PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Benny said it all
Benjamin Franklin once observed:
"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by PolarBear  :Benjamin Franklin once observed: "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :Benjamin Franklin once observed: "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."That says it all, folks. Thank you for posting the authentic quote. Too often self-styled freedom fighters omit "essential" and "temporary". Don't you think those qualifications indicate that Franklin considered it legitimate to trade liberties for "permanent" safety? Or, that not all liberties are "essential?" (and that perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder).
It sure looks that way to me when we consider that the Founders abandoned the Articles of Confederation after just *eleven* years in favor of the relatively gigantic Federal Constitution in 1789. The thing which essentially destroyed states' rights, gave the feds control over the citizenry, requiring enumerated protections, but with qualifications like "reasonable" (search and seizure) or "just compensation" (for taken property).
Quoting Franklin as if he'd oppose reasonable surveillance seems incorrect to me.
Mark |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Times change? Then lets rewrite the Constitution.
IF..IF we were to do that, it would be done in the courts. Which is exactly where the issue of what is legal and acceptable and illegal in regards to wiretapping without oversight and handing over records to the NSA should be discussed and debated. Thats what courts are for. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
So spying on your own citizens is a way of dealing with the "new" threats? I personally don't care what they do overseas, but is it not reasonable to not wanting to be spied upon by your own government? And as side not don't compare this to corporate data mining, that is a different issue.So what you are saying is that it is ok to let the government do what they want in the name of protecting us from the "new" threats irregardless of the laws on the books?
--
BlooMe |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. Right, so that's why the telco patriots turn off the wire tap when the bills go unpaid because they are so dedicated to protecting this country. They're in it for favors, they're in it for money, and they're in it for control.
A person is a fool to do business over the telephone or the internet in this country if they expect their conversation to be between themselves and only the intended recipient. Nothing is private anymore. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to amigo_boy
Doesn't it "seem" to you that The Law was broken? But if your boy Bush can justify that by keeping you and your ilk safe from the red menace (oh, wait... that was last generation) I guess that makes everything OK.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by bent :Doesn't it "seem" to you that The Law was broken? But if your boy Bush can justify that by keeping you and your ilk safe from the red menace (oh, wait... that was last generation) I guess that makes everything OK. I'm not a Republican. I didn't vote for Bush. This year I support Obama even though he opposes immunity (and I support it). Does that make your head explode? No more black and white categories to conveniently dismiss complex issues?
This is 90% of why I support immunity. The people who want it are so obviously partisan that they're unable to consider the issue rationally. Due process didn't work the way *they* wanted it to, so now civil court (led by activist organizations with an obvious agenda) is "due process." The checks and balances of creating legislation didn't work out the way *they* wanted it to, so now civil court is a "check and balance.". (Just look at the DSL Reports headline. Completely unbalanced and betraying an agenda).
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Explain to me what part of "due process" didn't work?
Do you mean the part of due process that requires them to get a valid warrant?
Or do you mean the due process that the individuals at these companies that made the illegal wiretaps happen should be tried and convicted?
Or do you mean the due process that holds the corporation accountable to the public for the actions their employees commit, especially the ones that the level it would take to set this up? Do we build a prison around the buildings and hold them there to serve time? Or do we do what EVERY corportation has to do when they are at fault and make them pay monetarly for their actions?
The entire point of this immunity is to PREVENT any due process from taking place PERIOD. And due process is civil and criminal becasue they both end in punishment to those that have committed an offense. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25 :Explain to me what part of "due process" didn't work? I think due process did work. I'm not the one whining about how I couldn't impeach the President, nor get criminal charges against telco officers, nor prevent the expansion of the law to better accommodate the President's claimed needs.
Mark |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by PolarBear :Benjamin Franklin once observed: "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. Times may change, but the concept remains the same regardless. We shouldn't have to be sheeple just to be safe, regardless of what year it is.
Yes, the response to new threats does need to change according to the threats, but it still needs to consider our freedom and liberties. Without our liberties, we are no longer citizens. And without citizens, the US is no longer a country. Just what the terrorists want. Are you suggesting we give them that, TK? 
As expert007 mentioned, our constitution is also some 230 years old. Are you saying it's irrelevant now, too? Because although the government acts as though it is and would like us to believe it is, last I checked it was still in effect. Warrantless search and seizure is still illegal. Yet here they're trying to make it ok. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
1 edit | reply to bent
amigo_boy didn't say who he voted for or who he agrees with, or what party he supports. Saying Bush is "his boy" is an ignorant assumption that appears to be a troll for a flame war.
Edit: Spelling. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :Don't you think those qualifications indicate that Franklin considered it legitimate to trade liberties for "permanent" safety? Or, that not all liberties are "essential?" (and that perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder). While I think we could argue this all day long, I think you are right: it IS in the eye of the beholder.
Although I agree with the main concept of his statement, I am willing to admit that yes, some liberties are insignificant enough to trade for a great gain in security. In this case however, illegal search and seizure is such a significant, valuable liberty that it has it's own amendment in the Bill of Rights. I simply don't think this is one we should be willing to give up for anything. It completely goes against the "Land of the Free" mantra. If we are constantly being spied upon without notice or justification, we are not "free."
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. |
|
factchecker
@bellsouth.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. Holy revisionist history Batman...
Perhaps you fail to realize that when that quote was uttered the country and it's citizens were in FAR more danger than they are today. Let's remember that the entire English empire was breathing down the neck of the newly founded Republic back then and the Republic didn't have an overly inflated, fraud and theft ridden defense department with weapons of today's caliber.
Let's also remember that your chances of dying in a terrorist strike are smaller than most of the things that could kill you in every day life - like idiot drivers, etc.
Oh no, we are in more danger today than they were then...  |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by PolarBear :Benjamin Franklin once observed: "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. Translation: you're ascared of the terrorists under your bed. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
quote:
Quoting Franklin as if he'd oppose reasonable surveillance seems incorrect to me.
Suggesting Franklin would have approved of AT&T shoveling the entire data streams of multiple carriers directly to the government without functional judicial oversight and with full legal immunity from prosecution for privacy invasion seems incorrect to me. Reasonable, my ass. |
|
factchecker
@bellsouth.net
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Skippy25 :Explain to me what part of "due process" didn't work? I think due process did work. I'm curious as to how you define "due process" in relation to this issue. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to PolarBear
said by PolarBear :Although I agree with the main concept of his statement, I am willing to admit that yes, some liberties are insignificant enough to trade for a great gain in security. That sounds fair.
said by PolarBear :In this case however, illegal search and seizure is such a significant, valuable liberty that it has it's own amendment in the Bill of Rights. I simply don't think this is one we should be willing to give up for anything. It completely goes against the "Land of the Free" mantra. If we are constantly being spied upon without notice or justification, we are not "free." You left out the "reasonable" part of that right. That's what makes it debatable to those (like you) mature enough to see both sides. For the rest, it's a just a given that everyone who disagrees is "corrupt." And, if it's a majority, then the "system is broken." (Hi Karl. Keep pumping those EFF petitions like it's unbiased and unfrantic.  ).
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
You left out the "reasonable" part of that right. That's what makes it debatable to those (like you) mature enough to see both sides. For the rest, it's a just a given that everyone who disagrees is "corrupt." And, if it's a majority, then the "system is broken."
Yes, suggesting those who don't see things your way as immature is certainly mature in its own right.
And again, wholesale funneling of user voice and data without judicial oversight, combined with legal immunity from prosecution is about as "reasonable" as shoving a pine cone in your ass and thinking it makes you a deity. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
I'm curious as to how you define "due process" in relation to this issue.
The law of the land. Which was followed as it pertains to a Congressional court of impeachment (with the Senate acting as jury). Procedural censure, condemnation of the action. Even a non-binding resolution. Senate hearings. Possible indictments.
After all the public and legislative debate, the issue wasn't found to rise to that level.
Self-styled freedom fighters don't see that as "due process." They dismiss it as a corrupt system. They rant about how civil court is due process. I guess we could say it is. But, it sort of ignores *all the due process* that's already occurred. They couldn't indict for impeachment. Couldn't censure. Couldn't even get a non-binding resolution(!). Couldn't get hearings and possible indictments.
But, that due process is simply ignored, or dismissed in terms of sour grapes. It's civil court where people go when they spill hot coffee on themselves! That'll prove they're right. And, don't forget, they're taking the *high* road unlike everyone else who doesn't care about freedom and the Constitution like *they do*.
Mark |
|
