Are you worried about losing civil liberties or?

Question

Just wanting to use a government intrusion as a means of making political points against the other side?

What intrusion has hurt you so far?

Answer 1

ACLU does more harm than good. Our Governments #1 priority is to protect the people, and the question is, what we are willing to sacrifice knowing that Democracy does not come with out a price, whether its loss of life, or infringing on our liberties (if in fact that is true, which i do not believe it is). Also Its amazing how these Civil Liberty unions are hypocritical, take the New York Civil Liberties Union, who would not allow random searches of passengers who ride the New York Subway system, yet, the building where the NY Civil Liberty Union is located, has all bags searched before entering the building. Hypocritical? you make the call.

Answer 2

FISA, as applied to the NSA surveillance program, will be found unconstitutional. Yes, the district court found the program unconstitutional, but this is the likely final analysis after appeals are over:

1) The program is 'illegal' because it violates FISA
2) BUT, FISA, insofar as it reaches this program is unconstitutional as an infringement on the executive's express powers as commander-in-chief
3) Therefore the program is proper and constitutional

Answer 3

The so called government intrusion in the News is a load of crap. What I am worryied about are the civil liberties being taken away by the ACLU and all their fanactic leftist buddies.

Answer 4

Neither.

Violations of civil liberties are bad enough when they're legal. But we have a situation here where Bush simply chose to ignore the laws because he didn't want to be bothered.

Everything he wanted to do with his surveillance program could have been done legally. That by itself bothers the hell out of me; but it is the law, and we're stuck with it until we change it.

The same entire surveillance program could have been conducted legally. Bush just didn't want to follow the rules. It's not that he couldn't have followed the existing laws and filled out the proper paperwork to fit within the rules. He just didn't care enough about the rule of law to bother.

If someone has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution, and sworn an oath to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, I want them to abide that oath. Which means obeying the law.

And that's what I have a problem with more than anything else. His betrayal of his oath, and his willful violation of the laws he's sworn to uphold. I couldn't care less about scoring political points.

{EDIT to HBTAD} You really don't see the difference between random searches on a subway, a system that is publicly funded and the primary means of travel in the city, not to mention the potential for abuse at police discretion, and procedural searches for those choosing to enter a private building. You really can't see the differences in those two situations?

Answer 5

I think that our leaders are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution. The Constitution has been the basis for this country's laws for over 200 years.

Answer 6

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin

I would feel the same if it was Clinton that we were talking about.

Answer 7

I think civilian aircraft being hijacked and used as bombs is far more hurtful and intrusive and offensive then some G-man "listening" in on my phone conversations.

Oh wait, they DON'T listen in on mine, I never call the Mid East........

Answer 8

I treasure my 4th amendment rights, I do not want them eroded under any circumstances.

Answer 9

sshhh!!! someone is listening!

they are mounting cameras in your bedroom next- to closley monitor you in case your an "evil-doer"

it's for our own protection!

have a fun day!

Answer 10

absolutely none.