Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I know, so is privacy an absolute necessity in time of war?
New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls
mmarsh
Active member
Privacy is a part of Liberty, so according to Ben Franklin yes. Franklin's arguement is only that a fool sacrifices his liberty for a bit of security. Which is precisely what Bush wants us to do, to blazes with that idea, I'll put my faith with the Founding Fathers, not a little emporer who views himself as accountable to nobody.
Consider this, the USA has faced enemies for more dangerous than terrorists, and yet during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the cold war no President as instituted a policy of spying on its population, except for small ethnic groups such as the German-American in WWI and the Japanese-Americans in WWII. Both these incidents were done during a time Congress Declared War and where later considered by morally, ethically, and legally to be wrong.
But the Bush Administration (specifically Dick Cheney as I'm sure this is his idea) isnt spying on the Arab-Americans or on Muslims specifically, but worse, ALL Americans including us WASPs.
"ABSOLUTE POWER!!!" -Emporer Palpatine.
Consider this, the USA has faced enemies for more dangerous than terrorists, and yet during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the cold war no President as instituted a policy of spying on its population, except for small ethnic groups such as the German-American in WWI and the Japanese-Americans in WWII. Both these incidents were done during a time Congress Declared War and where later considered by morally, ethically, and legally to be wrong.
But the Bush Administration (specifically Dick Cheney as I'm sure this is his idea) isnt spying on the Arab-Americans or on Muslims specifically, but worse, ALL Americans including us WASPs.
"ABSOLUTE POWER!!!" -Emporer Palpatine.
Last edited:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I'm sorry I must be too picky (and seriously I'm not trying to pointlessly piss you off, I'm not the type) but I just don't see where Franklin said "every aspect of liberty". He mentioned "essential liberty", and, considering that the concept of "privacy" didn't even exist back in his times, I find it hard to translate his "essential liberty" into "privacy on phone calls in times of terrorism".
Essential liberties: Freedom of speech, of religion, of movement, habeas corpus, fair trial, freedom of press and others, but not necessarily privacy.
But then maybe it's just me.
Essential liberties: Freedom of speech, of religion, of movement, habeas corpus, fair trial, freedom of press and others, but not necessarily privacy.
But then maybe it's just me.
phoenix80
Banned
mmarsh said:
You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.
Indeed, this is a good program for the bad guys and those who are involved in criminal and terrorist activities.
Your 21st century liberty has not been changed/affected.
Italian Guy said:
No, it is not just you.
major liability
Active member
Even though I do nothing wrong, I dislike the idea of having The Man listening in on my casual conversations. I'm not real close with the governemnt.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
For Americans a very important part of our culture is our sense of "privacy". What is a normal question about a person to an Asian is seen as an invasion of privacy by most Americans. We even stand further apart from each other when talking than any other group of people on the planet. I have done nothing wrong and I am VERY uncomfortable with this current program.
Second, unless anyone here works for the NSA and is willing to violate OPSEC then not any of us knows exactly what is or is not done with those calls and the information gleaned from them.
I would hope everyone here is well versed enough in American history to know of Hoover and his abuses of intelligence gathered by the FBI. How much more could be done at an agency like the NSA? Further removed from scrutiny and greater in capacity and ability than the FBI or CIA in this regard.
Ben Franklin once uttered the words, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". I believe that privacy is a component of liberty. Liberty is freedom and privacy is the freedom to be free from scrutiny. You may not agree but this is what I believe and because of this I will never be comfortable with a government listening to my phone calls or reading my email regardless of my innocence or their motives.
Second, unless anyone here works for the NSA and is willing to violate OPSEC then not any of us knows exactly what is or is not done with those calls and the information gleaned from them.
I would hope everyone here is well versed enough in American history to know of Hoover and his abuses of intelligence gathered by the FBI. How much more could be done at an agency like the NSA? Further removed from scrutiny and greater in capacity and ability than the FBI or CIA in this regard.
Ben Franklin once uttered the words, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". I believe that privacy is a component of liberty. Liberty is freedom and privacy is the freedom to be free from scrutiny. You may not agree but this is what I believe and because of this I will never be comfortable with a government listening to my phone calls or reading my email regardless of my innocence or their motives.
Rob Henderson
Banned
well marsh, I find it hard to believe that Franklin knew that terrorism was going to be going on when he said this...mmarsh said:
Yes, the US faced more "dangerous" enemies, but we cannot compare the types of warfare. The Civil War was mainly march in a line, fire, and pray you dont get shot on the return volley. Nowadays, in Iraq, its car bombs, and random explosions, and random sniper fire. In all the aformentioned wars, we knew who the enemy was, knew what he was wearing, and where he would most likely be; in this war, we dont know who the enemy is. Fear of the unknown is the worst fear.When was WWII declared ethically and morally(same thing btw) wrong? WWII was one of our more morally righteous wars...mmarsh said:
Sure, because you NEVER KNOW!...I could be a terrorist...Im American...and the reason he is spying on everyone is because that would be discrimination, and Im sure that would help his approval ratings...I can see the headline..."Bush Impeached For Muslim-American Discrimination"...Not all Arab-Americans or Muslims are terrorists, and the fact that you implied them to be is sickening and ignorant.mmarsh said:
We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush...mmarsh said:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Sense of privacy is extremely important to us Italians too and it's becoming being incorporated into bodies of law to protect the right of citizens to be protected from the abuse/curiosity/intrusiveness of the public. And I truly believe this is a big conquer of our culture.bulldogg said:
Agreed. Until we know something more precise (which isn't likely to happen at least for the next 30 years) this is a blurred and vague discussion based on subjective arguments.bulldogg said:
This is a very good point indeed.bulldogg said:
No-one would ever be "comfortable" with that. I am not saying this violation of the privacy by the NSA is just or justified. Never did I say that, mind you. All I wonder is: I am perfectly aware how privacy is part of nowaday's freedom and it is recognized as such, guaranteed by law and so on. It is something precious and the American citizens have the duty to guard themselves from any abuse on the part of government (that's something truly American), but I mean how could Franklin think of privacy when he said the words "Essential liberty", as the concept of privacy itself didn't even exist back in his times? He specified "essential" liberty, he didn't say "all types and aspects of liberty".bulldogg said:
In time of war when an enemy is trying to defeat a country by killing thousands or millions of innocents and uses technology as his main weapon and when he overtly relies on our democratic "weaknesses", I'm simply not that sure Franklin was referring to it.
After all, Bulldog, you are saying that Franklin meant that privacy was part of essential freedom just like freedom of speech, of information, of religion, of movement, or the right to private property. On the other hand you said that the US was right when it seized thousands of American citizens' properties and interned them with no trial and only on the basis of their race/nationality (I'm referring to the American-Japanese during WW2). That was a time of war and internment is a bit more essential a liberty than uhm privacy on phone-calls.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Touche'. I shall ponder this for a while.
I have been thinking and I am going to be brutally honest.
There is no moral high ground in this for me and I will not try to dance around it. I have come to the bitter realization that at least in this matter I am a selfish bastard. I don't agree with this because it bothers me and it directly affects me.
I have been thinking and I am going to be brutally honest.
There is no moral high ground in this for me and I will not try to dance around it. I have come to the bitter realization that at least in this matter I am a selfish bastard. I don't agree with this because it bothers me and it directly affects me.
Last edited:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
It is not a stupid answer, really. I have always thought 95% of the world's problems derive from people trying to solve other people's problems. If everyone peacefully and quietly pursued his own interests I believe the world would be a better place.bulldogg said:
Unfortunately, there is that 5% too (for which that poem by Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor, is very fit:
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object).
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Why are you worried when you are not American and don't live in the United States?
I am an American citizen and regardless of where I live this is my concern and hardly any of yours.
How about the soldiers in Iraq? By your logic they shouldn't give a damn either.
Did you honestly think about this before you said it?
I am an American citizen and regardless of where I live this is my concern and hardly any of yours.
How about the soldiers in Iraq? By your logic they shouldn't give a damn either.
Did you honestly think about this before you said it?
mmarsh
Active member
Lt. Henderson
Ben Franklin worried about British Redcoats who were a greater threat to American Security than abunch of muslim fanatics. Whats more worrying,? Being frightened to death that you might be involved in a terror attack (about 10 Million to 1 odds) or fighting against the full military occupation of an enemy thats far better equipped, far better trained, far more numerous than you. Franklins statement rings even more true.
But, we arn't in Iraq. Nobody has declared Martial law, There arnt any car bombs going off daily, or random bursts of indiscrimate small arms fire. You are letting yourself be governed by your fear, and the government for us to sacrifice democracy because of it (thats what terrorists want). By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win.
Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 Million Americans just because al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something. Thats like bringing your own parachaute on a airliner just in case the plane might crash. Again, thats fear, if not paranoia talking (no insult intended). You cannot live your life on what *MIGHT* happen. If you do, then al Qaeda wins. Remember what Winston Churchill said "We have Nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear is the most potent weapon the terrorists have.
We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush...[/quote]
Oh but you can. For example, use Fear in order to control the masses and silence dissent. Ring any bells? How about the DHS color coded threat level system? Usefulness to stop terrorists = 0, usefulness to scare Mom and Dad = priceless. Or how about Cheney stating in the 2004 election that the only way to stop another 9/11 attack is to vote for Bush.
IG
I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.
Phoenix
You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.
Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.
Ben Franklin worried about British Redcoats who were a greater threat to American Security than abunch of muslim fanatics. Whats more worrying,? Being frightened to death that you might be involved in a terror attack (about 10 Million to 1 odds) or fighting against the full military occupation of an enemy thats far better equipped, far better trained, far more numerous than you. Franklins statement rings even more true.
But, we arn't in Iraq. Nobody has declared Martial law, There arnt any car bombs going off daily, or random bursts of indiscrimate small arms fire. You are letting yourself be governed by your fear, and the government for us to sacrifice democracy because of it (thats what terrorists want). By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win.
Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 Million Americans just because al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something. Thats like bringing your own parachaute on a airliner just in case the plane might crash. Again, thats fear, if not paranoia talking (no insult intended). You cannot live your life on what *MIGHT* happen. If you do, then al Qaeda wins. Remember what Winston Churchill said "We have Nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear is the most potent weapon the terrorists have.
We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush...[/quote]
Oh but you can. For example, use Fear in order to control the masses and silence dissent. Ring any bells? How about the DHS color coded threat level system? Usefulness to stop terrorists = 0, usefulness to scare Mom and Dad = priceless. Or how about Cheney stating in the 2004 election that the only way to stop another 9/11 attack is to vote for Bush.
IG
I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.
Phoenix
You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.
Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.
Last edited: