Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.
Where is the balance?
Where is the balance?
If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.
In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.
No matter what the reasoning or circumstances surrounding it, does this look like the image of a free society ran by the people: http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"
The US voted against this crap in 2008. The new administration doubled down on it. Where is the balance?
That's an inane justification for destroying our constitution. If people complain either way, but only one way destroys the constitution, why choose the worse one? Why would people complain if gov't prevents an attack? That makes no sense. I'm not sure you can call it "preventing an attack" when it's the gov't that is attacking us.
> Where is the balance?
There is no balance. The gov't is off the rails when it comes to expanding their budget and justifying expending law enforcement powers for the miniscule chance of a terrorist attack.
Who says this? Do you honestly think warrantless wiretaps are a valid form of defense?
If we want this to change, we will first have to, as a people, seriously disincentives these actions from politicians—which is hard to do, considering neither major party has been the "better" one on this issue—but perhaps more importantly, we must understand that there is only so much government can do to keep you safe, if you want to keep your liberty. The sense of entitlement to both has to go.
I think this was a good write up on the issue: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/06/06/the-security-state-...;
And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.
To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped.
Playing devil's advocate, somewhat, but there indeed lies the rub.
Especially when he'd already had to decide (rightly, IMHO) to support telecom immunity for "warrantless wiretapping" as a Senator.
> For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said.
As I said, regardless of whether wiretaps are justified, why did he choose to campaign on this issue? Why bother making these claims to the American public?
Glad they stopped the bombing that would otherwise occurred in Boston during Boston marathon! You may have not heard because government does not like to say they did a good job, but thanks to spying on all americans they stopped that plot made by 2 Chechnyas to kill 3 Americans and amputate legs of 20 others by using bombs in pressure cookers. Good job, well done. Power to the government!
I'm curious what the phrase "initatives have matured and the technology has improved" means. More comprehensive spying? Quicker retrieval? Increased complicity by firms accumulating personal data?
I guess you'd make a good politician.
Foreign policy is the real issue here.