Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Fair enough..
Mark: "That's my point. The organic documents originated from *society*. Without a society that shared those common values they wouldn't have existed. Without a society that continues to share those values they won't exist."
Very philosophical. This member of society doesn't want to be wiretapped without his consent. He's here keeping that value alive in society.
After lots of historical information that doesn't apply today...
Mark: "Thus the dilemma: To what extent should rights be protected from society (possibly rendering them their own self-destruct mechanism), and how much should society be able to give and take before rights become self-destructive?"
To the extent that doesn't include warrantless wiretapping.
Mark: "You made a similar point when you said that just because this country has made mistakes [infringing on rights in the face of threats] in the past isn't justification for doing it again. Unfortunately, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if the NSA didn't have immediate access to ISP records. Just like we don't know what would have happened if President Lincoln hadn't suspended civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus in the states.
The opposite argument could be made that in the long term we came out without much harm."
We should not repeat mistakes that present similar circumstances that ended up being viewed by the consensus as wrong. My opposition to warrantless wiretapping is only partially based on our historical traditions. I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Chivalry  :I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. If it's the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable" searches, that privacy right is not absolute. Just as your right to Habeus Corpus is not absolute. What is "reasonable" (or necessary for public safety in the case of Habeus Corpus) can vary greatly upon the circumstances. Just like our right to freedom of movement was nearly eliminated after 9/11 (all air travel stopped for a few days), it doesn't seem like a big stretch that the definition of "reasonable" search would tilt in the same direction.
Be that as it may, I'm glad we've gotten past quoting the Founders as if they had a view of absolute rights that we've strayed from. Hopefully I've demonstrated that they weren't much different than us.
Mark |
|
