National Security Agency vs The Bill of Rights

[Dago]

Originally posted by lazs2
maybe I have allways just been paranoid but I have never considered anything that I said over the phone to be secure and private.

lazs

Smartest thing posted so far.  In todays world, virtually all communications can be intercepted, and by a lot more eavesdroppers than the government.

[lukster]

Hey, I know. Let's take away everyone's gun so they can be even more oppressed by a governement that has no fear of it's citizens. Then we'll  have very little chance of ever forcing a change if needed.

Isn't this the argument of those most loudly denouncing our current regime?

7500

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
And in this very microcosm, you see why we, as a nation, will never be able to thwart the government machine.   Until the people of this nation, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race or creed, regardless of religious preference, can stand up and with one resuonding voice scream, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", nothing will change and we will continue to sink into the mire we have had a heavy hand in creating.

So Hang, yes, bend on over.  It seems that is the only thing we will consciously, subconsciously, willingly, or with great stress, agree on, as a nation.

'say, skuzzmeister; is that my soap, or yours?'

[Yeager]

jeepers!  hold on a tic...I need to run outside and see if the sky is falling!

BRB!!!

[Skuzzy]

When I was growing up, I knew every person in a 4 block wide area.  If I got hurt or needed help, I could call on anyone in that area and they would be there.  There was no fear of lawsuits or some maniac taking you away.

We used to go 'trick or treat' on Halloween night, and the parents never thought twice about checking the goodies.  We did not even need an adult to go with us.  There was no fear of the night and the bad things that could happen.

We used to stop and offer aid to those who needed it, or might have needed it.  There was no concern over being sued.

We used to be able to go to school and not worry about guns or knives or bombs, or even if our teacher would still be alive.  Now we have metal detectors in elementary schools.

We used to be able to go into landmark buildings and not even think about it.  Now, we have to wonder if it will be attacked next.


Slowly, but surely, we have lost freedoms.  We have replaced those lost freedoms with fear.  If you wait until the sky does fall, it will be too late.

The erosion of our liberties and freedoms have been happening for a very long time.  If you do not see it, then you are not looking.

[Hangtime]

If you wait until the sky does fall, it will be too late.

'oh, so NOW we gotta chance? considering the current circumstances, this is a heluva time fer a semantics discussion, dontcha think?'

[Yeager]

nope....sky is still there.

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Hangtime


'oh, so NOW we gotta chance? considering the current circumstances, this is a heluva time fer a semantics discussion, dontcha think?'

No semantics Hang.  It is a metaphor.  Sky falling, Earth blowing up, same thing.
Course, if Condolizard or the Billiard is what we have to chose from in 2008.  I am leaving the country.  This place will be in ruins.  Probably will anyways.  No one really gives a hoot about this country.  Or the ones that do, have absolutely no say in how it is run.  The founding fathers would be ashamed of us if they could see the state we have brought ourselves to.

And I have no clue who owns that bar of soap, but I would suspect it is someone holding a video camera on us waiting to see what would happen after they dropped it there.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
you seem like one of many people that are apart of the "wait for it" crowd.  I just don't get it.

No, you obviously don't. I'm one of the of the "not easily impressed by unproven claims" types.

Terrorists did not come through the southern border so we should not be weary of them trying to do so yet.

You're apparently jumping ahead of both of us here. I suggested that claims of this administration doing such a great job at keeping us from being gassed or nuked since 911 based on it's policies to circumvent (for convenience sake) the existing system based on constitutional legality are not a proven fact and are most likely more than a bit exaggerated. The border issue is seperate though just as "panic based policy" related.

Terrorists have yet to use deadly gas (in this country) so we don't need to worry bout that yet.

Again not stated or implied. Check again. The administration using such a claim to promote it's policies of extreme measure isn't impressing me as much as it is you. *ShruG*

Terrorists have yet to use any type of radiological device to inflict harm so we don't need to worry bout that yet.

See above.

It just seems to me the same thing could have been said on Sept 10th:

Terrorists have yet to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.......So by that we shouldn't have prepared for that?  I'm not saying we need to live in a prepetual state of fear but if you don't trust your federal govt to provide for your national security than WHO DO YOU TRUST???????

I think you're a might confused. I'm not challenging preparation. I'm challenging administrative policies that use the fears you're obviously feeling to grant the executive branch greater powers than the constitution allows. Who do you trust?

[Dago]

Phone tracking legal, doesn't invade privacy

In the May 16 Viewpoints, several readers complained about the logging of phone records by the National Security Agency in an attempt to uncover terrorist activity within the U.S. Instead of a well-researched and thought-out presentation of the facts, the readers offer more of the anti-Bush administration paranoid rhetoric planted by the mainstream media and their cohorts in the Democratic Party, who since 9/11 have done nothing but undermine and hinder the country's efforts in the War on Terror.

A quick check of the facts would have revealed the following:

The program is not illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled the Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure) does not include records of phone calls. The case is Smith v. Maryland (1979).

The program is not an invasion of privacy. All telephone record submissions to the NSA by the phone companies were done voluntarily and are anonymous. The callers' names and addresses are not identified. The substance of these calls is not monitored. To do that, the NSA states a warrant is required.

The program serves a necessary and useful purpose. The program was created to stop terrorism within the U.S. The information obtained could determine if a terrorist, once identified as within the borders, is working alone or is part of a cell. It helps us to connect the dots. If this program could have stopped almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens from being killed on 9/11, how many Americans would have been against it?

If the readers of the Press are relying on information provided by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, they should realize both parties have a vested interest in our failure in the War on Terror. They believe any victory in the War on Terror is not in their best interest politically. And, sad to say, that is all they really care about.

During World War II, the country willingly made great sacrifices to defeat the enemy and preserve our way of life. Should we expect anything less of ourselves in the War on Terror?

William J. Dillon

Source

[Arlo]

Clicked on the source link. Seems the author has a rather heated infatuation for Bush. Is there a chance that there could be something less biased? Thanks.

[Gunslinger]

Good points dago, thanks for the post.

Again I equate this to a traffic study.  If they are studying traffic patterns at a stop light and not writing down plate numbers there is nothing violating my privacy.  

To me all this hoopla sounds like politics.  Many asked why 9/11 happened and how could we have failed so miserably.  No they are trying to connect the dots of future attacks and are themselves attacked for the means in wich they provide that very security we ask for.

"provide for the common defense"  many of these so called "privacy advocates" willingly ignore this section of the constitution (if you want to make this a constitutional argument).

This very subject isn't new....it was brought up in the December NSA leak and just recently rehashed by USA today as somthing new.  

Again I fail to see how my civil rights are being violated.  I do not make the "nothing to hide" argument, it's more of a "where's the beef" statement.

[Arlo]

That's because they are seperate portions of the constitution. It's not written that the citizen's right to privacy may be denied if required to provide for the common defense. There's the beef.

[Hangtime]

During World War II, the country willingly made great sacrifices to defeat the enemy and preserve our way of life. Should we expect anything less of ourselves in the War on Terror?

this BS excuse pisses me off every time I hear it. WWII was a real war.. not in ANY way related to the scare mongering pile of dung 'Forever War" the administration uses as it's convienient for them to snatch rights and overide constitutional guarantees.

As soon as the 'War on Terror' finds a national entity to declare War on I'll hop in the boat and willingly TEMPORARILY surrender the rights they consider appropriate to achieve victory.

Since this 'war on terror' is no more a 'real' war than the 'war on drugs' they have no 'real' case for suspending forever my constitutional rights for their BS 'forever' war that does nothing to secure our ports, control our borders and in fact does NOTHING to actually 'win' their phoney 'war on terror'. And I've got news for yah all.. no matter how things come out in Iraq or Iran, this 'war on terror' will NOT ever be declared 'over'.

They've snatched 50 billion to date for this BS.. wonder how many years a national health care program that actually saves americans lives that could have funded. Pissing our resources down a BS hole is bad enough,  wasting the lives of thousands of american service men and women for a people that despise us, don't respect us and are happy to see us die by the 10's and hundreds at a time in a poorly chosen 'occupation exercise' and using those failures to justify pissing away my rights is another.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Arlo
That's because they are seperate portions of the constitution. It's not written that the citizen's right to privacy may be denied if required to provide for the common defense. There's the beef.

So you are saying that your right to privacy overides security even if it isn't being violated?