And the definitions of “terrorist” and “enemy of the state” inevitable grow to include anyone the ruling party finds inconvenient to have around. Amazing how that works.
If the information gets misused, you won’t be suing anybody. It’s hard to launch a lawsuit from Gitmo.
Jesus wept.
Why do think that matters a whit? Throwing an innocent man in jail without a trial may be illegal, but so what? A government which breaks one law can break another.
It doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone is worried about; we don’t have to say, do we? We have a presumptive right in the United States to hide our mundane bullshit, confidential information, embarrassing secrets, and criminal conspiracies from the authorities.
That you are apparently okay with giving up the right to privacy for any reason is to me shocking and saddening. That the “war on terror” is a theatrical war on largely invented bogeymen just makes it worse – it’s bad enough to trade your rights for safety, but it’s madness to trade them for nothing.
Can we all take a deep breath and calm down a bit, please?
This thread a starting to look like a gun-nut’s rant about gun control. Most people on this board recognize fanatacism about the 2nd Ammendment as overblown worry by Rambo-crazed survivalists who want to keep America pure; yet somehow, fanatacism about the 1st Ammendment can never be overblown…it’s vital to keep American pure.
But it’s the same bunker mentality.
Even though the vast,vast majority of citizens are not in any way suspect, certain government agencies keep an eye on gun sales. Other agencies keep an eye on potential terrorists.
At some point, a democratic nation just has to have trust in its own institutions, and its elected leaders.
Are you replying inadvertently to the wrong thread perhaps? This one has nothing to do with gun nuts. 
Just one question: why?
This thread is discussing the 4th Amendment - and damed right it’s needed to keep America “pure” (if by pure you mean free).
Like Quaker meetings. And nuns. And civil rights activists. And Congressmen. And Supreme Court Justices. Those sorts of terrorists?
Go study up on J. Edgar Hoover a bit before you look on warrantless wiretapping as benign. Pay particular attention to the fact that no one could rein that bastard in precisely because he had the power to ruin the career of any elected official who tried.
That point is well off from where we stand now. You DO realize the government arrested an American citizen right here on US soil and held him in solitary confinement for years without even holding a trial?
Sorry, that’s not a government anyone sane would trust.
A democracy requires that the government be held accountable by the people, and accountability requires oversight. So no, a democratic nation does not just have to have trust in its own institutions - its people must be able to make an informed decision about what the government does in their name.
Because otherwise, the 2nd ammendment nuts prevent the government from scrutinizing militias with military hardware, and the 1st ammendment nuts prevent the government from scrutinizing terrorists with military hardware.
When government agencies use reasonable rules and apply them against reasonably suspect individuals, the system works to protect everybody.
When you scream “protect our 1st/2nd Ammendment rights at ALL costs”, no agencies can work, and we have no protection.
There are dangerous people in the militias of Idaho and there are dangerous people in terrorist groups of the Middle East. A little surveillance makes us all safer.
That’s what warrants are for. The only reason people like Feingold and Obama don’t want to have to get a warrant is because they want to use these powers against people for whom a warrant would not be granted.
Yes. And those reasonable rules require GETTING A WARRANT before conducting a wiretapping operation - because the process of obtaining one requires the agency to show reasonable evidence to an independent judge that the suspect actually IS reasonably likely to be participating in a crime.
Go tell that to Jose Padilla. But before you do, remember that what was done to him could one day be done to you.
This^
Stealth-What were you doing on 9/11? That day was a gamechanger for America. Rules needed to change (IMO, they haven’t enough)
Or maybe, just maybe, waiting for a warrant would mean it’d be too late to stop them.
What percentage of warrantless wire taps are used in such “ticking time bomb” scenarios?
Then it’s too late to stop them. C’est la vie.
This is really rather easy. Are you so seriously afraid for your life that you’d compromise our freedoms and our principles of justice? Buck up. Our guarantees of civil liberty were not written into our laws to protect liberty when liberty is safe and easy. Then, liberty hardly needs advocates. Our guarantees were written to uphold liberty precisely when liberty is dangerous. Fear doesn’t license you.
At least, that’s what I’d say if terrorism was really a threat to us. In such a time we must all accept that our lives are not so valuable that we may compromise justice for their sake. In our present time, fear of terrorism is a risible emotion. You’re in greater danger from your American diet, your car, your neighbors, and probably your cat. To a reasonable mind, 9/11 changed nothing except to demonstrate the prudence of locking cockpit doors.
But this is rather beside the point of your question, since there already exist legal mechanisms for obtaining a warrant retroactively, within a reasonably narrow time frame, for an urgent action concerning national security. But, strangely, it turns out that for those in power, it’s not enough that they be able to act now and justify their suspicion later – they seem to prefer being able to act without having to justify themselves at all. Now, tell me, is that the act of the trustworthy?
I went bowling that day. I was in a league at the time. I don’t remember if our team won or lost but it didn’t actually change my game that much.
FTR-I completely agree warrants are necessary. I just vehemently disagree with people who have no understanding of the fear that grips this country, and has for the last 11 years, and fear by DEFINITION, is irriational. One of the MAJOR jobs of government is to protect it’s citizens, and if they can’t do that, they’re pretty much worthless.
You are wrong on almost every level. Fear is not irrational by definition - if someone has a knife to your throat, being afraid is perfectly rational. And the government’s job is not to crush constitutionally protected freedoms to cater to your paranoia.
I am trying very hard but failing to reconcile the two parts of this post (“the fear is irrational” and “we need protection”) without invoking cognitive dissonance. The government can’t protect people against a threat that isn’t there and shouldn’t try.
The threat is non-existant? You have got to be FUCKING kidding me! You actually believe everyone on Earth loves us, and nobody has the means or opportunity to destroy us?