-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Warantless Wiretapping
- Thread starter sora13
- Start date
It makes me nervous hearing about this: I know the government is reading e-mails and wire-tapping potential terrorists and criminals, and that is not so bad. It is to keep our country safe. But on US citizens? Without a court's approval too? I see that as violation of our privacy as people of America. It's really just absurd. Now I have to say, reporting that to the public was a pretty dumb idea on his part.
the way i see it, hes a criminal.
im pretty sure he would have had to sign some kind of document saying he wouldnt divulge any government information, yet that is exactly what he did.
i guess the way i see it, if youre not doing anything illegal, why would you worry if someones watching you. and if you are doing something illegal, and the government finds out, is it not better for the rest of society that you are punished for these crimes since they are against the law?
im pretty sure he would have had to sign some kind of document saying he wouldnt divulge any government information, yet that is exactly what he did.
i guess the way i see it, if youre not doing anything illegal, why would you worry if someones watching you. and if you are doing something illegal, and the government finds out, is it not better for the rest of society that you are punished for these crimes since they are against the law?
Despite my overall distaste for him, Franklin put it best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." That history affirms this requires little scrutiny. A police state is far from desirable, yet it seems we are heedlessly acquiring characteristics of one (though hardly with the same rapidity as the United Kingdom, for example).
It's all good and well as long as your government is perfectly ethical. When it becomes less than ethical, and starts using this information not to find criminals, but to find and punish dissenters, you're in a dictatorship. Unfortunately, even democracies are prone to this kind of behavior - see Watergate.
"Treason" is an idea that should be dead and buried by now. It's the province of despots and kings, not modern western democracies.
The "What do you have to worry if you're doing nothing wrong?" line misses the point - it's an invasion of privacy either way, and if your government starts digging into your life like that, what's to say that the law and morality won't soon radically depart from each other? How long until, for example, 'sedition' laws become brought in? Think it's ridiculous? Australia picked up some sedition laws after September 11, thanks to John Howard. I believe they still haven't been repealed.
Finally, if you are doing something illegal and it's discovered by illegal means - such as a warrantless wiretap - then you should be free to go. That evidence can't be used against you. Otherwise, things like laws against warrantless wiretaps are useless, because the FBI can do the wiretap, collect the evidence, and lock someone up - and then take the rap for their crime. A rap which is likely to be substantially less harsh than whatever their target did.
The "What do you have to worry if you're doing nothing wrong?" line misses the point - it's an invasion of privacy either way, and if your government starts digging into your life like that, what's to say that the law and morality won't soon radically depart from each other? How long until, for example, 'sedition' laws become brought in? Think it's ridiculous? Australia picked up some sedition laws after September 11, thanks to John Howard. I believe they still haven't been repealed.
Finally, if you are doing something illegal and it's discovered by illegal means - such as a warrantless wiretap - then you should be free to go. That evidence can't be used against you. Otherwise, things like laws against warrantless wiretaps are useless, because the FBI can do the wiretap, collect the evidence, and lock someone up - and then take the rap for their crime. A rap which is likely to be substantially less harsh than whatever their target did.
Actually, Franklin's quote is essential liberty for a little security. Otherwise you could argue Franklin opposed establishing a police force or electing politicians to pass legislation, since all of those things trade liberty for security.
The right not to be monitored is not an essential liberty. Your employer does it, and no one opposes it because you're essentially using his equipment on his time, and if you misuse such equipment, he's the one who could get a lawsuit.
As it stands, not a single person has been "disappeared" because of Big Brother whisking them away for calling grandma.
However, given that several other nations have been struck by terror attacks, and the US has not since these policies were implemented, I'd say we've not exchanged essential liberty for a little security.
I mean really, some punk journalist in Iraq threw his shoes at the President, and he's still walking free today, hailed as a hero by the mental midgets who actively refuse to understand why this man would have been dead under Saddam, but isn't now. Mental midgets who continually spout insane conspiracy theories about Bush's G-Men abducting people for their dissent, despite that never happening. Ever.
Everyone still goes about their business unimpeded. Any invasion of liberty is purely theoretical. If you want to see invasions of liberty, look at what happened to gun owners in New Orleans at the hands of fine, regressive Democratic mayor Ray Nagin.
As for this guy? Criminal. Thanks for publishing details of our surveillance methods worldwide, genius.
Treason is something that should be taken seriously. In America, you've got to be fairly deliberate in order to get treason, almost anything you say or do is covered by the First Amendment. Only consorts with terrorists like Adam Gadahn or Trust Fund Commie Army dance bomb plotters like William Ayers manage to earn the label, and quite frankly they should be executed.
Care to elaborate? treason is defined as
so if i am interpreting your first quote correctly, we citizens should be allowed to aid other countries in overthrowing the american government?
actually, we already have insurrection laws in place. the supreme court has ruled countless times in favor of sedition laws ,see schenk vs us (which established the clear and present danger doctrine), gitlow vs new york. so, no, i dont think its ridiculous.
this is true, although i disagree strongly with it.
i believe that all evidence should be permissible in court.
the ends justified the means, and because of it, a criminal will face the repercussions of breaking the law. otherwise the safety of the public is compromised by allowing a criminal to roam free because of lack f evidence.
he did something illegal which was a small wrong compared to the large wrong that others were keeping quiet and he decided to speak out. there is absolutely no reason to wiretap people warrantlessly, but the entire "war on terror" is based on pretty insane premises.
deck i dont really give a shit that a whistleblower of his size didn't get outright killed and im not arguing that the government kills people but they are clearly not going to let go of this for teh rest of his life. he i mostly doomed for doing the right thing which is a problem
from the article
lol =\
i won't disagree that he overreacted and didn't think things through, but can you blame him? he's lived his life with the belief that you need to stand up for shit that is important. he did, and how we know about this stuff. i guess he could have taken a more formal route but taht might have taken forever with all the filibustering that american politics loves ^^
deck i dont really give a shit that a whistleblower of his size didn't get outright killed and im not arguing that the government kills people but they are clearly not going to let go of this for teh rest of his life. he i mostly doomed for doing the right thing which is a problem
treason is defining "going against the country you live in" as "wrong no matter what" which is stupid.
from the article
lol =\
i won't disagree that he overreacted and didn't think things through, but can you blame him? he's lived his life with the belief that you need to stand up for shit that is important. he did, and how we know about this stuff. i guess he could have taken a more formal route but taht might have taken forever with all the filibustering that american politics loves ^^
actually, treason is defined clearly in the united states, and i had it quoted in my post, although it was rather confusing, so i apologize, but its fixed now.
he sacificed the security of americans so he wouldnt feel guilty. he exposed a secret project whose intent was to protect amercian citizens from domestic and foreign threats, even when it was completely legal.
EDIT: also to go off on a tangent, there is a way to halt a filibuster attempt if one so wants. its called cloture. however, it is extremely hard to invoke for many reasons. not only does it requires 2/3 off the senate to pass, but many senators refrain from using it because they know there might be a time when they wish to use a filibuster and dont want anyone to carry grudges against them.
did you read the article? the entire process was a "objective looking" front to just bypass the warrant system. I don't really care about the intent of protecting america, how do you decide that thats more important that individual liberties (like privacy) especially when it is essentially big brother bullshit like this. it doesn't make sense to support government hypocrisy like that.
I don't feel safe in an environment where someone decides what i should know and what i shouldn't, while they get to know everything about me =\
kusaninja is correct - any time that something is defined explicitly in the Constitution, that is overridingly the law (although Supreme Court interpretation can go however it likes).
To interpret your definition to strictly Gormenghast, that would make us treasonous for breaking any federal law, which makes your definition utterly errant. Downloading music illegally is not treason, but rather it is a desiring of free music.
As to whether this is an essential liberty or not, Deck Knight, it has been ruled as such under your conservative Supreme Court, as it would certainly fall under a "zone of privacy" far more than abortion or a right to die (though this is mostly yet restricted).
My personal take is that any public surveillance in the United States may be justified (though I hate it), but any private may not be. Once you start to wiretap and peruse private e-mails, then the government has violated its people in a horrendous manner.
To interpret your definition to strictly Gormenghast, that would make us treasonous for breaking any federal law, which makes your definition utterly errant. Downloading music illegally is not treason, but rather it is a desiring of free music.
As to whether this is an essential liberty or not, Deck Knight, it has been ruled as such under your conservative Supreme Court, as it would certainly fall under a "zone of privacy" far more than abortion or a right to die (though this is mostly yet restricted).
My personal take is that any public surveillance in the United States may be justified (though I hate it), but any private may not be. Once you start to wiretap and peruse private e-mails, then the government has violated its people in a horrendous manner.
Tortured, I don't know - having the shit kicked out of him, yes;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/iraq-georgebush
Can't be bothered to dig up the previous link, but there are reports that his rib was cracked, arm broken, and the apology either falsified or kicked out of him.
Deck Knight, where the fuck did you get the idea he was 'walking free'? Do you even bother to read the news before assuming shit?
So, my personal communication belongs to the government?
That isn't really the point though, now is it?
Well, let's look at Britain. They have Biometric ID Cards, large-scale surveillance systems, protest bans, camera that shout at litter droppers, sweeping police power, and toilet cameras in schools to name a few. Yet none of this seemed to prevent the Glasgow attacks.
So, the fact that he was not killed means that Bush is a "liberator", I suppose? Nevermind that he was severely beaten for his "crime". Lesser evil does not justify evil.
So, deadly weapons are not a security threat, yet phone calls between soldiers and their spouses is?
Yes, thanks for bringing to light the egregious erosion of civil liberties.
Why should treason be taken seriously? Why the fuck should it matter? You would think that in this age of "globalization" we would be past such jingoism. I feel no allegiance toward "my" government or "my" nation, I feel allegiance toward humanity, which transcends such nationalistic idiocy.
But humanity as a whole has done a lot more terrible things than any single nation and hid behind other reasons than defense to do so...You know what John Mellencamp says? "You gota stand for something, or your gona fall for everything."
When it comes to privacy, I don't really care. We do what we must and all.
When it comes to privacy, I don't really care. We do what we must and all.
I totally missed the "Everyone still goes about their business unimpeded. Any invasion of liberty is purely theoretical. If you want to see invasions of liberty, look at what happened to gun owners in New Orleans at the hands of fine, regressive Democratic mayor Ray Nagin." part the first time.
Losing privacy is a violation of liberty. The right to have guns is more like a policy argument than an argument of liberty. The right to defend yourself versus the very real chance you shoot someone...hmmmmm! Even if the latter is still a liberty issue, to compare it to the right for the private letters and call you make to not be read by a stranger (or laughed at by groups of strangers, as I read several stories about) and treat them equally is absurd. That is not a valid comparison and frankly requires a blind devotion to gun principles to be asserted.
Losing privacy is a violation of liberty. The right to have guns is more like a policy argument than an argument of liberty. The right to defend yourself versus the very real chance you shoot someone...hmmmmm! Even if the latter is still a liberty issue, to compare it to the right for the private letters and call you make to not be read by a stranger (or laughed at by groups of strangers, as I read several stories about) and treat them equally is absurd. That is not a valid comparison and frankly requires a blind devotion to gun principles to be asserted.