We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

Quote:

I am not willing to give up my right to privacy even at the cost of another 911.

The families, friends, and loved ones, of the 3,000+ people killed on 9/11 would likely not agree with you. And so would many other Americans who do want, and expect, the government to protect us from terrorist threats.

Most people, unlike you, are willing to sacrifice some privacy for better national security. That doesn't mean they want their personal privacy intruded on, by the government, without their knowledge, or without clear-cut reason for the necessity of violating their privacy.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

your responsibility is to inform us of what you want to do and then get consent BEFORE YOU DO IT..first get that straight then we will talk about the merits of this program"

and freedom fighters have been throwing these words in the faces of dictators ever since.

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

The American Founders

Quote:

I am a supporter of the rule of law.

So not matter what the laws are you will support them.

When the rule of law is that you must help capture runaway slaves you would have done so.

If the rule of law is that anyone who express the opinion that a war is not wise should be locked up for ten years you would vote for conviction if you was on such a jury.

You have no principles or morals, as if the SC is fine with locking up men for peaceful expressing opinions or capturing run away slaves or whatever example of their past rulings you are fine with it all.

Amazing outlook on life and by the way I do not off hand think that it would take a constitution expert to have the opinion that any law that allowed a man to be locked up for ten years for peaceful expressing his opinion is against the bill of rights even when the nine men on the SC did not see it that way.

Quote:

I hope we can build on this!

"We"?? It's you who has to do the building.

Frank Apisa wrote:

roger wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

There's too much data for them to watch everything you do.

Two things:

Capabilities have expanded enormously, and continue to expand.

Also, I'm not really comfortable with the idea that my privacy relies solely on someone else's lack of interest.

Have you given any consideration to the fact that guaranteeing "your" privacy may be a huge negative for the safety and well-being of society in general?

Do you care about the general well-being of society...or are you stuck primarily on yourself?

1. So, you're basically against the philosophy that gave rise to the 4th Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general (my freedom of speech ,
may not be in society's interest, according to this line of reasoning).
2. A secure society without freedom and privacy isn't worth having.
3. Wanting to live in a free society can hardly be described as being "stuck on yourself."

Little things like the whole philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution have escaped your notice?

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Frank, if someone could actually convince me that by giving up my right to privacy and allowing the gummint to stick its proboscis into places it has no business visiting would really help prevent another 9/11 or Boston Marathon disaster, I'd agree with you....

Even then, I wouldn't agree. The American Founders pretty much said it all on this subject and freedom fighters have been throwing these words in the faces of dictators ever since.

firefly wrote:

Quote:

I am not willing to give up my right to privacy even at the cost of another 911.

The families, friends, and loved ones, of the 3,000+ people killed on 9/11 would likely not agree with you. And so would many other Americans who do want, and expect, the government to protect us from terrorist threats.

Most people, unlike you, are willing to sacrifice some privacy for better national security. That doesn't mean they want their personal privacy intruded on, by the government, without their knowledge, or without clear-cut reason for the necessity of violating their privacy.

Quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

Did the supreme court approve secret laws when I was not looking...did they buy the governments position that telling members of congress the law and then forbidding them to tell the people is as good as telling the people?

Have they heard and ruled on any cases that addressed those issues?

was he lying then, or is he lying now? I think we know the answer to that. Obama has become so desperate to come up with a cover for his abuse of the american people that he stooped to one of the biggest bullshit stories of all time.

So far as I have heard, they have not. That's part of the issue, isn't it? All of a sudden, I no longer believe that something hasn't happened just because I've not heard of it. There is kind of a loss of faith that might be hard to get back.

Quote:

was he lying then, or is he lying now? I think we know the answer to that. Obama has become so desperate to come up with a cover for his abuse of the american people that he stooped to one of the biggest bullshit stories of all time.

It not just his abused it the ruling class of society as President Bush before him was on the same wagon train to a police state.

ike so many issues around us this is not a D/R issue.....neither party stood up for the American people here, as per usual. ****. Them. Both.

Any abuse that's going on, by the Obama administration, with regard to the surveillance tactics, is because Congress handed the feds the power to do it, by passing the Patriot Act, and then failing to keep careful rein on exactly how that power was being used, and the potential for it's misuse. They've kept on voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act without putting in sufficient oversight provisions, or curbs, even after it became clear they were needed.