Should Americans be willing to give up some of their civil liberties (i.e. rights to privacy) in order to ensure national security? Should the government be permitted to "spy" on citizens if it feels it has a reason? If you think that the government shouldn't be able to "spy" on you, is it because you are hiding something or for some other reason? I know this is a hot button issue, just thought I'd go fishing for comments, thanks!
2006-07-12 15:19:09 · 11 answers · asked by romantemple16 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Our privacy should never be compromised in order to ensure National Security. If the government has cause to believe someone is jeopardizing NS then they should work with the ACLU or an organization like this to identify potential threats and insure that unidentified (as a threat) civilians are not illegally spied on. Or maybe congress needs to come up with a high security clearance oversight committee so as not to abuse American civil liberties.
I feel I have nothing to hide but at the same time I do not feel it is right to have "Big brother" checking my emails or listening to my calls as they please.
Yes you picked a hot button discussion and will check back just to see what others say as well.
2006-07-12 15:39:26 · answer #1 · answered by Ian G 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is not a security vs rights issue. It is a checks and balances issue.
The problem is NOT that they are spying. The problem is that they are spying without oversight. A special court was set up to provide instant review and permission after reviewing cause, and they still bypass it.
This particular presidency has been shown over and over to be power hungry. They simply will not hesitate to take complete advantage of any trust the public places in their hands.
This particular administration - which is know for Carl Roves slicing and dicing of databases of memberships and interest groups in order to customize (conceal) political aims and feature other topics to individual voters - now has an ability to scan phone calls, Internet searches and bank transactions.
And they have access to background information on other politicians with which to organize and generate "whisper campaigns" such as the one that claimed John McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock, or the whole swift-boat organization.
They should be forced to obtain permission and congress should be able to review all the information they obtain from Americans.
2006-07-12 22:57:03 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both civil liberties and national security.
The problem is that all the things Bush that have violated civil liberties didn't have to. There are policies and laws that govern this in times of war. For example, getting approval by congress or keeping the intelligence committee informed.
Rumsfeld himself, last year on Meet the Press, stated that he didn't like telling congressional members of their plans because (in that example) he had to tell 77 ppl. Meaning for some reason, the executive branch currently thinks they are above the structure and laws we have.
2006-07-12 22:24:27 · answer #3 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I don't feel like I have given up anything. I really don't think that much has changed. The governments been spying on the public for a long time. Here is an interesting twist on one of the issues.
2006-07-12 22:25:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Any man who would give up an ounce of freedom for a pound of security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin
One of the hard things about living in a free and open society is that there are threats to its very survival. But we must accept those risks in order to maintain our rights. As John Locke and Thomas Jefferson stated, there are certain rights that are due all men... Life, Liberty, pursuit of property (happiness). We cannot allow the government to supercede our rights, for "security." The word security means power, giving them power cannot be undone. Protect your rights, they belong to you.
2006-07-12 22:26:33 · answer #5 · answered by Brian H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are obviously referring to the phone tap, but if people paid attention these are not taps on DOMESTIC calls, but on calls where one end is in a foreign nation, most the time a nation which hosts terrorism. and as far as people giving up rights to ensure national security, if the government said ok you can have all the rights you want we aren't going to protect you people would gripe and complain then too, there will ALWAYS be people who have to complain.
2006-07-12 22:24:43 · answer #6 · answered by thirteen_fox 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How many of you people get calls from outside the us from suspected countries and send money across the seas? God alot of you sound like you do it all the time. Are you sending money to terrorist organization? Do you people have several aliases. Those are the main reasons that the government would bother.
2006-07-12 22:34:58 · answer #7 · answered by chupakabra123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My understanding is that this has been going on for a very LONG time. Really, how do you think they catch the "bad guys"? Exposing the program now serves two purposes, one to undermine the effectiveness of the program and to undermine the war on terror on the home front and two for political gains in fear.
2006-07-12 22:32:12 · answer #8 · answered by Camping Chick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wish I could remember who said this one but it goes something like:
He who would trade liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither.
2006-07-12 22:26:56 · answer #9 · answered by Derek D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)
2006-07-12 22:28:27 · answer #10 · answered by billhill1066 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋