[Vznvtthq]

I love the argument, that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldnt mind if the government monitors your phone calls and emails without any type of court approval. No checks and balances necessary. What great freedoms we have.

But I have an idea. As long as we are allowing bush to gut the constitution, and abolish the 4th amendment, we should let the IRS go ahead and monitor republicans financial info. Why dont we let the IRS monitor corporations? Every nickel in and out, the IRS could keep records.

The IRS could monitor their bank records, and keep detailed information on their spending. They could keep detailed info on their earnings. Basically we should tell the IRS to monitor every cent corporations and the wealthy earn and spend.

Remember republicans, if you dont have anything to hide, then what is the problem letting the IRS monitor you at every turn. If you have a problem with them monitoring you, then you must have something to hide, which is all the more reason to monitor you.

Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.

[Nurba]

Do people have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I would guess no, and therefore such monitoring is at least philosophically justifiable.

However, I haven't made up my mind on the issue, so I'm certainly open to counter-arguments.

[Super-Luser]

I love the argument, that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldnt mind if the government monitors your phone calls and emails without any type of court approval. No checks and balances necessary. What great freedoms we have.

But I have an idea. As long as we are allowing bush to gut the constitution, and abolish the 4th amendment, we should let the IRS go ahead and monitor republicans financial info. Why dont we let the IRS monitor corporations? Every nickel in and out, the IRS could keep records.

The IRS could monitor their bank records, and keep detailed information on their spending. They could keep detailed info on their earnings. Basically we should tell the IRS to monitor every cent corporations and the wealthy earn and spend.

Remember republicans, if you dont have anything to hide, then what is the problem letting the IRS monitor you at every turn. If you have a problem with them monitoring you, then you must have something to hide, which is all the more reason to monitor you.

Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.

Actually I think we should go even further. Perhaps we should let the police and FBI monitor every living American just in case they decide at some point to commit a crime. Then they can catch these Americans in the planning stage perhaps and prevent the crime from ever happening.

[GSgCGxsF]

Actually I think we should go even further. Perhaps we should let the police and FBI monitor every living American just in case they decide at some point to commit a crime. Then they can catch these Americans in the planning stage perhaps and prevent the crime from ever happening.

Sounds like the plot for the movie Minority Report.

[fedelwfget]

Actually I think we should go even further. Perhaps we should let the police and FBI monitor every living American just in case they decide at some point to commit a crime. Then they can catch these Americans in the planning stage perhaps and prevent the crime from ever happening.

YES! Brilliant!

Thank you for getting the point of my post.

[estheticianI]

Sounds like the plot for the movie Minority Report.

Nope, If I am not mistaken there they went used some kind of vodoo to see into the future to stop crimes. If we really do not care about the 4th Ammendment why not use the technology that exists today to actually spy on Americans. After all the ends justify the means right? This way we can maybe prevent some crimes before tey happen.

Seems to me though just recently on this site it was the conservatives who were decrying the fact that they felt the rest of us were trashing the constitution and its protections. I guess this is where the term situational ethics comes into play huh

[h0ldem]

Until someone finds a case that the 4th ammedment has been violated (which has not happened as of yet), then why keep bringing up the argument as though it is valid?

Weakness.

[MizzDaizzy]

Until someone finds a case that the 4th ammedment has been violated (which has not happened as of yet), then why keep bringing up the argument as though it is valid?

Weakness.

Actually there was a USSC case that essentially indicated the 4th Ammendment applied to just this kind of issue.l Look up Katz V. US. As far as the argujment you make, let us look at who has been surveiled then we can decide whether there is a case or not. However since the governmnet is keeping that secret I am forced to go by news accounts and they seem to imply US persons have been surveiled within the US, which is clearly a 4th Ammendment issue.

[paralelogram]

I'm all for fingerprinting every child at birth, putting it on file, and then implanting a monitorering chip of some kind (RFID, GPS, or whatever would work best). That way, in addition to knowing who committed the crime, we can find them quite easily.

[JNancy46]

I'm all for fingerprinting every child at birth, putting it on file, and then implanting a monitorering chip of some kind (RFID, GPS, or whatever would work best). That way, in addition to knowing who committed the crime, we can find them quite easily.

LMAO

What are we dealing with robots here?

[uMG6uOSo]

The IRS already infringes our 4th amendment rights more than any other federal agency.

[DoctorTDent]

LMAO

What are we dealing with robots here?

Sometimes I think we might as well be.

[berdyanskdotsu]

I don't know why Americans aren't more pissed off with their gov't about how intrusive it has become in your lives. The guy who was planning to blow up the Israeli airline site at LAX in 2000 was suspected, then he was followed, and the RCMP and the FBI caught him red-handed at the border. That was done within the law, and catching the 9/11 guys could've been done within the law too. I just can't accept the argument that, "Aw shucks, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't have anything to worry about". That is such a weak argument, and if Liberals in the USA were wanting that and they were in power, can you imagine what Republicans would say about it? They would call the party in power red-commie-fascist pigs, which is exactly what the cretins in this gov't are proving to everyone. And if you still agree with the president on this one, then you've clearly abandoned the principles in your flag in favor of a man.

[Cerilopasei]

Well, as long as we're getting rid of the 4th, and as long as the 1st is sometimes ignored (a recent example: the T-shirts at the State of the Union), who's to say that the 2nd won't bite the dust? And therein lies the real danger - if people say that can live with less liberty and fewer Constitutional protections, where does it end?? Who gets to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are still valid, and what parts no longer apply?

[BEKREUNSEPBERw]

I don't know why Americans aren't more pissed off with their gov't about how intrusive it has become in your lives. The guy who was planning to blow up the Israeli airline site at LAX in 2000 was suspected, then he was followed, and the RCMP and the FBI caught him red-handed at the border. That was done within the law, and catching the 9/11 guys could've been done within the law too. I just can't accept the argument that, "Aw shucks, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't have anything to worry about". That is such a weak argument, and if Liberals in the USA were wanting that and they were in power, can you imagine what Republicans would say about it? They would call the party in power red-commie-fascist pigs, which is exactly what the cretins in this gov't are proving to everyone. And if you still agree with the president on this one, then you've clearly abandoned the principles in your flag in favor of a man.

Excellent point! That's the truth of the matter. And it shows that the rationale provided the public for the Patriot act is BS.

What's the difference between the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act? Damn little, as far as I can see, which shows how little we've learned. If we were serious about preventing the sort of atrocities committed by the Nazis then the hairs on the back of our necks would stand up at the mere hint of something like the Patriot Act. Instead, we act like sheep, for the most part.

[eocavrWM]

I don't know why Americans aren't more pissed off with their gov't about how intrusive it has become in your lives. The guy who was planning to blow up the Israeli airline site at LAX in 2000 was suspected, then he was followed, and the RCMP and the FBI caught him red-handed at the border. That was done within the law, and catching the 9/11 guys could've been done within the law too. I just can't accept the argument that, "Aw shucks, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't have anything to worry about". That is such a weak argument, and if Liberals in the USA were wanting that and they were in power, can you imagine what Republicans would say about it? They would call the party in power red-commie-fascist pigs, which is exactly what the cretins in this gov't are proving to everyone. And if you still agree with the president on this one, then you've clearly abandoned the principles in your flag in favor of a man.

Actually, the Clinton admin did the same thing the Bush admin has done but to a lesser extent.

Don't let the partisan bickering that takes place in Congress fool you. Behind the scenes, the leadership of both parties is in lockstep on these sorts of issues. Sure, plenty of disagreement re tactics, but not re the objectives.

[bestbyV]

If I pass through the USA on the way to, for example, Canada, they'll take my fingerprints. Since I'm not a terrorist, they're not going to find my prints on their database, but the idea still makes me uncomfortable... do they keep a record of my fingerprints in case someone tries to steal my identity (or my fingers for that matter) and thus sneak into the country? Do they delete the data?

Anyway, how is this relevant to the topic, you ask... well... does the US constitution apply only to citizens of the USA? "All men are created equal"... not "all Americans are created equal". I am assuming that it only applies within the borders of America (and places they've conquered, like Guantanamo Bay and Hawai'i... oh wait, not G. bay? Huh? How odd...). In short... if I'm in the USA as a tourist or on business or whatever, am I covered by these constitutional freedoms y'all love to talk about?

[SDorothy28]

Hmm, based on recent events I would have to say yes and no. OK OK I know I am just confusing you more. In the past I would have said yes unequivacably. In todays environment I would say if you do nothing wrong absolutely you are covered , however if you are a bad guy intent on committing a crime, absolutely not. Confused now? Well take a number and join the crowd, cause so are we, and we live here.

[Nubtoubrem]

I love the argument, that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldnt mind if the government monitors your phone calls and emails without any type of court approval. No checks and balances necessary. What great freedoms we have.

But I have an idea. As long as we are allowing bush to gut the constitution, and abolish the 4th amendment, we should let the IRS go ahead and monitor republicans financial info. Why dont we let the IRS monitor corporations? Every nickel in and out, the IRS could keep records.

The IRS could monitor their bank records, and keep detailed information on their spending. They could keep detailed info on their earnings. Basically we should tell the IRS to monitor every cent corporations and the wealthy earn and spend.

Remember republicans, if you dont have anything to hide, then what is the problem letting the IRS monitor you at every turn. If you have a problem with them monitoring you, then you must have something to hide, which is all the more reason to monitor you.

Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.

Perhaps if you were to post some facts, we could discuss this rationally. First, you dont know anything about the NSA program. Second, there has been no legal challenge to the program. Third, there has been detailed legal explanations of the program from the CRS and the Attorney General, which includes court rulings in the Presidents favor, and congressional oversight. Given all that you have no factual basis your your explanation that anything wrong is being done. Rather you are attempting to prohibit the President from protecting the country in a way that he deems neccesary, all for the sake of partisanship.

[jelena-nanana]

Perhaps if you were to post some facts, we could discuss this rationally. First, you dont know anything about the NSA program. Second, there has been no legal challenge to the program. Third, there has been detailed legal explanations of the program from the CRS and the Attorney General, which includes court rulings in the Presidents favor, and congressional oversight. Given all that you have no factual basis your your explanation that anything wrong is being done. Rather you are attempting to prohibit the President from protecting the country in a way that he deems neccesary, all for the sake of partisanship.

Frankly it is you that is taking a partisan road here. Your right there is no concrete proof and how could there be since all the President feels he has to do is wrap himself in the flag assert that national security prevents him from disussing anything pertaining to the issue, expect what he feels will defend his position in a round about way, and then shut down the topic by claiming if you pursue it yu are harmning the nation. What this really boils down to is you choose to believe and trust Bush. I frankly after the past couple of years do not trust him. You, since you do trust him, do not feel any further information is necessary. I since I do not trust him feel it is up to Congress to assert their oversight responsibilities and take action to find out if there has been a violation of the law. THe point here is we are both basing what we feel should be done on relatively uniformed opinion on the matter since it has been so secretive. You do not know he has not violated the law, and I do not know he has. THe difference is I want to find out and I get the feeling you don't.