More ILLEGAL SPYING: Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants

Nice!
I proved you wrong, and you're not smart enough to think of a proper reply so you resort to trivial immaturity. Not only that, but I think you'll find all schools, libraries, universities, and other public computer access establishments monitor their users activity. I wouldn't expect you to know that though, ignorance is bliss

 

Of course, there is no expectation of privacy when you agree to terms of use by using property that is not yours. The legal owner of the computers have control over them, not the person temporarily using them.

You must live in a utopia.

tom

 

Ok, fair point. We don't have a constitution so I don't see it the same way you would.
Well, let me ask you then, if you had the choice of:

• 1. 600,000 people killed in massive bomb attacks
• 2. The government temporarily sidesteps the constitution and finds the 120 terrorists involved beforehand, noone's killed

Which would you pick? Ignore the details and the wording, and it's completely hypothetical just want to know your perspective.

 

Yes, that's what I said. Why paraphrase me?

 

Yeh, you really got me...that was quite a ZINGER! You proved me wrong with your opinions. I guess i should just logoff of DP and bury my head in the snow.

I wasn't criticizing you, BTW.

 

If we start with your previous posting about your are not doing anything wrong, so you don't mind if they have you under surveillance. Please define for us what wrong means. If a person organizing a rally against government policies; is he doing something wrong or is he exercising his right to free speech and assembly? Who is going to decide what is wrong or right without courts? What happens if a government decide that anyone who disagrees is a terrorist and should be imprisoned without trial? Do other people dare to speak their mind if some people get arrested or everybody becomes silent since they don't know who is monitoring them or if they can be arrested for expressing their opinion?

In regard to your last post, let me give you another imaginary situation and you tell me what is your opinion:

1- Government tells people that in order to protect the society from dangerous terrorists that are going to blow a bomb and kill thousand of people, they need to suspend the Constitution and laws and declare martial law.

2- Millions of people get arrested and will be send to prison camps for many years without any trials and thousand die in such camps while other people life will be destroyed for ever.

What do you say about this situation, do you agree with what government did? It is not far fetched either, it has already happened in China, Cambodia, Soviet union and even in USA during WWII when Japanese-Americans were sent to camps.

 

That is safe for you to say when it is likely you have never been spied on by any GOV or being tarred by the same brush as those who carryout terrorist attacks.

I think I would have the same opinion if I did not know any better.

 

Woah, how did you manage to screw that up? Read the question, then ask yourself, was writing all that really necessary?

Which would you pick? Ignore the details and the wording, and it's completely hypothetical just want to know your perspective.

It's obviously too complicated for you to understand. EDIT: By comparing America to China and the Soviet Union doesn't prove anything, infact, I think that's they're about as far apart in government ideology as you can get.

 

If those were the only 2 options I pick #1.

The reality is, the government is trying to PERMANENTLY side step the constitution, and trample over all our rights. AND there is NO GAURANTEE that any of these violations of the constitution will make anyone safer.

A better analogy is:

1. Would you rather live you're life with your own opinions and freedoms
2. Have the government watching you all the time and prisoning you if you disagree with them

Tough choice

 

Thanks for the sensible answer.
See, in my opinion, I'd pick #2... but I think there would need to be a balance between government security and freedom.

 

There is a balance, it's called the constituion and the 3 branches of government.

Bush (the executive branch) is trying to side step the courts approval (the judicial branch) with all of his activities because he knows they're illegal.

 

Those who surrender freedom for security will get niether.

 

Blitz's question is a loaded question. It asks a question while offering answers in hind sight. Bad premise.

This type of "what if" question, with only two options, has been used by many of the world's tyrants to get what they want.



tom

 

Well said and has been proven in a number of countries across the world.

 

I gave you a hypothetical question also, how about you answer my question?
There is no real proof that destruction of civil liberties can stop terrorism but there are many cases that shows the destruction of civil liberties can result in tyranny and government sponsored massacres.

If china, soviet union and USA won't respect the civil liberties, what makes you think that there is any difference in their ideology when it comes to people's freedom?

 

Wiretap w/o probable cause is one thing and monitoring radiation levels is from publicly accessable areas is another. The government of any nation definately would have the right to monitor radiation levels anywhere within their borders that is available to the public. Thats just common sense. And the fact that it stops there is just proof that this is a country where freedom is respected.
*******************
Originally Posted by Blitz
If I was a Muslim and I was being watched, I don't see why I would care? I would cooperate, because I'm not doing anything wrong?

Replied by Crazy Rob
So you think everyone being monitored is guilty of something? Then why don't they just arrest them?
***********************

Did that response even make sense?
Just because you believe its justifiable to watch someone does not mean that you already think they are guilty..
They are being watched to see if there is any reason to believe they are guilty. If not, there is no problem.
Acting defensive because you are observed only makes one look suspect. And is good cause to look further.
I do not agree with illegal surveillance by the government or anyone else. And I believe that no elected official has the right to act outside of the law as written or to change it in any way outside of due process.
But monitoring radiation levels from publicly accessable areas is in no way intrusive to anyone who is not up to no good.

 

I do agree with this though....

 

So if I get mad my privacy is being invaded and my phone calls are listened to, I look "suspect" and it's good cause to go further?

You're contradicting yourself. A constitution expert said this spying is illegal.

 

Whos constituition expert? I`m sure theres "experts" that favor both sides of this controversy. Was your personal phone calls monitored? Is that why you are mad? Though illegal search of private property and space is protected. Publicly accessable areas are not. Hense we have public cameras ,traffic cameras etc. It is a good thing. I am glad that when I walk out of WalMart that everything I do is recorded on a security cam. I have no reason to get mad. It is there to protect me from people who don`t respect the law. However if you are up to breaking the law then I can understand why it would be disturbing.

 

Statistically you actually have more chance in being killed by a bee sting than being killed by a terrorist attack.