Surveillance Issues

[Blank]

I hear it from a lot of people, and I won't say that I don't agree: the prospect of the government tapping the average Joe's phone is disturbing. It is one more freedom that is lost toward the cause of "national security".

 

I'm fairly sure that phone tapping by the government without permission can help in certain terrorist cases, but most people I hear don't think it is worth the freedom that is lost. However, I'm also sure most of those people wouldn't forgive the Bush administration if another terrorist attack occurred.

 

My immediate family wasn't directly affected by the events of 9/11, but I know a lot of people's families were.

 

In the broken world we live in, with freedom comes risk. I hope the people who berate Bush for things like the patriot act are fully aware of the risk that comes without that extra "security". If I thought about it long and hard, I would rather not have the patriot act in place, simply because I want to be as far away from a dystopia as possible, and the patriot act is an unnecessary step toward that direction in my eyes. Although, like I mentioned earlier, my eyes are different than someone else's who has lost family due to terrorist attacks.

 

My main point for writing this is to express my feelings that people need to understand what risks they are proposing to take when they suggest abolishing things like the patriot act (i.e. comparing the risks to the freedoms, not just looking at the freedoms, which seems to be the common thing to do).

Edited August 25, 2006 by Blank

[Krookie]

If it'll help, I say they should do it. A lot of people forget just how bad 9/11 was. I don't forgive Bush for 9/11 (assuming that the claims that they "knew" it was going to happen are correct), I don't forgive Bush for the war in Iraq, and I know I won't forgive him if our country is attacked again.

 

I think part of the problem is that people who weren't close to New York, the Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA don't realise just how extreme the attacks were. Sure, (I hope) you guys were worried for everyone but except for a few exceptions, no one you knew were affected.

 

Personally, I know four families that had a husband killed in the WTC attacks. All four were firefighters. Another one (the fifth) has been hopitilized for the past year now, due to inhaling all the debris and everything else floating around the city, during the clean up in the days following 9/11.

 

I don't want to go through that again. I don't want anyone else to have to go through that again. It's a shame that so many Americans would rather talk behind closed doors then watch thousands of people die.

[Enoch]

I'm fairly sure that phone tapping by the government without permission can help in certain terrorist cases, but most people I hear don't think it is worth the freedom that is lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody in a constitutional government does anything "without permission." The law enforcement officials involved in the recent secret wiretaps certainly needed the permission of their superiors to tap any particular line. These superiors in turn needed the permission of the Attorney General and the President to set up the program to begin with.

 

The real questions are whose permission is needed, what standard must be satisfied to get it, and how difficult the process of getting permission is. I think that you can satisfy the security concerns by adjusting the latter two issues (the ease of the process and the burden required) without sacrificing the requirement that a neutral magistrate approve the wiretap. It's not as if the judges on the FISA court want to protect terrorists.

[213374U]

Just don't think about it and you should be fine.

 

"Out of sight, out of mind"...

[Colrom]

I am more concerned with losing freedom and life rather than with just losing life.

 

Unrestricted power will not lead to good government.

 

As a practical matter democracy cannot survive unrestricted and secret survellience of citizens and their political groups

 

People who will torture and kill when they think they need to will torture and kill when they want to.

 

[Judge Hades]

A life without freedom is a life not worth living. In freedom their are always risks but they are risks worth taking and risks that should be faced without fear.

[Blank]

I don't want to go through that again. I don't want anyone else to have to go through that again.

I am more concerned with losing freedom and life rather than with just losing life.

Both of these are good concerns, but they can also be opposing. When you want to be completely safe, you have to surrender a lot of freedoms. But being completely free will invite a lot of bad to happen.

 

The trick is to find the middle ground, and to know that there will be risks no matter what. It sucks, but that is the world we live in.

 

Nobody in a constitutional government does anything "without permission." The law enforcement officials involved in the recent secret wiretaps certainly needed the permission of their superiors to tap any particular line. These superiors in turn needed the permission of the Attorney General and the President to set up the program to begin with.

 

The real questions are whose permission is needed, what standard must be satisfied to get it, and how difficult the process of getting permission is. I think that you can satisfy the security concerns by adjusting the latter two issues (the ease of the process and the burden required) without sacrificing the requirement that a neutral magistrate approve the wiretap. It's not as if the judges on the FISA court want to protect terrorists.

Right, but some people get pretty worked up when the goverment gets more power.

 

The ultimate fear is that the government gets more power than the people, becomes corrupt, and is able to stifle any opposition from the people. The idea that people think about when they are opposed to more governmental power is the "gradual compromise until it is too late" idea.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with that belief as per our current government, but I'm pretty sure that's why people get worked up. It isn't an invalid idea: such gradual compromises in addition to ignorance have transpired in history that have ended up catastrophically on an international scale.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Blank

[taks]

I don't forgive Bush for 9/11 (assuming that the claims that they "knew" it was going to happen are correct), I don't forgive Bush for the war in Iraq, and I know I won't forgive him if our country is attacked again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that the plan for 9/11 was clearly launched well before bush took office, this statement is completely moronic. perhaps you meant to say "i don't forgive CLINTON for 9/11"?

 

i guess not everybody is bright enough to follow a simple timeline. dang.

 

taks

[Darth Drabek]

The Patriot Act is a bunch of malarkey. I don't think I'd support it even if I trusted the government not to abuse the authority that act gives it.

 

I understand the risks, but then again I don't have to worry too much. I live in Ohio - not exactly a terrorist target, even if we do have LeBron James.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I thought the scandal a while ago was precisely because Bush ordered surveillance that he wasn't allowed to do, not even in the Patriot Act.

 

I don't think the government should be able to order phone tapping without approval from a neutral judge, but I accept that others disagree. Either way, this should be debated openly, and then a law passed. The very real danger comes when the administration decides that it can do anything it wants because it's a 'security' issue. Pretty much anything can be spun into a security issue. It's a dangerous path to walk down.

 

Personally, I'm not too worried about the security services bugging more people, so long as a judge is still involved in the process, and I see no reason why one wouldn't be.

[Krookie]

I don't forgive Bush for 9/11 (assuming that the claims that they "knew" it was going to happen are correct), I don't forgive Bush for the war in Iraq, and I know I won't forgive him if our country is attacked again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that the plan for 9/11 was clearly launched well before bush took office, this statement is completely moronic. perhaps you meant to say "i don't forgive CLINTON for 9/11"?

 

i guess not everybody is bright enough to follow a simple timeline. dang.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who was in office when 9/11 was executed? Was it...Was it George Bush? Cause if it was there isn't anything moronic about my statement. There have been some conspiracy theories mentioning the fact that George Bush's administration may have known something about the impending attacks, and simply sat back and watch it happen. In 1995 (before Bush) David Schippers said the government had been warned about an inpending attack on the US. The FBI contacted Schippers, and mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist plot to attack Lower Manhattan (-Wikipedia)

 

So if what you're saying is correct taks, the FBI simply "forgot" about these tips the second Bush was sent into office? I don't think stuff like this "disappears" without someone making it disappear.

[metadigital]

So is Bush a mastermind puppeteer controlling the US populace ... or a moron that can't eat a pretzel?

 

Curiouser and curiouser!

 

Maybe the FBI are really running the govenment, for the Illuminati and the Masons ...

[thepixiesrock]

My main point for writing this is to express my feelings that people need to understand what risks they are proposing to take when they suggest abolishing things like the patriot act (i.e. comparing the risks to the freedoms, not just looking at the freedoms, which seems to be the common thing to do).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's nice of you to make us understand what risks we are proposing. I mean, we didn't already know that or anything. Come on Blank, I think you need to give the rest of us Americans a little more credit. Just because people don't bring it up, doesn't mean they don't realize. I guess I'm just disatisfied with thw whole tone of your post. You act like you are trying to teach us all a very important lesson, and make some new friends along the way. But really, I want to give people more credit than that. I want to believe that people already realize this. What you are saying, is like an incredibly basic, simple, and I thought universally understood thing. I'm sorry, but your tone just puts me off.

 

Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something along the lines of "Those who are willing to give up freedoms for safety don't deserve any freedom in the first place."

[Walsingham]

I should point out that we have had pretty lax controls on wiretapping in the UK since the seventies. This doesn't mean we can't have private conversations. I mean how much listening do you think the govt can do?

 

On the other hand I do know that such wiretaps have stopped tens of IRA operations, and probably many of the recent frustrations to Al Qaeda. I would rather stop actual deaths than some supposed (and largely unreal) affront to my dignity! Although I might object more if I had any...

[Rosbjerg]

In a perfect world, where people don't misuse power, I would be all for these kinds of acts.. but we don't live in a perfect world, and democracy is a fragile thing.. Siphoning power from the people upwards to politicians is generally a bad idea, the more you concetrate power the more corrupt a system will be. This has been proven many times over, and I don't trust the leaders of today to be more virtuous than their predecessors..

[Judge Hades]

I don't trust our leaders, period.

[Krookie]

A life without freedom is a life not worth living.  In freedom their are always risks but they are risks worth taking but they are risks worth taking and risks that should be faced without fear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So Hades, what you are saying is that you would rather have your phone calls to your family, or friends be private, then see 2000 more Americans die? You won't be singing the same tune when one of those 2000 people is someone you know.

[Judge Hades]

I have had family members and friends die and be killed through the acts of others, Krookie. You shouldn't make assumptions like that.

[Krookie]

Then wouldn't you want to stop it from happening again?

[Judge Hades]

Not if the cost is our freedom and many in my family feels the same way. If the government wants to take our freedom and rights as individuals several members of my family would arm themselves and fight it if necessary.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Krookie]

Well then I guess you're a little more self-centered then I thought.

 

EDIT: Okay good. You and you're band of freedom fighters go knock on the door of the White House.

Edited August 25, 2006 by Krookie

[Judge Hades]

Self centered or not, if the price of safety is the loss of freedom and personal rights then I do not wish to be safe.

[thepixiesrock]

It isn't a bad thing that Hades strongly values the principles of freedom that this country was founded on.

[Krookie]

Hades, think about what your saying. You weren't there on 9/11. Sure, I was a good 15-20 miles away from Ground Zero, but I could see the smoke. My friend's fathers were driving through 5 hour traffic to get to the WTC. My father, was already there. Not as a firefighter, as a bussiness man who saw the second plane hit, from the roof of his office building (along with 25 other people).

 

I don't think you realise just how bad 9/11 was.

 

A firefighter who I happen to know was lost during the second tower's collapse. All they found of him was his leg.

 

It sounds like an embellished war story, but that's pretty much what it was.

 

If our country needs to listen in on my phone convorsations, go for it. I don't want to see antoher 9/11, and niether should you.

 

I understand where you're coming from, and maybe tapping our phones might not help, but if it could save 2000+ people, why not try it out?

Edited August 25, 2006 by Krookie

[thepixiesrock]

That's a fine veiw and all, Krookie, but you don't even know if wire taps could actually stop any attacks. By that I mean, you don't know if the terrorists even talk on the phones, or maybe they have super eloborate codes that just make it seem like they are talking about normal every day things. The bottom line is, it isn't a fact that stopping the government from listening in on our conversations will stop future attacks.