Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.

1/27/06

Americans Giving Up Their Freedom For Security

In a recent poll, Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

The 4th Ammendment and the laws that deal with terrorist threats require that these wiretaps can only be done with probable cause and with a warrant, making them illegal, and placing Bush in violation of his oath of office. He swore to uphold the Constitution of the US, as every President does before taking office.

wiretaps

This is how it all starts. First a leader claims you are in peril. Then he claims you must give up some of your freedom and rights in order for him to protect you. Soon, he extends that a little further, then a little more. Then you find you have given up more than you ever intended and handed over too much power to the government.

According to the poll, 64 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place by Mr. Bush since the attacks of Sept. 11. And respondents were more likely to be concerned that the government would enact strong antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict civil liberties than they were that the government would fail to enact antiterrorism laws.

I'm more concerned that 36% of Americans are NOT concerned about losing their civil liberties. These are American Citizens who do not know the meaning of being an American Citizen.


One example cited by the NY Times, Donnis Wells, 69, a Republican from Florence, Miss., said: "I don't think civil liberties are the more important thing we need to handle right now. I think we need to protect our people."

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." --Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have." --Harry Emerson Fosdick

"I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery." --Author Unknown

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." --Theodore Roosevelt

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." --Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." --Dwight D. Eisenhower


By Chris McElroy
More things that just piss me off

8 Comments:

Blogger Orion Blastar said...

No laws are broken, under FISA the NSA can do warrantless searches if it is proven that a foreign group is trying to communicate with people in the USA. Ronald Regan passed an executive order in 1981 that allowed this and amended the Constitution to make exceptions in these sorts of cases.

It should be noted that not everyone in the USA is being wiretapped, only those who got phone calls from known al-Qaida international phone numbers. These are the only ones whose rights may have been violated. Yet ask yourself, why are they getting calls from known al-Qaida phone numbers? Doesn't common sense say that they could be sleeper agents? I am sure they are not swapping food recipies or talking about world peace.

BTW Ben Franklin never had to deal with WMDs, airliners flying into skyscrapers, suicide bombers, people blowing up bridges, journalists being beheaded, websites full of hateful messages that incite violence, and terrorist sleeper agents who snuck into the country to carry out more of these things later on.

The only people giving up their freedoms are those who are getting phone calls from al-Qaida. These are the only people who should be complaining. If you are not getting phone calls from al-Qaida, then you are not being wiretapped. Saying that every US citizen is being wiretapped is false, and is only a smear tactic. When you speak out against this sort of thing, you are really protecting the suspected terrorists so they potentionally can stay hidden and carry out attacks in the future if they are real terrorists. Is that really what you want?

If you really want Bush out of office that bad, come up with alternative ways of fighting terrorists that do not involved warrantless wiretapping, or invading other nations, or passing Patroit Acts. Then have a canidate use those things and run against the Republicans in 2008 and come up with solutions for fixing Healthcare, the economy, oil prices, social security, and balacning the budget. The more negative attacks you make against Bush, the more support Bush gets from moderates and other political types who are tired of hearing negative attacks in politics. Think again!

1:55 PM  
Blogger kidsearch said...

And I still say you miss the point entirely. The fact is even GW BUSH says he could have gotten a warrant. Then why didn't he do it?

You say special circumstances make it so we have to suspend principles the constitution is based on. I disagree. I believe that the constitution and bill of rights are more important and that a little temporary security does not warrant me giving up any of my rights as a US citizen.

Bush cannot stop terrorist attacks. Isreal has been at it for more years with much of the same technology and a better Intelligence Agency than ours and they can't stop it.

I believe bush has other agendas besides the war on terrorism for his actions. You believe different. Thats ok.

And as far as wanting bush out of office, that is inevitable fortunately.

You mention finding a candidate that can do several things better than bush has.

Nothing could be easier than finding someone who handles healthcare better. The medicare drug program had hidden costs and as you can see hasn't worked out very well and there is still a lot of people without healthcare just like when he took office. no change there.

As far as economy, easy there too. Job creation still slow compared to his projections. Companies still outsourcing jobs at a higher rates than ever. Nothing has been done about NAFTA which I believe cost us jobs. He didn't create it and not saying he did. He just keeps it status quo.

Social Security? Turn it over to Wallstreet? You're kidding right? Even if that were a solution, he can't get it passed, and thats bad for a prez who has never even vetoed one bill.

Balancing the budget was saved for last because it's the funniest thing you said in your post. Bush started with a surplus and put us farther into debt than ANY previous president in the history of the United States.

He increased the size of government not decreased it. You as a republican should be the one pointing that out as a bad thing.

He increased spending, even when you take out all the costs of the war on terror and the war on Iraq, which are still two seperate things no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

I thought republicans were for smaller government and lower spending. You sure bush is one of you?

More things that just piss me off

5:47 PM  
Blogger Orion Blastar said...

Terrorist suspects are buying pre-paid cell phones in the hundreds and then switching them really fast. So when a warrant comes out to wiretap them, they have switched to a different number and the NSA won't get anything. If you bothered to do some research you would have known that. So tell me, how do you wiretap someone who changes their phone number every 24 hours or so?

In spending habits Bush is a liberal, and Clinton was a conservative. That much is true. That is one issue I have with Bush is his out of control spending. Some others are the loss of jobs, bad global trading contracts, fixing healthcare, and the socual security solution needs fixing. Yet all of this is a distraction away from the issue this thread was based on.

Don't mistake me for some brainwashed NEOCON, I think for myself, thank you.

You haven't proven Bush's other agendas and you have not proven anything that Bush can be impeached for yet. I'd read your words, but while filled with hate and bile I can sense that they are emotional and that you have not done any cognative thinking. Just disagreeing with the way someone runs a country is no reason to impeach them. Come up with proof and evidence on Bush, and then maybe we can talk. So far you have not proven one single thing.

I agree that the bill of rights and constitution are important, more important than our security. Yet I claim that we are not secure. That the NSA did nothing more than use probable cause, which is part of the Constitution to do a warrantless search. The same search a Police Officer can do on pulling someone over for violating traffic law and then do a search of the automobile under probable cause because signs show the driver may be under the infulence of some drug or alcohol, or might be reaching for a weapon. The phone calls coming in from al-Qaida phone numbers is about the same thing as wreckless driving or DUI as far as I can see.

Why do you support terrorist suspects, yet you say nothing about those who also had warrantless searches conducted on them by the Police?

7:32 PM  
Blogger kidsearch said...

Orion said "Terrorist suspects are buying pre-paid cell phones in the hundreds and then switching them really fast. So when a warrant comes out to wiretap them, they have switched to a different number and the NSA won't get anything."

Wrong. Think about that statement again. If they bought them, used them once and threw them away, then the NSA still would not have had time to tap the phone warrant or otherwise. Unless of course you think an NSA guy sold them the phone.

Again, Bush's own words. "I could have obtained a warrant, but I don't see the need to do so."

Cheney told republicans this when talking about the issue. "We cannot let constitutional issues get in the way of going after these terrorists."

That is a troubling point of view for a VP to have.

Orion questions me fairly here "You haven't proven Bush's other agendas and you have not proven anything that Bush can be impeached for yet."

I'm going to answer with a question. IF Bush is found to have broken the law on the wiretap issue or on other issues, will you still exhonerate him and excuse it by saying he broke the law "for the right reasons".?

Orion says "I can sense that they are emotional and that you have not done any cognative thinking."

I have obviously done much thinking anbd research if you have truly read my posts. There are many things I could include here on this blog about GW Bush and his family that there is evidence for, but do not because of it's inflammatory nature and the fact that it only goes to background and not directly connected to current events.

Orion said " Just disagreeing with the way someone runs a country is no reason to impeach them."

Breaking the law is. Not upholding the constitution that he took an oath to uphold is. That being said,Bush will not be impeached most likely.

Orion makes an interesting point "That the NSA did nothing more than use probable cause, which is part of the Constitution to do a warrantless search."

That would require some legal research and opinion, that I am not qualified to provide. That is an analogy I hadn't heard yet. Maybe you should email it to bush's speechwriters since they can't seem to explain it as well as you just did.

Orion steps over the line with me here, "Why do you support terrorist suspects,"

Point to a post where I support terrorism or terrorists Orion. If you cannot, I request you retract that part of your statement.

Chris McElroy
Most Wanted Blog

8:09 PM  
Blogger Orion Blastar said...

I apologize for those remarks that said you support terrorist suspects and retract them.

I have read your blog, and I have not found the evidence you stated was in it.

To answer your question, if it can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt that George W. Bush has broken the law and is to be impeached I will except that and not exhonerate them. Neither you nor I are qualified to hold an impeachment trial for him. I only ask that it be fair, and Bush be found innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as our Constitution allows.

Yet you already have said that in there was an impeachment trial that he would not be found guilty. Is this because you know that most of the things Bush is accused of, there is no solid evidence or proof for? That such a case against him is just a song and dance with smoke and mirrors, much like you have done here?

Probable cause searches and wiretapes without a warrant are used every day by FBI and Police Officers, and it does not violate the Constitution. Why don't you complain about those? They have been going on for decades now. Why is it you only seem to be worried about probable cause wiretaps on terrorist suspects? I know you do not support them. Yet why should they get the protection that the average criminal does not? If you are against probable cause warrantless wiretapes and searches of terrorist suspects, shouldn't you also be against probable cause warrantless searches and wiretaps of the average criminal?

I have a hunch that when the terrorists do attack again, that we will all be too busy arguing polictics and the way the Constutition should be interprited, causing us to be divided when we should have been united. We are not the enemy here, the terrorists are the true enemy. Yet we fight ourselves more often and harder than we fight the terrorists. Can we all get along, and devise a new way to beat terrorists that both parties can agree on, or will gridlock cause weaknesses in our nation, leaving us vulnerable to an invasion or more terrorist attacks?

10:53 PM  
Blogger kidsearch said...

Thank you for the apology Orion. As you said sometimes we get emotional about a topic and words fly.

I'm sorry you find some of my posts inflammatory, but if it makes people think about the issues and post their opinion agreeing or disagreeing then I have done my job well.

As far as arguing about topics, that is part of what makes this country great, not something to be thought of as a bad thing in my honest opinion.

In those countries where everyone is supposed to agree and not speak out against their government, like turkey for example, are not as united as america is although we are allowed to speak out.

We should not give up the things that make this country great just because we got attacked or might again be attacked.

I still believe that we should not alter the way we live to give the terrorists anything to cheer about.

I don't think we should have built a memorial at ground zero. The terrorists view the memorial as a symbol of their victory.

I think we should have rebuilt the towers just as the were before and maybe taller.

That would show them that we can take a punch and not have it affect us for long.

Chris McElroy
http://www.missingchildrenblog.com

11:03 PM  
Blogger Orion Blastar said...

Thank you and I am sorry for my emotional outbursts.

Still reading the Constitution that Ben Franklin and other founding fathers agreed upon:

Article I, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I'd say that terrorists invading the USA to endanger the public safety may require that the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended in these cases. Which is the thing that deals with warrants and other things.

It is all a matter of interpritation, really. If Bush invokes Article 1, Section 9, then it is Constitutional.

12:03 PM  
Blogger kidsearch said...

Hmmm, if that is such a good argument for the legality of the wiretaps, then why hasn't the bush administration used it?

They cite the war powers act and executive privilege.

Maybe they should hire you. Then of course, you aren't qualified to work for GW.

1. You haven't done him any favors, so he doesn't owe you one.

2. You actually might be qualified.

Chris McElroy
http://www.wholettheblogout.com

3:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger