The US Constitution - A Suicide Pact?

The discussion was from a chat room. That's about has private has having a conversation in a store.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 5 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]473508[/snapback]</div>

Solution. Inter all muslim doctors. Start with your colleague. I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.

 

Maybe they're listening here.

And now we've told them about the secret drawer!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 5 2007, 12:46 PM) [snapback]473576[/snapback]</div>

I guess first off, I am sorry to hear that you live in fear. ( the Current Admin) counts on it.

Now a Internet chat line is open to all and any, so there is NO way you can compare that to un-warranted tapped house phone calls or cell phone calls.
I for 1 like my constitutional rights, and do not wish to lose them. Sorry.

I know lets have the Governement install surveillance cameras in all the bathrooms and all dressing rooms at your local stores/restaurants & where ever they want to watch and listen.
You Know Big Brother is watching you right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jul 5 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]473673[/snapback]</div>

I live in the country where there are poisonous snakes. My neighbor found a rattlesnake by his steps. I saw a copperhead here last week. I know the snakes are out there. I know they will bite. I am careful. Does this mean I am living in fear?

Or, should I pretend that there are no snakes, because being cautious means I think about what I'm doing when I'm outdoors, and that detracts from my quality of life?

As for my constitutional rights, one of my main rights is not to be blown up along with a bunch of other civilians. If that means somebody needs to be watching out for the snakes in our midst, they can use whatever means they have to.

I am far more likely to be damaged by a bomb than somebody listening to one of my boring phone calls.

 

public venuesnlike a publically available chat room is one thing - itsnappropriate for the government to monitor these places. However, anyplace where privacy can reasonably be expected the government shouldn't be involved in. This would include private phone calls and e-mails.

 

Or maybe it's possible that we, the people, upon discovering such ill discussions as the one discovered there, have the responsibility to ourselves and our countrymen to rise up, take a stand, and report these things.

Honestly, if I found out anything like this was being discussed on any forum I visit, I'd go notify the NCIS agent on base to such things and they'd handle it from there. The same goes for my wife.

Tell me, if you came across something like that in a forum or chat room, would you sit idly by and ignore it?

I think not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 5 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]473677[/snapback]</div>

I think if you look around Washington you will find snakes also

I think you missed the point , I have nothing to hide in my conversations either, but it's a Private call

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Jul 5 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]473767[/snapback]</div>

If I didn't think they were joking or just your basic kook, I would attempt to report it.

Reporting things is not always easy. I have a friend who came upon a man who had just shot himself in the head in the parking lot of the Atlanta police HQ. My friend ran inside and told the receptionist to call an ambulance. She wouldn't do it. She made him use the lobby pay phone to call 911! (The 911 office was in the same building.) The man was dead before help arrived (they may not have been able to save him anyway.)

I received some child porn in an e-mail. I was outraged. I called the local FBI office. She told me to go to some non-governmental web site and record the information about the source of the e-mail. I didn't know how to find this information in the e-mail, so I asked her if I could e-mail the offending e-mail to her and she would then have all the info. she needed. She said no. That if I e-mailed it to her, that would be illegal because I was using the Internet to send child pornography!

For those of you worried about your privacy and constitutional rights, I think you should be far more worried about the competence of some folks in charge of our safety. And all the stupid rules and regulations that keep them from doing what the rest of us would regard as common sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jul 6 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]473918[/snapback]</div>

If you're not up to something, what do you care? (And I never thought you were up to something.)

I would rather not be monitored, either. It's a waste of resources. But if they accidentally listen to someone who is not up to something, that is acceptable to me if it allows them to cast a wide enough net to find the folks who ARE up to something....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 5 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]473508[/snapback]</div>

I imagine having an administration that obeys the constitution and the laws and obtains search warrants from judges before intercepting electronic communications. That is the reason that the FISA court was established.

 

I think its interesting that we argue about giving non-citizen terrorists rights that didn't exist a generation ago. Rights that not even the American soldiers returning from vanquishing Hitler's Germany enjoyed. Many of them that our older brothers, returning from Korea, didn't enjoy.

Rights that have never existed for any enemy in wartime, ever. Rights that don't exist in Great Britain, France, Germany or anywhere else.

But rights we insist be granted to people sworn to kill us, even if it means killing themselves.

Osama is right ... we are weak, and we are soft, and we will walk away from any fight. I wonder if Pastor Martin Niemoller would say today about us and our reluctance to face great evil in the world what he said about another destabilizing force in another time. Will there be anyone left who will resist? Or will we insist on granting new rights to those that wish to abolish all rights?

Five years of effective anti-terrorism efforts have come to an end, but will the Democrats, including Harry "Hold a Hearing" Reid and Nancy "Grandma" Pelosi accept the blame for the coming attacks as quickly as they accepted the praise from the nut-roots for vanquishing the Patriot Act?

As we're watching our children blown up at the library, at least we'll be able to say President Bush doesn't know that we checked out Fanny Hill last weekend! As they behead our children in the classroom they have occupied, one by one, at least we'll know there was no camera on Main Street.

Is Neimoller right? Will there be no one to object when we slide into Sharia Law?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]476043[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me? Bush and company dropped the ball on 9/11. Put down the crack pipe DOH-berman.

 

Lets see... who should be held responsible for a terrorist attack... lets try the terrorists. Bush wasn't responsible for the attack, or for failing to defend against it (although he was given prior warning by other countries intelligence services). Understand that it's decently easy to protect a single piece of property like a house. More difficult to protect a city block when you have 100+ people living there, inviting strangers in all the time, etc. More difficult still to protect a city, or a state, or a nation. If you want guaranteed protection, the only thing that will give that to you is a full military state, where you have no rights. In such a place, random searches would be done frequently, every person and vehicle would undergo a search at every border crossing - nation, state, county, city lines, etc. It would be an absolute nightmare.

As far as surveillance goes, i know I (at least) am only concerned about what my government is doing locally. The government needs to respect our freedoms by not invading our privacy without following the proper procedure (in other words obtaining a warrant). It's also charged with protecting us. As far as surveillance goes, that could very well include electronic surveillance of foreign operatives on foreign soil. If the government wants to aim a spy satellite at the UK, they can go right ahead without the need for a warrant. If they turn it on their own people, however, they need to obtain one from the courts first. I haven't seen anyone argue that these same protections of personal freedom should be extended to individuals of a foreign nationality on foreign soil.

In addition, i just want to point out that Berman, in his typical troll like behavior, attacked those here who are against things the current administration has done (like the warrant-less surveillance) with the topic, and yet the article in question is about something that occurred in England, by English citizens, and reported by an English news agency. Where's this connection to the US Constitution?

 

you're correct - the Brits do have much more intrusion by their government. thats how their system is set up, for good or for bad.

As for having the equivalent here... sorry man, but we were founded on our basic freedoms and we're protected against unreasonable search and seizures, which would include all of the warrant-less stuff Bush tried to get by with. If you want that kind of invasion into your privacy, i suggest you apply for English citizenship and move.