Quote:
Me: Those were all internal. We could control them through out own laws.
Organized crime, gangs, and drug cartels can all have their roots in foreign countries. The problem spills over into our borders.
|
Then our borders need to be more secure. We still have control.
Quote:
|
furthermore, you make it sound like we actually have controlled these wars. Drugs and gangs are still prevalent across the country.
|
Partly because of our own drug laws.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, what this thread is about is the internal wiretapping of citizens within the country. Whether the war on terror is being fought over seas or not, the implications of it affect us domestically.
|
A computer scanning calls for keywords in not invasive IMO.
But even if it was, we can stop it any time we want to.
Quote:
Me: By spreading democracy. Once every nation on the planet is a democracy, the terrorist problem will become negligible.
Democracy does not exclude terrorism.
|
Democracy is far less friendly to terrorists that non-democracy. That is a statistical fact.
That is why I used the word "negligible" in my quote above. You dont have to wipe it out completely to remove it as a threat.
Quote:
|
So no, democracy will not solve the problem of terrorism.
|
It will solve it
enough.
Quote:
|
I agree with you on that one. The majority will choose peace. However, there is always going to be a fringe minority that will not.
|
The fringe are statistically irrelevant. All I care about it the major threats.
Quote:
|
What I am saying is that you are justifying the removal of rights by the fight against terrorism
|
I have never attempted to justify the removal of a right. Privacy is not a right, like due process or free speech. Warrants
themselves are proof of that.
No warrant can take away your right to due process or free speech. But a warrant CAN take away your "right" to privacy.
Quote:
|
and that the fight will never end in the conceivable future.
|
I disagree. You have no way of knowing that.
Either way, we can end it any time we want. None of these changes are Constitutional. And even THEN they could still be changed.
Quote:
|
Sure sure. What I would ask though is that we do not lose ground in our freedoms in the attempt to gain ground against terror.
|
I am willing to take one step back to take three steps forward. The "rights" lost are trivial at best, and the gains are significant.
Quote:
Me: I am giving them the benefit of the doubt because the current alternatives are worse.
What alternatives?
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
You are doing imaginary math here. You are placing the unmeasurable and unknowable improvement of security granted by warrantless wiretaps against the almost assured chance of government abuse.
|
Heh heh, emphasis mine. Do you even listen to what you are saying?
Can you put a percentage on that "assured chance"? Your math is no less imaginary than mine.
Quote:
Me: I am unwilling to take your word for that.
Take the Founding Fathers' then...
|
That stuff doesnt work on me. I dont worship the Founding Fathers like many other conservatives do. I have been critical of them on this forum many times.
They had no way of knowing what we would face now. They could not conceive of nuclear weapons, or biological and chemical warfare. Certainly not to the degree we can. They lived in a different time. So their opinion means little to me on this issue.
Quote:
Me: I am unwilling to share that risk with you. And so, apparently, are most other Americans.
Whether or not most Americans are (do you have a source for this claim?)
|
Yes. My source is the fact that the current President was elected to a second term, and the current Congress has continued to refuse to end the wiretapping or the war, despite the fact that they have had the opportunity to do so many times.
Quote:
Me: How does that change what I just said? If you really have as much support as you think you do, taking that power away should not be a problem.
I'd rather not take that chance.
|
Then I guess you're pretty screwed, and my kind will get our way after all.
Quote:
Me: Because national defense supersedes your right to privacy. Thats why.
Again, only when necessary.
|
I consider this necessary.
Quote:
Me: That analogy is flawed, since you would read them personally. If you were just going to have a computer analyze them, then no, I wouldnt have a problem with that.
Oh no, I promise I will only have a computer analyze the content of the files...
|
If you were an elected official (with something to lose) I would believe you. Since you are an anonymous user on a forum, I would not take your word for it.
I am not making the claim that abuse is impossible. Just that your analogy is flawed because abuse is obviously much less likely for an elected official. Becuase they are watched. As a user on an anonymous forum, you would not be.
Quote:
|
But obviously that isn't enough for you. You understand the point that once it is on my computer it is easy for me to examine it. And you rightly don't trust my word on that. Why is government any different?
|
See above. The situations are not analogous.
If what you were saying were true, we would never have heard of any government abuse at all, because it would have been covered up. Obviously the oversight (via media and other parts of government) works. Thats how we know abuses have occurred in the first place.
Quote:
|
The history of powerful clandestine organizations should make you realize the folly of this statement. I cannot see how you could be convinced that not one corrupt politician, spook, or hacker will use the vast amounts of data logged to their own ends.
|
I am willing to take the risk that someones dirty phone calls will be overheard if it means we can stop even a single terrorist attack.
Quote:
|
Maybe you don't understand this point, and that is where this whole argument is coming from? A warrant is permission from the Judicial branch for the Executive branch to perform surveillance.
|
Explain to me how that does not violate your privacy.
Quote:
|
It lays out the conditions of the wiretapping, and makes sure that there is probable cause to listen in to the suspect.
|
Who gets to determine what probable cause is?
Quote:
Me: Yes, their lives are worth more than your privacy in this context.
"Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry
|
By that logic why not open all the borders? Cease all security checks at airports? Stop all background checks for firearms?
Liberty or death, right?
Thats why those quotes have no effect on me. They are empty. Obviously even you dont believe what Mr. Henry said. So save the empty quotes please.
Quote:
Me: There is precedent for warantless surveillance.
Where?
|
Here:
See this also -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
#Third-party_legal_analysis -
Quote:
|
Your cognitive dissonance is stunning. You stated that tapping international calls would provide us with an increase in security.
|
Which it would...even if only preventative. If a terrorist knows his calls are being monitored, it will make his job more difficult.
Quote:
|
Surely if we tapped into the conversations of every American, on the phone or not, the increase in security would be even greater.
|
Maybe. We're not at the point where we are willing to make that tradeoff yet. Not saying it will never happen, just that we arent at that point.