freedom or security, which one

[mr d]

hello

 

i believe it was the elderly american statesman franklin who once said ' a man who gives up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security, deserves neither the freedom or the security'.

so i was wondering how do you feel about goverments pressing more and more to take back civil freedoms, under the guise of providing greater security. terrorist make phone calls so we must monitors your calls, inspect your email. only information pertaining to the war on terrorism will be kept of course. to site mates over in england-london, how do you feel about all the surveilence monitoring equipment now watching you. facial recognition software being run on your majestic profiles while out and about.

are goverments helping to create a climate of fear so that you will willing hand over your liberties just to feel safe.

 

strange thoughts

 

mr d

[scicop]

I agree with benji, but who says we're giving up our freedom for security?

 

If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care if big-brother is reading your emails. I don't.

 

Security does not mean sacrifice of freedom. It means minor inconviences from time to time, but you still get to do what you wanna do!

 

I can still go to Cuba! Its just a little more inconvienient.

[YT2095]

I`ll take Freedom anyday.

 

as long as no one`s being hurt or I`m not hurting anyone, FREEDOM all the way!

[mr d]

hello

 

the reply would be what is it the goverment wants to know and what is it that they consider wrong.

do you want them to know who you talk too, or what sites you like to visit. at first they said they were looking for terrorists, and they got some added permission to look at email traffic. then suddenly they were back saying we need to see to website tracking by such web search providers as google and yahoo. why to see what people visit sites that might show signs they are pedophiles. now how could you object to that, unless of course you are one. don't you want our children to be safe? (and yes we do). so give us the data, we will ignore anything else we might find. we don't care about what politcal sites you visit, or keep a log on know what types of books you purchase to read. if your not doing anything wrong, why would you object to our looking?

they have even approached companies such as walmart and amazon to help develope better tracking technology and statistical prediction software. (must admit somewhat more nerve wracking that walmart and amazon have better technology the the u.s. goverment). that way by correlating the data they might predict trouble before it occurs.

remember, the goverment you have today may not be the goverment you have tomorrow.

also many countries are pushing harder for dna databases. everyone gets sampled, why would you object. think how much easier it would be to apprehend criminals, do you want them to get away. or are you engaged in some type of criminal activities, is that why your affraid to give us a sample. and to help us out in our identifying of people would you mind sewing this yellow star to your clothing.

if your still apprehensive think of the medical benefits we may enjoy by collecting this data, charting of people over time would make it easier to develope profiles of people and their health risks based on their genes.

http://hnn.us/articles/1551.html

 

trust us. there just a little loss of freedom for so much more safety.

 

mr d

[YT2095]

I couldn`t give a damn what they look at that I may type or send in email or order over the net, why should I?

as long as it doesn`t affect me or slow down things or corrupt data, or gets abused, who cares???

 

my World and then Universe Domination will Still proceed as planned and there`s nothing these puny Humans can do to stop it!

Mwahahahaaaaaa

[ecoli]

not if Azure Phoenix beats you to it, YT... and no offense, but I've got my money on her.

[Jim]

hello

 

i believe it was the elderly american statesman franklin who once said ' a man who gives up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security' date=' deserves neither the freedom or the security'.

so i was wondering how do you feel about goverments pressing more and more to take back civil freedoms, under the guise of providing greater security. terrorist make phone calls so we must monitors your calls, inspect your email. only information pertaining to the war on terrorism will be kept of course. to site mates over in england-london, how do you feel about all the surveilence monitoring equipment now watching you. facial recognition software being run on your majestic profiles while out and about.

are goverments helping to create a climate of fear so that you will willing hand over your liberties just to feel safe.

 

strange thoughts

 

mr d[/quote']

 

D, your email makes several assumptions with which I disagree. I do not think you fairly summarize the state of current law nor do I agree that governments are creating a climate of fear. There are real security concerns, for example, those evidenced on 9/11/01.

 

All of this said, I also disagree with the "I'm not doing anything wrong, so the government can watch" point of view. B. Franklin's absolute statement notwithstanding, no one in a position to influence policy can think in absolute terms. No discussion of the proper balance between freedom and security can occur without first fairly describing the status quo.

 

Jim

[KLB]

I think there was a WWII saying that went something like this:

 

They eliminated the homosexuals and I didn't say anything. They eliminated the Gypsies and I didn't say anything. Then they started to eliminate the Jews and there was no one left to defend me.

 

The most flawed belief in the world is to think that you have nothing to hide so you have nothing to worry about. This is exactly how civil liberties start to get sucked away until we have none and end up living in a totalitarian society.

 

If the government is able to collect and analyze mountains of data from ISPs on random fishing expeditions looking for "signs" of criminal activity then countless totally innocent people will start to get caught up in the drag net and subjected to unfair scrutiny and questioning that could destroy their lives and or careers even when no crime was committed.

 

The same goes with monitoring of international money transfers. This isn't about the monitoring of money transfers from rouge country 'A' to rouge country 'B' it is about monitoring money transfers from America and American citizens to other countries regardless of the country the money is coming from or going to. It is about monitoring American's.

 

At the very least this is about protecting and defending the constitution and in particularly the first and fourth amendments. The simple act of stockpiling of communications and data by the government has a chilling effect on the free flow of ideas and the first amendment. People become afraid to speak out of fear of their words being misconstrued. People become fearful of having innocent open dialogs about really important issues like foreign policy, terrorism or criticizing the government. We only need to go back to the McCarthy hearings which the movie "Good Night and Good Luck" are based to see what kind of affect government intrusion into personal lives can have.

 

Personally I am more scared of our own government stomping on my civil liberties than I am of any terrorists. The terrorists already won. They have convinced American's to give up the freedoms we hold most dear and to allow our government to trample over the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.

[Jim]

The most flawed belief in the world is to think that you have nothing to hide so you have nothing to worry about. This is exactly how civil liberties start to get sucked away until we have none and end up living in a totalitarian society.

 

Very well said. This is like saying that you shouldn't defend rights of due process in criminal procedure because you are not committing any crimes.

 

If the government is able to collect and analyze mountains of data from ISPs on random fishing expeditions looking for "signs" of criminal activity then countless totally innocent people will start to get caught up in the drag net and subjected to unfair scrutiny and questioning that could destroy their lives and or careers even when no crime was committed.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the government should not be able to conduct random fishing expeditions. Thankfully, that is not occurring. Your point, I assume, is that the "I've nothing to fear" argument would justify such intrusion.

 

The same goes with monitoring of international money transfers. This isn't about the monitoring of money transfers from rouge country 'A' to rouge country 'B' it is about monitoring money transfers from America and American citizens to other countries regardless of the country the money is coming from or going to. It is about monitoring American's.

 

We part company here. My understanding from a link I previously provided is that there is a supreme court case stating that this type of information is not protected. I can't recall the case or find it quickly but we'd have to research that caselaw to understand the constitutional issues.

 

Moreover, the current program does not review all international money transfers. As I understand it, the government can only make an inquiry into what runs through SWIFT after an analyst determines that one of the parties to the transaction is a suspected terrorist. SWIFT can review this inquiry in real time and has an appeal procedure. I do not think there is much dispute about the lawfulness of the program.

 

At the very least this is about protecting and defending the constitution and in particularly the first and fourth amendments. The simple act of stockpiling of communications and data by the government has a chilling effect on the free flow of ideas and the first amendment. People become afraid to speak out of fear of their words being misconstrued. People become fearful of having innocent open dialogs about really important issues like foreign policy, terrorism or criticizing the government. We only need to go back to the McCarthy hearings which the movie "Good Night and Good Luck" are based to see what kind of affect government intrusion into personal lives can have.

 

Personally I am more scared of our own government stomping on my civil liberties than I am of any terrorists. The terrorists already won. They have convinced American's to give up the freedoms we hold most dear and to allow our government to trample over the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.

 

Again, it's about striking the correct balance. We shouldn't be so afraid of terrorists that we become a dictatorship and we shouldn't be so afraid of government that we forego sensible precautions.

[GutZ]

As long as the government is reasonable. I like my freedom though. The worst that could happen is dieing so...meh...I am indifferent on the topic.

[KLB]

We part company here. My understanding from a link I previously provided is that there is a supreme court case stating that this type of information is not protected. I can't recall the case or find it quickly but we'd have to research that caselaw to understand the constitutional issues.

The problem is that what the Bush administration is doing is out side of the court system (e.g. requiring search warrants) and congressional oversight. It is another example of "national security" being used to justify actions beyond the constitutional checks and balances of three branches of government.

 

Again, it's about striking the correct balance. We shouldn't be so afraid of terrorists that we become a dictatorship and we shouldn't be so afraid of government that we forego sensible precautions.

However, striking a correct balance and ensuring sensible precautions REQUIRE the checks and balances laid out in our constitution. The Bush Administration has time and time again done end runs around both Congress and the court system.

 

One example of this was President Bush's signing into law an explicit ban on torture (lobbied for by Senator John McCain) only to then sign a "signing statement" that stated he reserved the right to waive the torture ban if he concluded that some harsh interrogation techniques could advance the war on terrorism.

 

In all Bush has signed some 750 signing statements on 110 laws more than all other presidents combined. These signing statements are a circumvention of the balance of powers written into our Constitution (which Bush is sworn to protect).

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606280131jun28,1,2571963.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003090115_bushlaws28.html

 

Odd story about book makers now giving odds of Bush finishing his term in office over these issues:

http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=947

[Jim]

The problem is that what the Bush administration is doing is out side of the court system (e.g. requiring search warrants) and congressional oversight. It is another example of "national security" being used to justify actions beyond the constitutional checks and balances of three branches of government.

 

We've debated the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program in other threads. I am more than satisfied that there is a good faith basis in the administration's legal position.

 

 

However, striking a correct balance and ensuring sensible precautions REQUIRE the checks and balances laid out in our constitution. The Bush Administration has time and time again done end runs around both Congress and the court system.

 

What simple checks and balances are you talking about? Bush's position is that he was elected president and as commander of chief he is entitled in a time of war (declared or not) to take certain actions. For example, he is entitled to hold enemy combatants and monitor their communications into the country. You are assuming this issue is iron clad which it is not.

 

One example of this was President Bush's signing into law an explicit ban on torture (lobbied for by Senator John McCain) only to then sign a "signing statement" that stated he reserved the right to waive the torture ban if he concluded that some harsh interrogation techniques could advance the war on terrorism.

 

I've not researched this issue; however, this is a tension envisioned, indeed relied upon, by the framers of the Constitution. If Congress doesn't like it they can go to the Courts. I have to laugh when I read about all of the Constitutional crises Bush is supposed to have generated as if this kind of conflict between the executive and legislative branches isn't exactly what the framers intended.

 

Why is it, however, that no one gets upset if Congress exceeds its constitutional mandate? This happens all the time, btw, as evidenced by innumerable laws which are expressly found by the supreme court to be unconstitutional.

 

In all Bush has signed some 750 signing statements on 110 laws more than all other presidents combined. These signing statements are a circumvention of the balance of powers written into our Constitution (which Bush is sworn to protect).

 

I've not researched the issue of signing statements but I suspect they have to be analyzed 1 by 1.

[KLB]

We've debated the constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program in other threads. I am more than satisfied that there is a good faith basis in the administration's legal position.

I'm discussing more than just the NSA terrorist surveillance program and there seems to be a growing number of Senate Republicans who are not satisfied with the President's legal position as they are holding hearings on some of the issues revolving around signature statements.

 

President's typically get away with signature statements when Congress doesn't have the political strength or will to stand up to the President and take him to court. Since the days of Andrew Jackson, signature statements were a challenge from the President to Congress to challenge him in court. They are in short a Presidential bluff. The difference this time is the sheer quantity of them that Bush is using to avoid a veto show down.

 

In reality the signature statements are a challenge of Congresses power and I think the concern over the balance of power is starting to tip Senators including Republican Senators from the position of party loyaties to protecting congressional powers.

[Pangloss]

I'm at a loss to think why anyone would not understand that the founding fathers made MANY compromises to freedom for the sake of security. They're written directly into the Constitution.

 

As to the NSA programs, Senate Republicans are only "disatisfied" because of the President's low approval ratings. NEITHER Republicans NOR Democrats in EITHER house of Congress predominently favor eliminating the program.

 

I tell you what, a LOT more people need to read works like Brin's "The Transparent Society". Security is not a black and white issue, and the way the special interest groups are driving this issue in absolute terms is just appalling. What's hurting us is not the government or the liberals and their desires, but the fact that so few people are thinking through these issues and driving the direction of where we're going with this stuff.

[Jim]

I'm discussing more than just the NSA terrorist surveillance program and there seems to be a growing number of Senate Republicans[/b'] who are not satisfied with the President's legal position as they are holding hearings on some of the issues revolving around signature statements.

 

I can't discuss an aggregate of programs so I threw out the NSA program as one specific example which I have researched to some degree and discussed in other threads.

 

The first inclination of any politician is to defend his own power and prerogatives which explains why republicans are willing to buck a president with low approval ratings. This kind of contesting for power is exactly what the framers intended.

 

President's typically get away with signature statements when Congress doesn't have the political strength or will to stand up to the President and take him to court. Since the days of Andrew Jackson, signature statements were a challenge from the President to Congress to challenge him in court. They are in short a Presidential bluff. The difference this time is the sheer quantity of them that Bush is using to avoid a veto show down.

 

In reality the signature statements are a challenge of Congresses power and I think the concern over the balance of power is starting to tip Senators including Republican Senators from the position of party loyaties to protecting congressional powers.

 

As I said, I've not researched the particulars of these statements to know whether they were reasonable. I do not think we are nearly to the point that we have to worry about an imperial presidency. Congress is well able to express its views publically and go to court if necessary.

 

Part of the difference in the perception of Bush's powers is that he views himself to be a wartime president. I am nervous about the nature of this "war" which really can have no end. However, rightly or wrongly, Bush has acted consistently in that manner and his motivations are not a mystery.

[mr d]

hello

 

some to see about dna, innocent till proven guilty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_us/dna_accused;_ylt=Akd0MfVgrEyuO25OZdiiBAas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

[Jim]

hello

 

some to see about dna' date=' innocent till proven guilty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_us/dna_accused;_ylt=Akd0MfVgrEyuO25OZdiiBAas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-[/quote']

 

Eh?

[mr d]

hello

 

believe you stated to having practiced law. how do you feel about say a client of your being forced to give dna samples, on being merely arrested, not charged but only arrested. and would you consider it violation of the right to non incrimination. should there not be enough other evidence

present to aquire a court order for dna samples before they can be obtained.

under such circumstances if i as a law enforcement official whom wished to obtain a sample i would need merely find some charge and arrest you on. automatically acquiring a sample. yes i understand as currently written it pertains to only certain catagories of offenses. but such laws have a nasty way of expanding. especially under the current climate of fear over terrorism, and a general get tuff on crime attitude amounst most citizens of variuos countries. as an attorney would you advise a client to volunterily give up dna samples?

secondly, they say in most cases if not convicted the information will be returned. but what safe guards are there to insure the information is removed from state-federal systems. will you be allowed to check on that status. and in the electronic age where information is shared quickly. how does that apply to information traded between state databases sharing with federal, or even foriegn nations.

in you opinion as a law person if say i was accused of a crime in michigan, dna taken and enter in the the state database. the states of florida and texas, plus the country of germany aquire the data. i'm released as innocent and michigan removes my data. under current law are florida and texas also required to remove the data, or do laws vary per state. what are the laws regarding the sharing of such data between countries.

 

thank you

 

mr d

[Saryctos]

Freedom to Americans means the right to perform illegal activities when all parties involved are ok with it. Obviously any sort of big brother activities would infringe upon the blue law mentality of the people.

[mr d]

hello

 

thanks to all for replys.

one question though, being a bit older than most dwellers in this pit, i was raised at a time when the more common view would have been 'don't trust the man.'. with any information. yet notice that with your individuals more acustum to growing up with the internet, they seem less carrying in save guarding personal information. how do you younger folks feel?

 

mr d

[Jim]

hello

 

believe you stated to having practiced law. how do you feel about say a client of your being forced to give dna samples' date=' on being merely arrested, not charged but only arrested. and would you consider it violation of the right to non incrimination. should there not be enough other evidence

present to aquire a court order for dna samples before they can be obtained.

under such circumstances if i as a law enforcement official whom wished to obtain a sample i would need merely find some charge and arrest you on. automatically acquiring a sample. yes i understand as currently written it pertains to only certain catagories of offenses. but such laws have a nasty way of expanding. especially under the current climate of fear over terrorism, and a general get tuff on crime attitude amounst most citizens of variuos countries. as an attorney would you advise a client to volunterily give up dna samples?

secondly, they say in most cases if not convicted the information will be returned. but what safe guards are there to insure the information is removed from state-federal systems. will you be allowed to check on that status. and in the electronic age where information is shared quickly. how does that apply to information traded between state databases sharing with federal, or even foriegn nations.

in you opinion as a law person if say i was accused of a crime in michigan, dna taken and enter in the the state database. the states of florida and texas, plus the country of germany aquire the data. i'm released as innocent and michigan removes my data. under current law are florida and texas also required to remove the data, or do laws vary per state. what are the laws regarding the sharing of such data between countries.

 

thank you

 

mr d[/quote']

 

Sorry for not responding earlier. This is outside of my area but as I recall, and as this link suggests, the case law does a balancing test on this kind of bodily test. If the state has probable cause for the search, it is allowed.

[mr d]

hello

 

thank you for reply. but if i may, how as a person of the law would you feel about dna samples being taken before you are even charged with a crime? in your opinion does that border on violating the presumed innocence that is suppose to prevail in the american justice system.

thank you

 

mr d

[Severian]

[braveheart]

FREEEEEEDOM!

[/braveheart]

[Pangloss]

[braveheart]"Freedom to be dictated to by local Scottish lords instead of British ones from several dozen miles away!"[/braveheart]

[Aardvark]

[braveheart]"Freedom to be dictated to by local Scottish lords instead of British ones from several dozen miles away!"[/braveheart']

 

Scottish Lords are British.