Full Version: Big Brother wants your internet "record"
Any confusion about the true agenda of the Bush Regime just evaporated with this. It's clear that they want to regulate what happens in the privacy of our homes, in the name of "national security." Where in our constitution does it spell out that national security trumps individual rights? This is the reason our founders wrote the constitution in the first damn place. There is defense for this outrage. None!
There was still eek! some confusion?
>>>Where in our constitution does it spell out that national security trumps individual rights?
Nowhere. But ask ten people whether they'd be willing to trade in their right to privacy in the name of security, and seven - bare minimum - will say "Gladly".
LXN
Nowhere. But ask ten people whether they'd be willing to trade in their right to privacy in the name of security, and seven - bare minimum - will say "Gladly".
LXN
A wise man once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I think this certainly applies as much to our current situation as it did at any time.
That wise man was Benjamin Franklin in 1759 in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
That wise man was Benjamin Franklin in 1759 in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
I see that the GOP in Congress is finally getting off its collective tuches with regard to our basic civil liberties, because the House Judiciary Committee has voted for a Democratic resolution requiring the Department of Justice to turn over all records relating to the NSA's and other agencies requests of domestic phone records.
Perhaps they have at least briefly taken to heart the words of one of their and our nation's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, "that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Perhaps they have at least briefly taken to heart the words of one of their and our nation's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, "that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
If the alarmists among you can stop bandying about quotes long enough to actually read the Constitution, I think you'll find it's silent on telephones and computer data. But even if that Scalian argument is ignored, the same Lincoln whom FT quoted used the authority in Art. I, Sec. 9 to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
As I was drilled in my basic poli sci classes, the price of freedom is constant vigilance against those would rob us of it. The Bush Regime is doing so at every opportunity they can, in the name of "security." At what point do our freedoms take priority over "security?"
Gmginsfo, can't you see what is going on here? Are you going to wait for your mail to be opened and censored just like they did in Nazi Germany? Keep on doing nothing and that's exactly what you will have. You are damned right I am alarmed, and if that makes me an alarmist, I will wear it like a badge of honor.
Miller, I see the argument being made and the measures being taken to ensure national security, but no, I don't see the reality of the fears you express. I don't believe much in slippery slope arguments because I credit people with the ability to distinguish one issue or practice from another, and I really don't have any cause for alarm here. A big part of my comfort with the situation is that the USA is NOT Nazi Germany, and has a much stronger Constitution and, more important, HISTORY of living under the rule of Constitutional law than Germany ever had. Again, it's possible to distinguish one from the other, and I've no problem doing so here, just as I'd have no problem raising hell if things ever even began to look as bad as you see them.
Have a good weekend! (He said, watching from behind an adjacent dune.) wink
Have a good weekend! (He said, watching from behind an adjacent dune.) wink
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Miller, I see the argument being made and the measures being taken to ensure national security, but no, I don't see the reality of the fears you express. I don't believe much in slippery slope arguments because I credit people with the ability to distinguish one issue or practice from another, and I really don't have any cause for alarm here. A big part of my comfort with the situation is that the USA is NOT Nazi Germany, and has a much stronger Constitution and, more important, HISTORY of living under the rule of Constitutional law than Germany ever had. Again, it's possible to distinguish one from the other, and I've no problem doing so here, just as I'd have no problem raising hell if things ever even began to look as bad as you see them.
Have a good weekend! (He said, watching from behind an adjacent dune.) wink
Nazi Germany (as we now know it) was not Nazi Germany until the collective acts of its perpetrators started adding up and the world started reacting adequately and appropriately to what, if I may use a super-technical description, turned out to a really f**ked up situation.
Miller, I see the argument being made and the measures being taken to ensure national security, but no, I don't see the reality of the fears you express. I don't believe much in slippery slope arguments because I credit people with the ability to distinguish one issue or practice from another, and I really don't have any cause for alarm here. A big part of my comfort with the situation is that the USA is NOT Nazi Germany, and has a much stronger Constitution and, more important, HISTORY of living under the rule of Constitutional law than Germany ever had. Again, it's possible to distinguish one from the other, and I've no problem doing so here, just as I'd have no problem raising hell if things ever even began to look as bad as you see them.
Have a good weekend! (He said, watching from behind an adjacent dune.) wink
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Miller, I see the argument being made and the measures being taken to ensure national security, but no, I don't see the reality of the fears you express . . .
But if you want us all to just sit there until it's all gone, I guess we could.Miller, I see the argument being made and the measures being taken to ensure national security, but no, I don't see the reality of the fears you express . . .
In the meantime, I'll just go ahead and send the government a list of (a) my sexual practices and proclivities, (
all pornographic publications and videograpic media I own, and © all the items I've bought at the grocery store in the last month.I know there might be a lot of investigative worth in the data collected from phone, internet, library and credit card histories, but this wholesale approach of sifting through all Americans' records is going to be about as useful (and as big a waste of time) as recieving and analyzing the information I've listed above.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
...same Lincoln whom FT quoted used the authority in Art. I, Sec. 9 to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
The suspension of habeus corpus by Lincoln was was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 - 1866; military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal. Just because a president asserts a power and cites Constituition does not make necessarily make the action legal.
...same Lincoln whom FT quoted used the authority in Art. I, Sec. 9 to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
QUOTE
NewYorkVenus:
...I know there might be a lot of investigative worth in the data collected from phone, internet, library and credit card histories, but this wholesale approach of sifting through all Americans' records is going to be about as useful (and as big a waste of time) as recieving and analyzing the information I've listed above.
I agree with you on both counts, as do the various US Attorneys and NSA agents charged with the task of ensuring our security, which explains why they're hardly interested in expanding the scope of their inquiries to include the items you'd proffer. Their sifting is selective and properly so and knowing as many of them as I do, I trust their discretion....I know there might be a lot of investigative worth in the data collected from phone, internet, library and credit card histories, but this wholesale approach of sifting through all Americans' records is going to be about as useful (and as big a waste of time) as recieving and analyzing the information I've listed above.
Jsieds, your cite to Milligan is true enough, but for the several years until 1866 that the writ was suspended, THAT was the law, which was the issue alluded to by an earlier poster and which was what I'd posted. Thanks for the link that included the briefs and synopses of the parties' oral args; nice to see some really good legal writing from days gone by.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Jsieds, your cite to Milligan is true enough, but for the several years until 1866 that the writ was suspended, THAT was the law, which was the issue alluded to by an earlier poster and which was what I'd posted. Thanks for the link that included the briefs and synopses of the parties' oral args; nice to see some really good legal writing from days gone by.
My point, though, was this:QUOTE
NewYorkVenus:
...I know there might be a lot of investigative worth in the data collected from phone, internet, library and credit card histories, but this wholesale approach of sifting through all Americans' records is going to be about as useful (and as big a waste of time) as recieving and analyzing the information I've listed above.
I agree with you on both counts, as do the various US Attorneys and NSA agents charged with the task of ensuring our security, which explains why they're hardly interested in expanding the scope of their inquiries to include the items you'd proffer. Their sifting is selective and properly so and knowing as many of them as I do, I trust their discretion....I know there might be a lot of investigative worth in the data collected from phone, internet, library and credit card histories, but this wholesale approach of sifting through all Americans' records is going to be about as useful (and as big a waste of time) as recieving and analyzing the information I've listed above.
Jsieds, your cite to Milligan is true enough, but for the several years until 1866 that the writ was suspended, THAT was the law, which was the issue alluded to by an earlier poster and which was what I'd posted. Thanks for the link that included the briefs and synopses of the parties' oral args; nice to see some really good legal writing from days gone by.
Although I picked those items for exaggerated effect, the government is ALREADY prying WHOLESALE into phone, library, internet, financial and purchasing habits (market information bought from such data collection companies, which is illegal for the government to do - read up on it) of ALL American citizens.
My question, and concern, is where does it stop before that get (or come close) to requesting and getting those kinds of information, in the name of "ketchin' dose turrists"?
And I think we should all be as questioning and as concerned -- NOW, and not when we've arrived at the bottom of slope.
[ June 23, 2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: NewYorkVenus ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.