na
- Thread starter Spoiled
- Start date
Let's be real:
What liberties are we losing by the government tapping the phones of suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
What liberties are we losing by the government tapping the phones of suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
BuddyLee
Football addict
If that's all it is then I certainly have no problem with that. Where do the 1984-worry-warts draw the line though?vraiblonde said:
That's one thing I don't get, it's ok for one party to say "no government imposition on personal lives" and then turn around and tweek it to their liking. Happens with both parties, would someone explain this? Is the country just too stupid to notice these absurdities or is this just plain politics?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I think most politicians can't be trusted not to abuse that power. Both Democrats and Republicans have used the FBI for political purposes, with national security as the usual cover story. In the 1990s, didn't Hillary Clinton get access to FBI information that she shouldn't have had?vraiblonde said:
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Actually, the full quote is:
So, is the international communications of suspected terrorists an essential liberty? I remind you this is Ben Franklin you are quoting... a spy master who performed intelligence and counterintelligence (don't you think that included get ahold of enemy communications?).
So, is the international communications of suspected terrorists an essential liberty? I remind you this is Ben Franklin you are quoting... a spy master who performed intelligence and counterintelligence (don't you think that included get ahold of enemy communications?).
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Maybe it's because of all the religion discussions here, but when I read Spoiled's post, my first thought was of religious fundamentalism. In my view, when Christian fundamentalists long to return to mandatory prayer in public schools and to teach creationism as science, that amounts to giving up liberty (freedom of religion) for the sake of security (a nation where everyone is Christian.)
I think most fundamentalism is rooted in fear of change. In the case of Christian fundamentalism, some of the fear comes from the social changes that happened in the 1960s, and some of it from America becoming a more religiously diverse country. Because of changing demographics, Christianity is never going to be as dominant in our culture as it once was, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But that's nothing compared to the fear that drives Islamist fundamentalism, which drives many of its adherents into murderous fanaticism against women and unbelievers. From my reading, Islamist fundamentalism arose after the Arab world encountered Western modernism in the early 20th century. At one time, the Arabs were world leaders in the sciences, while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. But by World War I, Middle Eastern culture had been frozen for centuries. As National Geographic put it, the Arab world felt like had to accomplish 1,000 years of change in a mere 60 years. Rightly or wrongly, many Muslims feel they're being victimized by a "cultural invasion" from the West. Plus, they're resentful because they don't benefit from the wealth created by their countries' oil--the money is controlled by oligarchies such as the Saudi royal family.
In both cases, scared believers feel like the world no longer makes sense. They see fundamentalism as a source of order and stability. Unfortunately, they also look for easy, convenient scapegoats to blame for the disorder. Christian fundamentalists blame Epperson v. Arkansas as well as Darwin. Islamist fundamentalists blame Zionist conspiracies hatched in America as well as Israel.
I think most fundamentalism is rooted in fear of change. In the case of Christian fundamentalism, some of the fear comes from the social changes that happened in the 1960s, and some of it from America becoming a more religiously diverse country. Because of changing demographics, Christianity is never going to be as dominant in our culture as it once was, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But that's nothing compared to the fear that drives Islamist fundamentalism, which drives many of its adherents into murderous fanaticism against women and unbelievers. From my reading, Islamist fundamentalism arose after the Arab world encountered Western modernism in the early 20th century. At one time, the Arabs were world leaders in the sciences, while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. But by World War I, Middle Eastern culture had been frozen for centuries. As National Geographic put it, the Arab world felt like had to accomplish 1,000 years of change in a mere 60 years. Rightly or wrongly, many Muslims feel they're being victimized by a "cultural invasion" from the West. Plus, they're resentful because they don't benefit from the wealth created by their countries' oil--the money is controlled by oligarchies such as the Saudi royal family.
In both cases, scared believers feel like the world no longer makes sense. They see fundamentalism as a source of order and stability. Unfortunately, they also look for easy, convenient scapegoats to blame for the disorder. Christian fundamentalists blame Epperson v. Arkansas as well as Darwin. Islamist fundamentalists blame Zionist conspiracies hatched in America as well as Israel.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Although the quote is widely attributed to Franklin - he himself in his lifetime denied having made it. And in its original, it is somewhat different....Spoiled said:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Somehow, I don't regard the wiretapping of international communications of persons within the United States conducting conversations with terrorists an "essential liberty".
I'm trying really hard to figure out what liberty I'm losing at all. No one is clamoring for the right to be able to wiretap anyone at will, although for some reason, I guess people think that once this hurdle is cleared, it's all downhill from here. Newsflash : this has been true for as LONG as I can recall.
If people *truly* believe that ANY infringement of behavior is a curtailing of "essential liberty", I strongly suggest they drive at full speed down every street in their cars, dump their refuse and sewage in the roadway, pull fire alarms whenever they feel like it and shout "Fire!" in crowded movie houses.
And then EXPLAIN the reason, in court.
I find it ironic that there are those quoting Franklin who lived in a time when we were being oppressed by a powerful military force amidst those who wanted to run to Canada, turn and run, pretend it wasn't happening, bite their lips and endure it - that this quote is being re-submitted by persons who want us to cut and run from Iraq because it's dangerous, listen to demands of terrorists and try to reason with them. I find it ironice that a quote meant to say "stand up to tyrrany" is being used by persons who wish to accede to tyranny.
river rat
BUCKING GOAT
We have all seen how well the government takes care of us.
Hurricane "Katrina" is a perfect example.
I don't need my government looking out for me or tucking me into bed at night.
I want to tell my government my needs....perhaps a road, or a trial....etc.
I don't need my government to tell me to put my effing seatbelt on nor to pay taxes on property that belongs to me.
Are these not the reasons why Mr. Franklin and his collegues left the Motherland in the first place?
These young students have shown a rare example of the appropriate way of using the freedom of speech rights. Great Job!
I want my freedoms and I'll protect myself and my family if the need arises.
Hurricane "Katrina" is a perfect example.
I don't need my government looking out for me or tucking me into bed at night.
I want to tell my government my needs....perhaps a road, or a trial....etc.
I don't need my government to tell me to put my effing seatbelt on nor to pay taxes on property that belongs to me.
Are these not the reasons why Mr. Franklin and his collegues left the Motherland in the first place?
These young students have shown a rare example of the appropriate way of using the freedom of speech rights. Great Job!
I want my freedoms and I'll protect myself and my family if the need arises.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I agree, as long as the courts are involved. That's the way the wiretapping law worked for decades.SamSpade said:
I'm more concerned about the government demanding people's personal records from the Internet search engines, as a attempt to catch child molesters. I think too many politicians and bureaucrats cannot resist the temptation to use the records against their political opponents.
SAHRAB
This is fun right?
vraiblonde said:
Lets not forget, the LibTARDs have confused the issue anyways (whats new) it was Listening in on Out of Country INITIATED phone calls, from known Terrorist hot spots and sychophants to suspected Terrorist suspects and/or sympathizers.
Unlike what the NYTimes alluded to, they were not listening in on Mom and Pa kettle.
The NYT article makes clear that no laws were broken. Any democrat saying differently is playing politics (say it aint so)
The NYT article also says that the C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said. In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain.
They were tracking numbers that were tied to confirmed terrorists and according to reports, stopped 3 terrorist attacks within the US. This is EXACTLY how the 9/11 attacks were coordinated - between jihadists and sympathizers of other terrorists living in this country
The pertinent law is 50 USC 1802. Everyone, please read it carefully. No law was broken. Pelosi admits she was briefed (also in accordance with 50 USC 1802):
(boring legal mumbo jumbo)
The Plame non-issue didnt work for the DemocRATs, the Allito confirmation m ade them look like the Boobs we all know them for, so now they are trying another tactic.
Last edited:
SAHRAB
This is fun right?
Tonio said:
The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush.
They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.” (<--Linky)
Echelon (<--Linky) -
The Times actually defended (<--Linky) the existence of Echelon when it reported in an Australian newspiece.
And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers
Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president