As usual the liberal argument …

Just make your point and let the reader decide who is right.

I am not arguing to give away my freedom. … I also have nothing to hide.

You seem willing to give up freedom from warrantless search. If you do have something to hide (say, an affair with an intern), you have the right to keep it hidden. The government cannot tap your phone without a warrant.

True conservatives are much more concerned about our individual rights and protecting the “non-living” constitution than liberals who talk big but are more concerned about the “living” constitution and the criminal’s civil rights.

Another constitutional principle: being accused of a crime does not make you a criminal. That’s determined by a trial. Al Capone had rights, just like George Bush has.

I suppose you would also argue to give the Guantanamo “war prisoners” a lawyer. Would we have given the German and Japanese prisoners the same?

Japanese and German prisoners in WWII got more rights than our “detainees” at Guantanamo because we honored the Geneva Conventions. Our detainees are supposed to be “illegal combatants”, which implies that they committed crimes. If that’s what you think, you should use the legal process, and, yes, lawyers. The honor of our country is at stake.

”The government exists to protect our individual rights.”

No, it doesn’t.

Quoth Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

re: #42:

Mark, they are trying to record the balistics on guns and register them on a state/national database now. And, as far as financial transactions go, if you bank $10K or more, at once, the IRS must be notified. A little “snip” here, a little “snip” there.

Shh! Don’t disturb my trap! I’m waiting for someone to say “That’s ridiculous! The American people would never stand for such governmental trespasses on their freedom!” and then I’d have my “Aha! But they have!” moment.

No, it doesn’t. It exists first and foremost to ensure the continuing existence and functioning of the Republic. Should it fail in that, all discussion and concern regarding individual rights become moot – or cause for beheading.

As someone said, “The first responsibility of any nation is to win its wars.” (or something very similar), which seems to me to be a fundamental self-evident truth. First things first, Pookie.

I have yet to hear any cogent explanation of how the telecoms “broke the law”. They obviously believed they were acting within the law at the time.

They intercepted communications without a warrant and provided them to the government. That is illegal. Hence they broke the law. The evidence of this has been leaked, and AT&T verified the leaked documents.

If they acted in good faith, they already have immunity under FISA. Consider the implications of that carefully. If they already have immunity for actions performed in good faith, why do they need additional immunity? Well, because their actions were not performed in good faith. The “good faith” argument is false because such immunity already exists. The existing immunity being sought is specifically for telecoms who knowingly violated the law. They tried that “good faith” argument in the EFF/AT&T case and the judge rejected their argument. It is unreasonable that a telecom company of that size would be ignorant about the law as it pertains to providing the government wiretaps or access to their call records.

What is wrong with using technology to our advantage to protect American citizens from those who would do us harm?

If it doesn’t violate our Constitutionally-protected God-given rights as human beings — nothing. If it does — everything. The government exists to protect our individual rights. It cannot violate one in order to secure another. They are the ones charged with protecting our rights. What is our recourse if they become the agents of the violation of our rights?

I am not concerned about the feds listening to my phone conversation as I have not been talking to an Al Qaeda suspect most importantly and I also have nothing to hide(do you?).

I sure do! Everybody has something to hide. I haven’t found your bathroom webcam feed, so I’m guessing you agree. Perhaps you’d like to explain further why we should abolish the Fourth Amendment and give the government free and unchecked reign over our communications. Hey — maybe we should have a national database of guns while we’re at it! That way the government can keep criminals from having guns! Or, we could set up a system where the government is notified of every financial transaction we make. That way the government can catch criminals by monitoring for unauthorized trading! And those silly conservatives thought big government was a bad thing. Look at all the good that can come from letting the government monitor the minutiae of our lives!

The feds looking at a generic database and flagging only those calls to known Al Qaeda suspects and then listening to ONLY those calls

Um, no. Read up on Hepting vs. AT&T. Wholesale duplication of all of their Internet and VOIP traffic.

The feds looking at a generic database and flagging only those calls to known Al Qaeda suspects and then listening to ONLY those calls is NOT IMO an infringement on my rights. At the point they DO listen to my conversations, I have already talked to “the suspect”. I then have put “myself” into a dangerous situation. If you went to a store with one of your buddies and he went inside and robbed the place….At that point, you are an accomplice whether you knew or not. It may seem unfair but it would foolish for the “feds” to immediately accept your innocence. It’s just common sense.

On January 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm, Wile E Coyote said:
I hate the argument that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t worry if the government is watching you.

And I hate the argument that no matter what the government says it is trying to do, it really only wants to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens.