Posted on 12/29/2005 9:01:59 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Liberty! Blackbird.
Nonsense! Blackbird.
Firstly, the program is overseen by the NSA, whom I trust is more interested in tracking alQaeda connections in the US than they do you or your conversations about whatever.
Secondly, name me a war where an American Administration told the public who, when and the whereabouts of the enemy agents they plan to watch within our borders.
Thirdly, do you also not trust the US Senate which, according to the Senate and Administration, has been briefed and oversees this particular program every 45 days?
Fourthly, since I presume by your cynicism that you want federal judges to be the "boss" over which foreign entities are targeted, can you please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants those Federal Judges the right or obligation to do such protective measures.
It aint there. It is the sole obligation of the Executive branch to wage war, and that includes the tracking of Muslim maniacs who happen to be attempting to blend into our society.
I damn well HOPE we are listening in on those type of situations.
In fact it would be negligent NOT to be listening in to a person under suspicion of being connected with a terrorist group.
In fact I would go so far to say that it would be grounds for Impeachment if President Bush was NOT listening to these people, regardless of whether he applied for a warrant or not.
"I personally hope they are tracking the conversation of Sami Al Arian (sorry, my spelling uncertain), the professor in Florida that O'Reilly has featured!"
Wouldn't matter if they were. Either the feds are too incompetent to prove their case or juries are too stupid (you choose.)
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/ZNYT02/512070405/1237/CAMPUS50
You apparently didn't read my question very closely. It doesn't say anything about listening to persons suspected of being connected to terrorists.
Exercise your Constitutional rights and have both.
Regarding your scenario: Given the threat we face, given that we've already been attacked, I'd support the government monitoring that conversation. During WWII no one would have objected to the monitoring of, say, telegrams between American citizens and "words only" Nazi supporters in Switzerland.
During war, it's important to find out who your enemies are. Someone who speaks out in favor of terrorist acts should certainly be listened in on.
It is damned scary that you, and so many others here, have come to such a view.
Perhaps the hysterical headlines are true - conservatism may in fact be dead.
"Ah - so one can forfeit their right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion by communicating with someone who has expressed a repugnant opinion."
During wartime, it *is* warranted.
You and your ilk are the scary ones. You crave total freedom, regardless of the consequences, even when it might very well directly lead to the deaths of scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Americans. Were your bankrupt ideas ever to come to reality, we would never be able to fight an effective war. If conservatism is dying, it's the loony libertarians who hold much of the blame.
Answer my question then. How will we know when this "emergency" is over?
What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who has been critical of US policy in the Middle East? After all, they probably share some opinions with those who support the terrorists? Is that necessary to fight an 'effective war.' What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who has ever visited a jihadist web site, even if it was done only to gather information on an issue raised in the Threat Matrix on FR? What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who ever watched a beheading video, because the MIGHT be supporters of the perps?
You either believe that unfettered surveillance of EVERYONE is necessary in a time of war, or you draw a line. Tell me - where do you draw the line? What is NOT necessary in a time of 'war'?
Under what circumstances do you deem the consequences of sufficient gravity to dispense with freedom?
Me, I think Franklin is correct. You will not gain security by sacrificing freedom, and those who tell you that you will are lying.
Just doesn't have quite the same ring...
Are you accustomed to ordering people around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.