimes. The founding fathers made the Constitution in such a way that no matter how our country changed, we still remembered we needed certain rights to be sure government did NOT turn into an authoritarian power, and for good reason; they saw that a powerful, dictatorship government is more dangerous to the people than any outside threat. As I quoted in another place, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." If you can't see that the statement clearly applies even 225 years later, you're being foolish.
When we surrender our basic rights like privacy, free speech, the right to assemble etc., we're compromising what it is to be American. New Hampshire has a state slogan, I like it quite a lot. "Live Free or Die". That's an American thing, I don't know if you will get the emotion and meaning of it, but it's something that is a part of the national identity here. Let's have the dialog. I'm not interested in being "right", I'm interested in developing an "informed" opinion. Regarding what Fletch wrote, there is a reason why we have 2nd Amendment rights. America was never intended to have a standing army, because it can be used as a tyrannical tool of the government against the people. What we do have, is the right to bear arms. The idea being that we would be able to protect ourselves against enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead of looking to give up rights, we should be arming more of the population. The people on the airliners were not allowed to carry weapons to resist the hijackers, and they were also told not to resist. This is not in the American spirit. They should have resisted, they could have saved a lot of lives. But government seeks to de-claw us, to take away our ability to fend for ourselves, with the understanding that they will do a better job. Like in New Orleans or 9/11. Once you lose the ability to fight for yourself and defer it to another, you have now lost control of what happens to you. Again, that's an American idea. Independence. Freedom. Guys who argue for this stuff, like Will are overlooking the patriotism of their fellow Americans, that I would guess are 50 million who are armed, and will never be subjugated to Islamic conversion or invaded by conventional means.
guerilla appears to be saying something but he's still on ignore. Something was obviously not right when he started asking about "zionists" But, now that he's admitted he'd rather see thousands of Americans dead than have the government listen in on his phone calls, it's very much confirmed. Your rights stop when your rights interfer with the primary rights of others: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government listening to your phone calls does not inhibit your freedom at all. That's why it's called "freedom." Even when the whole world is watching you, you can still do it. Liberty and Privacy are two seperate things. The lack of privacy does not mean a lack of liberty. Freedom means being able to do something even when there is no privacy. So that quote has zero to do with the issue of privacy. You're also ignoring the fact that all our freedoms are restricted. All freedoms end when they interfer with the freedoms of others. In the case of phone calls, the government has every right to listen in on any call where at least one party is out of the country. For everyone else, they just need a warrent.
Ah yes, you got scared away when I asked you if you considered yourself a Zionist. Can't afford to answer that one can we? This is incorrect. You cannot take the right of one away for the right of others. I think you need to re-read the Declaration of Independence. So you are essentially saying that if a person had no privacy, constantly being watched and listened to, that this is freedom? Actually, Freedom is the right to self determination. From Princeton Wordnet the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints I would argue that knowing my conversations are being listened to by a faceless 3rd party is coercion, and an externally imposed restraint. Then please stop posting that the Patriot Act doesn't infringe on our rights. It allows for warantless wiretaps.
how does listening to phones save thousands of lifes? Don't you think terrorists are also aware that their conversations are listened to and they use other methods of communicating?
Sigh, KalvinB is probably one of those guys who thinks the TSA actually accomplishes something more than the airport security had pre-9/11. Tell people they are more safe enough, and they actually believe it.
NO! TERISTS like to use land lines and dial up internet. That is why Fred Thompson will destroy all of America's phones with Nukes when he is elected!
Do you have inside knowledge to confirm that no terrorist has ever been wiretapped that none of us know about? You assume that terrorists don't use phones so you can argue that wiretapping foreigners is ineffective. That's not a valid argument. You're right, we shouldn't tap their phones. Then they won't use phones because they know we aren't wiretapping them *wink wink*. But really we aren't wiretapping them so now they can finally get that new iPhone and be secure knowing they can talk all they want without being wiretapped. So really, what was the point of your comment? Are you arguing that the government should stop wiretapping foreigners to open up a secure form of communication for terrorists or what? Let me break it down more into simplier words: government allowed to tap phones => phones not used for terrorist plotting government not allowed to tap phones => phones used for terrorist plotting So again, what was the point of your comment? In order to fight terrorism it's obviously neccessary to tap all their forms of communication. Even after we assume they stop using it. Because if we stop monitoring any form of communication, that form of communication will be used.
Well let's think about it...there's publicly available knowledge what new powers our court has to find terrorists. They could continue to use those methods with full knowledge that they are risking getting caught, or they could avoid those methods, knowing that said method of communication is now unsafe and prone to investigation. I'm not saying I know for sure that anyone has ever subverted the system, but you've formed a Catch-22 of sorts. You can either say they are extremely knowledgeable, resourceful people who are trying to destroy us, in which case they'd have the good sense to communicate in other ways anyway and defeat the purpose of the Patriot Act, or you are saying they are too dumb to communicate in other ways, in which case our vast resources and intelligence agencies should not need to oppress our liberties to catch the fools. Which is it?
What are you talking about? What part of that didn't you understand that led to your post? Just because they also communicate with pigeons doesn't mean we don't need to continue tapping the phones. Or does that not make sense to you? Let's say you're in a fight. Someone is punching you in the face. So you grab their arm and now they can't punch you in the face. But, now they're kicking you in the nuts. Based on your argument, you think the best course of action is to now let go of their arm so you can deal with their leg. But, now they're punching you in the face again. Whoops. That's some kind of catch-22 you got there. A real thinker.
My point is that you grab their arm, they will kick you in the nuts. You pin their legs, they'll bite your arm. The only way you ever stop it is an authoritarian government that watches every single thing we do. I know where I draw my line between personal liberty and police authority, the Constitution. Where do you draw yours, and why? By your reasoning, if we can give police more and more power, we'll be safer. So are you advocating a police state? I doubt it, but using your reasoning, more police authority means less terrorist activity that can happen. You obviously support the Patriot Act, but why not police cameras on every block? We could see more criminal activity, and if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. What about EVERY phone call being tapped. That way nobody slips by our detection. And internet too. So where does it stop?
You're right. It's hopeless. You should just not bother and let them punch you in the face until they get tired of it. What part of the constitution does wiretapping foreigners violate? What part of the constitution does the patriot act violate?
Hypothetical 1 Terists also use passports. I think we should tattoo everyone with a bar code. When the terists start using bar codes, I think we should dermally plant RFID chips in citizens. When the terists get RFID chips, I think we should just round everyone up and put them in concentration camps. When the terists get into the concentration camps, I think we should just start killing citizens. When everyone is dead, terism will be over. Hypothetical 2 Terists have conversations in private homes, hotel rooms and public places. I think we should not allow people to walk around in public, shut down hotels, and put cameras in every private home. These are great ideas. I'm surprised GWB hasn't thought of them yet. Of course, we could just find out what causes terism, instead of being reactionary, and work to stop terism recruitment, funding etc., not just terist attacks. Americans don't need to give up freedoms, privacy or live in fear of attack. These are the symptoms of a police state. Americans should be armed under the 2nd Amendment, and Americans should demand that their government seal the borders against illegal aliens. It's so blatantly stupid to tap phones when 3 million illegal aliens walk across our border every year. Almost as ludicrous as taking away people's toothpaste when they get on a plane, but leaving the borders open north and south. Or giving NY State Driver's Licenses to illegals, which will grant them entre into all sorts of government programs and systems. But what do I know. Maybe the terists have plants inside the government who can tell them when a LEGAL warrant is issued. In 6 years, we've yet to see any evidence that the terists used domestic phones to setup their attack.
Can someone inform Kalvin about the wonders of Google? http://www.google.com/search?q=patriot+act+unconstitutional
I'm not saying its hopeless and we should do nothing, but I'm saying, if you use the rationale that we are safer, where do you draw the line?
Obviously I don't draw the line at perfectly legal wiretapping. As long as Ron "I'm an Idiot" Paul doesn't get in charge, terrorists won't make it over here so we won't have to worry about where to move the line to next. At least the Democrats aren't dumb enough to think withdrawing our troops from around the world and isolating ourselves is a good idea.
So again...using your rationale, are you advocating a police state, big brother system where the government watches everything we do? If not, why? You really need to explain where you stand, besides "well I agree with this being allowable", at least using the logic you're using, that it fights terrorism.
You're right, it's a police state or nothing. We should all just start learning Arabic now. Well, maybe Spanish. We'll just have to see who wants to over take our country more...