How can Spying protect civil liberties?
It can’t…. at least not in my book.
So there’s this supersecret spying program that President Bush has going on the people of the United States. Media outlets are calling it the “Warantless surveillance of terrorist threats”. Whatever it’s called, big brother is watching you.
Bush told a White House news conference that the domestic spying program “is designed to protect civil liberties” and declared that “it’s necessary.”
I don’t think even someone in MENSA could convince me that the act of spying on me is somehow related to the protection of my civil liberties. Those two seem mutually exclusive.
This brings to mind the following:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
To be totally honest, this really isn’t an issue with me because I don’t have anything to hide.
My understanding is that it only targets people who are either suspected terrorists or people suspected of associating with terrorists.
If you think this is bad, you should read about the civil liberties infringements brought about by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II.
At least Bush isn’t sending Americans of Middle Eastern descent into internment camps.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Internment camps wouldn’t fly today either. That’s the point–everyone realizes that’s unconstitutional–but the internet wasn’t around in the 40’s.
Frankly I see little difference between putting people of one race into internment camps, and spying (electronically or otherwise) on a single race of people. To me, its the same thing. The same argument used (”to protect civil liberties”) fails the test of constitutionality in that I believe it violates peoples’ right not to have to endure illegal searches and seisure.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:34 am
I’d like to hear more how internment camps and selectively spying is the same thing. Because at first thought (and second), I can’t agree. Just like I don’t agree when PETA says killing a chicken for food is the same thing as murdering a human.
As for domestic spying. I don’t have a problem with it at all. You can probably interpret speeches or documents all the way through history that will give us one or more sview or intentions. But those historical figures weren’t dealing with the culture we live in today. You’re right, there was no internet or phone. There is now… and one of the many ways terrorist groups communicate and collaborate all over the world to plot death and destructioni to my country, my daughter, my church, and all of the things important to me.
I’m not saying it’s not a sticky area… but if Bush wants to walk around with x-ray glasses to see if a transplanted Mullah is talking with a fanatical friend in Iran about importiing nukes…. fine… rock on Daddio.
I have nothing to hide that the government would be interested in.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Ramdac,
Big Brother is not spying on you. The problem with obtaining warrants is that the person would have to be suspected of commiting crimes against the United States. We need our law enforcement agencies to be able to look into poeple who we think might attack us. The terrorist are recruiting people who are “clean” and we would not be able to obtain warrants on.
Of Course If I was President Bush, I would drop a few ears on Sen. Kennedy and his cronies though.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:33 am
In a quote attributed to a US Supreme Court justice whose name I cannot recall:
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
January 30th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I dont have a problem with listening to phone calls. So what? Big whopty doo. Somoene I dont know heard something I said…does not bother me at all…unless I was saying something illegal.
Now, if they were taking pictures inside my bedroom walls…I would have a problem.
Is this a slippery slope? I dont think so.