NSA's goal is elimination of individual privacy worldwide

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitro, Dec 18, 2013.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    What I'm saying is, if "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then there is no point in controlling guns (or other even higher leverage weapons), we must control (certain) people. But how do we identify those certain people? We have to delve into everyone's thoughts, to some degree, and look for clues to bigger trouble below.

    Naturally, the adult position is a balance between the two approaches, an ideological compromise (OMG no!).
     
    #11     Dec 18, 2013
  2. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the authority to "delve into everyone's thoughts"? And where does it say that we have no rights of privacy?
     
    #12     Dec 18, 2013
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    Does the Constitution prohibit the use of spying to learn of an enemy's plans?

    Like I said, the adult position is a balance, a balance between pure freedom and pure control.
     
    #13     Dec 18, 2013
  4. The Constitution wasn't written to protect our enemies. It's purpose is to protect US citizens by recognizing our rights. One of those rights is freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Gathering all communications from American citizens without probable cause and/or a search warrant is unreasonable and unconstitutional.

    The adult position is to demand that our government respect the rights granted to us in our Constitution.
     
    #14     Dec 18, 2013
  5. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    We're rapidly becoming a police state. Some think we're already there. That isn't "balance" moron.
     
    #15     Dec 18, 2013
  6. wjk

    wjk

    Until the gov decides what you doing is now wrong. ;)
     
    #16     Dec 18, 2013
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    Right, and some enemies are internal. And probable cause coming to light may be too late to prevent a big plot, unless you do a little generalized snooping (and arrive at probable cause sooner).

    The adult position is to demand that our rights be preserved, and our safety be preserved. Thus, a compromise will be necessary.
     
    #17     Dec 18, 2013
  8. wjk

    wjk

    And how does this apply to gov powers who consider their political opponents "internal enemies". See Podesta's latest statements about the GOP, or the prez himself referring to tea party persons as "tea baggers" while "rogue agents" of the IRS just happen to coincidently target said "baggers".


    Your theory can't hold water if the gov cannot itself be trusted. Therein lies the biggest problem with your balance concept.
     
    #18     Dec 18, 2013
  9. We should NEVER "compromise" our Constitutional rights. That's how a democracy turns into a police state.
     
    #19     Dec 18, 2013
  10. Ricter

    Ricter

    Maybe so, but what society is functioning without government?

    "That government is best which governs not at all, and when men are ready for it that is the government they will have.'
    - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

    So far, no men anywhere have been ready for it. (Except for those lawless regions and times.)
     
    #20     Dec 18, 2013