Comment Re:Cost-benefit (Score 2, Interesting) 342
> You see, snooping on the two people abroad was and remains legal
No, sorry, it is and always has been illegal. The fact that our Constitution is has been shredded through constant government propaganda against the bogeyman du jour, amendment 4 makes no exception to whether or not the target is inside the country (or in an airport, or on a public road in a car, or any of the other throusands of "exceptions" invented by would-be tyrants).
If the Feds want to search somebody or seize something, you get a warrant, in a public court with evidence presented for public scrutiny. This couldn't be more clear from the Constitution, or the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. Yes, probably this would help the "terrorists", such as they are. The founders of this country understood this very well. They were more worried about secretive, power-mad government kind of government that we have had in various degrees since the Civil War.
They were worried about presidents starting wars.
They were worried about people getting thrown into turture dungeons with no legal recourse and without even being accused of anything.
They were worried about the the police arming itself to the teeth while banning weapons from the population.
They were worried that the government would confiscate property without going through open, public courts (drug-war confiscations, anyone?).
They were worried that the republic could not function if the government operates in secrecy.
In short, they were worried about real problems that have killed millions of people in the 20th Century. They were worried about this country becoming a Soviet Union, a Cambodia, a Red China, a Nazi Germany, an imperial Rome... They knew that the price of being trying become completely safe from threats like terrorism would come at a cost of joining these countries in tyranny. The fact that we are now talking about how we need to make greater concessions to our Constitutional protections to fight terrorists (body count 3000 odd, territory conquered: some crappy mountains in Afghanistan, notable weapons: pissed off people) than were "needed" to fight the Soviets (body count: millions, territory conquered: nearly half the world, notable weapons: enough nukes to pave the planet and the kind of army needed to roll through Europe in a week) shows exactly how this road is traveled down.
How can you have system where the country is ruled through power of decree by one man in total secrecy, with powers to disappear people at will, and no oversight whatsoever and NOT get a dictatorship after a few elections? Let's pretend Bush really IS a nice guy who we can trust with these powers. What happens when some psychopath like Hitler manages to get elected to hold that office(and he was).
> just remember, that Frank Delano Roosevelt
And if the the guy who did his best to create full governmental over the economy (bullying the supreme court into reversing itself on Constitutional decisions against it) thought it was ok, them who are we to argue?
Roosevelt the economic genius that managed to sustain a depression for more than 10 years, but somehow now gets credit for ending it although anyone proposing the kinds of policy he implemented will get laughed out of Econ 101.
Roosevelt the patriot who was actively plotting ways to get the Japanese to attack us (so that we could get into war with Germany, we didn't give a rip about the Chinese at the time) while campaigning on a platform of having done such an awesome job of keeping the country out of foreign wars.
Roosevelt the supporter of international democracy, who worked with Stalin to decide which countries got to have the pleasure of nearly a half-decade of Soviet occupation.
How anyone can use this guy as a positive example of how to be president will be for historians to scratch their heads over.
Scott
No, sorry, it is and always has been illegal. The fact that our Constitution is has been shredded through constant government propaganda against the bogeyman du jour, amendment 4 makes no exception to whether or not the target is inside the country (or in an airport, or on a public road in a car, or any of the other throusands of "exceptions" invented by would-be tyrants).
If the Feds want to search somebody or seize something, you get a warrant, in a public court with evidence presented for public scrutiny. This couldn't be more clear from the Constitution, or the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. Yes, probably this would help the "terrorists", such as they are. The founders of this country understood this very well. They were more worried about secretive, power-mad government kind of government that we have had in various degrees since the Civil War.
They were worried about presidents starting wars.
They were worried about people getting thrown into turture dungeons with no legal recourse and without even being accused of anything.
They were worried about the the police arming itself to the teeth while banning weapons from the population.
They were worried that the government would confiscate property without going through open, public courts (drug-war confiscations, anyone?).
They were worried that the republic could not function if the government operates in secrecy.
In short, they were worried about real problems that have killed millions of people in the 20th Century. They were worried about this country becoming a Soviet Union, a Cambodia, a Red China, a Nazi Germany, an imperial Rome... They knew that the price of being trying become completely safe from threats like terrorism would come at a cost of joining these countries in tyranny. The fact that we are now talking about how we need to make greater concessions to our Constitutional protections to fight terrorists (body count 3000 odd, territory conquered: some crappy mountains in Afghanistan, notable weapons: pissed off people) than were "needed" to fight the Soviets (body count: millions, territory conquered: nearly half the world, notable weapons: enough nukes to pave the planet and the kind of army needed to roll through Europe in a week) shows exactly how this road is traveled down.
How can you have system where the country is ruled through power of decree by one man in total secrecy, with powers to disappear people at will, and no oversight whatsoever and NOT get a dictatorship after a few elections? Let's pretend Bush really IS a nice guy who we can trust with these powers. What happens when some psychopath like Hitler manages to get elected to hold that office(and he was).
> just remember, that Frank Delano Roosevelt
And if the the guy who did his best to create full governmental over the economy (bullying the supreme court into reversing itself on Constitutional decisions against it) thought it was ok, them who are we to argue?
Roosevelt the economic genius that managed to sustain a depression for more than 10 years, but somehow now gets credit for ending it although anyone proposing the kinds of policy he implemented will get laughed out of Econ 101.
Roosevelt the patriot who was actively plotting ways to get the Japanese to attack us (so that we could get into war with Germany, we didn't give a rip about the Chinese at the time) while campaigning on a platform of having done such an awesome job of keeping the country out of foreign wars.
Roosevelt the supporter of international democracy, who worked with Stalin to decide which countries got to have the pleasure of nearly a half-decade of Soviet occupation.
How anyone can use this guy as a positive example of how to be president will be for historians to scratch their heads over.
Scott
