NationStates Jolt Archive

They shouldn't do shit without a congress sanctioned warrant.

How do you feel about the Government's/ NSA's ability to spy on its citizens(phone tap, email, etc.) Which takes precedence, Public Privacy or National Security?

How do you feel about the Government's/ NSA's ability to spy on its citizens(phone tap, email, etc.) Which takes precedence, Public Privacy or National Security?

The law. The govenment is bound by it also. It is bound by the Constitution and no amount of National Security gives the government the right to violate it.

Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty straightforward.

Public privacy sounds like a contradiction of terms. Does this refer to the privacy interest of individual citizens, as is protected by the fourth amendment when an expectation of privacy is afforded by society, or are you trying to create some new concept whereby the actions of the general public should be unknown to the government? If you mean the former, then I agree spying is a violation of the Constitution, but if you mean the latter, such as preventing government agents from attending and reporting on public events, I would have to disagree.

The law. The govenment is bound by it also. It is bound by the Constitution and no amount of National Security gives the government the right to violate it.

Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty straightforward.

LG, the government may be bound to it, but it ain't listening.

How do you feel about the Government's/ NSA's ability to spy on its citizens(phone tap, email, etc.) Which takes precedence, Public Privacy or National Security?

Sure, they should be able to spy on citizens, given that they follow the procedures for obtaining a valid warrant for their activities, and by valid, I do not mean these "sealed" warrants, or the "secret" warrants, and it should come from a valid court, and by valid I mean a normal public court of record, not these "secret" NSA courts containing members unknown to the general public.

No the government should not spy on it's citizens, in any country.
Unless the public get to watch all Government officials at all times (barring toilets and bathrooms) with live TV, then they could watch the public, oh wait they wouldn't like that would they?
But this might be reaching for an ideal that is not possible to achieve at this time.

I think this other story depicts fear of crime in it's highest form.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7201975.stm
Metal detectors in Schools.

Nope. I wouldn't want the government to read a one word text message off my phone if it could save DC from going up in flames.

America would prefer the fascist's truncheon to the anarchist's bomb. Spiro Agnew saw this coming.

I vote privacy, but I suspect the US public would choose security.

At this point, America can fall apart for all I care. I care about the safety of myself, my family and my friends, none of whom I need the government to protect. Beyond that very small and exclusive group, I think it's still sad when innocents die, but what should it matter to me be it in this country or another?

The law. The govenment is bound by it also. It is bound by the Constitution and no amount of National Security gives the government the right to violate it.

Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty straightforward.

Indeed it is. The thing you overlook is that little word "unreasonable."

IMNSHO, what is manifestly "unreasonable" is to allow terrorists and their enablers and sympathizers, both foreign and domestic, to hide behind the Fourth Amendment while they wage war against us.

The provisions of the Patriot Act, and related procedures, may fall within your definition of "unreasonable," but they don't meet mine, nor, I submit, that of most Americans.

It's been said many times, and it bears repeating: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Public Privacy is of course more important though the two are not mutually exclusive. Warrents are a wonderfully that help balance things.( when they're used; I'm looking at you Mr. Bush)

Indeed it is. The thing you overlook is that little word "unreasonable."

IMNSHO, what is manifestly "unreasonable" is to allow terrorists and their enablers and sympathizers, both foreign and domestic, to hide behind the Fourth Amendment while they wage war against us.

The provisions of the Patriot Act, and related procedures, may fall within your definition of "unreasonable," but they don't meet mine, nor, I submit, that of most Americans.

It's been said many times, and it bears repeating: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If the US throws out the consitution everytime it's threaten than the terrorists and other foes have already won. Our freedoms and rights may force us to fight the "war of terror" with one hand behind our back, but thats the way it has to be done.

Privacy. Terrorists only lose if we ignore them.

National security is nothing more than a boogeyman to convince people to surrender their civil liberties to increase the power of the political class; this is even more ironic considering that the murderous policies of the political class incite violence against the general populace (one need only look towards the resentment of the Federal presence in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.), thus forming a self-reinforcing pattern inching tyranny ever forward. (War, as Randolph Bourne noted, is the health of the state.) As the state is ultimately the one to create, enforce and interpret the various laws it is completely possible for it to eliminate one's rights so long as it has legitimacy.

And the advancement of so-called 'national security' is just one source for it to gain its ever-precious legitimacy to mask its power grab.

Indeed it is. The thing you overlook is that little word "unreasonable."

IMNSHO, what is manifestly "unreasonable" is to allow terrorists and their enablers and sympathizers, both foreign and domestic, to hide behind the Fourth Amendment while they wage war against us.

The provisions of the Patriot Act, and related procedures, may fall within your definition of "unreasonable," but they don't meet mine, nor, I submit, that of most Americans.

It's been said many times, and it bears repeating: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Nor is the constitution a set of suggested guidelines. What is and is not unreasonable is a matter for the courts to decide, not public opinion, and not your opinion. If you really think that you'll be able to get your rights back when you give them up in the name of stopping terrorists, then I'll point you to every civil rights movement in history. People who never had rights struggled for years to get them. People who gave their rights up voluntarily would, I imagine, have a much bigger fight on their hands.

Not without a warrant. That said, getting a warrant should be relatively easy if there are sufficient grounds. For instance, if the FBI has uncovered a strong link between a certain individual and a member of a known Al-Qaeda cell, they should be able to get a warrant to tap the first guy's phones and e-mail within a few hours of requesting it. Sometimes it is critical to get this kind of information ASAP.

When Fascism came to America it was wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross

Nor is the constitution a set of suggested guidelines. What is and is not unreasonable is a matter for the courts to decide, not public opinion, and not your opinion.

May I remind you that the judicial branch is part of the government of, by and for the people, and not some godlike authority to whom we must bow.

If you really think that you'll be able to get your rights back when you give them up in the name of stopping terrorists, then I'll point you to every civil rights movement in history. People who never had rights struggled for years to get them. People who gave their rights up voluntarily would, I imagine, have a much bigger fight on their hands.

I am happy to give up any "right" I may have had up to now to, say, securely communicate with al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan. How about you?

I am happy to give up any "right" I may have had up to now to, say, securely communicate with al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan. How about you?
You'd give up your rights to life, liberty and property?

The right to a fair trial? The right not to be imprisoned without trial? The right(s) of not having your person interfered with?

Brave/sadomasochistic you.

You'd give up your rights to life, liberty and property?

The right to a fair trial? The right not to be imprisoned without trial? The right(s) of not having your person interfered with?

Brave/sadomasochistic you.

I would say something along the lines of "revenge will be sweet when he realized what a mistake this was" but I'd far rather not have it occur at all, and revenge is stupid anyway.

I am happy to give up any "right" I may have had up to now to, say, securely communicate with al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan. How about you?

Then, for all your posturing, you don't actually give a flying fuck what principles your country was founded on.

They shouldn't do shit without a congress sanctioned warrant.

They shouldn't do shit full stop.

Privacy for lots of reasons. Nuff said.

fuck national security, i'm not the nation and i have no care for it whatsoever.

it's just a euphemism for "keep the darkies out" anyway.

LG, the government may be bound to it, but it ain't listening.

Which is why they ought to be pied and frequently. *nod*

Indeed it is. The thing you overlook is that little word "unreasonable."

IMNSHO, what is manifestly "unreasonable" is to allow terrorists and their enablers and sympathizers, both foreign and domestic, to hide behind the Fourth Amendment while they wage war against us.

The provisions of the Patriot Act, and related procedures, may fall within your definition of "unreasonable," but they don't meet mine, nor, I submit, that of most Americans.

It's been said many times, and it bears repeating: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.


Well said.

IMNSHO, what is manifestly "unreasonable" is to allow terrorists and their enablers and sympathizers, both foreign and domestic, to hide behind the Fourth Amendment while they wage war against us.
Ummm, ummmm, the terrurists are "waging war" against the US in America?

Ummmm.....wow!!

That is totally "unreasonable"!!

Perhaps you are not killing them off fast enuff over there in Iraq? :rolleyes:

It's been said many times, and it bears repeating: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.


Nope, it's apparently toilet paper.

Unwarranted spying

1. Assumes guilt on all parties.

2. Could be so easily used to create a 1984-style police state.

3. Emphasizes the fact that the Feds won't allow us to demand similar transparency in the actions of the "public servants" who want to spy on US.

molon labe :sniper:

Spying is a direct violation of our rights (And the constitution). The government has way too much power when it can spy on us, everyone knows about it, and hardly anyone is doing ANYTHING about it.


But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother

We have always been at war with Iraq, and China is our ally.:D

How do you feel about the Government's/ NSA's ability to spy on its citizens(phone tap, email, etc.) Which takes precedence, Public Privacy or National Security?

Government accountability.

They shouldn't do shit without a congress sanctioned warrant.

Yay, warrants now take 4 months to solidify.

If the US throws out the consitution everytime it's threaten than the terrorists and other foes have already won. Our freedoms and rights may force us to fight the "war of terror" with one hand behind our back, but thats the way it has to be done.

All do respect and all, but it is possible to have a government without a constitution. Personally I'd be more worried if the only thing stopping my government abolishing free press etc was what was written down several hundred years ago.

1. Assumes guilt on all parties.

Not really. Assumes possible guilt of all parties, which I think is fair enough.

Let's say an FBI agent reading this decides that no-one would post this over the top,rabid stuff on a public web site, and it is actually a cover you are building. The FBI agents think you are really a terrorist, and they grab you in the middle of the night, start waterboarding you, and nobody here's from you for 4 weeks, until they finally decide you aren't a terrorist.

Are you still convinced this kind of stuff is O.K.?

i think everyone should have a right to not know there being spied upon, but have the common sense to realize they probably are.

it doesn't bother me to have someone knowing whatever they want about me, as long as a; what they think they know is accurate, and more importantly b; i can count on none of it ever being used directly against me personally.

i think the "national security" dodge is really so old and worn out and threadbear, it reminds me of a plushie i had when i was little that i just loved to death litterally. wore all the fur right off of it.

except "national security" isn't all that cuddlie, not when it's used as a scape to to let elected officials, military and beaurocrats hide behind and get away with murder, sometimes litterally, and or even massively.

national WHO'SE securtiy anyone sane has to ask.

who or what is being made even a little bit more secure by lying to the rest of us, other then organized crime with a legitimatized face itself.

security of corruption maybe.

no, "national security" is a crock of that stuff that comes out of the back end of domestic livestock.

=^^=
.../\...

All do respect and all, but it is possible to have a government without a constitution.

The constitution is what ensures the rights and freedoms of Americans. It is not something to take lightly and it is not a bunch of suggestions or guidelines.

Allowing the government to have some way to watch isnt to bad. I mean Come one whos really gonna care about you calling aunt sue?