Decius wrote: ibenez wrote:
You guys must all be criminals - because I see no problem with this.
Why should criminals be the only people concerned about Constituional rights? Why have a Constitution at all if it only applies to criminals? What is the point of having a "free country" if freedom is only something that one enjoys when one breaks the law and isn't caught? I see multiple concerns here: 1. The FBI and DHS are doing just fine on this front. Any technology projects these people wish to pursue can be pursued in that context. There is no evidence of need. 2. Domestic spying requires 4th Amendment proceedures, which the Pentagon is not designed to handle and will not handle well. 3. The purpose of the Military is to protect the citizens from external threats, not to protect the government from it's citizens or to protect the citizens from eachother. We handle those different situations in different ways because we have a system of limited government which respects the rights of citizens. When you blur the lines between these different situations by taking organizations which are not designed to respect people's rights and having them deal directly with citizens on the government's behalf, you are essentially concluding that you will not respect citizen's rights anymore. If you don't respect citizen's rights, you're not a "free country." 4. The arguement that only criminals need bother with rights is a invitation to a police state, in which everyone is always suspect and everyone is always looking over his shoulder. This was the lesson of East Germany... that an omnipresent surveillance creates a culture of fear and suspicion.
Ok, on point 3... If people are working as part of an international terrorist organization, it's an international threat.. even if they are American born. So your point 3 isn't valid in this context. I don't care if Jose Padilla was born in the US, if the f@#$ker is working as part of an Al Queda plot, anything is game - spy on him, torture him, FUCK DUDE I'LL TORTURE HIM. In addition - a free country is worthless if you are dead. Therefore, protection SUPERCEDES freedom temporarily. If you disagree with this perhaps we could try an experiment. I have several hanguns I can point in your face, and then let you choose a temporary restriction in freedom, or a bullet in your head. Which would you choose? On your point #4 - Uhm, this isn't Germany. A police state will not happen, unless of course a terrorist detonates a nuclear bomb on MY soil. And in that case, the constitution goes out the window. So if you guys are so concerned about the constitution, why aren't you concerned about it being suspended? This is the DECLARED AND MANDATORY action the US Military will take upon nuclear or biological attack. RE: Pentagon Expands Domestic Surveillance | 
