What level of government intrusion would you accept?

Question

There is a huge debate in this country on what is the acceptable amount of power the government should have to eavesdrop/surveill the American public. (Wire taps, email, etc) If you were president, what level of survellance would you want to allow intelligence/law enforcement agencies to have on its citizens? As always, I ask everyone keep this debate civil and respect each others comments and beliefs. Thanks.

I thank everyone thus far that has commented. I have my own opinions, but I really want to know what other people think. Keep it up!

To Avatar, this was meant to be a complicated question. Too many people take silly political swipes at each other on YA and never listen to the other side. This isn't about who's right or wrong. This is about airing your opinions on a subject I believe to be of significant worth.

Answer 1

The part where there is oversight, like how it USED TO BE.

what's wrong with oversight unless the spying is not being used like how it's supposed to be...

Answer 2

You ask a complicated question. The simple answer is none. The constitution does not allow for any violations of private property by the federal government. This was done by our founding fathers on purpose, to stop government from becoming an all-powerful, all -seeing monster. Modern political scholars use the term "the People" to mean the state. They do this with the wicked intent of convincing you that your state reps and such are "the People' and therefor, under the constitution, can grant such powers to to fed in your name. This is not true. The bill of rights is clearly a testimony to the inviolate rights of the individual, not his elected representives that speak on his behalf on other issues that they are to be tasked with the duty of speaking for him on. I do believe governments need to keep things secret at times, as I believe that it has a need to watch and listen to certain of its citzens. I just think that it needs to do this within the intent and letter of the law, and that that means no mail, no phone, and no internet, they are private unless otherwise posted as public by the individual.

Answer 3

None. It is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the people and not take them away. As mentioned, the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the federal government, and for good reason. It was to protect us from tyranny and governmental oppression. We keep wanting to trade our liberty for security, but countless times again and again the government has failed to protect the American people. Now, they are asking us to give up our liberties for security that they can't even guarantee. Then they ask for more and more until we have no liberty left. Our forefathers were willing to die to be free. They signed the Declaration of Independence knowing very well they were putting their lives on the line. And one thing we need to think about is once the government has the power whose going to protect us against the government? History has shown what government's do with their power, and what they can do, are we going to learn from history or repeat it? How's opening people up to governmental abuse and tyranny keeping us safe? And yes it has happened with abuses with the Patriot Act. We need to seriously be concerned when a government comes to us and says they will protect us at the cost of a little liberty, because this is exactly what Hitler did? We cannot let fear dictate our lives and what we do. And yes, when you give up liberty to obtain security you are letting fear dictate what you do. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our liberty to be secure, and if we do history shows us that we will have neither.

Answer 4

I fail to see why there is such an uproar over the USA monitoring communications between it's citizens and people in other countries given that these communications were already monitored by other countries anyway. Basically the US citizen never should have had any expectation of privacy in the first place. I think judicial oversight of domestic searches should only be a right afforded to US citizens but it should extend to all forms of searches including digital ones.

Answer 5

I'm unsure, but it is of grave concern to me. I see government gaining ground, but on the flip side, I see citizens committing more troubling crimes.

Terrorism must be kept out of the US.

Illegal immigration is also a reason that will be used to curtail our liberties.

The internet has brought many ways for criminals to dream up new enterprises.

I think this issue becomes political only when one party sees crime where another party sees "freedom." I'm observing this trend among the young where drugs are concerned, in particular. Not just marijuana, either. Meth and crack, and their manufacture.

Answer 6

The government has no rights or should have no rights to do anything like that. Like Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both."

Answer 7

None. For once the goverment gets even a tiny bit of authority, it takes only time for it to blossom into a Orwellian nightmare.

Answer 8

the govt shouldn't be interested in anything that doesn't have some kind of probable cause.

anyone who wants to do anything else, is really looking to do some sort of socialogy experiment.

i respectfully ask those people to try their little experiments in some other nation.

in the usa, that's not how we do things.

Answer 9

We already accept a lot of government intrusion, have you been to an airport in the last 35 years.

Answer 10

What level of government intrusion would we accept?

Like we have a choice?