Do you think the federal government is overstepping its bounds in matters concerning personal freedoms for it citizen? With the knowledge that the executive branch alone considers itself to have the right to decide to eavesdrop on phone conversations without a warrant so the judical branch can monitor the situation. What is the concensus about how far we are prepared to ignore civil rights in order to feel more secure?
124759
No offence, but your government is the pinnacle of ignorance and instead of crossing the line they have blown it up with a bomb. America cant police the world and it will eventually prove to be your downfall in terms of superpower status.
236242
I don't think there's any doubt that our calls are being tracked.  It shocks me that people don't seem to care.  The logic seems to be, "well, I don't do anything wrong and I'm not a terrorist and I don't want to be blown up by terrorists and I don't have anything to say anyway, so let 'em listen."  \nWhat I don't think people realize is how easy it is to take selective records and conversations and make it appear that a person is guilty of any accusation thrown at them. None of the post-9/11 legislation includes anything like a well-sculpted definition of what behaviors, actions, or beliefs constitute a "terrorist." In the wrong hands, it could be used much as the "witch" accusation was used three hundred years ago.  And listen, kiddies, thanks to the Patriot Act, if the government decides to label you a terrorist, they can send you to an undisclosed location without legal counsel for an indefinite period of time.  THAT's why you should be concerned. (Remember Bush fans--he's only going to be in office for a couple more years, but these laws don't leave with him.  Even if you trust Bush--and lord knows why you would--are you sure that you can trust the next guy? (Or gal? Could be that Hillary Clinton will end up with these massive dictatorial powers next.)  By casting such a big net in its search for terrorists, the government is effectively assuming that we're all guilty--it's a lazy man's game and there's no proof that it will be any more effective than good intelligence work.
94264
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
267637
If government agencies such as the NSA are allowed to overhear or read private phone conversations or e-mails or otherwise scrutinize private communications of people who live in this country — whether citizens or non-citizens — *without* the scrutiny and oversight of judges, who are in the last instance answerable to the law and to the public, they are creating a domain within the state that is exempt from the sovereignty of the people. This undermines democracy (however fake of a democracy it is anyway) and creates a state within the statue — usually thought to be a distinguishing feature of dictatorships, in which secret services, torturers, etc. are also neither answerable to the law nor to the people.
16696
Who's policing the POLICE? The founders knew what they were doing when they set up the balance of power branches of government. Bush IS the executive branch which "enforces the laws" The law (fourth amendment) doesn't allow for "illegal search and seizure" Just another attempt to scare us into taking away our human (and constitutional)rights. Bush cannot say it's the law because I SAY SO!    "Those that give up liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither"!!!---Benjamin Franklin
50901
The U S went through a right wing coup in 2000 with a stolen election and a partisan appointment via the Supreme Court.\nAt this time our government is headed towards becoming a fascist police state - No habeus corpus, privacy or right to a fair trial - if the administration chooses it can have people secretly tortured.  Feels like Germany, 1933.
50226
Ben Franklin said that "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."  \n\nI'm not sure if we will end up learning this the hard way, but we are becoming the USSA.  Wiretaps are part of a larger arsenal of tactics they are using to silence dissent.  It is likely that more sinister black ops programs exist that are tracking every one of us to some extent.  Think about every credit card purchase, every rewards card, every post on Yahoo Answers, every search engine search result, every survey, and every Amazon purchase or wish list being compiled and analyzed for keywords and other algorithm triggering events.  It is absolutely possible, and I would bet that it is happening now whether legal or not.  I believe it is completely antithetical to the definition of a "free" society, and I again believe it is to ultimately be used for more sinister purposes.
431089
What a brilliant topic!  You coulld write heaps on this.  Three items I'd be prepared to give up? Let's see, I object to too much government interference in my life, but acknowledge the need for a central organising power.  So, perhaps look at what changes have happened, especially since 9/11, to personal freedoms. And what people have seemed to accept, more or less willingly, in order to ensure safety.  It's much easier to list three items you WOULDN"T give up.  I wouldn't give up right to free speech, for example.  It's too important.
178220
First of all it is unconstitutional to make status a crime, that is someone cannot be lawfully detained unless there is proper cause or there is presidential authority under times of war. Only lately have decisions come down in Supreme Court which give basic rights to those detained in the US base in Cuba (Guantanomo Bay). \n\nThe problem with racial profiling is that it can lead to unconstiutional arrests and basic harrassment of minority groups simply based on skin color. This gives too many people, even those who are not racist and have good intentions, too broad of a license to police. \n\nThe question is: Once we start eliminating the constitutional rights of some, how long before our own rights are eliminated for what we think is a valid reason at the time. The whole point of the constitution and bill of rights is that those rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or given away no matter what we think. Our founding fathers realized there will always be times when it seems our rights should take second to our needs, however, they also realize that certain rights are never worth compromising. Racial profiling leads us down that same wrong path of compromise.\n\nIt does not legally exists, but is still a policy used by certain police departments in urban areas and is used grossly by the FBI.\n\nThat is the jist of the controversy.
301508
I think that it is all blown out of proportion. Like you said, it's not that big of a deal. The government has access to a lot more than what you said to your mom on mother's day when you called her. What you tell your neighbor Sue is not enough to get you worried. If you are breaking the law, and telling other people you did over the phone, then you deserve to be caught. Otherwise, like you said, you have nothing to hide.
24995
You have a very good point and for all i know you could be the very person you are talking about. If i was the NSA i think i would be asking that very same question. They probably are reading this. But  I think we have the right to our own opinion and i dont think my opinion about the goverments going to change anytime soon. I would tell them too that they could be doing better things with there money, than spying on me or you.
596567
How sad when people use terms they have absolutely no idea about.\n\nAirport security is not 'ludicrous', hell, it is barely even adequate.\n\nOnly phone calls with foreign numbers identified or suspected of being terrorist are listened to. Others get warrants for wiretapping. \n\nThe 1st amendment does not include publishing national security secrets.\n\nBut let me tell you about statism.\nThe government has been savaging the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the past century. And I'm talking real abuses, not these imaginary ones you listed.
581118
So far, the reason most people tolerate things is either fanaticism or apathy.\n\nA significant percentage of the population (some 20%-30%) feel that the government can do no wrong, and that it is entitled to break laws whenever it feels like it. It's a pure ends-justify-the-means argument. This includes at least two Supreme Court Justices who don't seem to have a problem with the Executive branch ignoring Supreme Court rulings and setting up private tribunals that are not subject to judicial review. \n\nA large chunk of the remaining population simply doesn't get involved, because they think these issues don't concern them. Because their day-to-day lives are not being adversely affected, they don't think what's happening is relevant.\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I had no worries about convicted purely based on what other people might do. Again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Processs, (and wasn't allowed an attorney) so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 5th Amendment, and ......  I no longer had the right to remain silent.
475518
It should be banned. It amounts to intrusion into the personal freedom. An American citizen could file a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court urging it to protect his Fundamental Right of Freedom to think and decide under the Bill of Rights provisions of the American Constitution.
602723
No, it already is a fascist governemnt, look at how out of touch the government is with the will of the people. We have illegal immigrants poised to get total amnesty. We have a supreme court that rules that local government can sieze your private property without giving just compensation as long as there is a money benefit in it for the local government. And our congress has passed the patriot act in direct violation of the 4th amendment (sneak and peak warrants with no judicail oversight, just a rubber stamp FISA court that must be notified 72 hours-3 months after the search was conducted).
316487
turboweegie: Can you cite case-law for your claim that the Courts have allowed the Executive to ignore federal law (FISA) whenever he feels like it?\n\nLast I checked, the Supreme Court has said that just being President doesn't give him a "blank check" to ignore the rules. See Handam v. Rumsfeld.\n\nWe have a Commander-in-Sheik who has publicly admitted to ignoring not only federal law, but the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, and supports violations of Articles I, III, IV and VI of the Constitution. \n\nWhy do people keep supporting Bush? Some combination of apathy and not being willing to change Horseman in mid-Apocalypse.
512527
Because it is the only slim thread that holds them some rights.\n\nIt is of course as everyone knows based on no real constitutional grounds, since it has no real relatonship to right to privacy, which is what it is based on.\n\nit was passed because of political pressure, not good legal grounds,  If actually reviewed by legal standard it would never hold up again.