NSA's program unconstitutional per Fed. Dist. Judge

[Riss]

mholtz you beat me to it! Sorry for the repeat post

[Zeuslax]

I've been listing to a lot of new coming out of England this week. The overwhelming voice from gov't there is saying that they have to give up some civil liberties if they want to be safe. Really?

[Campbell]

I've been listing to a lot of new coming out of England this week. The overwhelming voice from gov't there is saying that they have to give up some civil liberties if they want to be safe. Really?

You always have to, you just have to decide whether it is worth it or not. Freedom has a price and a great responsibility.

As far as the ACLU, what is it that drives everyone so crazy about the ACLU? I mean in the span of my life I have never really heard of the ACLU being that far off base. As far as I can tell they do nothing more than help people protect their rights. I can see where people view them as trouble makers, but for what? Making sure the prejudices of our system do not win?

[DanGenck]

TSU put it best... the American example is the gold standard. When we change that for people who are not citizens, I feel that we are going against the univeral human rights example that we have set with our own citizens. I find this to be disappointing because it devalues non-citizens.

[Zeuslax]

You always have to, you just have to decide whether it is worth it or not. Freedom has a price and a great responsibility.

Yes, of course you have to ask those questions. But, if the current laws and procedures are working, and there haven't been any additional attacks, because the current procedures are thwarting any potential problems. Do we really need additional measures that take away civil liberties?
Yes, the terrorist will continue to evolve and try different things and we need to stay one step ahead of them. How do you justify this to a populace that is inherently questionable of gov't?

[Campbell]

I have never been a big fan of the ACLU but I also believe the this is a slippery slope that we're treading down.

It is a slippery slope. It is easy to take away the rights of others without realizing it, simply because nothing in your life has changed. It is even easier when you are in the majority that holds power. Look at colonial America. England had no problem enacting unfair policies on the colonies and then wham tables are turned. Tories eyed with suspicion, dragged from their houses and lynched.

So for Bill O'Reilly to advocate profiling young muslim men with regard to airport security will seem ok in the eyes of a lot of Americans, since the vast majority of us are not young muslim men. We see it as rational based on the "profile" of most terrorists. Afterall, grandma isnt carrying the bomb, young muslim men are. So we single out a certain group, detain them at security checkpoints, excessively search them, treat them with suspicion, and make them feel like a terrorist. Nevermind that they may be a native citizen who loves this country as much as anyone else. I often think back to being a teenager and the sort of suspicion police officers had as we lingered around the mall or a gas station. Or a police officer who pulls you over because you have long hair and drive a van, or because you are black or latino or arab... You get singled out, you feel like a criminal, and yet you have done nothing wrong and have no intention of doing anything illegal.

got on a rant there.

[Sonny]

It is easy to take away the rights of others without realizing it, simply because nothing in your life has changed.

Please define others. I'm continually amazed at many of you are quick to extend US citizenship rights to non-citizens. Membership does have it's privileges.

[Rob Graff]

Memo to all on the citizenship debate:

I suggest you all define your terms. You may be close to agreement than not.

[mholtz]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Those are rights that we need to extend to everyone.

This does not say they get a vote, but this DOES say ALL men get the liberties that we hold so dear.

[Campbell]

It is easy to take away the rights of others without realizing it, simply because nothing in your life has changed.

Please define others. I'm continually amazed at many of you are quick to extend US citizenship rights to non-citizens. Membership does have it's privileges.

others=anyone that is not you.

I am actually amazed at you Sonny. I believe the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws that govern this country are more than just a handbook for its citizenry. They are the foundation of a philosophy, held by their framers, of how a country and the people living within it should exist. These are the ideals that formed this country and are at the center of what makes this a great nation. Disregarding them as privileges of "membership" does nothing but devalue the high ideals upon which they were established. It is why these documents are held in such high esteem today.

[mholtz]

I'd like to add that this surveillance program was a program that was monitoring calls from or to the US, meaning that one end of that conversation was a US citizen potentially, so the argument of non-citizens not having the same rights is moot in this case.




Republican Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Earl Warren :
Implicit in the term national defense is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those liberties which make the defense of the nation worthwhile.

[mholtz]

I'm hoping I'm wrong, but the issue will probably just be forgotten after something else comes up.

Looks like, least according to this forum, that you were wrong

[Campbell]

Good point mholzt. The issue is the president overstepping powers with regard to domestic wiretapping. Collecting intelligence on terrorism in the realm of espionage is slightly different with regard to the Constitution. It is a gray area and it is hard for me to define that now. Prisoner torture is an example of extreme measures, outside of our constitution (and the Geneva Convention), that can save the lives of soldiers and civilians. In the words of Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." I don't condone prisoner torture, but it is a complicated subject for which I have no context. Do the benefits of certain actions outweigh the costs? This goes back to Zeuslax's post as to giving up rights for more security. It is complicated and as I said I don't really know where to begin a discussion on it. Maybe this is what you are getting at Sonny, I am not sure. I can see in some cases where US "rights" may not be extended to non citizens, however as a policy I don't think they should be completely exclusive. Overall, I think the president should not have free reign to do these types of things, it is the checks and balances of our system that should resolve these gray areas.

[BucLax13]

You always have to, you just have to decide whether it is worth it or not. Freedom has a price and a great responsibility.

Yes, of course you have to ask those questions. But, if the current laws and procedures are working, and there haven't been any additional attacks, because the current procedures are thwarting any potential problems. Do we really need additional measures that take away civil liberties?
Yes, the terrorist will continue to evolve and try different things and we need to stay one step ahead of them. How do you justify this to a populace that is inherently questionable of gov't?

Who says those current laws are thwarting anything right now?

Why not fix the original problem -> foreign policy that breeds individuals to want to run planes into buildings?

[OAKS]

Looks like, least according to this forum, that you were wrong

Yeah, people will always talk about it, but my main fear is that no one will be held accountable. The buck certainly doesn't seem to stop anywhere within the current administration unless you disagree with them.