lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Govt. is charged with first and foremost the opportunity and security for its citizens to achieve life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It isn't there to spoon feed us.
National security would defiantly fall into the category of the later.
oh, and ya forgot to answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical
I disagree with the Democrats on a number of things, but I'm glad they put up resistance to things like wiretapping. It is our right to privacy that must be protected. Of course, many have said that what corporations can find out about you is more personal than what the government does (from things like data mining). Regardless, if the public ever reaches a point where most of us accept wiretapping as necessary in the War on Terror, you can be sure we will see a significant decrease in our personal freedoms.
At this point, the damage may have already been done with the aforementioned data mining, but I'm hoping we can at least show that the right to privacy is still worth protecting.
Each of us has to decide where on the balance of security vs. freedom we want our society to be at. You apparently favor security more, but I favor freedom more.
Is that what you are willing to tell your dying kid when you get to the mall that was blown up by terrorists that she was shopping in?? Sound far fetched?? Of the terror attacks in the world all of the dead were someone's kid.
You're using an extreme example, so here's my turn.
Police states like Singapore are some of the safest in the world. They have low crime rates and still have a high standard of living. The people are oppressed, but they are safe. Is that what you want America to become?
Living in a free nation, we have to be willing to risk certain things. There comes a point where you realize that, every day, you make choices that could get you killed. One of the highest causes of death in America is from car accidents. Do you think I refuse to drive because of this?
Assessing risk should be based on likelihoods. What are the odds that you will die in a terrorist attack? If you live in a mid-sized town (or smaller) in America, the odds are pretty low. In Iraq, your odds are pretty high. That's why moving toward a police state over there is a good idea. Over here, it doesn't make sense.
Even if you live in a big city like NYC, your risk is higher but there is still a logical limit to the power you should give the government. If we say that the government can wiretap anyone at their own discretion, then do you honestly believe they will ONLY use it against terrorists? I think Nixon proved that espionage can be used on a lot of people, like political opponents. We have to be careful what powers we give to our "security forces."