Safety takes priority over privacy in public policy: analysis

Washington post ^ | 6-9-13 | Chris Cillizza

[TurboZamboni]

The revelation that the National Security Agency is gathering millions of phone calls every day re-stokes the ongoing debate the country has been having since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: What is the right balance between protecting our privacy and protecting our country?

It's the same argument that happened around the passage (and reauthorization) of the Patriot Act, the use of drones against American citizens and the targeting of leakers by the Obama administration. And, time and again, the American public makes clear that their desire to feel safe from attacks foreign and domestic trumps their desire for privacy.

President Barack Obama made quite clear where he comes down in this push-and-pull between security and privacy during a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan last month.

[TurboZamboni]

Ben Franklin must be spinning at 3000 RPM

[KevinDavis]

So it is ok for Obama but not for Bush..

[circlecity]

"And, time and again, the American public makes clear that their desire to feel safe from attacks foreign and domestic trumps their desire for privacy."

How can the American public make the sentiment "clear" when they don't even know the extent of what the government is doing and it's illegal to inform them of such?

[Black Agnes]

Until someone in power decides YOUR group are the real terrorists.

Like happened with the tea party, Christians and anyone who’s pro life.

Then what do you do?

I still want to know how Obama got the closed divorce proceedings of his congressional opponent in Illinois unsealed.

[cuban leaf]

Safety takes priority over privacy in public policy: analysis

---

Clearly they’ve never read the 4th ammendment. Either that or they just don’t agree with the constitution.

[NativeSon]

I still want to know how Obama got the closed divorce proceedings of his congressional opponent in Illinois unsealed.

I'll second that

[TurboZamboni]

looks like we’re getting our punishment...

Quoting Barack Hussein Obama from a Univision interview he gave in October 2010:

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us”

Source:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/transcript-of-president-barack-obama-with-univision.html

Openly declared as “Obama’s Brain”, and the figure whose second story West Wing office has been described by political insiders as the true Oval Office of the Obama White House, Valerie Jarrett is letting it be known that if Barack Obama secures election victory next week, there may be, quite literally, hell to pay for those who opposed him.

“Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay”

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/7398

[Da Coyote]

Sorry WaPo, but we believe you about as much as we believed that Isuzu salesman.

Our Bull-Obama meter goes around three times and flies off whenever one of your low IQ libtards spews their lies.

[D Rider]

That is not the question. It should be framed as physical safety vs. the constitution. The spin needs to be killed by re-framing the question.

[Pollster1]

the American public makes clear that their desire to feel safe from attacks foreign and domestic trumps their desire for privacy

The whims of liberals, even 51% of the population are irrelevant. The supreme law of the land says otherwise, and they may not wish my rights away or even vote freedom away.

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.

Prism is unconstitutional and must be stopped.

[manc]

amazing how BUsh was wrong and now their messiah is in and spying on ALL Americans and others around the world then it’s a debate we should have , or this man is a traitor etc

[Paladin2]

Safety of the entrenched gov,t or of the peeps.

[tiki]

Screw terrorists, I’m afraid of my own government. I have a chance against terrorists, I could actually fight back but the all-powerful US gov can put you in jail for just about anything. We’ve seen it around here with the Reeses, their rights were violated, their property taken, thier lives and livelyhood all but ruined.

[dforest]

Those asshats in Washington DC are a bunch of failures and liars. They keep nobody safe. They leave the borders wide open so that anyone from anywhere in the world can walk on in. They allow the “big enemy” a seat at the tables in DC and supply them with weapons overseas.

They waste our money and time pestering Americans at the airports while hiring people that would have trouble getting a job at McDonalds to harass us.

There is only ONE reason they are collecting all this info. It is control, and people, not all, in both parties would like to be in charge of that.

All this National Security excuse is pure bullshite. You have already seen what info in the hands of the Obama admin will do. Do you trust them? Or McCain or Linda?

Time to wake the heck up.

[Psycho_Bunny]

It’s not consent if it’s not informed.

[PowderMonkey]

"What is the right balance between protecting our privacy and protecting our country?"

Wapo makes use of the classic Leftist approach. A straw argument. That question is more than adequately addressed under the 4th amendment. Faceless and unaccountable government bureaucrats, in nondescript buildings at undisclosed addresses are not protecting the country. They're being used to suppress it.

[Jack of all Trades]

Liberal anti-gunners like to opine that the second amendment doesn’t apply to modern firearms. Let’s see how they like that the government is applying the same logic to the first and fourth with regard to telecommunications.

[tiki]

Say something unpleasant about a gay person and you might be a terrorist and you might get droned.

We need to protect our borders and keep the terrorists out and we need to stop letting them in legally.

There is the recent news about the Saudi who is in jail and he was going to PILOT SCHOOL! What is wrong with this picture? Americans are being spied on and the sons of our enemies are getting in with a free pass.

[TurboZamboni]

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops-requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225?news=846578

The gubmint is free to listen to your phone calls and read your emails ...since these were not around at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated. (wearing my leftard hat)

And apparently that’s how The Regime reads it:

Justice Department Expands Hunt for Data on Cellphones
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/justice-department-expands-hunt-for-data-on-cellphones/

Obama’s NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: “ No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

headlines read:” NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program” , “ U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits” , and “NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans”.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985123667923961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53F09820090416

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/justice-dept-nsa-improperly-spied-americans/

[norwaypinesavage]

I guess “safety” must include SWAT raids on Tea Party members for using the wrong wood in their guitars.