On pages 54-55, the issue of warrantless domestic surveillance is debated. Read this section and anwer the following questions in a post. Comment on 2 other posts as well:
1. What is your opinion of warrantless surveillance in a post 9-11 world?
2. Since it has been 9 years since 9-11, are Americans becoming less concerned with terrorists?
3. How should the Obama administration proceed? If they have the power, should the executive branch voluntarily give it up?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm kind of 50/50 on warrantless surveillance. I think that they should have only surveyed phone conversations and emails of people internationally that could have been a threat to the United States, such as people from Iraq and Iran. I think it was a good idea for being safe, but they should have only tapped phone calls and emails that were from Iraq or Iran or citizens of those areas.
ReplyDeleteI think Americans have become less concerned with terrorists. Right after 9-11, you got searched almost anywhere you went, and air ports were particularly bad. Any citizen in the United States who were Iraqi or of a Middle East decent were looked upon as being a potential terrorist. People were frightened beyond belief. Now, air port searches have become less hectic and the checks aren't as thorough as they were right after 9-11 and we don't seem to question people of Middle East decent as much anymore.
I think the Obama administration should give up warrantless surveillance. Unless of an emergency like 9-11, they shouldn't be tapping in on phone conversations and emails. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unjustified searches, so unless they have obtained a warrant from a judge, they shoudn't do this anymore and should do away with warrantless surveillance.
For background clarification: I make the ACLU look like a bunch of Boy Scouts. Also, the PATRIOT Act disgusts me.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of anything, I believe that warrantless surveillance is a BAD thing, no matter what. Sure, call me a terrorist-supporter, but I once again refer to the 4th Amendment. Some people wonder why I am afraid of our government; well, knowing Big Brother could be watching makes me pretty fracking afraid, personally.
Yes, we have become less concerned. Pretty much what nicole said. Really, why would they attack us again, because it's the last thing I would do, personally.
YES YES YES they need to quit spying on American citizens. I refer to 1984 once again. I can easily foresee abuse of their power, and pretty soon BOOM telescreens. But seriously, all politicians crave power and control (how long do ya think it will be til I get accused of stereotyping?) and I fully believe that any politician in that position (especially a Democrat, no offense to anyone's affiliation) will abuse their power if left unchecked.
@nicole
About your "frightened beyond belief" thing: I remember, quite vividly, walking down the street around that time and seeing a poor homeless guy. Not an uncommon sight, but this man happened to be Arab/Middle Eastern. It just occurred to me that the poor guy could have been ostracized for his ancestry. I hope he's okay now. Sorry for the short anecdote.
I believe that this surveillance was mostly due to post 9/11 hysteria. I think that this was a way to ensure that the people of the United States felt safe. I do believe that it was a good idea however. At that time we weren’t sure when the next terrorist attack might be or where it might happen. I believe that if they caught one person then the surveillance was working. Although, out of millions phone calls and e-mails the number found must have be incredibly minute. Do I believe that warrantless surveillance is a good thing? No. I don’t like the idea that the government might be reading my e-mails or listening to my conversations. Although in this instance I cannot consider myself a target. I can see most intercepted calls or emails being nothing but a waste of government time and money.
ReplyDeleteYes and No. In America I believe that most people believe the huge terrorist threat is past us. However, with the War on Terror and hearing about the constant suicide car bombings I think that most people aren’t ready to declare us totally out of the water yet. To clarify I believe that an attack on U.S. soil now is far-fetched but the violence towards Americans in the Middle East is still occurring and if we do not leave the Middle-East with a better reputation that we may be putting ourselves at risk for another attack farther down the road.
I do not believe that Obama should give the idea up but the Patriot Act must be changed. If someone is suspected of being a terrorist they should be monitored. They should then have to report to the judicial branch that said person has been placed under surveillance, immediately after placing said person under surveillance, and then be given a deadline that if no proof can be submitted that they are a terrorist or the person or the group of people are planning an attack the surveillance should be stopped immediately. Then if said person is suspected again the officers must obtain a warrant to have them spied upon again.
@HDeckard
I believe that governments should be afraid of their people not the other way around. I concur that power corrupts but it can happen no matter what the political affiliation. My prime example is Richard Nixon his political power left him nothing short of paranoid.
@nicole
The forth amendments does state that we are protected from unjustifiable searches and seizures. In the case of National Security I’m saying the rights of the individual can sometimes be less important if to protect the many. I do sympathize with those in our class that do not like the idea of being monitored because neither do I.
@Bockscar
ReplyDeleteMy Democrat comment was only because they are generally in favor of bigger government (Good old Nixon was GOP, though).
That post was written in a fit of insanity, like most of mine are. Congrats to you for getting something useful out of it.
The warrant-less surveillances of our post 9/11 country were wrong, but not without reason. It is extremely important that we catch terrorist within our country and outside of it. A warrant should have been gotten before the surveillance started, but I can understand the government's haste to find inner terrorists. I think the approach was wrong, but the cause is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that our country has become less concerned about terrorists. a brief story to illustrate this point: Over the summer when I went through airport security with the boy scout group I was returning from Washington state with, we passed through security with little difficulty. After we pass through the metal detectors and such one of the boys opened his bag to discover that his pocket knife was still inside. He wasn't even stopped once. Sure security is tighter now than before 9/11, but the paranoia has definitely declined.
I think that the Obama administration should give that power up. I’ve said before that I think the government is too powerful already and frankly the idea of the government listing to my conversations is kind of creepy and disturbing. Still, surveillance should continue to search for potential terrorist threats and the terrorists themselves. I think that this method is a little intrusive, but with restrictions, it might work.
To be honest i can understand why we thought we needed the patriot act put into place. It was a time where we thought that an attack could come from anywhere in any place. As Americans, we sort of assumed that it would happen again and again to the point where we ended up like Israel, which has had an enormous amount of terrorist attacks in their history. With that said i still believe that they are wrong forever granting themselves that power. It is an unnecessary invasion of our privacy. We have the right against unnecessary search in our bill of rights. I view this as including monitoring people who they have no real reason to monitor.
ReplyDeleteI think the majority of our people have become less concerned with terrorist, but this will always be an easy excuse to stereotype or blame someone for something. The short term affects of the terror attacks are now gone. We no longer have the idea that any day we are going to be attacked again, but racism and persecution of the Islamic religion will continue for a while longer. The stereotype that many people of Middle Eastern dissent are terrorist is common now after the 9-11 attacks. It has been ingrained into our head by every form of communication. It will take time for the people to get over these ideas and finally move past the 9-11 hysteria.
President Obama should give up the power that he has inherited. The idea that we would support these procedures for another eight terms is absurd. I mean would you really want to have the CIA be able to listen in to everything you say on the phone. I believe he should remove these powers.
@Bockscar
I completely agree with your ideas about part 2. Most Americans don't really suspect an attack on our soil any more. We have started to grow past that tragedy as a nation and we are slowly moving forward, but we have along way to go to completely overcome the effects. I personally don't believe our generation will ever completely get past it but we will heal.
@Nicole32793
You are correct, i believe, in saying we should get rid of the power except in a case of emergencies. These powers invade our rights and privacy. We don't need them around all the time. Some cases like immediately after 9-11 i can understand but they should have been removed over the past 4 years.
I think that warentless domestic surveillance should only take place if there's a suspicious call or something like that. Yes, it may be for a good cause to find terrorists or whatever, but invading every persons privacy isn't going to solve anything. It's not worth it.
ReplyDeleteI think because it's been so many years, people may be becoming less concerned, especially because we're still fighting in Iraq,which preoccupies them from our nation, and because our security has improved since.
The obama administration should give it up. It may be a good thing to have but there's a very low chance that a terrorist is going to be on one of those calls, so it's not worth the trouble of invading privacy.
HDeckard- just because you dont want warrantless surveillance doesn't make you a terrorist supporter lol
Bockscar- i think you made a really good point about just wanting to secure safety in the people. i agree with it being a waste too.
@ Bockscar
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with you. You've made a good point, we are still in this war on terror so a terrorist attack on America isn't exactly far fetched. I just think that the government could go about this servaillance in a differnt manner.
Personally, I have no objection to warrantless surveillance. The purpose is, after all, to acquire information that could be potentially helpful in preventing terrorist actions. So, if a NSA taps phone lines or some other kind of surveillance, they will disregard any information they deem irrelevant. Do you really think they care if Bob thinks George is dumb or that John broke up with Susie? Personally, I couldn't care less if they heard everything I said. With all the information they would go through, they wouldn't remember if I told someone that I thought Hoover was an awesome teacher over the phone. Also, the chances of someone working for the NSA having any personal connection with you is virtually nothing much less actually figure out who you are, so it would be no different if you accidentally sent an email to someone you didn't know somehow. In other words, they wouldn't care and neither should you. With all these factors, I think that people who oppose this sort of surveillance are simply overreacting to the threat to their privacy, which isn't much of a threat at all.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe that Americans are becoming less concerned with terrorists. Most people never even consider the fact that a terrorist attack could occur at any time and any where, much like before 9-11. The only ones it seems who are still concerned are the people in the government, who may only be saying that they will "crack down" on terrorism so hard because they think the people want to hear that. To me, it seems that people have come to expect the government to protect them from terrorism and as such have not had to worry about it at all. It's a lot like the school's ID policy. Consider that wearing a ID tag is like being wary of terrorism. When first implemented, the teachers all enforced it and almost all of the students agreed to wear their IDs. As time went on, less teachers began to enforce it, which has now resulted in almost no one wearing their IDs, equivalent to none of the public being concerned about terrorism. But when asked about it, many Americans will strongly advocate anti-terrorism while soon after returning to their former state of not caring. This is much like how kids only wear their IDs to get in the building, after which they quickly take them off. And that analogy probably made no sense. To make another point, the sense of the fight against terrorism was evident after 9-11 when US forces entered Iraq. Much of America supported the decision. Now, not many people care enough about terrorism to continue the war in Iraq.
In my personal opinion, I don't think the executive branch should give up the power of this surveillance. It well inevitably prevent some form of not-niceness to the US, no matter how substantial it is. And, as I stated before, I personally don't believe the cost of this security outweighs the benefits, because the only cost is the infringement of the privacy of people who care more about their own lives than the country (no offense to anyone with this point of view, I'm just trying to sound convincing). Nevertheless, I also think it may be wise for Obama to give up this power anyway in order to keep the majority of the people happy.
uh i have to write this again cuz it didnt work the 1st time...
ReplyDeleteok. I believe that warrantless surveillance is completely wrong. I think Bush basically broke the law and showed his abuse of power. You cannot make it allowed to search without a warrant. I believe everyone was terrified after 9-11. Of course they were, but that doesn't mean we need to take drastic measures to keep us "safe." I don't think that warrantless surveillance is going to protect us all that much because the majority of people are just talkin to friends or families living in other countries. It is basically against the law and it interrupts people's privacy. They don't want everyone being able to hear what they are talking about. It's unconstitutional and Bush was stupid in making a quick hysteric deciscion that obviously was unlawful.
I believe that people definitely care less about terrorists today. It seems like it was so long ago. Of course people were scared because most have never dealt with it, but I think the majority is much more annoyed with the war on terror. They want soldiers home and safe. I believe the people are more worried about foreign conflict because we are just in the way in other countries. We should be more worried about gaining more enemies than the terrorists we have now.
It believe 100% that Obama should give up the power to search people's phone conversations without a warrant. He knows right from wrong. Anyone should know that it is against the laws and constitution to search someone's private things without any cause. Most people want to keep things private and Obama should know that. He is acting in the interest of the people and as a guardian and he should know it is against morals to delve (SP?) into people's private lives.
@Kermit
ReplyDeleteReally nice points you made there, especially the ID thing and the irrelevance of most people's conversations I for one think Bob is the dumb one. =)
However, a totalitarian society's gotta start somewhere. I don't wanna sound too much like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, but these types of things tend to snowball out of control.
Sure, now they say they'll only spy on some phone lines, but then they spy on everyone's lines, then they install cameras on every street corner, then they control what media we're allowed to see... all under the same guise of protecting national security.
Our civil liberties cannot and will not be taken away all at once; rather, they will be slowly chipped away, bit by bit.
I guess I do need to start wearing tinfoil hats and also start believing that Stephen King paid a Jewish cabal to shoot John Lennon.
I believe that warrantless domestic surveillance is a necessary thing in our society today. It’s sad to say but you can’t really trust anyone anymore like you used to. Yes, I agree that people have their rights, but I know I would rather want to save countless lives than waist it getting warrants. I believe in that case, officials do have the right for a warrantless surveillance. By the time you get a warrant to tap phone lines, the suspected terrorist or accomplice could be gone. But there’s a line that can’t be crossed, where officials can abuse that power to have warrantless surveillance and that’s what we need to be careful of.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Americans are becoming less concerned with terrorists. We are still aware that it could happen. You see that a lot in airports and how the security is very thorough. Forceful border checks in Mexico and Canada are given to prevent terrorists from coming in or any terrorist supplies.
I believe that Obama’s administration should have the power to perform warrantless surveillance, when it is necessary. For example, if an officer wanted to search your house without a warrant then you would think that to be against your rights. But if an officer wants to search your house because he thinks that you were badly hurt from someone breaking in and say they had you tied up and you were bleeding to death from a stab wound, would you want the officer to go back and get a warrant then? No, you probably wouldn’t. You would probably want them to come in right away and help you. So I believe it depends on the circumstances if it’s ok for an official to go ahead and perform a warrantless surveillance.
@ Kermit the Frog
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on your point of warrantless surveillance! I believe that it is a necessary thing for the government to obtain information. Also I agree strongly on the fact that they aren’t going to care who slept with whom and why he broke up with her etc… They don’t care!
@ ACE11
I’m going to have to disagree with you bud. How do we know that that person isn’t a terrorist? We don’t unless we use some sort of strategy to find and catch them before it’s too late. Like Rob-o said, they don’t care about all of our daily life stuff. They are just looking for any odd things that might be link to a terrorist attack.
My opinion with warrentless surveillance is that sometimes it can be necessary, however I do think the Bush Administration went about it wrong. If they truly believed they had a valid reason to allow warrentless surveillances, they could have easily brought it up to Congress instead of doing it illegally. If it is done legally, I think it's just fine. Actually, even if it's done illegally, I think it's necessary, especially in a post 9-11 world. However, though necessary, I still believe that it should be conducted with the consent of the Congress.
ReplyDeleteI do think that since 9-11 Americans have become less concerned with terrorism. Similar to what Kermie said, I think people become immune to the fear of terrorism if it hasn't happened very recently. Terrorism alert was really high right after 9-11 and everyone was afraid of another attack. However, since it's been a few years since that happened, the hype has died down at least until another attack or something threatening happens. I do think Americans have become less concerned with terrorists since 9-11.
I think the Obama administration should do what the Bush administration did, but not illegally. With the consent of other branches that have checks on the executive branch and public support, I think surveillance could work. It's a good means to finding people who shouldn't be in the country.
I have very mixed opnions on warrantless surveillance. Generally, i think its a issue of privacy. But in a time of war and an era of terrorism, you have to do what you have to do. If you have a reasonable suspicion about a person i think it is important to check their conversations as soon as possibe, especially after september 11th.
ReplyDeleteI definitly don't think americans have become less concerned with terrorism. Our national security has actually increased over last 9 years.
I think the Obama administration should stress that wiretapping is wrong, but i think that in this age there can be exceptions made since sercurity is extremely important.
@ strombonesim
ReplyDeleteI definitly agree with you. I think there is a necessary time and going through congress first isn't a bad idea. However, i don't agree that our awareness on terrorism has died.
@ ACE11
yeah i gotta agree with katelyn, i really disagree with you. You do have to take drastic measures sometimes to keep the country safe. If by listening to a phone conversation without a warrant can safe hundreds of lives then that would be rediculous not to do.
Well... that is a hard question to answer, but I think that the government should be allowed to surveillance people at any time, but only if there is a crisis. If not, then they would be invading our privacy without a reason and this is wrong. After any event like 9/11 is a good time to do such a thing but only because there was a reason. If someone is suspicious, they should act immediatly in case something terrible could happen.
ReplyDeleteI think that the people of the United States have become more aware of terrorists since 9/11 and security has definatly increased because americans don't want anything to happen again on US soil like it did on that dreadful day. Americans have definatly become more concerned with terrorists and they all have a good reason.
The Obama administration would have a hard time dicussing this topic because it would get mixed resistance. But Obama should stress that doing surveillance without a warent is wrong, because it invades our privacy, unless there is a good reason or the country was under attack yet again. There also could be some important exceptions like if someone is a suspected of being a terrorist, then this should be used.
My opininion of warrantless surveilance is that it is wrong and somehow has to be unconstitutional. However, the government was most likely doing warrantless surveilance before 9/11, Americans were just not aware of it. I think that despite what we as Americans think actions enabled by the Patriot Act will still be in effect whether or not the act is in effect or not. I think that Americans are becoming somewhat less concerned with terrorism. We still see it every night on the evening news but in Iraq or Afghanistan,but we are no longer concerned about another attack on our soil. So in this sense, I think that Americans are concerned with terrorist attacks on our troops but not with an attack here in the homeland. I think that the Obama administratio can do whatever they want to. I think that if they give it up people will feel better, but basically the government can do what it wants, so I don't think whether or not the Obama administration gives up this power is really relevant.
ReplyDeletevolley14ball
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your statements. Your statements are absolutely correct. In today's world you cannot really trust anyone, so it is a good thing to have the government looking out for suspected terrorists. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with warrantless surveilance because you would have no reason to be suspected, and i think the government has a right to protect us.
ACE11
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your statements. I see where you are coming from, but i'm sure that the government and intelligence agencies have an idea who to target and are not simply surveiling people who are simply talking to their friends. Bush actually did a good job with this because he kept the country safe at a time when we were most vulnerable. Obama doesn't have to give up this power because why should he mess with something that has helped to keep us safe the past nine years.
My opinion of warrantless survellience is that it's completely okay. The constiution does not talk about surveillance at all, therefore it cannot technically be unconstitutional. I believe that if the government thinks that you are doing something illegal, you probably are. And if you aren't doing something illegal, then why does it matter if the government checks up on you? The government is better at protecting us in this way. I believe that we had warantless surveillence before 9-11, but we probably didn't use it to the extent of catching terrorists that would commit mass murders. That probably didn't seem believeable to a pre-9-11 country.
ReplyDeleteI believe that terrorists are on the bottom of an America's list of concerns. Right now I believe that debt and the economic crisis are probably at the top of their lists. Most American's feel that the government has stepped up and really tried to protect us from incoming threats from other countries.
I believe that the Obama administration needs to work on securing things the same way that we have been in America, and to slowly improve Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can remove our troops. This isn't going to happen in one night, just as it took America more than one night to secure our country after 9-11.
I don't believe that Obama should voluntairly give up the powers that the executive branch has, but I believe that Congress should closely watch him.
1. My personal opinion is very straightforward. Why is it a big deal if the government has surveillance. If you're not doing anything wrong, you really shouldn't be concerned. You live in a world today that deals with terrorists and other threats, so these measures must be taken. If you don't like it, just move to canada.
ReplyDelete2. Americans differ very much when dealing with this question. Some are very paranoid and look over their shoulder every five seconds. Others simply just wave away the possibly of a terrorist attack. Airports and other transportation services still take every small threat seriously and make things "safer"
3. I think it's absolutely unnecessary for the executive branch to give up the power. If it's for the safety of the people, and it's not to be abused, then they should simply proceed. Certain rules and harsh guidelines should be made to make sure this is not taken advantage of. If it's going to help protect the American people and prevent something traumatic from happening, then it should be practiced.
I believe that warrantless searches should only be used if necessary and not abused. Our rights should be upheld, and are very important. They should not be easily overlooked, except in times of crisis.
ReplyDeleteAmericans are definitely less concerned about terrorists after a whole 9 years after 9/11. I hardly hear about general discussion brought up in conversation, except when talking specifically about it, or in debate.
Obama should just give up using warrentless searches. IT ISN'T a time of crisis, so it shouldn't be abused. Just the symbol of taking it down shows that he would respect our rights, and not doing so is just as bad as saying that his administration just wants power. Even if the exectuve branch has power, that doesn't mean it should just collect it over time.
-Tom
@ HDeckard
ReplyDeleteHonestly, how much could the government if they reallllllly watched us. I could see the worst being somebody taking a shower. If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid.
@ volley14ball
I totally agree with your response to the third question. It should be practiced only when necessary. There will have to be laws made to make sure of this, but you're right.
@Boscar
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your opinion. It isn't right, and with access to the internet, it is easy to just do algorithms to search through millions of emails for keywords and then search through them. There is an instance of two students emailing about crazy ideas against the president, and they were arrested and put on trial.
@Taylor
The constitution wasn't made to outline the exact values and rights of every person for the forever future. They never knew that communications would even become this advanced, or that the need might come to use it against terrorists. I believe that our rights should be upheld, and not just be dwindled down to words on a piece of paper, even if it is such an important and powerful document.
I had to sit and think about this first question because to be honest I think I'm a bit torn between the two. I don't believe that warentless surveilance is something that should be abused, however like someone else has already said, if you aren't up to anything than what is there to worry about? Still though as I'm typing this my mind more so goes toward the fact that it is in fact a huge invasion of privacy and probably should not be used.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that America will ever be completely at ease with the thoughts of terrorists. Yet with that being said, I do believe that after nine years we have come a long way. I don't often hear about terrorists, however that doesn't mean people don't still think about them. This was another half and half question to me.
Hm, I believe that Obama would be silly to abuse this power ...yet to give it up? In my opinion it seems silly to give up something that at one point in time could be incredibly helpful. I do agree however with the points that were made about it being an invasion of privacy yet...if it's not abused it could be a incredible and safe thing.
---
Megan,
I agree and disagree with some of the things that you were saying. With the first question I agree to a large extent. I also believe that although it is an invasion of privacy (which is bad) sometimes in some cases it is a good thing. However, by then saying that the obama administration should give it up would mean that they could no longer check up on things. Yet, I do see where you're coming from and to be honest my opinions are mixed here.
---
Kermit the Frog,
I agree with your answer completely. Although I am still half and half on everything all of your points may have made my mind up that despite the privacy issues, this is still a necessary thing.
---
Hope everyone has a fun labor day!
(:
Warrantless Surveillance is, in my opinion, extremely unconstitutional. Even if it's not as personal as searching one's house without a warrant, it's still a total invasion of privacy. HDeckard hit it on the nose with the 1984 reference--if Big Brother is watching, everyone will be 10x as paranoid and the nation would be uneasier. Ignorance is bliss, sometimes...
ReplyDeleteI think America is still concerned about terrorists, mainly in part with the war on terror and the general unease of the nation. After all, if it wasn't still concerned, there wouldn't be all of the "Obama's a terrorist!" campaigns going on during the election.
Obama should definitely give up warrantless surveillance for the reason I stated above-- it's unconstitutional and a total breech of privacy. I think that it should only be used in times of desperation, which is not what now is! If we're trying to recover from a terroristic scare, we should trust the people and not be suspicious.
1. For one i believe that now a days that there is nothing wrong with warrantless surveillance. Like if you have nothing to hide then this inst a problem. I dint believe its unconstitutional for the fact that if people put themselves through the trouble to hurt the US then we should have all rights to try and prevent it. This whole system is just put into place to attempt to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States.
ReplyDelete2. Wow i believe by no means have we become less concerened with terrorism. I think its the complete opposite. We seem to be a little more apranoid about terrorist now a days. If we werent worried about the terrorists we wouldnt still be fighting a war on TERRORISM!
3. I absolutely think that the Obama administration should take warrantless surveillance head on. They should totally keep with it because like i said i believe it is all just an attempt to keep us safe.
@ volleyball 14
well for the most part i comletely have to agree with you. The whole having trust issues in todays society is a really big problem. Yea the people do have rights your right but there is that certain time when their rights have to be "challenged" a little. And i also like the statement that the Obama administration should use the surveillance when necessary. That gives them the power to still do it but at the same time still lets the people have their right of privacy.
@ Angst!
Yea i really dont agree with your statements. I think that if it comes between having my right of privacy taken away a little for me to be a little safer then so be it. Yes we are probably always going to be a little paranoid about terrorists. But i believe that the Obama administration should fully consider this. In all honesty how many people in the US can you really trust or in fact people around the world?
@xodannibxo-
ReplyDeleteStill, I think going through phone conversations is a little overkill just to find a select few people who may be plotting attacks. Think of all the family conversations and girl talk and telemarketers they'd be filtering through... and it's really just for a 'maybe', and not a 'definite' cause. If e-mails were scanned for 'dangerous' words though and notified some officials to check it out though, it might be easier and less imposing... but then you have to take into consideration non-Americans who use those services and people who could just be joking around. :/
un. Alright, before i read the article i was strongly against FISA. It's in the fourth amendment to respect people's privacy. The government was a bit segregational because they were very cautious towards the Middle East. I understand why, OBVIOUSLY, but anybody could be a terrorist. They should only have surveillence over ones they suspect of being involved with terrorism.
ReplyDeletedeux. I was in many airports this summer all over the world, and i'd have to say that the American air ports were the most strict. There was a major difference with security in American airports. I still have to say that it's not as strict as it was around the time of the 9-11 attacks. Safety is the number one factor, but today Americans aren't as worried about attacks because our national security is strong.
trois. The Obama administration doesn't need to continue surveillance anymore. Really, it's against the constitution and people's privacy should be respected.
@ volley14ball
You are right, you can't trust anyone. But you also shouldn't go against the constitution...it's unconstitutional. (not to state the obvious)
@Taylor
The constitution doesn't talk about surveillance but it DOES discuss people's privacy. Surveillance goes against one's privacy. If they are SUSPECTED of being involved with terroris, well that's acceptable to do surveillance...with warrants given by the Court
@ "mr. fantastic"
Yeah, you are right. The government was involved with doing warrentless surveillence before the terroristic attacks. Two words...ALBERTO GONZALES.
I honestly think that its a good idea to have warantless security! I mean honestly, are you more worried about a government agent finding out that you had some chicken for dinner or be kept safe and ALIVE from any possible terrorist attacks? I know what i would choose!
ReplyDeleteI think the fear of terrorists has definently gone down. You hardly hear any talk about it unlike when 9-11 justs happened. Post 9-11 that talk was huge! People were always worried about an attack, but now people have become more lax.
Honestly I think they should use it! It would really help the security of the country and make life safer for us!
I believe that warrantless surveilance is definately okay because the CIA is not going to waste its time listening to peoples everyday conversation. They will probably only use it if they are suspicious of someone. Also the people who protest this surveilance probably arn't the ones who would be watched anyway.
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe Americans are becoming less concerned with terrorism since 9/11 for a just reason. This reason is that since 9/11 many safeguards and protections were put in place to ensure the safety of Americans and they have held up well since then.
I think that Obamas administration should continue to use warrantless surveilance when necessary and shouldn't voluntarily give up the power. I also believe that it is Obama's obligation to further protect Americans in any way that he is able.
I believe that Warrantless Surveillance was a “necessary evil” in the immediate years following 9/11. We as Americans may not have liked it, but I believe it was a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, where if nothing was done they were criticized, and if warrantless surveillance was done they were criticized for going too far.
ReplyDeleteI think that America as a whole has become a lot less concerned with terrorism in the years following 9/11 because it isn’t popular anymore. It’s sad to say, but what once was “Oh my God! Terrorists ATTACKED! Americans on our own soil!” is now “Always Remembered, Never Forgotten”. I believe that Americans concern with terrorism increased post 9/11 because that was the “right” and “American” thing to do. Now I’m not saying they/we were wrong in the awareness going up, but I think in recent years that being mainly concerned with terrorism isn’t the “big issue”. For instance, the President, Global Warming, going Green, etc. are now bigger issues in the media, and therefore the American opinion.
I believe that the Obama Administration should publicly “give up” warrantless surveillance. However, I believe that it’s never going to fully go away. To be quite blunt; we need to suck it up as Americans. Honestly, if having someone listen to my phone call that’s 34 seconds long helps my country (and even if it doesn’t) I don’t see the harm it’s causing. I believe that it morally and ethically warrantless surveillance is wrong, but isn’t terrorism also? How can we expect to fight a battle if we’re handicapping ourselves? And frankly, unless you have something to hide or ties to terrorist organizations, are you really going to be on a “watch list”?
I am not against warrantless surveillance, especially when it comes to protecting the people of the U.S. from an unprecedented situation like 9/11. I do feel, however, it should be given up after imminent danger seems to have disappeared.
ReplyDeleteI think that American citizens have become much less concerned with terrorism in the nine years since the attack on the twin towers (except when they're accusing presidential nominees of it). I think the heat of the moment cooled down a lot and Americans have grown away from fear of terrorist attacks.
This being said, I think if the Obama administration has the power to do so, and they feel it is safe to do so, I think warrantless surveillance should be abolished. But I still believe that if they feel that it could help protect the United States, by all means they should utilize everything in their power to do so.
@ the many who said "well if you don't have anything to hide why are you concerned"
ReplyDeleteThis argument assumes that those with access to this information will not abuse it for their own gain (or the gain of the state itself). Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We should NOT have to prove our innocence like this. We (no longer, I'm afraid) believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Now, we are all guilty until proven innocent, from what I've seen. If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I be treated like the scumbags who are?
You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or who says it. — Malcolm X
Our country was founded on a distrust of government. Our founding fathers gave power to the people to keep an eye on government. So when politicians say, “Trust me,” they’re actually being very un-American. — David Duchovny
It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. — Voltaire
I do not think warrantless surveillance should be used. It could be so easily corrupted that it really is a danger to the liberty of many people. I might add, I've heard nothing about too many of these terrorists the Bush administration was wiretapping being caught. If there was a strong concern that someone was a terrorist a judge would probably be pretty quick to issue the warrant and surveillance could legally start.
ReplyDeleteThe concern Americans have with terrorism hasn't necessarily decreased, but I would say their constant feeling of panic certainly has. Warrantless surveillance would have been questioned a lot sooner if it hadn't started as a result of the fear after 9/11. At the time everyone was frightened of more terrorist attacks and willing to take drastic measures, but in general I think people feel more secure now.
Certainly the right thing for the Obama administration to do would be to get rid of warrantless surveillance, but it is sort of a political blessing. Obama has the ability of warrantless surveillance without being the guy who started it. As far as morals and sticking by the Constitution, however, he should probably do away with it.
@ HDeckard
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think you underestimate the government. For one thing, yes your stereotyping. I do not believe that all politicians crave power and control. Not every politician has absolutely no sense of morality, and another thing, even if a politician would abuse power if left unchecked, they probably won't be left unchecked. The entire concept of government limitations, especially through the use of elections, will prevent any politician bent on recreating 1984 from staying in office long enough to do it. So, the only way they could do it would be if the government abolished the system of elections, a majority of the people actually wanted it (both of which are completely absurd), or if they did it in secret (which the media would inevitably discover before any damage could be done). This also ties in with the statement you made about a totalitarian government starting somewhere. While it may start anywhere, it will inevitably stop shortly after.
@ ACE11
First of all, I completely agree with you in respect to the public's view on terrorism. It has seemed to have turned into more of an annoyance rather than a fear. Whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different story. However, I don't think warrantless surveillance really is a drastic measure. Besides, even not protecting us "all that much" is still protection nonetheless. And, since what you don't know can't hurt you, at least in this scenario, is a person's privacy that high of a price for any amount of national security, great or small?
Warantless surveillance in my opinion is a touchy subject. Yes it does sometimes interfere with the privacy of individuals and may violate liberties, but it may also help us in national security. I believe that warantless surveillance should only be used if you KNOW that someone is doing wrong and you have evidence do back it up.
ReplyDeleteSince 9/11 the US citizens have become less concerned with terrorism. One reason i believe this is because of the war. The war has not ended yet so it doesn't feel like we are doing much to prevent the terrorism. All Americans still have the terrorist thing in the back of their mind, but there is no longer that constant state of fear that once existed in the minds of all citizens. When 9/11 happened, America was ready to stop terrorism by any means necessary. Now, i think that all people have become more aware that they do not have to stop it, they just have to have faith in their national security.
I think that the Obama Admin. should keep warantless surveillance in the back of their pocket because they can use it if we are in a national crisis. But for now, i don't feel that they have to do anything with it for a while because i believe that most Americans feel secure.
@thatdrummerkid- i believe that you gave the best explanation to anyone that has posed this question. I still believe that terrorism is a major issue but you are very correct when you say it is not the biggest issue in the world now.
@idonthavegoodideas- that is a very good point, if you are not doing any wrong, why be paranoid if warantless surveillance is being utilized.
@ Ryugen -
ReplyDeleteI Agree with your "used when needed" point, I just think the only hard part is figuring out when it's needed. I personally think that we as Americans always stick our nose into things the media digs up that wouldn't affect us otherwise - I don't think that we have any real knowledge as ordinary citizens to say when and when not to use it. I think we should leave it up to the people who do it for a living, but then that brings up the point that Heather made...
@ HDeckard - you said
"This argument assumes that those with access to this information will not abuse it for their own gain...absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I think you are right, however I still think its a "risk" worth taking. I'd rather have someone go to far then not go far enough, if I had to pick.
@ HDeckard
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that warantless surveillance was a BAD thing and that the government needs to quit spying on us. Our government definately has too much power to do whatever they want. They shouldn't have been able to tap in on innocent people's emails and phone conversations, that's an invasion of privacy.
@ Kermit the Frog
I liked the point you made with the ID tags. But having no objections to warrantless surveillance? Yes I agree that the government doesn't care what you say, but still, I don't think innocent civilians would like if anyone was listening in on their phone conversations or reading their emails, I sure wouldn't like that.
I've noticed that a few people have been saying that it is highly unlikely that warrantless surveillance would interfere with your personal conversations let along that they would care about what you were talking about. Of course this is true, and my concern would not be about what I'm saying being overheard, but rather the concern that the government would be using it to spy on others (like political opponents). Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't make it any less wrong.
ReplyDelete@ ACE11
I think you're right about America's current feelings on the war on terror. It seems like we haven't been making much progress over there other than aggravating everyone.
I think warrentless searches and surveillance aren't really an invasion of privacy at all, they're just a very effective way to find people doing something wrong. The government doesn't really care about what your doing unless it's a threat to others.
ReplyDelete@Sav
First i'd like to say i'm upset your screen name is not Saggy. however i have gotten over that and i totally agree with what you said. It could be very dangerous to have that open, BUT it wouldn't really be readily available to just spy on people.
@Claire I think that giving up warrentless searches after immenent danger is a bad idea because, honestly, the terrorists aren't stupid people, they'll know to wait.
@ thatdrummerkid
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with ur last statement. I mean you shouldn't have anything to hide from the government so whats the big deal? And if you do have something to hide then they should be able to hear it.
@ yellit
ReplyDeleteI don't think it matters if we "feel" secure but rather that we ARE secure. Just because we feel fine doesn't mean that danger and terrorists have just decided that since we feel good they won't plan anymore attacks. Whether we feel safe or not, the government wants to make sure we can continue to feel that way.
@yellit
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement on how the warentless search can sometimes help in a crisis,but only with the right evidence. This really is the only time that I believe that warentless searches should be used, because people have mixed feelings about it.
@Sav
I think that your statement about what the Obama administration should do is absolutly correct because he should do away with it, even though it could help sometimes. It is against people's privacy, so Obama should definatly get rid of the warentless search.
1. What is your opinion of warrantless surveillance in a post 9-11 world? I do believe that warrantless surveillance is wrong but is yet necessary in some situations. Normally I'd say that you NEED a warrant in my opinion but the more and more I think about it, I realize that sometimes it is needed. As of now my opinion on warrantless surveillance is undecided.
ReplyDelete2. Since it has been 9 years since 9-11, are Americans becoming less concerned with terrorists?
Simple answer, no. I think that Americans are still concerned with terrorists. Yes, everyone is start to lay back a little more and watch things go by, but as a whole we are still very concerned with terrorism. Now with Obama, I think more people are going to become less and less aware. Those are just my thoughts.
3. How should the Obama administration proceed? If they have the power, should the executive branch voluntarily give it up?
I believe that the Obama Administration should continually use it but only if it is really really needed. I don't think they should give it up just in case something does happen.
@ Jamie
Good points. I totally agree with you. This method should be used, but shouldn't be ABUSED.
@ littlemanajc
Nah. The warrantless searches are an extreme invasion of privacy. I have come to the conclusion that this should only be used when absolutely needed. These searches shouldn't be passed out like candy.
My opinon on warentless survailance is that it really isn't too great. Honestly I don't like them, knowing what I do. Now I do know we do live in a different world than it was in the seventies where you could just leave your kids with anyone and know that your kids won't be stolen. But I do understand that it is just the protection for everyone, but I just want to have my own privicy that what ever I do, will be between myself and whomever my see me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Americans are worring about Terriorist, or anyone that may look like one, all the time. I mean I saw this one clip on Jackass, where they dress-uped a guy to look like a terrorist and like the cab guy was like real worried about it, though he was in on the joke though. But oddly enough, if someone had a turban on his head then they would be cautious and such.
I think the Obama Adminsitration should just let the subject go. I think it is compleatly wrong to just search or watch closly to anyone that is different then we are. I wouldn't say the Executive Branch should give up all the power but just limit their power uses.
P.S. Sorry it is late Mr. Hoover, I was sick this weekend.
@ Dragon Master...aka Kenny
ReplyDeleteI compleatly agree with you, though how do you classify a "suspisious" person. Just because they are different doesn't mean they are out to kill us. Honestly I would go to an Airport wearing the whole out-fit that supposed "terrorist" wear, just to see what they do.
@ HDeckard
ReplyDeleteI compleatly agree with you, the government needs to stop watching us. I bring the allusion of a teenager who wishes their parents would stop telling him/her to do. So when the parents aren't watching, the teenager does what ever is on the rules of not to do. I think it is more to say, "oh you can't tell me what to do."
@ katelyn
ReplyDeleteok well you see I don't agree with you because i understand the you can't trust anyone, but that's not the point. The point is if you don't trust someone you have to look to actually find reasonable evidence that means you don't trust them. You can't just tap into people's records because they have an ethnic background that is one like a terrorist. Most people aren't just terrorists.
@ Kermit
Rob-o think about it. I know anyone could care less about the little things, but if it was ok to do those things whos to say that the people taping into things won't abuse it? to find out things about people who are far from a terrorist just because they are nosey. You need some kind of evidence that gives a reason to tap into someones private things. That is what the law is for. You're not just going to tap into people's things that you don't suspect. So of course if you suspect someone there has to be a reason or evidence behind it. Hence the reason you get a warrant. Problem solved
I believe that the warrantless surveillance was and still is a good thing. If someone is suspected to be into some sort of terrorist activity they should be able to stop them for the safety of all Americans.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that it is clear that the average American citizen has less of a fear of terrorism since 9/11 was nine years ago. I still believe that we need to have the same intensity in stopping terrorist that we had immediately after the attack.
Lastly i am fine with keeping the warrantless searches for our safety. I believe that we should lessen the searches and only use them when completely necessary.
@ bia la
ReplyDeleteYou can't act like the searches were not fair at all. These were done for the safety of all americans. I can see how it can be seen as morally wrong but you have to do something when something like 9/11 happens. You can't just sit back and pray it doesn't happen again.
@ Tish tash
You made a good point about the fear of terrorism we still have today. It is clear that americans are afraid of whats different, but I still believe it is less then right after the attack.
@ Harman
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you said, and if your beliefs were the way it worked i think all Americans would be much safer.
@ Tish-Tash
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that the government is going to waste its time by being concerned with your conversations between you and your friend about a movie, NO! They are only going to be listening to people who they suspect to be a terrorist or planning a terroristic action.
I think that warentless domestic surveillance should only take place if there's a suspicious call or something like that. Yes, it may be for a good cause to find terrorists or whatever, but invading every persons privacy isn't going to solve anything. It's not worth it.
ReplyDeleteI think because it's been so many years, people may be becoming less concerned, especially because we're still fighting in Iraq.
The obama administration should give it up. It may be a good thing to have but there's a very low chance that a terrorist is going to be on one of those calls.
@ Jamie
Good points. I totally agree with you. This method should be used, but shouldn't be ABUSED.
@ volley14ball
You are right, you can't trust anyone. But you also shouldn't go against the constitution!
Like many of you im 50/50 on warrantless surveillance. yes during a time like the 9/11 attacks, the government should be able to hear suspicious calls made by middle easterns, but not be allowed to overhear personal (nonrelated) phone conversations. I think they would need some kind of reason to tap into a phone or email conversation though. It is for Americans own safety that we know about terror attacks. if one of those phone taps actually stopped an attack im pretty sure everyone in the country would agree that they would rather the govenment interupt a phone sex converstation a couple times if it would save lives (kind of unrelated and confusing but oh well) even if the government would overhear a private conversation, they dont know you. what are they going to do, mock you and tell all their friends to laugh at you?? yet in the same sense, i wouldnt want my phone call interupted... thats why im 50/50 on this topic...
ReplyDelete@ Firestone about Tish Tash
your argument there a couple posts up is what im trying to say. the government doesnt care about your gossip, they only care if you speak a foreign language with the word bomb in it.
@Sav
yeah i agree with you. how many people do you know actually had their conversation interupted by warrantless surveillance. if your not doing anything wrong, dont be worried about it.
im seeing im more of an 'its ok' in these posts so maybe im not 50/50 but 60/40
Kermit mentioned that I am an awesome teacher---agreed!
ReplyDeleteMy favorite post from "I don't have good ideas:"
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you really shouldn't be concerned. You live in a world today that deals with terrorists and other threats, so these measures must be taken. If you don't like it, just move to canada."
The America--love it or leave it argument (to Canada?) is as old as the Tories v. Patriots. I can't disagree more strongly in that individual freedoms are compromised by unlimited searches that would serve as an end-run around the 4th amendment. We have a secret court that can authorize these wiretaps--is it really necessary to avoid any oversight whatsoever when its most likely that the secret courts would still allow it.
9-11 is used to allow government to be stronger--much like the phrase "National Security" If this action is against Terrorism or for National Security, does the Constitution make an exception?
At the same time, I think Obama should keep power, unless the courts rule against him or the Congress passes laws. The President has no incentive to give it up. As a citizen, he should give it up--but realistically...why?
@ littlemanajc
ReplyDeleteOk, so not right after the imminent danger that you are referring to. I meant that once the presidential administration stops believing that we can actually catch terrorists with it we should stop it as soon as possible--just that we shouldn't use it forever, because it has the obvious power to corrupt during long term use.
In the post 9-11 world, of course there are going to be added security precautions taken. With this in mind, Americans should not take unwarranted surveillance personally if they truly wish to have all measures taken to ensure safety against terrorist attacks. The US government has always monitored our conversations so why is now a big deal that we know it. Since 9-11 Americans have become more concerned with domestic issues, rather than with foreign threats. With this in mind, I believe that it is the government's job to protect the people of the US to the best of its abilities and unwarranted surveillance certainly adds an extra factor to the protection of the country.
ReplyDelete@ Harman
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this statement. If someone is suspected of terroristic activity, then the government has to look out for the good of all Americans in jeopardy.
@ nicole32793
If the government is to only tap individuals with calls going to the middle east, then they would not have ever caught the 9-11 hijackers. Might I remind you that the masterminds of these attacks were from the Hamburg Cell, as in Hamburg, Germany. Iraqis and other middle eastern peoples are not the only terroristic threats to the US and threats outside of the region will always remain.
@ Jamie
ReplyDeleteI think I am now in the same boat as you. On one hand I think it could be extremely helpful but on the other hand I now realize that it could be easily abused. In my original blog I was pretty much all for it, but I think that I was only thinking about it from my point of view and that it wouldn't affect me. I don't know. I'm still torn. Either side is so easily argued. I don't think either one will be truly justified until it is made public that warrantless surveillance prevented a terrorist or until another Watergate happens.
@ Hamm :
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. We wouldn't be as safe as we are without warrantless usurveillance. This is just a big deal because security became a big deal after September 11.
@ nicole :
I agree that the government should only tap the phone calls of those who are suspected of terrorism or certain crimes. But i don't agree that we should only tap those from iraq or iran. Just because they aren't from one of those countries doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. I also believe that we became less concerned with terrorists when the government realized that there were no more major attacks planned against the United States. This will change if another attack is planned or occurs against the United States.
1. While I approve of warrantless searches and taps, that does not mean that I think what Bush did is legal. I think that it was reasonable and he even had cause to do it, but according to the Constitution and FISA it is illegal. He did it for the safety of Americans and to prevent terrorist attacks, but he did it illegally.
ReplyDelete2. We are becoming only slightly less concerned with terrorism. Up until Obama's election, there were many programs and activities going on in order to combat and prevent terrorism. Although we are not as fiery as we were shortly after 9/11 we still are very concerned.
3. Even though I have no problem with warrantless searches, I think that the Obama Administration should just acquire warrants. It gets the same thing done, with less conflict and implications.
@DragonMaster370-- I agree that they should do warrantless searches in cases of crisis, however it will be controversial. I think though that protecting American's safety is more important.
@Volley14Ball-- A police officer wouldn't come to help you, a paramedic would. They don't need warrants. Also, that could become debatable afterwards and would be much better to be done legally.
I have neutral feelings towards the warrantless surveillance in the post 9-11 world. Yes, it can be abused, but it can also be used to take positive necessary actions as well. I honestly don't think people should take it personally because it is not like they are trying to do anything really sneaky. They are just trying to protect us.
ReplyDeleteI think americans are not becoming less concerned, i just think they are a little bit more relaxed. We all know we need to be aware of our surroundings and what goes on. I think americans will always have 911 in the back of their heads and are still concerned.
I don't think Obama needs to use the warrantless surveillance. Its been nine years since 911 and there is really no need to use this anymore. If something were to be suspects, then go get a warrent. Im not really against or for the warrantless surveillance, its just really not needed anymore. If something big were to happen again, then yes. Use it. But as of right now, get rid of it.
@ Hamm: I completely agree with what you said. People need to stop being so concerned and offended about it. They never were before 911 really, so why are they now ? They took these actions to protect us, not hurt us.
ReplyDelete@ Ryan: I kind of have to disagree with what you said. They aren't trying to invade people's privacy. And yes , it is sort of worth it. It is for our safety and it is to protect us. If they don't have anything to be suspicious about, they aren't going to listen to your conversation. I also don't think people are becoming less concerned. People are alwasy going to be aware and always have safety in the back of their minds.
Looks like I'm in the minority with this one... best I get used to it. Or move to Canada...
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, I'll end on this note. I'll let this guy speak for me, because it sounds smart and articulates just what I want to say:
This is a version of the very popular “The innocent have nothing to fear” argument, which is wheeled out whenever authorities wish to bring in new measures which increase surveillance or limit freedoms in the name of increasing security. For example, someone demands to search your luggage. You object to this intrusion on your privacy, but you are told that if you are innocent, you have no reason to object. After all, what are you trying to hide?
The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice. — Julian Baggini
Good night all, Heather
My internet service was down starting Thursday. Comcastic, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteWarantless surveillance, I believe, should only be carried out legally under certain circumstances.
1. If it can be proven in some way afterward that there was reasonable cause for surveillance.
2. If the surveillance is urgently needed without the time for necessary bureaucracy.
3. If the party or parties can prove that through their survey they protected the wellbeing of the US
Anything outside of these parameters should be considered unlawful and dealt with appropriately. Although, there really isn’t that large of a concern almost 9 years after the attack on 9/11 as far as how safe from terrorist attacks we are as Americans. I think that the fear has faded with the coming of economic downfall and other concerns we have. The Obama administration should probably give up the “war” our previous [do I have to call him a president?] {no, this is America. I am free to call him} idiot-in-chief started on terrorism. Yes, the war on terror. It is pretty specific to just one group however. This of course is Al-Qa`ida. If the Bush Administration was so concerned about all terrorism in general, why aren’t we also battling the Abu Nidal Organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al-Jihad, Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, Ansar al-Sunna, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Aum Shinrikyo, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army, Continuity Irish Republican Army, Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Harakat ul-Mujahedin, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad Group, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, HAMAS, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jemaah Islamiya, Kahane Chai, Kongra-Gel, LashkareTayyiba, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, National Liberation Army of Colombia, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Real IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Revolutionary Nuclei, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Shining Path, or United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia? In short, “The War On Terrorism” is a largely expensive, highly ineffective, and altogether unnecessary “war”. If we did get rid of Al-Qa`ida, there would still be hundreds of groups out there terrorizing. It is especially ridiculous to be monitoring people illegally for this way-beyond-lost cause.
@Bockscar
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements saying that it is a waste of time and money, as my post says. I disagree that there ever was a need for the warantless surveillance. In retrospect, it seemed like a good idea to some due to the hysteria 9/11 entailed, but was not at all successful in stopping any act of terrorism on American soil. There wasn't a proceeding attack, and there weren't known plans for one. If there were suspicions that could be somehow justified I think maybe then it would have been necessary at the time.
@Authority Ranger
You probably have the best name here.
Regardless of this, you have no solid opinion which is both frustrating and intriguing. Mostly due to the fact that you then stated you believe Americans are not becoming less concerned of a terrorist attack. Proceeding, then, to only contradict yourself in the next sentence. Well argued...
Apropos comes from French à propos meaning to the purpose. Anyone who has or is studying the modern Russian language will know that there are many loanwords in Russian from French and English. Sometimes these loanwords are from both languages due to their being a loanword from English to French et vice versus. Regardless of where other languages contribute to modern Russian, French is a major contributor due to the large political and cultural influence France had on Russia in the past. This is the language that has importance here. Apropos in Russian has an entirely separate meaning when translated officially it is Кстати [Stati] which literally means stated and translates to by the way or aforementioned. Apropos itself can be Апропои [Apropoy] this is a sort of snooty colloquial Russian, though, that died out during The Soviet Era. To say what Apropos means in Russian without being misunderstood or scoffed at would be Соответствующая [Sutvyetstvuyooshchya]. Simplified, be completely inappropriate if you happen to be in Russia. Then again, that is also a large and mostly unfathomably unpronounceable word.
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of warrentless searchs should only be used if the police or government force has absolute reason to do so. For example if someone is in trouble such as danger or there are firearms being used. The talk of terrorist has dropped considerably but i still think that the whole idea is very present in the backs of our heads. I think that the executive branch should give up some of its power if it causes problems and massive conflict. As long as its used respondsiblely i have no problem with it.
ReplyDelete@ Mariah
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the sense of that americans still are concerned with terrorists. I mean 911 was a big tradgey in our history. The only thing is that the way one person from another person shows that concern is different.
@Taylor
I completely disagree with your statement that terrorism is at the bottom of the list for americans. First off we have been in the war with terrorism for about nine yrs. This so called war has a major impact on the other areas of the government policies. I bet one of the top three factors in low economy is the war. Even though it may not seem like it but the war is very fluid within peoples minds indirectly.
YAY! My Internet is Back!
ReplyDeleteI believe warrentless searches should only be allowed if the police/FBI have reasonable belief that the person it up to terroristic acts. Same thing with police searching a vehicle they pull over; unless they have a reason to believe the person is concealing a weapon or drugs or whatever they cannot search the vehicle.
I believe that people have become much less concerned with 9/11 but not much less concerned with terrorism. Although the airports have become slightly less chaotic, people still are very judgemental towards people of islamic decent.
Terrorism should be the last of Obama's worries. I believe we have many other problems that should be fixed before we start trying to fix things...that don't need fixed. I don't thing the executive branch should give up 100% of their power, but i do believe their power should be limited and monitored.
@ Corey Pool
I agree with you on your opinion of the warrentless searches. I would feel totally violated if a police man would stop me on the streets and check my purse for no reason at all. Although I believe warrentless searches may deter crime i also believe it needs to have restrictions.
@ Alex Hamm
I agree with your comment to Nicole. If police are only to track certain calls that not only makes us volunerable, but it also makes us judgemental towards a certain group of people. Just because someone may have family in the middle east (which i know a few people who do) or are of Muslim decent, they shouldn't have their phone calls monitored. It's just not fair.
@ Nikki
ReplyDeleteIt is true that it is not fair that people of Middle Eastern, not necessarily Muslim decent should be monitored because of connections to Middle Easterners. However, I'm sure that unfairness has been taken into consideration. I feel that though it's unfair, it's the only option if anyone were to be monitored. The best bet for finding information about Middle Easterners is probably someone with connection to Middle Easterners.
@poolaffliction
Yes, you are right that terrorism is not at the bottom of America's list of important stuff. However, I'm not quite sure it's at the top. Terrorism isn't in the top three causes of the low economy, war is. Terrorism did not cause the war, rather it gave the US a reason to do something they'd wanted to do anyways.