Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom

[IndianaGreen]

I remind the reader that it was Chris Dodd who put a hold on the latest Senate FISA outrage, and it was Dodd that said that if Harry Reid did not honor his hold, that he would filibuster the bill.

I will point out that Joe Biden was the first Senator to throw his support to Chris Dodd on the FISA bill. Dodd and Biden also voted against Lieberman's "Green Light to Bush to bomb Iran" resolution.

Obama came after Biden in support of Dodd. I only wonder if he will miss this vote as well.

As to the rest of the Democratic field, I am not aware of what they are saying, but keep in mind that the only thing that counts is those that can actually vote in Congress for or against Bush's FISA bill that gives immunity to the telecom industry (Verizon is a major contributor to Jay Rockefeller).

Keeping in mind that the Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party believes in the "unitary" Presidency as much as the GOP, i.e., a monarchy, here is an excellent piece by John Dean of the issues at hand:

Published on Friday, October 19, 2007 by FindLaw.com

Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom

The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers

by John W. Dean

“I’ve got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn’t bother me. To the contrary, I’m delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government’s listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails.” So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people.

Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.

This contention is being bantered about once again, so there is no better time than the present to set thinking people straight. Bush and Cheney want to make permanent unchecked Executive powers to electronically eavesdrop on anyone whom any President feels to be of interest. In August, before the summer recess, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, which provided only temporary approval for the expanding Executive powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These temporary powers expire in February 2008, so Congress is once again addressing the subject.

The FISA Amendments: The Administration Is Seeking Immunity for Miscreants

Because of the way electronic traffic is directed from foreign countries through the United States, the FISA Court had previously rejected requests to intercept certain foreign-person- to-foreign-person communications in the United States. It was a technical problem, arising from the fact that FISA was written before modern data routing had been designed, and FISA thus needed fixing. On this, everyone agreed.

However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice - justified by reference to the “war on terror” - apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/19/4688/

[AtomicKitten]

1. FISA doesn't need to be "fixed," it needs to be enforced as originally written.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Ahhh, but by his own admission, Bush broke the FISA law with his warrantless searches

and the only Constitutional tool available to enforce FISA (or any other Law of the Land) is to impeach the law-breaking President and his equally criminal Vice-President.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Of course he did and he should be impeached for that

and so much more.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. IMO FISA should be amended to specify that

[dugggy]

4. I can pass for a middle-east person, amd I am relieved

when they search me thoroughly at airports. It honestly makes
me feel safer on the plane. However I would be very upset if
gov't agents came to my house and searched it without probable
cause. So, it is a delictae balance between safety and freedom.

[kdmorris]

5. I can pass for a middle-eastern person, too

And it makes me feel discriminated against when they search me "thoroughly" at the airport.

You think it's OK to single out a particular group of people? I cannot believe you are saying it makes you feel "relieved". ONE thing happened by "Middle-east" people SIX years ago. And for that, they should constantly be harassed and treated like they are more dangerous?

I guess we really need to watch all those white American men (especially ex-soldiers) who are entering Federal buildings. They should all be pulled out of line and treated like they are (OF COURSE) more dangerous than anyone else. I would feel very relieved if they wouldn't allow white American men to run around out in the open, because they may blow something up, like Timothy McVeigh did. They should definitely be looked on with suspicion.

It is MUCH better to suspect that everyone is out to get you and single out those groups who might hurt you than to use any sort of common sense. That's definitely how I want my laws created.

[dugggy]

6. For me safety is paramount over any hassle experienced.

But that's me. I respect your feelings on that matter. And even if
I was from the middle-east, I would'nt mind being searched, especially
if my family was on the plane. A fanatic of any persuation does not
give a rat's ass which innocent people get murdered in his "martyrdom".

And suicide bombings continue worldwide. Just yesterday in Pakistan,
where 130 innocent civilians were murdered.

[kdmorris]

7. I think that "Even if I was from the Middle-East" statement

probably isn't said by people who really are from the Middle East. As I tried to point out, white American men have blown up buildings and they are not singled out for harassment because of it. That should give you a clue as to what the motives are of this type of thing. They can't make you be afraid of white American men because that's practically everyone. But they can make you afraid of Middle Easterners.

You ARE safe. The government tries to convince you that are aren't so that you will accept these violations of your freedoms. You are STILL vastly more likely to be killed in a car accident than on a plane, especially by a "terrorist". And McDonald's is more of a threat to your life than olive skinned people are, statistically speaking.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin (who lived in a far less safe world than we currently do):

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[dugggy]

8. White men blowing up is a rarity, M-E men blowing up is everywhere

BIG BIG difference.

[IndianaGreen]

9. And none of that has anything to do with the Fourth Amendment

and with going to a FISA court for a warrant beforehand.

Who will protect us from those that have appointed themselves as our protectors?

[dugggy]

10. Nothing left to protect if you die in a terror explosion

I am the strongest proponent for individual freedoms.
But only after I am not getting killed first.

[IndianaGreen]

12. As Ben Franklin said, those that choose security over liberty deserve neither

America's irrational and criminal war policies in the Middle East, and our enabling of Israeli imperialism and aggression, is what is fueling terrorism.

[kdmorris]

14. No, the strongest proponent of individual freedoms

would NOT put that behind some phantom "terror". The Bill of Rights was created at a time when there were a LOT more things that could happen to someone. And they still believed in this rights.

Imagine what the constitution would be if they wrote the Bill of Rights to say:

" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless we are all really scared and our government says it's OK to ignore it "

[dugggy]

18. Phantom terror? Tell that to the

3000 families whose loved ones were murdered on 911
and to the 130 Pakistani bystander civilians murdered yesterday
and to those on Spanish trains
and to those in London subway trains
and to those in Bali hotels
and to those in Bombay streets
and to those in Philippines
and to those in Russia.

And last but not the least tell that to Israeli civilians
murdered every year for the last quarter of century by
murderous suicide bombers.

[kdmorris]

25. We are talking about America

The subject of this particular post was spying on AMERICANS and how worrisome it is to allow the government to do that, even though we theoretically "have nothing to hide".

Now you are talking about WORLD-WIDE terrorism. The people who were murdered on 9-11 were, in fact, murdered by Saudi Arabians, who are, in fact "Middle-east".

Pakistanis... well, Pakistan can be consider "Middle-east", makes sense that EVERYONE who dies in Pakistan is killed by someone from the area.
Spanish people were killed by Spanish people (Muslim, but not "Middle-East").
London...the people killed there were killed by Pakastanis, so does qualify for "Middle-East" people,
Bali... everyone who was murdered there was murdered by Indonesians, definitely NOT "Middle-east".
Phillipines...well, again, the people there were murdered by Native Filipinos (not Middle-east)...
and, last but not least, Russia...they were killed by Chechen rebels, who are, again, NOT "Middle-East" and, in fact, are white.

None of that has anything to do with the subject matter at hand. YOU are stating that it is OK with you to have people spied on and profiled based on something that has happened in the past by a member of that group. And I'M saying that's complete and utter horsehit. In America, if you want to profile people who are MOST likely to blow something up in AMERICA, based on things that members of their group have done, white men are FAR, FAR more likely to blow something up than "Middle-east" people.

1970-1990's- Unabomber, blew up university professors, done by a white man
1995 - Oklahoma City, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, done by Whilte men.
2003 - Atlanta, bombing at the Olympics, done by a white man.
All the abortion clinic bombings... white men (There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The ATF has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years. In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.)
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2310tbomb.htm, "In 1994, more than three thousand bombings or attempted bombings occurred in this country, an average of eight new cases every day. " And most of them were AMERICANS.

The only two incidents of bombing that I am aware of that were "Middle-east" people were the two bombings of the World Trade Center.

That being said, having the FBI listening to all your phone calls and tracking your internet usage and keeping track of your movements DOES NOT MAKE YOU SAFER. You need to STOP being scared of everything right now and realize that you are in very little danger of being blown up. And allowing the government to railroad and harass and hunt people WHO HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG BUT JUST "LOOK DIFFERENT" IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR AND IS AGAINST THE LAW.

[dugggy]

27. I was talking about attacks via commercial Airplanes

Of all the white man terror attacks you list, NONE, NADA, ZERO,
occured on airplanes. Therefore when I AM FLYING ON A COMMERCIAL
AIRLINER, I wam willing to subject myself to a thorough search.
I will not complain if I am singled out based on my looks.

[kdmorris]

29. Then you are part of the problem

Of all the flights that have been flown before and after 9-11, your chances of dying on one is still smaller than a car crash.

I disagree with you. You are allowing the government to seize even more power than it should (which was what the OP was about). And that is why this country slides ever closer to fascism, which appears to be fine with you. The Bill of Rights is there for a reason, which you've never responded to, and this administration has just blatantly violated SEVERAL of those Rights. And that is both disturbing AND illegal.

You need to address that. I knew that discussing or pointing out any of what I did was a mistake. You took that and ran with it without addressing the actual issue, which is.. George W. Bush has violated our constitution over and over again in the name of "security", and people like you, who allow him to do it, are the PROBLEM. You cannot "fight for your freedom later". It will be gone.

[dugggy]

30. I think the security checks on airliner boarding will continue

no matter who is elected the next president. And I for one
will be glad that it will continue. It has nothing to do
with my personal freedom. I will fight if they search me
in a shopping mall or worse search my house without a warrant
from a judge. But searching my bags and my clothes before boarding
a commercial airliner? Just fine with me.

[kdmorris]

31. That wasn't the point that you originally made

You started this conversation with a reply to an OP about the illegal wiretapping of the American people by defending RACIAL PROFILING. And every time I've responded, you've changed the argument to something else. I've certainly seen that tactic before, and it's not much fun.

NO ONE is suggesting that we should not check bags or people before they get on an airplane. NO ONE. There were baggage checks and security checkpoints before 9-11 and they are there today. I think they ban on liquids is stupid as shit, but other than that I have absolutely no problem with security checks before boarding.

But that wasn't the argument you made, dugggy. YOU said you were RELIEVED when they "treated you like a Middle-east person". In other words, you were perfectly happy having real "Middle-East" people treated like second class citizens and harassed and checked in a way that they rest of us are NOT. I responded by saying I think that's wrong and discriminatory, and that you would like feel different if you really WERE a "Middle-East" person. And the conversation has remained on that topic until now. Now, you are changing the subject completely (to make it look like I'm anti-security, like I want airports to be free and open? What IS the point of changing the subject like this?)

[tkmorris]

15. "I am the strongest proponent for individual freedoms."

Umm, no. You really aren't.

But do continue.

[Solon]

19. I would rather die a free man than live on my knees...

frankly your attitude is just downright disturbing.

[dugggy]

21. I respect your choice to die first, and I hope you respect my choice

to live first and then fight for my freedoms.

[Solon]

22. The fact of the matter is that the terrorism threat is greatly overblown...

For the Average American, capital letters here, they are much more likely to get killed or maimed in a car accident, murder, probably even an asteroid strike than from an actual terrorist attack from a guy who traveled half a world away to commit such an act. We need to put things in perspective here, we don't NEED to destroy our freedoms to be relatively safe, we pursue an unattainable goal by attempted such a foolhardy course. The world carries risk for everyone who attempts to step out in the world, yet people, in general, do not live in absolute terror at the amount of risks we take just walking out that door every day. Why should this so called terrorism threat be any different. We could, to be safer, eliminate practically all freedoms, preemptively lock up "prospective" murderers, create vehicles that are damned near indestructible(max speed of 5 mph), etc.

Being vigilant is fine, being paranoid is not, what we need is vigilance, not panic, what we need is to be able to protect ourselves, but at the same time NOT trample on our freedoms in the process. You could die tomorrow in any number of ways, yet I doubt you dwell on it, and lock the front door and refuse the leave the house.

[dugggy]

23. You might change your mind after a dirty bomb explodes in NYC

or Chicago or San Fran or LA. Actually I am quite certain you will.

[Solon]

24. LOL, you're funny, a dirty bomb, classic example of media contrived terror...

based on our own ignorance. Dirty bombs are a waste of time for any terrorist, I mean, seriously, what would be the use of setting off a bomb that disperses a material that settles FAR too quickly to have a large amount of range, and is overall so weak, radioactively, to, outside of the immediate blast area, kill anyone outright? And believe me, for those folks who are in the immediate blast range, radiation would be the least of their problems. The worse effects, and depending on the strength of the bomb, these would be limited from anywhere from 500 meters to 750 meters from the center of the blast, would be heavy metal poisoning. To be honest, they would have better luck making a lead bomb, at least lead is much more accessible. The contamination of groundwater would be the most serious of risks, because that can extend the range dramatically, but in practical terms, it would not be any worse than the contamination from heavy metals due to industry that are dumped into our streams and rivers every damned day.

Like I said, put things in perspective here, you go off on a tangent, with a method that, as far as I'm aware of, was completely fabricated by our media and intelligence services, and you expect me to be scared? Please, I'm more worried about a chemical attack personally, anyone with a College Chemistry textbook, and some household materials, can create a bomb that can kill thousands of people, easily, the Krars attempted it only a few years ago, of course, they were caught before the bomb could be built, and they were good ole fashioned WASPs. Let's concentrate on the real threats here, not bullshit contrived from overactive imaginations.

[dugggy]

26. 1000 times more panic than the small leak at 3 Mile Island

If you were an adult during the 3 Mile Island nuclear reactor leak,
you might recall how people around that power plant panicked and how
much publicity it caused. Actually no one died, I don't believe any one
got even sick from it. But the publicity & panic lasted a long time and
they even made a Hollywood movie "China Syndrome" or something like that.

I agree with you that a dirty bomb is not the same as dropping a genuine
nuclear bomb, not anywhere near that. But you know and I know what the
public reaction will be, how badly the real estate withing miles of the
bomb will be affected etc. I will bet it will cause a severe economic
hardship to the target city.

[tkmorris]

28. But you AREN'T fighting for your freedoms

You are willingly giving them away out of fear. That's just sad dugggy.

[kdmorris]

13. You know, I was going to list out all the things that have

blown up in America and list out who had did each of the crimes.

And then I realized, it just doesn't matter. That makes no difference whatsoever when you talk of fascism and loss of privacy.

You're wrong. Here's the last thing I will say to you:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

[MadHound]

33. Really?

Hmmm, let's see here. Timothy McVeigh, IRA, ETA, Red Brigade, and many others. Oh, and I've known many, many "white men" from the Middle East, Jordon, Syria, etc. Your thinly disguised xenophobia is quite frankly disgusting.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Exactly. The big issue is how all these things get used.

Tom DeLay used the Department of Homeland security to radar track a plane of Democratic Legislators who fled to Oklahoma in an attempt to deny a quorum to him for his greasy tactic to redistrict Texas in an off-year. If that's not a handy fact to slap someone in the face with when they say that "if you ain't doin' nothin' wrong, you shouldn't be worried." One persons misdeed is another person's principled stand, and if history teaches us anything, it teaches us this: the majority is very often incredibly wrong.

Once surveillance procedures exist, they can be used. Enforcement is by definition selective, and what's worse is the tacit mindset that's insidiously gained acceptance in this age of terrorist fear: that accusation is effectively a pronouncement of guilt. The old and quaint English Common Law concept of being innocent until proven guilty is the stuff of candy-ass fellow-travelers; we don't have time for any of those guns to start smoking, we gotta lock up the guilty NOW.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. It has nothing to do with whether someone has nothing to hide. it has to do with

basic civil rights and respect for the people you govern.

[rasputin1952]

17. Everyone over the age of 10 has something they want to hide...

No one wants their lives traced or exposed.

bush is the most obvious of them all...this Secret Government is an abomination. Hides Reagan's papers, hides Poppy's papers, hides Clinton's papers...as for his history...:eyes: The man is a disaster, any of his records ever come into the light, the only "National Secuity" issues that are there, are only to protect him from prosecution.

[Echo In Light]

32. In years past this would've been the stuff of "conspiracy theories" for many

It's one more step in the closing of an open, democratic society. It has zero to do with "finding terrorists."